Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Government Business; Statements by Ministers — 14 March 1991 (41st General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLI No. 9)
1991-03-14
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 14,
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLI No. 9
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Development.
MR. FUREY: I wonder if I could ask the House through
yourself, Mr. Speaker, to send condolences to the family of the late Mr. Wally
Daniels who passed away just recently. Many Members know Mr. Daniels worked with
the media in this Province and covered the Legislature for many years. I think
he started work covering the Legislature in 1962, Mr. Speaker. He worked for
NTV, a local station.
I knew Mr. Daniels personally for many years. I had always
known him to be a very happy and very positive human being, and I know that he
will be sadly missed by his colleagues in the media and by many people in this
Legislature who knew him personally. I would ask that Your Honour, on behalf of
all Members, send condolences to his wife Barbara, and to his children Leanne
and Heather. I would ask Your Honour to do that on behalf of all Members.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we would want to be associated
with the message of sympathy and condolences as outlined by the Minister of
Development. Those of us who have been around the House of Assembly for a number
of years would have had some contact with Wally in one way or another. He had
been around, as the Minister said, for nearly thirty years, covering Legislative
activities, news stories, and so on. Like the Minister, I found him to have a
great disposition and certainly to be a very friendly individual. He was without
question a bit of an institution around these places and we, too, would like to
express our condolences to his wife and family, and to his colleagues in the
press gallery. It was a very untimely passing and he will be missed,
particularly by those who knew him well.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to
be associated with the remarks of my colleagues, the Minister of Development and
the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Daniels, as a member of the Parliamentary Press
Gallery, was well-known to anyone involved in the political world in this
Province and I wish to offer my condolences, as well, to Mr. Daniel's family,
particularly his wife and children.
MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to our routine business I
feel an obligation to comment on a point of privilege that was raised yesterday,
even though I made a ruling that there was no point of privilege. But for the
further guidance and direction of the House, I think there is a responsibility
on the Chair to make certain observations regarding that particular point of
privilege. Because I think, sometimes, hon. Members are not aware of the process
and procedure on a point of privilege, I thought for the future guidance of hon.
Members I would make a couple of comments.
I want to use just two examples. Even though I could have
gotten several, I just want to use two in which similar points of privilege were
raised. I am going to take excerpts from a ruling made by the Speaker in our
House in 1986. When making comments on a point of privilege raised by the Leader
of the Opposition of the day, the Speaker at that time said, `On the matter of
the use of unparliamentary language by the hon. Member in rising on a point of
privilege, I must rule that doing so constitutes a breech of the rules of the
permits them to make their point by using words that are temperate and do not
lower the level of decorum that we all wish to see maintained in this Chamber.
To permit an hon. Member who rises on a point of privilege to state that another
Member has lied to the House or has deliberately misled the House, would seem to
me to permit that Member to say indirectly against another hon. Member what,
according to the rules, he could not say directly.' He then goes on to quote
Maingot about deliberately misleading the House, which I have done on a number
of occasions.
Also, for hon. Members, I want make reference to a rather
comprehensive ruling made in the House of Commons. Again, I am just going to
take excerpts from it - rather, I am going to table the document. Hon. Members
might want to read it, because it does point out some of the procedures for a
point of privilege.
This particular point of privilege, without getting into the
details, was a Member rose on a point of privilege to say that a particular
Member had deliberately misled the House, and this is a resum of what was said:
He said, This gave rise to a discussion as to whether or not that language can
be used in Parliament. And it led to the explanation by the hon. Member at the
time that his use of the language on the previous evening was not designed to
offend parliamentary practices, but rather had been calculated to put the matter
on the record in order to test the rulings that have surrounded that particular
language, and the rulings which surround the desire of a Member who may wish to
call into scrutiny the conduct of another Member in the House. There has been,
quite naturally, confusion in matters of this sort, since under the precedents
it is clearly unparliamentary to accuse a Member of deliberately misleading the
House.
Obviously, an action of deliberately misleading the House
would have to be looked upon as being a most serious action indeed. If a Member
is suspected of that kind of action the dilemma becomes, how does a Member call
that conduct into scrutiny without using the words `deliberately misleading the
House', since, in fact, the use of deliberately misleading the House - as hon.
Members would be aware - is a less harsh term than saying that a Member lied? So
the question then, how does a Member bring this kind of conduct into scrutiny
without using the words `deliberately misleading the House' since, in fact, the
use of the language is in itself unparliamentary and therefore prohibited?
It appears on the surface of it to give rise to a rather
frustrating situation, but in any event the Member is not permitted to say it on
a point of privilege. I will table the document for hon. Members if they want to
read the full ruling. However, for the benefit of hon. Members I have given a
prcis of it and I have said this: "Speakers have consistently ruled that it is
unparliamentary to use the words `lie, liar and lied' in reference to a Member
in the House. If a Member believes that another Member has lied or deliberately
misled the House, he or she cannot simply make the allegation. Rather, he/she
must make a substantive motion on notice, which motion can contain the
unparliamentary expressions. The motion will then go on the Order Paper and
follow the usual course of business to be dealt with, either as a Private
Member's Motion or under Government Business.
Having said that, I realize that one Member who spoke to this
is not here today, but the Chair felt an obligation for the future guidance and
direction of Members on this most important point to raise it today. Having done
that, I will ask the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains if he would, in the
interest of decorum and the records of the House, withdraw his allegation that
the Minister told a lie.
The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and
Lands.
MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Having established my turf yesterday in a somewhat lengthy
fashion, I have a statement today, and with the good grace and rapt attention of
the House, I should be able to finish it in less than two minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. Members of this
House and the residents of this Province of changes which will affect our
Provincial parks system this coming season. First of all, I would like to state
that Government recognizes the value of parks and their importance in providing
outdoor vacation and recreation opportunities to residents and to the tourism
industry. As such we have opted to maintain an 'all parks open' policy for the
1991 season.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KELLAND: However, faced with the current fiscal
restraint program, several changes have had to be made to ensure all parks are
open for the season.
In this regard all park fees have been increased for 1991
based on a number of factors. Increases were approved to offset inflation, the
introduction of the GST and to ensure that the direct user of parks pay for the
service provided. Fees are also rounded off to the nearest twenty-five cents.
For example: the basic fee for camping has increased from $6 per night to $7 per
night. All fees are also GST inclusive.
In addition, we have adopted a 'no fee exemption policy' for
all parks. In this regard all park users will pay the same fee for the services
provided.
To ensure all residents have equal access to parks and
campsites, the seasonal campsite program and the free night of camping offered
to those purchasing a weekly camping permit have also been eliminated.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion it is Government's intention to
introduce these changes and address the abuse inherent in the system. More
importantly, the changes will allow Government to keep all Provincial parks open
for use this season.
I would, therefore, like to table the fee structure for 1991
as attached to the statement.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
We can see this Government again is taxing the people of the
Province to the tune of $200,000, Mr. Speaker, this $200,000 will be raised by
increasing the fees in the parks.
And secondly I would like to say to the Minister: I think we
have to give credit to the senior citizens for bringing the occupancy rate in
the parks up to the degree it has reached over the past number of years. Mr.
Speaker, by charging the senior citizens - the first time ever in our history -
I am wondering if the Minister's actions will cause the parks to be less than
full - with people going to the gravel pits more often. That is what the
Minister is doing. By increasing this fee he is forcing the senior citizens out
of the parks and into the gravel pits, Mr. Speaker. That is what the Minister is
doing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Minister
also that not all senior citizens in this Province are rich. The Minister should
keep that in mind, that not all senior citizens in this Province can afford what
the Minister has now inflicted upon them.
Thank you very much.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the president of Memorial University had a press
conference at noon today and announced a number of measures the university will
have to take to live within the budget for the university, announced in this
House last Thursday. The President of the University said today, and let me
quote briefly, Mr. Speaker: the university will receive an increase in its
operating grant of only $140,000 next year and needed, even when taking into
account the wage freeze that was announced here, it needed an increase of at
least $7 to $8 million just to maintain current programs. Now, Mr. Speaker, last
Friday the Minister of Education announced in a press conference to all
Newfoundland and Labrador that the operating budget for Memorial University
would increase by $5.5 million this year. Now, I want to ask the Minister of
Education, Mr. Speaker, who is right? Was the Minister misleading the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador last Friday? Is the President of Memorial University
misleading the people of Newfoundland and Labrador today? Will the Minister get
on his feet and tell the truth? What is the operating budget increase for
Memorial University this year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have not seen all the details from Dr. May but I accept his
figure that operating expenditures, other than salaries, increased by that
amount. We gave Memorial University, I think it was $5.5 million this year of
the $12 - $13 million that they asked for, but then we, as a result of the
freeze, deducted $4.85 million.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, we did freeze salaries. They
asked for $12 to $13 million, Mr. Speaker. I wish honourable members would
listen so that I could give them the facts.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, if they had a little pencil they
could write it all down. Last year we gave Memorial $103,900,000 and we added a
payroll tax of $1.2 million, that is $105,105,000. We annualized the payroll for
another $500,000 and we gave a grant of $5.5 million. If all this were added up,
Mr. Speaker, the initial 1991-92 grant was $111,105,000. Then when we decided to
freeze the budget we took $4.8 million from that and that left a Budget of
$106,246,000 as are in the estimates. As I said before the increase was $5.5
million of the $12 million but when we decided to freeze, of course, we took
away $4,859,000 so that explains the figures that Dr. May has. So, it is
$140,000 of the $7 million that they requested on operation other than salaries.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a
supplementary.
MR. RIDEOUT: So, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education
has now proven beyond a doubt that it was he who mislead the people of this
Province. The University is getting a $140,000 increase in operating budget, no
more or no less. Now, Mr. Speaker, the President of the University announced
today that he has to do some drastic things at the University. He has to
increase tuition by 15 per cent, he has to increase resident fees from 5 to 10
per cent. Tuition has actually increased by 30 per cent since this Minister took
over as Minister of Education in this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, how can that
Minister, a prominent educator, stay in this portfolio and preside over the
transformation of Memorial University into an institute that will only be able
to accommodate the wealthy elite of Newfoundland and Labrador? How can he do it
and still have a smile on his face, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when I said that we gave $5.5 million, we were
talking about $5.5 million of a $12 million request, and when we froze the
budget therefore that request dropped to about $7 million to $8 million.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
DR. WARREN: I can do my sums as the hon. Member talks,
and Dr. May can do his sums.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
DR. WARREN: He can.
Mr. Speaker, on his second question I want to be very serious
here. I was smiling about how he juggled the figures, but I want to be very
serious. Mr. Speaker, these are tough times. These are tough times for the
Government, and for all our institutions. And Dr. May and his group and the
Board of Regents have taken our request very seriously that they take every
possible action this year to reduce costs. And they are reducing costs by a
substantial figure. I do not have the total figures yet.
AN HON. MEMBER: And they are increasing revenues.
DR. WARREN: And they are increasing revenues.
Mr. Speaker, they are doing what the colleges are doing, what
the school boards are doing, and what the Government is doing. The only thing
they cannot do, Mr. Speaker, is borrow. They must come in with a balanced
budget. So they have increased their fees and they have cut their expenses.
Precisely what we have done, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
DR. WARREN: Let me give you some figures on fees.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I will ask the hon. Minister to please not try to get into
too many details about policy. I have said in the past that questions must be
brief and answers must be brief. So I would ask the hon. Minister please to clue
up very quickly.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the fees at
Memorial this year 1990-91 were $1,344 and this was by far the lowest in
Atlantic Canada. The next one is St. Thomas -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
DR. WARREN: - $1,710; Dalhousie $1,770. The average for
the Atlantic Provinces $1,918 for two semesters. In Newfoundland it is $1,344.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we have
to increase fees.
But let me tell the Opposition one additional thing, Mr.
Speaker, because you asked me to be brief. We have included in the Estimates
this year increased funding for student assistance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
DR. WARREN: Those students who are going to pay a little
more, 15 per cent more than they did last year, will get additional help from
student assistance, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. RIDEOUT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SIMMS: What world are you living in?
MR. RIDEOUT: The Minister has the nerve to talk about a
little increase when he has increased tuition fees 30 per cent over the last two
years, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SIMMS: How is that for you. That is a little
increase.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister might not be very
good at doing his sums, but he is certainly a master of verbal trickery.
MR. SIMMS: Right on!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Let me ask the Minister this, Mr. Speaker.
What is the Minister's response to the announcement by Dr. May today that
Memorial University will be closing out extension services totally? What is the
Minister's response to that, in light of the fact that the extension service has
played a vital role in helping rural communities in this Province survive. Is
this another example of this Government's determination to withdraw all support
from rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Is that what you are up to?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, when the Government made its
cuts in education this year - the few that we did make - we made it with a
'students first' strategy. I have not seen the total statement from the
University, but I was briefed yesterday that Dr. May said: any reductions would
first protect the student. So they looked at things that were not academically
oriented. They looked at these first, Mr. Speaker.
As far as the Extension Department is concerned let me make
one statement quite clearly: The Extension Department played an important role
in the development of this Province, including rural Newfoundland. But now, Mr.
Speaker, twenty years after or thirty years after it was established we have
community colleges offering all kinds of programs out there. We have the
Economic Recovery Commission decentralized -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
DR. WARREN: - into rural Newfoundland. We have Rural
Development Associations, Mr. Speaker, we have Rural Development Associations
quite active all over the Province. So, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the
University had to make these reductions, but these are the reasons I understand
why they made them.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, one of
the most serious issues in this Province today is obviously [technical
malfunction] (Inaudible) of our health care system. I want to ask The Minister
of Health a couple of very serious questions. I also want to say to the Minister
of Health that every person on this side of the House is equally concerned about
health. We are not here saying: spend every cent the Government can raise and do
all kinds of things. We are just saying that there is tremendous concern from
the constituents that we represent about the health care system in this
Province.
In the last week or so since the Budget we have asked a fair
number of questions about health and we got some very vague answers. One of the
questions we would like to ask today, Mr. Speaker, is: is there really a health
care strategy for Newfoundland, is there a long term plan? In the Minister of
Finance's Budget speech he says that the massive cutbacks in health care are
consistent with the Department of Health's long term strategy and with the
recommendations of the 1984 report of the Royal Commission on Hospital and
Nursing Home Costs. Could the Minister of Health confirm to this House and to
the people of the Province that there is in fact a long term strategy, and that
the long term strategy is based on this very extensive report that was done in
1984?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have to address one of the
hon. Member's premises. He talks about the demise of the health care system.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the people of the Province that we just
saved it in the nick of time. There almost was a demise in the health care
system because there was no strategy. Because there was no plan.
MR. TOBIN: What about Port aux Basques, Placentia,
Bonavista and Old Perlican?
MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the
hon. Member that we do indeed have a long term plan in place. It is to
restructure and streamline the health care system. Now, the hon. Member will not
permit me to outline that, but I can tell the hon. Member that everything we are
doing in our long term plan is in keeping with the Royal Commission which was
done in 1984. Nowhere are we contradicting the Royal Commission, Mr. Speaker.
In general terms we are making primary health care available
to every Newfoundlander and Labradorian within an hour or so of where he or she
lives, that is our first basic principle. Now we find there are gaps in the
system which have to be filled in, Mr. Speaker, we want to address those.
The second principle is to have regional hospitals within
three, four, five hours from wherever one lives, where they can get services and
specialists - where they can receive surgery, Mr. Speaker.
The third principle is that we have in this Province a centre
of excellence with a teaching school attached whereby we can deliver the highest
possible health care system which is available in North America.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that in very general terms is the direction
in which we are taking our health care system as we restructure. We have a very
firm plan in mind. This was put in place shortly after I became Minister back in
1989 - we started to do it then. Because of the fiscal problems that we found
ourselves in, because of the recession and whatnot, we have speeded up our
restructuring programme, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his
answer and obviously to confirm that this report which was done in 1984 is the
basis for future changes to the health care system, and I would just to like to
ask the Minister one other question as it relates to the health care study. One
of the recommendations of the Royal Commission in 1984 was that a bed study be
done which was concluded in a fairly detailed document in 1986. Would the
Minister also confirm that the bed study is an integral part of this long term
strategy for health care?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we have some difficulty with the
bed study. I would not want to be the one to say it, but I have had suspicions
for years that there might have been some political interference with that
particular study. Any study can say what you want the study to say, Mr. Speaker.
I fear there might have been some political interference, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
AN HON. MEMBER: There is no need for all of that.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
Hon. Members to my right have the chance to ask supplementary
questions, and when a Minister is answering the question there is a tendency to
bombard him with other questions. For the smoother direction of the House I
would ask hon. Members please to restrain themselves from asking too many
supplementaries from their chairs.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I have some
personal problems with that particular study and as we go about our massive
restructuring of the system to ensure that there is a health care system at the
turn of the century now that we have to pay the full shot ourselves, there are
places where some of the recommendations of that bed count do not make a whole
lot of sense. In cases like that, we do send in a group of people, as we did on
the Burin Peninsula last year, and we found that the recommendations of the bed
study were not in keeping with the reality.
The number of long-term beds that were required were a little
different from the actual fact, so wherever we find there is a problem with that
bed count - and we must remember, Mr. Speaker, it was done some years ago. Times
change so we do send in people to make sure that we do not make a mistake,
because the health care system is so important, Mr. Speaker, that we do not want
to make any mistakes as we restructure it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the
Premier.
The Minister, in his answer to the question on the bed study
raises some questions. Just a very brief
preamble to my supplementary to the
Premier: I mean, obviously, the whole credibility of this Budget process and the
health care cutbacks, based upon the Premier's comments as quoted yesterday in
The Evening Telegram, is that fairness and balance be done equally across the
board and done without political interference.
I would like to ask the Premier, how can he expect the people
of Newfoundland to have credibility in the health care cutbacks when the major
recommendation made in this health care study, the bed study: the hospital that
was recommended to have the highest number of beds reduced, was a hospital which
happens to be in the Minister's own riding of St. Anthony, forty-six to
fifty-six beds, and I would gladly table a copy and the page and give one to the
Premier, if he wishes, but I mean, there is a very large number of beds
recommended to be closed in St. Anthony.
A lot of persons in this Province, including Members on this
side and Members of the Liberal Government are very concerned that there is
direct political manipulation to make sure that the Minister does not take any
heat in his own riding.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I would let the
Minister answer this, but it refers to the Minister's own riding, so I feel I
should do it. Just let me tell the House and hon. Members that the biggest cut,
the biggest proportionate cut - and perhaps even the biggest in absolute
numbers, I am not sure - the biggest cut is in the hospital in St. Anthony in
the Minister's district, forty-two beds, forty-two acute care beds, cut out of
the hospital in St. Anthony.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I recognize the hon. Member on a final supplementary.
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the
Premier. He says to do our home work. One of the problems in doing your home
work as a Member of the Opposition in this Legislature is that there are too
many ways to (inaudible) the truth from that side of the House -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. POWER: - there is no mention in the Minister of
Finance's document -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
I will again remind hon. Members that I have given the hon.
Member for Ferryland quite a bit of leeway, so I would ask the hon. Member
please - he is on a
preamble - to get directly to the question.
MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, why wasn't the closure of the
beds in St. Anthony announced in the Budget itself, and also Mr. Premier, why,
why will you not order a veto of this closure of hospitals until such time as
there is an impartial assessment to make sure that this Minister's and other
Cabinet Ministers have not politically been involved in the process?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the closure of forty-two beds
in the hospital in St. Anthony was not announced specifically in detail in the
Budget, but neither was the closure of forty in the Waterford, neither was the
closure of the beds in the Grace, neither was the closure of the beds in the
Corner Brook Hospital, neither was any one in detail as I recall. I sat and
listened to the Budget and there were no specifics for any particular hospital.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER WELLS: Well, if anybody asked a question -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER WELLS: - as soon as the question was asked, Mr.
Speaker, the answer was delivered. There were forty-two beds closed in the
hospital in the Minister's own district; he took a bigger cut in the hospital in
his district than any other in the Province in absolute numbers, and in
proportions that were probably two or three or four times that of many of the
other hospitals.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
Would hon. Members please give their colleagues a chance to
ask some questions in the proper fashion?
The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, my question as well is to the
Minister of Health. I would like to ask the Minister: in light of the March 7,
Provincial Budget, what impact will the Budget have on the Burin Peninsula
Health Care Board's budget and what is the difference in this year's funding as
opposed to last year's?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there is an hon. Member who is
concerned for his district and does his homework.
I am pleased to tell the hon. Member that as a result of this
Budget we are making available to St. Lawrence $3.5 million to finish off the
engineering work and to start construction of a chronic care facility to provide
forty beds for that general area of the Province. In the Budget we also have
$800,000 available to finish off the engineering and to begin construction of a
multi-purpose centre to be attached to the nursing home in Grand Bank, which is
right in keeping, Mr. Speaker, with our restructuring program to make
multi-purpose centres available wherever we can in parts of the Province. So we
treat the whole spectrum of health care, I say, from the cradle to the grave,
the whole spectrum, and we are continuing with that, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would say to the
Minister, with what he has introduced in this Province in the last two weeks, I
think he is in a great rush to get them in the grave, and there are going to be
more going in the grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: A supplementary. To be more specific to the
Minister, since he talked around the capital works which have been approved for
the Burin Peninsula with St. Lawrence and Grand Bank, could the Minister inform
the House what the difference in operating money for the Burin Peninsula health
care system will be? How much less will the Burin Peninsula health care board
get this year to run the regional hospital at Salt Pond, the clinic at St.
Lawrence - the half clinic now - and the clinic at Grand Bank? What is the
difference in this year's operating budget for that board?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, some Members have not gotten
beyond the cradle stage. I do not carry around in my head all those numbers. The
health care system in general received an increase this year of somewhere in the
vicinity of 3 per cent total. I can tell the hon. Member that as a result of the
restructuring which we began back in 1989, the number of dollars which are now
being spent on the Burin Peninsula are giving the Province a maximum return, and
our health care system is much better than it was when we took over in 1989. It
is not yet as good as we want it to be, but I can tell the hon. Member that he
will be pleased to know that we are working towards an improved, better health
care system which will cost the Province less money in the long run. But if he
wants the exact, precise figure, I do not carry this around in my head. I do not
know what St. Anthony has, not the precise numbers, but the hon. Member can have
that; I can pick it up from my Department for him, or he can phone down and ask
the officials for it - it is public information.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I am not
surprised the Minister does not have the capacity to carry the figures around in
his head, Mr. Speaker, but I thought he would at least have a briefing sheet
that would outline what money specific hospital boards in this Province are
getting from this Budget.
A final supplementary to the Minister. It is highlighted on
page 21 of the Budget Speech that the community health centre in St. Lawrence
will have its hours of operation reduced. I understand that was a departmental
decision, deciding how much the operation would be reduced by. Let me ask the
Minister, what will the hours of operation at St. Lawrence be in light of the
March 7 Budget, and how many jobs will be lost at St. Lawrence?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, during the past year the
department has kept constant study of the number of visits and utilization of
that particular clinic in St. Lawrence. After considering the fiscal problems
the Province has and the utilization of that particular clinic, it was the
judgement of the department that nobody's health would be impaired if we were to
reduce the hours of operation to 8:00 to 5:00, Mr. Speaker. Now, after the
chronic care facility is attached to that building we will reconsider whether or
not we will go with a 24 hour clinic, because one of the advantages of attaching
a health centre to a chronic care facility means that it is not very expensive
to carry on a 24 hour clinic - you have the nurses on staff, you have your staff
there, the thing is open all night long, and for very little extra money we can
deliver a 24 hour clinic. But as a stand-alone clinic we felt the demand did not
warrant a 24 hour clinic at this time, Mr. Speaker. The actual number of
layoffs, that is done by the board: the board will decide who is going to go;
they have to talk with the unions; there are a lot of grievances they have to go
by, Mr. Speaker. But these are details the local board can answer for him. It is
all public knowledge, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for
the President of Treasury Board. The Minister will know that the pay equity
agreement, signed on June 24, 1988, had its purpose to achieve pay equity by
redressing systemic gender discrimination in female dominated classes. Mr.
Speaker, sexual discrimination, as we know, is contrary to the Human Rights Code
and the Charter of Rights. The Government has announced its intention to wipe
out the provisions of this agreement which have retroactive provisions back to
April 1, 1988. I ask the Minister whether or not he can confirm that this also
includes wiping out the retroactive provisions in corporations, such as
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, and other
Corporations of the Government which have, in fact, set aside money for this
very purpose in their budgets. Can he confirm, for example, that Newfoundland
and Labrador Hydro has set aside $500,000 for this very purpose and the
Government is taking out of it? Can he confirm that to this House?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: I would like to congratulate the Member on his
Maiden Speech, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Government will introduce legislation in this
House to eliminate the retroactive provision in terms of the pay equity
agreement. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we are making a commitment to pay
equity. We are concerned about pay equity in the public sector, and we are,
perhaps, more concerned about the implementation of total pay equity in the
public sector. We are more concerned about that than we are about the
retroactive payments. We are more concerned about correcting the total problem
than whether one segment gets the retroactive payments. This was a cost, Mr.
Speaker, of $24 million that we simply do not have, and it is one of those
situations where we had to look at our spending. That $24 million would have
probably meant another thousand layoffs. We chose, rather than doing that
thousand layoffs, to make our commitment to pay equity in the whole of the
public sector, to implement pay equity immediately that the numbers come to us,
but to not pay the retroactive payments.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not find pay
equity as humorous as the Minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I am having great difficulty hearing the question being
raised by the hon. the Member for St. John's East. Hon. Members have the chance
to ask questions, but it seems as though they insist on asking them from their
seats, and we cannot entertain that.
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This pay equity
agreement says that all activities relating to this pay equity agreement be
carried on in good faith by the parties. Mr. Speaker, if parties such as
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro have set aside money in good faith to carry out
the provision of this agreement, how can this Government in good faith tell them
that they shall not pay over those monies to redress sex discrimination in the
public service which is acknowledged by the Government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all, pay equity has not
been introduced into the public service of this Province at this time. We will
introduce pay equity. I have informed the co-chairs of the Committee working on
pay equity that as soon as the figures are available, give them to us and we
will immediately institute the pay equity from that point on, as soon as we get
the numbers. The Committee, I assume, is working on it, and I was informed that
it will probably take no more than a couple of weeks work. We will institute pay
equity in the public service, and I would like to say to the Member that we do
have the right to tell these organizations what they should and should not do.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, has the
hon. the President of Treasury Board consulted with officials -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: Has the President of Treasury Board consulted
with officials of the Justice Department to determine whether or not these
actions are contrary to the Charter of Rights and The Newfoundland and Labrador
Human Rights Code?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, a previous government had signed
a contract. That contract included one provision that we cannot at this point in
time live up to. In order to live up to it, it would cost another 1,000 jobs. We
as a Government will put a bill before this Legislature to nullify that one
provision of that contract signed by a previous government, and my information
is, Mr. Speaker, that we have the right to do that.
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and
Lands.
MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I give
notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act
To Repeal The Unimproved Lands Redistribution Act". (Bill No. 20).
Answers to Questions
For which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in Question
Period the Opposition Leader was asking questions concerning the salary savings.
Considering that this is a matter that is dealt with by Treasury Board, I will
now, today, provide the detailed answer for the hon. gentleman.
In his question he indicated that salary estimates for bona
fide civil servants employed in departments are $300.1 million for 1990-91; and
$298.8 million for 1991-92, a difference or a saving of $1.3 million, and then
went on to ask questions about 650 people who were losing jobs and how come we
are only making a saving of $1.3 million? If I understand it, that is the gist
of the hon. Member's question.
The figure of $3.1 million is correct. That is the adjusted
base for total salaries in Government departments for 1990-91. Let us assume,
Mr. Speaker, we were to keep these same positions in place. We would need to
annualize the second half salary increases for 1990-91 at a cost of $4.5
million, and that brings it up to $304.5. There would be about 1.5 per cent
provision for steps, reclassifications, annualization, new positions and this
kind of thing for another cost of $4.5 million.
In addition to that, we have also provided new salary funding
and this would reflect commitments under cost-shared agreements that are coming
into effect, positions of the Round Table, the Economy and Environment, the
Fisheries Directive, the new Whitbourne Youth Centre, positions for Hibernia
Construction Site and Environmental Management Committee; a program for persons
with disabilities. A fairly large amount of that $5 million, or some of it,
would be retroactive payments for contracts under arbitration and negotiation
and so on, and there are some small amounts of severance pay included.
So, Mr. Speaker, the total cost of that level of service,
this number of people for this coming year, before the impact of layoffs, would
be $314,412,600 because of these adjustments that would have to be made. In
actual fact, Mr. Speaker, instead of providing $314,412,600, we have provided
salary funding for the coming year of $298,757,800 for an estimated salary
savings, Mr. Speaker, of $15,645,800, and that is the saving that applies to the
650 positions. There is one other factor that comes in here which has to do with
the vacancy factor that also has an effect on these figures.
So, Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is concerned
about sums, I would like to table these sums so that he can have the correct
answer and realize that things are not as simple as they sometimes seem.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. Member, the
Chair would like to make a few comments about petitions for the future guidance
and direction of hon. Members. I will say to the House that I have some concern
with petitions, inasmuch as that in the last few months we have been rather
flexible with petitions. And once that happens, of course, it is very difficult
to enforce our Standing Orders - once we have been flexible - unless hon.
Members realize that because we have been flexible, there is even more necessity
to be courtesy in terms of abiding by the rules. Because we are doing it by
leave of Members.
I want to give some past practices with respect to the
presentation of petitions, and I do this because of some confusion if you will,
or some debate the last time we dealt with petitions.
I just want to refer hon. Members to a couple rulings by some
very efficient Speakers, and I want to make one ruling when we talk about
certain things about a petition. Invariably when we have raised the matter of
petitions, Standing Order 92 was always quoted by Speakers. I refer to one
ruling by Speaker Simms. He says, in talking to the Member, `again the Member
puts the Chair in a very difficult position. Because the rules are clear. You
must confine yourself to the prayer of the petition and to the number of
signatures attached to it.'
Now the question arose as to whether or not a Member ought to
read the prayer of the petition. Quite obviously, if the Member does not read
the prayer of the petition the House has no way of knowing whether or not the
Member is confining himself or herself to the prayer of the petition, and we
have no way of knowing the numbers, this kind of thing.
I just want to make another further ruling by Speaker
Ottenheimer, who, again, is talking about the prayer of the petition. I will
just read a few excerpts. Speaker Ottenheimer said at that particular time:
"Standing Order 90 I think is particularly relevant here. A petition to the
House shall be presented by a Member in his place who shall be answerable that
it does not contain impertinent or improper matter." And I might say, that again
is substantiated by Erskine May, that when a Member recognizes that a petition
is not proper, the onus and responsibility and obligation is on the Member to
inform the House that the petition does not meet the requirements. And I think
we have been fairly flexible when Members have done that.
Then Speaker Ottenheimer goes on to say: "A petition may be
either printed or written, and if more than three petitioners sign it, at least
three signatures must appear on the page containing the prayer of the petition."
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
And, of course, he talks about the prayer of the petition.
"The petition", he says, "must have a prayer. Otherwise, it is a communication
or a letter or any number of things. But in the parliamentary sense a written
petition must have a prayer. And the format for a petition is as outlined..." -
I will not get into that. But he goes on to say: "So there must be a prayer."
And he goes on to say that the petition must be designed and presented according
to the rules of our House which he says are clear.
All I wish to say here is that either we should amend our
Standing Orders or else hon. Members, especially when they are involved in the
citing and collection of the petitions, should do it in accord with the rules.
The rules are there and they are as binding on me as they are on Members.
Finally, I just want to cite a petition, which was the
practice used in our House. 99.9 per cent of the time, this is the format that
was used. In this particular time, in 1985, when the Speaker called for
petitions, the Member rose in his place and he said: `Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
and honoured today to present to the House a petition signed by approximately
2,300 people, most of them I believe from around the Baie Verte Peninsula, but
certainly relative to a subject that is very important to the people of Round
Harbour and Snooks Arm in my district. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker,
is as follows:' That hon. Member, I think, was following the practice of the
House, knew how to present a petition, and that is the present Leader of the
Opposition, in 1985.
I just say to hon. Members, that generally was the format
followed. So I say to hon. Members, as I have stated in the ruling made by
Speaker Ottenheimer, that there is an onus on the Members to follow the rules,
as there is an onus on the Speaker to enforce them.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia
West.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in my place
today and present a petition to the hon. House that is signed by 151 people,
most of them from around the Burin Peninsula, on an issue of particular
importance to the constituents of Marystown, Burin, Rushoon, Parkers Cove, Baine
Harbour and other areas in my district. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker,
is as follows:
We, the undersigned, representing children of the Burin
Peninsula Roman Catholic School system, object to any educational cutbacks. Our
children already suffer enough through the lack of some vital necessities
conducive (inaudible). If further reduced, the level of education will only
serve to reduce our children's hope of becoming strong and productive adults. We
back this statement with the words of our Minister of Education, the hon. Dr.
Warren, when he said, `Newfoundland and Labrador's development depends on
improving the quality of education, and future economic success depends more on
improvements in education than on any other single factor.'
Mr. Speaker, my friend for St. John's East just made a very,
very important contribution to the petition I am presenting when he said that
anything dealing with educational cutbacks will certainly need prayers. I
believe the prayer of the petition is well placed here today.
Today is a difficult time, I guess, to present a petition in
the House as it relates to educational cutbacks, when one recognizes the fact
that the President of Memorial University held a press conference approximately
three hours ago where he made it clear to the public of Newfoundland and
Labrador that only students whose parents are financially secure, who come from
well-to-do families will be able to avail of the educational institutes in this
Province. That, Mr. Speaker, is unfortunate but it is reality. This Government
has made educational services in this Province available only to people who can
afford it. For the thousands of unemployed residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador, and for the people living in outport Newfoundland and Labrador in
particular, who depend on university residences and other places in order to
improve their educational programs, it will not be available.
I must admit that I thought the last person to participate in
educational cutbacks would be the Minister of Education. I would suspect, Mr.
Speaker, that the petitions I presented in the last week had in excess of 4000
or 5000 signatures. I do not know what to do to get word through to this
Government and to this Minister as it relates to educational cutbacks and the
negative effect it is going to have. It is fine and dandy, Mr. Speaker, for the
Minister of Education to make the statement I just quoted, that future economic
success depends more on improving education than on any other single factor, it
is great for the Minister to make that statement, but it is far more important
for the Minister of Education to follow through on that statement. When the
Minister spoke today I could not believe it was the same person who so many
people respected in their days at university, and I am sure still do. But when
the Minister announces that $5.5 million is now $140,000, it is something that
is difficult for all of us to comprehend, I must admit. The educational needs of
those students and those parents who asked me to present this petition and other
petitions I have presented, and will continue to present in this House, are
crying out for assistance. They are asking the Minister of Education, the
Premier, and the Government to ensure that there is an educational system, but
this Government is doing exactly the opposite. I would ask the Minister of
Education, when he stands to address this petition, to stand in his place and
tell me that I can go back to the Burin Peninsula today and assure my
constituents -
MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible)
MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Member for
Placentia that I can go back to my district for standing up and supporting my
constituents. I will not run and hide when they close the hospital, or anything
else. Now, let me get back on track. I hate, Mr. Speaker, being interrupted by
the Member for Placentia.
Let me ask the Minister of Education, can I go back to my
district today and tell the people who signed this petition that the Minister
stood in his place and said, yes, tell your constituents that there will not be
a reduction in education, that you will have the same number of teachers you had
last year to teach in the school system, that the ratio that has been applied in
the Province for student/teachers will be put in place, that he will not be
centralizing rural Newfoundland to the urban centres of this Province and onto
Mainland Canada and parts of the United States? Will the Minister stand in his
place today and support the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, or will he
resign?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
It is difficult when a Speaker is calling for order. I
realize the hon. Member gets carried away in a flight of oratory, and I am sure
that is what the hon. Member was doing, but I would ask hon. Members to try,
when they hear the sound, to look my way.
The hon. Member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, a very interesting thing
happened a few minutes ago. I would like my colleagues and the Members of the
House to listen. A very interesting thing happened as my hon. friend was
presenting his petition. I had a note from the Member for Harbour Main who had a
quotation. He said Abraham Lincoln once said - and I am saying this very
seriously, Mr. Speaker - `If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.'
Now, as soon as I got that, Mr. Speaker, I pulled out of my case what he quoted.
Unknowingly, without any knowledge, we communicated.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in our rules,
as I understand it, about quoting a note or something like that sent back and
forth across the House, but certainly on a number of occasions in this House
Members have tried to raise placards, display signs, drape their desks in flags,
use black arm bands, a whole range of things which the Speaker of the day ruled
was not in order. So I would submit to Your Honour that the placard containing
whatever wisdom, or lack thereof it may contain, raised by the Minister of
Education is definitely out of order and cannot be displayed in this Chamber.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education speaking
to the point of order.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I was just getting
right to the petition. I wanted to get to the spirit of the petition very
directly.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Since a point of order was raised, I have to rule on the
point of order. I did not see precisely what the hon. Member had, but the
Opposition Leader is substantially right, that we are not allowed in this House
to display certain objects and certain placards and that kind of thing. I can
only say he is right, but I did not see what the Minister had. I would ask the
Minister to proceed with his remarks.
DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon.
Member. We are old friends, but I am a new Member and I ask forgiveness of the
House for doing that. But the quotation, Mr. Speaker, as I said, `If you think
education is expensive, try ignorance', I had hundreds of copies made of that
some years ago and it is in classrooms all over this Province. And I still
believe that. I want to tell this House that I believe that today, Mr. Speaker.
And this Government is committed to education. We are going to make sure that
education develops to prepare our people so they can take their rightful role in
the 21st.century.
Now, I cannot tell the supporters of the petition that there
will be no cuts, but I am delighted to tell this House, Mr. Speaker, that even
with the salary freeze in elementary and secondary education, we have increased
spending by 3 per cent. There are very few cuts in teacher units, other than
from declining enrollments, Mr. Speaker. We have not cut transportation monies,
we have increased it.
I have met with some supporters of the hon. Member and they
said, `Sir, we cannot pay any additional fees for transportation.' I am
delighted to tell the parents of this Province that there are no fees for
transportation, and there are no rental fees for textbooks. Mr. Speaker, in our
policy to focus on students in the classroom we have made some cuts, but at the
classroom level we do not expect that these cuts will have a dramatic negative
effect on education. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I met 250 school administrators this
morning and they told me they are going to do everything possible to ensure that
the classroom is not impacted negatively. They are going to work with the
Government, and they think they can share services; they can collect extra
monies through school taxes, Mr. Speaker. I think the students on the Burin
Peninsula will be well served, and they should be well served as far as their
education is concerned.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise
today to support the petition presented by my colleague from Burin - Placentia
West on behalf of a number of residents from the Burin Peninsula who have
children in a number of schools there, who are very, very concerned about what
this Minister of Education and this Government are doing to the education system
of this Province.
I want to say to the Minister, before I forget, that a couple
of times over the last few day he has stood in his place and talked about people
doing everything possible - people are willing to do everything possible. Well,
I want to say to the Minister, yes, there is no doubt - and I am sure he has
watched the news over the last few days - that the "everything possible" that
people are going to do in this Province in education, and in health care, and
all the other sectors, are to do everything possible to remove this uncaring
administration from office. That is the "everything" they are going to do. And
that is from the labour unions right throughout this Province.
MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).
MR. MATTHEWS: I hear the old South Side over there
mumbling, Mr. Speaker. I wish he would get up every now and then and have
something to say.
MR. SIMMS: Old Brownose Murphy!
MR. MATTHEWS: But I want to say too, it is very
disappointing -
MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible) .
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Member,
that he should restrain himself really, because we know basically what comes out
of him because of what he is full of.
AN HON. MEMBER: Baloney.
MR. MATTHEWS: Now, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we
are seeing the secondary and post-secondary education systems in this Province
being very drastically affected by this Minister. Most people in the Province
knew of the Minister's background when he came to office. He had done many
studies on education. He must have been full time up at the University doing
studies. He did not do any teaching. We know he did not teach mathematics
because of the answer he gave today.
MR. RIDEOUT: The Tory government paid him a fortune.
MR. MATTHEWS: They paid him a fortune to keep at the
University doing studies. He has been a disappointment, Mr. Speaker. Now, having
heard the contents of Dr. May's press conference today, and the effects that the
Budget is having on post-secondary education at the University, I think the big
worry for parents out and about this Province today for educators is: if they
are fortunate enough to get their children through a good secondary education,
will there be any future in this Province for a post-secondary education? And I
think tonight, Mr. Speaker, when people sit down to watch the newscast at
suppertime, that more and more of them are going to be sick to their stomachs
because they realize that for their children there will be no future for
post-secondary education in this Province, because they will not be able to
afford it.
Now that is what this Minister has done to the education
system in this Province. He has watered it down, he has cut the secondary school
system, he has eviscerated the post-secondary education system - one which he
came from. And I think, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that education is being -
someone said in Gander a while ago, it has rolled back twenty years. But I would
say in light of the last week that it has gone back further now than when the
Minister started teaching at the University, and God knows how long ago that was
- that was quite a while ago. Now that is what he has done to education. He has
brought it back to the time when he started -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, after the Minister of Finance. So, Mr.
Speaker, I want to support the petition presented by my colleague from Burin -
Placentia West, and support those people who took the time and energy to express
to the Members of this Legislature their concerns about education in this
Province and particularly what this Minister of Education, the Premier, and this
whole Government is doing to education in this Province.
MR. SIMMS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Are there further petitions?
MR. SIMMS: Yes, we have lots of them.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in my
place and present a petition on behalf of voters and citizens in St. John's East
and other districts in and around St. John's, from students who are attending
the Cabot Institute. These individuals, Mr. Speaker, say they are voters and
(inaudible) many citizens believe that Cabot Institute is vital to Newfoundland
and Labrador and they strongly oppose any move by Government to reduce programs
or to cut funding to Cabot Institute.
Thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians need Cabot
Institute to ensure the economic future of Newfoundland and Labrador, we want
quality education and we deserve no less.
Mr. Speaker, that sentiment as expressed by these students is
one where I think they have made it very clear by their demonstration outside of
this House on opening day, that they were prepared to accept no less from this
Government and I am shocked, Mr. Speaker, to hear the Minister of Education rise
in this House today and say, in response to questions about the cutbacks at
Memorial University, that he agrees or he sees that this inevitability, that the
Extension service for example would be lost, one of the great institutions of
our post-secondary education in this Province, a model, Mr. Speaker, not only in
this country but around the world for community development.
That institution, Mr. Speaker, the Extension Service and this
community development facility, is one which we should cherish and keep and not
let go by the wayside for the sake of a single budgetary act by this Government,
including the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education, two of them,
Mr. Speaker, long time professors at Memorial University.
But this prayer, Mr. Speaker, concerns itself with the Cabot
Institute and post-secondary education in general and we see, Mr. Speaker, an
unfortunate attitude in this Government and I hope, and perhaps the Minister of
Education will disabuse us of this notion, that they are not going to take the
same attitude as the Minister of Health did, when he speaks of the inevitability
of the cutbacks in health care from the Federal Government. We want to see some
fight over there on that side of the House, not just an acceptance of the
inevitability of there being shortfalls in transfer payments and therefore
cutbacks in our services to our students.
The students of this Province are not going to accept any
less; they say they deserve no less and we agree on this side of the House and,
Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear, that this Member and our Party in general
will fight, not only this Government, but also the whole attitude that the
the established program financing accepted by Governments in Newfoundland and by
Governments of Canada ever since that time. That is something that is not
inevitable, Mr. Speaker, that has to be fought against and changed and stopped
and I ask, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education: would he rise and speak to
this petition and ensure - we do not know yet what the Cabot Institute is going
to do in response to this Budget - but ensure this House that he will not
tolerate any changes in the Education system which will decrease our ability to
have an educated populous. We already know that we have the highest drop out
rate in secondary education in Newfoundland, we also have the lowest number of
students attending - percentage wise - university, this is something we must
change and improve and not allow to go backwards. Will the Minister of Education
commit to this House, that if we can demonstrate that we are going backwards in
any respect in education, that he will find more money and change this Budget.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to rise for a
couple of moments and support the petition so ably presented by the Member for
St. John's East, and am glad to see that he has finally presented a petition on
the Cabot Institute and the post-secondary system in the Province. I know our
Education critic, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, has presented petitions
with literally tens of thousands of names from students and teachers across this
Province who are concerned about the quality of education.
Mr. Speaker, we have been doing this every day. I suppose in
Opposition, you work on the idea that if you do something and repeat something
often enough and long enough maybe some of it will sink into the thick heads of
Members of Government opposite. Sometimes, I am not at all that sure that is
going to happen or not, but as one Member who is a former teacher and a former
Minister of Career Development, I am very concerned about what is happening to
education in this Province. I am particularly concerned and again, I disagree
with the sanctimonious approach of Government some days that the Ministers over
there seem to think that because we are concerned about Health or we are
concerned about Education, we are spendthrifts, we completely bankrupt the
Province and that we have no plan or no idea how to run this Province properly.
That simply, Mr. Speaker, is not true; there is a way to run this Province
properly and still have an extremely good balance of health care, of education
in the social sector and still be able to do things in the economic field.
But I think where this Government has fallen down is that
they have decided to put a tremendous imbalance in the system of the delivery of
government, that they have deliberately decided to cut back so much on the
social care side of our programs, supposedly to economically diversify,
supposedly to get our fiscal house in order that I think they are going to do
irreparable damage to the people of this Province and I think the immediate area
where this Government is doing the most damage is in the health care sector
because they are putting the health of our citizens at risk. I mean when you see
TV yesterday evening and you watch that little girl from Port aux Basques who
may very well have died and never had the opportunity to contribute to
Newfoundland. Those are serious concerns the Minister of Health and other
Ministers should take into account; but even more so than in the health of the
people of this Province, the soul of this Province is going to be destroyed
because our young people are simply not going to be motivated to continue to
stay in school, they are not going to be motivated to continue to get an
education, they are going to lose their belief in the fact that if you get
educated there is a bright future for you.
Now in most parts of the world that is true, that if you are
better educated, you have a better source of income, you have better job
security, you can contribute more, and if you are less educated you are going to
always have job instability and insecurity, you are always going to be paid
less, you will very likely be a seasonal worker. And in this Province if we take
the soul of our Province, the young people and say to them that look, you really
have no particular need to get educated because there are no job opportunities
for you, because the education system is so expensive, it is so difficult to get
to. I mean the Leader of the Opposition has brought it up to the Premier several
times, and we have all mentioned it in our speeches across this House, of this
idea of centralizing everything again. The idea that if you want to have a good
university education you have to come to the main campus.
The excellent idea talked about by the Liberals during the
election of 1989 and talked by us, the idea of having a central Newfoundland
university campus is an excellent idea. Every vocational school campus in
Newfoundland, something that we started when we were there, I, and I guess the
Member for Grand Bank were Ministers of Advanced Education, we had the idea that
you should be able to get first and second year university at all of our
vocational school campuses. You have to bring education to the people. You have
to make it easy. You have to make it accessible. You have to make it simplified
for persons in all parts of Newfoundland to get an education. But now what has
happened is that it is going to become more difficult. It is going to become
much more expensive and, in effect, many persons are being discouraged from
proceeding with a quality education. I can only say that the health care
problems you will see in the immediate future, the education problems you may
not see for twenty or twenty-five years. But when you see them you better be
prepared as a Government, whether it is the present group or this group or the
group that is down in St. John's East trying to create the Government or be the
Government, that you are going to have a problem that you will not solve for
several generations because it will be impossible to deal with.
Mr. Speaker, one other problem about this Budget that I see
which hurts education and health care and the social sector side: the only
people I see praising it up are the affluent of this Province, the Board of
Trade, the Chambers of Commerce. On T.V. the other day I saw a group of people
praising up the Premier. I venture to bet most of the graduates from secondary
system of the group of people in that room are all going to elite universities
out of this Province. It is not a problem for the business people and the rich
of this Province to get a good quality education for their children, they can
pay for it outside of this Province. But when I look at the people down in my
district of Ferryland, when I look at the fishermen's children who want to get
better educated I can only say to them that it is going to be very, very
difficult in this elite system that the Minister and this Government are
creating, the fact that they are making education more difficult, more
inaccessible. I have real concerns for their future. I just wish that some of
what we are saying will sink into the Minister of Education, and I wish the rest
of his Cabinet colleagues would listen to him when he talks about education
being an economic development tool because without it-
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)
MR. POWER: The Minister of Development is not paying
attention to my words or to the Member for St. John's East. He does not pay
attention to the Minister of Education I suspect either.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. Member's time is up.
MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I will address some of the
comments from the Member for St. John's East. Perhaps he was not aware that last
year we released a White Paper on Post-Secondary Education in the Province with
the three principles of Equality of Opportunity, Excellence and Efficiency as
the three underlying principles, and we believe that as a policy for the 1990s
for this Government. We want to increase participation. We have the lowest
participation rate in post-secondary education in Canada. At the university
level we have almost caught up. But, Mr. Speaker, this Government is committed
to increasing participation.
I want to remind the Member also, and I will send him a copy
of the White Paper, because I think he is genuinely concerned in these issues
and I want to respond quite seriously to his comments.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, last year one of the things that this
Government did, and one of the things that I am very proud of, is to totally
reform the provincial component of the Student Aid Program. We added
substantially to student aid last year, particularly for single parents and
others with dependents. We added 28 per cent to the grants for these students.
Fees went up maybe 8 per cent or 10 per cent, but we added very substantially
and we reformed. And I am pleased to say that this year we added another $2
million to $3 million for student aid, so that those who are disadvantaged most
will get the help. I came from one of these small communities. I would not have
gotten to university without a grant. I am not insensitive to the needs of rural
students and students who do not have the funds to get educated in this
Province, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to fight as long as I am
here to provide greater equality of opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the Cabot-
If the hon. Member will let me speak I have a very few
minutes.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a very serious
question.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I again ask hon. Members to please not interrupt during a
petition. Time is of the essence, and the hon. Minister has asked that there be
no interruptions. So I will ask the hon. Minister to carry on, please.
DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will just briefly
mention the scholarship reform of last year. They were in power, I do not know
how many years, it seemed like a century. They did not change the scholarships
one dollar while they were there. We last year increased them from $600 to
$1,000 in our first year in office, and we tripled the number, Mr. Speaker. We
have hundreds of scholarships.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
DR. WARREN: Hundreds of scholarships that we did not have
two or three years ago, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to add more to the
scholarships to help those people go on. Now on Cabot, Mr. Speaker, and by the
way I will direct my comments to the hon. Member for Ferryland, who did much
better in his education comments than he did in his health comments. Much, much
better.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for Cabot, Cabot is an
outstanding institution. But we just do not have the money, Mr. Speaker, to do
this year what needs to be done in education. But we are planning for the
future. We are going to build, Mr. Speaker, a centre for engineering technology
as part of the St. John's campus. A centre for engineering technology that will
consolidate all of that. This year, Mr. Speaker, there may be some pain. I have
not received from Cabot yet the programmes. They are going to eliminate some
programmes, they are going to downsize others, they are going to combine with
other institutions. They are going to release some administrators.
Let me tell you that we asked the colleges, even though I
have not received from them yet their proposals, we asked to start at the
administration. Cut the student programmes last, we said, cut other things
first. So, Mr. Speaker, they are going to do a lot of other things before they
cut programmes and I will do everything possible to ensure that the students of
this Province - those who are in programmes - will be able to complete their
programmes. That is a concern of students from Cabot. And we will prepare
students for the 1990s and the 21st century.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4. The motion is that I do now leave
the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on
Supply.
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform His Honour and
the House that I received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
MR. SPEAKER: "To the hon. the Minister of Finance: I, the
Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit supplementary
estimates of sums required for the public service of the Province for the year
ending the thirty-first day of March 1991 by way of supplementary supply. And in
accordance with the provisions of The Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these
estimates to the House of Assembly."
(Sgd.)_______________________
Lieutenant-Governor
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Message
together with the amount be referred to the Committee of Supply.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of
the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of Supply
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This Bill for
Supplementary Supply is in the amount of $20,943,200 and is broken down as
contained in the schedule: $200,000 for the Legislature House operations and
$25,000 for Hansard; $4 million for the Department of Development, Marystown
Shipyards branch subsidies; education, $3.6 million for teaching services, and
$1,750,000 for the transportation of school children; for health: air ambulance,
$725,400, for allowances and assistance to indigents, $373,300; for grants to
hospitals, $4,404,000; for long-term care facilities grants and subsidies,
$865,500; and for the Department of Social Services, $4.5 million for allowances
and assistance to social assistance; and for home support services, $500,000.
The total again, Mr. Chairman, being $20,943,200.
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, is this it? Is that the way
the Minister is going to introduce this Bill? I mean it is amazing, Mr.
Chairman, he is allowed on his feet, so that is the first step. He was allowed
to get up and speak, but he was not allowed to say anything. He read the Bill to
us. I mean this is just incredible, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister would not
offer some explanation. He expects this House to approve $21 million of
Supplementary Supply with no more explanation than reading - he did not even
read the whole Bill, he read the headings. We are quite capable of reading the
headings, Mr. Chairman. What we would like is some information. These are very
general descriptions that are here. It has been tradition in this House that
when the Minister rises to introduce such a Bill - a mini budget is what it is,
an extension of his Budget - he is expected to offer to the House some
explanation of why he needs $21 million more than he budgeted.
I would have thought, Mr. Chairman, that he would also take
this opportunity to tell us why, in spite of the fact that he is asking for this
$21 million more, he is still showing $117 million deficit which, no doubt, he
has had to borrow. I would have thought that he would have taken this
opportunity in Supplementary Supply to offer some explanation or apologies,
perhaps, to the House for the mismanagement of the Budget last year, for coming
up with $117 million deficit in lieu of the $10 million surplus he boasted about
at Budget time last year. But instead of that, he gets up and he reads us the
headings and says, 'give me another $21 million now,' with no further
explanation than that. It is just totally unheard of, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things in here that we
would want to question, no doubt. The first ones the Minister mentioned were the
House operations and the Hansard. These are dealing with the Legislature, and I
am sure that they are justified. The House runs itself and any funding that is
spent is approved by the Internal Economy Commission, so we do not have any
great difficulty with those.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: I would like to question those. The next one
is the Department of Development. $4 million in grants and subsidies to the
Department of Development. Now if I am not mistaken, if my memory serves me
correctly, those grants and subsidies relate to the interest paid on the debt of
Marystown Shipyard. The Minister shakes his head in agreement. My memory also
serves me correctly that last year at Budget time the Minister announced that
there would be no vote under that heading this year because Government had paid
in advance the $4 million grants and subsidy, which is an annual thing.
Government at the end of the 1989-1990 Budget had a surplus,
million into the pension fund, which was a laudable thing to do. And they paid
the $4 million for Marystown Shipyard in advance. There was some advantage to
Marystown Shipyard, and it is also an end of the year transfer sort of thing,
juggling from one year to the next. Good business practice. It made the previous
year's surplus a little smaller, so we had a $37 million surplus,
whereas had we
put the additional $25 million we would have had a $62 million surplus. That is
in fact what we ended the year with. If we had not made the $21 million special
payment to pension, and if we had not paid the $4 million in advance to
Marystown Shipyard, we actually had a $62 million surplus, I think it was, the
previous year. But on the books it shows as $37 million.
Mr. Speaker, the question therefore is, why is this $4
million here appearing now? It was paid last year. So this $4 million must be
for next year, for the current fiscal year as covered by the Budget that is
presently before this House, and we know there is money in that Budget as well
for this year, I think there is. I had not checked, I do not think, the
estimates for this year. That is subhead 2.2.02, under Department of
Development.
No, there is not. So that is interesting. So that means we
are paying in advance for Marystown Shipyard again. Why would we do that when we
had a $117 million deficit at the end of the year? Really, we had a $113 million
deficit, but the Minister has paid this in advance and made the deficit look
worse. It also has the impact, Mr. Speaker, of making the surplus for 1991-1992
look better. Well, it is not a surplus. We have a $57 million deficit projected,
$53.7 million. Really, that should be $57.7 million if this $4 million were paid
in the appropriate year.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister to answer that for
us. Why has this payment now been made in advance again? What are the advantages
there? Perhaps there is an advantage to Marystown Shipyard. Certainly they are
having enough difficulty down there, having lost a $24 million contract for the
Fogo Island ferry.
MR. TOBIN: Lost the shrimp trawler (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: Lost what?
MR. TOBIN: That shrimp trawler last (inaudible)
MR. WINDSOR: And the shrimp trawler went to Norway. But
certainly the Fogo Island ferry is a tremendous loss to Marystown Shipyard. They
are down now to less than 200 people and I suspect we will be losing more in the
very near future. A bit of repair work, I would say down there, my friend from
Burin Peninsula (Inaudible) -
MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) they got two Federal Government
vessels.
MR. WINDSOR: Two Federal Government vessels. No
Provincial Government work at Marystown Shipyard to help keep the shipyard
afloat. Pardon the pun.
MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: A great industry on the Burin Peninsula
being allowed to close. This $4 million subsidy is not something where
Government has a choice, it is statutory, they are committed to making that
payment. But why they would not continue on - it is a capital account item - to
build that ferry. It is needed anyway, it would benefit the people of Fogo
Island, the Department of Transportation, ferry service provided by the
Department of Works, Services and Transportation. And it would create a
tremendous amount of employment in Marystown Shipyard for this year, it would be
a tremendous benefit. Maybe the Minister of Development will tell me why that
money is being paid to Marystown Shipyard this year.
AN HON. MEMBER: Interest.
MR. WINDSOR: I know it is interest. Why is it being paid
this year? (Inaudible) last year instead of this year? Why is it being paid in
advance again? And why are we not building that ferry at Marystown?
Mr. Speaker, the next item is teaching services. Now I would
like the Minister, either the Minister or the Minister of Education, to tell us
why we had this increase of $3.6 million on teaching services, grants and
subsidies? Obviously that is teachers' salaries.
Three point six million, it is about 1 per cent of the
Budget, it is not an incredible overrun but one wonders why we do not have
better control of the salary component than that. So we would ask the Minister
to give us some details on teaching services.
Transportation of school children has gone up by $1.7
million, nearly $2 million dollars. It is almost a 10 per cent increase. I can't
believe that there were so many contracts negotiated for school busing that we
would be over by that much, that could not have been anticipated. It is an item
that there should be good control over. And it appears that there is very little
control over that particular item. So I would hope that the Minister, when he
rises again in a moment, would give us some information on that.
The Minister is going to skip out now, he is scared to death,
he is going to run.
On the health budget, Mr. Chairman: air ambulance, $725,000
on a budget of $3 million. Seems to be a significant increase. Three quarters of
a million on a $3 million budget. That is a 25 per cent increase. Maybe the
Minister can tell us what that is for. I hope that that air ambulance is just
that, I hope it is still being used only for the Department of Health to
transfer the sick on an emergency basis. Maybe the Minister could tell us too,
have they done any review of that service to see if there is any abuse of the
service? I will not suggest that Ministers are using that aircraft for their
transportation, I have no reason to believe that they are. But I would be
curious to know whether or not there is any control in place on the usage of
that service. I know in the past there were many cases when it was questionable.
Obviously a doctor has to approve it at all times but in many cases a doctor is
very lenient in requesting the air ambulance service when another form of
transportation might have been just as appropriate - not as convenient, not as
quick, perhaps not as comfortable, but far less expensive. Maybe the Minister
could tell us whether or not indeed the air ambulance service is being used only
for emergencies, and what controls if any have been placed on that.
Allowances for indigents: Allowances and assistance,
additional $373,000. Not a big increase but perhaps we could have some
explanation of that.
Grants to hospitals gone up by $4.4 million. I'm just curious
as to why grants to hospitals would change in mid-year. I mean, these are the
sorts of kinds of basic information that the Minister of Finance should have and
could have given us when he introduced his Bill, but he failed to do so, so I
have to ask now. Would the President of Treasury Board or the Minister of
Finance or the Minister of Health tell us where this $4.4 million in grants to
hospitals is gone and for what purposes? The same for long term care facilities,
an increase of $865,000, that is about 1 per cent. Again, not an unreasonable
amount but there must be some explanation for that. And I have no doubt that the
Minister has the explanation there, his officials would have prepared him well
and given him a thorough explanation, some notes on what these items were. And
it is just amazing that he did not offer them to us in his opening remarks.
Social assistance allowances and assistance, $4.5 million. A
significant increase, and no doubt that is controlled by the incidence of social
assistance requirements during the year, the number of people on social
assistance. And to some degree there is not a lot of control on it. Perhaps the
state of the economy has caused that, and it is evidence again of the number of
people who are unemployed and are on social assistance. And I would also
suggest, as I did last week, that that is a result of the mismanagement of the
economy by this Government. The level of unemployment has gone to great heights
again. The number of people on social assistance has gone up. Maybe this is the
refugees, is it - the Bulgarian refugees? Is that some of it? The Minister of
Social Services will no doubt be able to answer for that $4.5 million. Or is it
an increase in the number of people on social assistance?
MR. EFFORD: Both.
MR. WINDSOR: Both. Well, maybe the Minister would rise
and give us that information, I am sure he has the details and that information,
available. At home support services allowance an extra $500,000. A fairly
significant, almost 5 per cent increase, in home support services. Maybe the
Minister of Social Services will give us the details of that as well.
Mr. Chairman, maybe I will just stop there and ask for some
response to some of these questions.
(Inaudible) speak? No answers over there? Really?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I just cannot believe what is
taking place. It is incredible what is happening here. The other day, after the
Budget was brought in, my colleague from Mount Pearl got up as the Opposition
critic and put questions to the Minister of Finance who delivered the Budget,
and the Minister of Finance was not permitted to answer the questions. So we
have a Minister of Finance who brought in the Budget, put the Budget before the
House, Mr. Chairman, and was not prepared to answer the questions, could not
answer the questions. My colleague from Mount Pearl just stood there and listed
off a number of questions to various Ministers opposite, and there was not one
answer. I do not know what game the President of Treasury Board is trying to
play for him to not have someone get up.
Some questions my colleague from Mount Pearl asked, related
particularly to the Marystown Shipyard in my constituency. I was very anxiously
awaiting the response to the questions that were raised, because that shipyard
is in very dire straits right now, it is on the brink of closing. That is what
is happening to the Marystown Shipyard. My colleague raised some very important
questions, but no one on the Government side took the trouble to stand and
respond to the questions. And I do not know why. But it is something new. In my
years around this Legislature and the other Legislature, I have never seen a
Minister have so many questions put to him by an Opposition finance critic and
no one respond, particularly in the forum where we are now participating.
I would like to say to the Government that there are
questions they have to answer, and there are questions they will answer. And
whether that is people like we saw yesterday regrettably - when things comes to
the stage where the women of this Province have to go out and picket places
where the Premier is speaking to try to get responses because we can not get
them in the Legislature, that is regrettable. And that is the type of action we
have seen from this Government. They are driving people into the streets. There
is a halt being put on the people of this Province.
The only way you can get a response is when the Premier has a
door half-closed, as he did to the women of this Province yesterday. And when
the people from Grand Bank forced him in an elevator he said: I would if I could
but I can't. But 7:00 p.m. that night he found a way, because he knew the people
of Grand Bank meant business. Now we have a situation as it relates to the
Marystown Shipyard, a very serious situation. We have this Government which has
for the first time ever cut the grant in lieu of taxes to the Marystown
Shipyard. The Board of Directors have no significant option except to sit back
and take instructions from this Government.
We have the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the cut in the
grant in lieu of taxes was brought to his attention, and what did the Minister
of Municipal Affairs do? Absolutely nothing. He supported Government's decision
to cut that in addition to another $75,000 that was put there in terms of the
restructuring of the grant structure in this Province.
The Marystown area and the Burin Peninsula are devastated.
There has never been in my ten years in public life - and I was involved in
council for something like seven or eight years before that, so for
approximately seventeen or eighteen years I have been involved in public life in
this Province and never has the economic condition of the Burin Peninsula been
as desperate as it is today. We have people going to the mainland in droves. We
have a Premier promising to bring them home. What is happening? How many have
come home since this crowd took office? I can tell you, CN Marine will not get
rich bringing people across the Gulf who are moving back home. They will
probably do alright with people who are moving away, but not people coming back
home.
We have a Government which is committed to the centralization
of this Province, which has no commitment whatsoever to rural Newfoundland.
None! We do not have one Minister there who is prepared to stand up for rural
Newfoundland. And all we have to do is look at what has taken place in the last
few days.
Today we had the President of the University saying that for
the outport people who are coming into St. John's to stay, there will be a
significant increase in residence fees next year. That is what we have taking
place in this Province; that is the commitment this Government has to the rural
outports which have basically been the foundation the urbanized centres have
built themselves upon.
AN HON. MEMBER : Winterland!
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, yes, Winterland. The Minister of
Agriculture is a friend and everything else, but as the Minister he does not
know where Winterland is.
MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).
MR. TOBIN: Not only that, you have the Minister of Social
Services firing people left, right and centre - district managers: The district
managers in Port Saunders, in St. Mary's, in Bay L'Argent, and in Arnold's Cove,
what happened to them in the last few days? Pink slips! And the urban centres:
Marystown will be responsible for the sub-office in Bay L'Argent, I would
suspect. You have Harbour Grace or somewhere that will be responsible for some
other offices. But the district managers have been fired, have gotten pink
slips. These will become sub-offices in this Province, and let no one say
anything different, and there will be a lack of services as a result of it.
You have the Minister of Transportation who promised a ferry,
Mr. Chairman. In last year's budget speech, what did the Minister of
Transportation say about a new ferry for Fogo Island to be built at the
Marystown Shipyard? What did the Minister say when he was up? What did the
Minister say when he was in Marystown last January, he and the Minister of
Development? They announced the new ferry. What did the Minister say when he was
up when the Flanders was being christened?
MR. GILBERT: You did not get invited.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I can tell you something right
now, that I do not make fun or poke fun out at the fact that 200 or 300 people
from Marystown and surrounding areas have to go to the Mainland to look for
work, and no one else should. When at one time I said the Minister of
Transportation was probably the most arrogant person to ever stand in this
Legislature, people who knew him told me they were not surprised. That is what
they are saying about the Minister throughout rural Newfoundland. He lacks
compassion, no commitment whatsoever. What are you doing for Fogo? What are you
doing for Bell Island? Those are the questions which have to be answered in this
Legislature.
The people of Bell Island are getting their ferry cut by six
months a year from what they presently have. The Beaumont Hamel was supposed to
go on the Bell island run and that has gone out the window. What do those people
have now? The Bell Island people now have a ferry which cannot meet their needs.
We have a Minister of Transportation who does not have any concern whatsoever,
and I doubt very much if he knows what is going on in this Province. He is the
most incompetent Minister in this administration, the most incompetent Minister
the Province of Newfoundland has ever seen in transportation, and that is fact.
He is totally incompetent as a Minister and nobody in this Province who needs
help with their transportation needs will have anything to do with that
Minister. That is what is taking place in this Province. And the list goes on,
Mr. Chairman.
What has the Minister of Health done to Placentia? My
colleague is not here now, a friend of mine who, I know, is very concerned about
what took place in Placentia.
AN HON. MEMBER: He is not a friend of yours.
MR. TOBIN: Yes, he is. And I support my friend for
Placentia when anybody talks about hospital cuts, unlike the hon. Member for
Carbonear. That is what we have taking place in this Province. What has the
Minister of Health done to his colleague from LaPoile? Anyone who saw television
last night saw them out in droves, Mr. Chairman, protesting what is taking place
with health care in this Province. What does the bed study say? My friend for
Ferryland can tell you what the bed study says about hospital beds in Port aux
Basques? Did it say eliminate them all? Not likely, Mr. Chairman, but that is
what the Minister of Health has done. What about Placentia? What about my
colleague from Old Perlican? What compassion has the Minister of Health shown
for his district? None whatsoever. The Member for Bonavista South, a hospital
the former member, Jim Morgan, worked like a trojan to get for that community. I
can only say that I would like the former member, Mr. Morgan, to see what that
Member has let happen to Bonavista South, to know that Bonavista South lacks
representation - none whatsoever! I do not know if the hon. member has been back
to his district since he came in here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
The hon. Member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.
MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do not
know, Mr. Chairman, if the Member for Bonavista South has been back since he was
elected to the House, back to Bonavista South. But I do know, having been
involved in Government and in Cabinet, that the former Member worked hard to get
that hospital. And to see this Minister and this Government strike off acute
care with one stroke of the pen is indeed regrettable and something the people
of Bonavista South will have a lot to say about come the next election,
something, Mr. Chairman, that will make the hon. the Member for Bonavista South
wish he had not wound up his law practice so quickly. Because he will be back
there, Mr. Chairman, as soon as the Premier gets time enough to have the writ
issued.
The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, The
Amalgamator, Mr. Chairman, went around this Province and threatened everyone
with amalgamation for the last year, from one end of this Province to the other.
Nobody knows what is going to happen. There are councils budgets not yet
prepared and submitted because of the incompetence of this Government. Why? That
is the question which has to be answered. We had a council the other day, one of
the largest if not the largest town in Newfoundland, submit a budget that was
not balanced because of the way this Government and that Minister have treated
the people. Why, Mr. Chairman? How can the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs sit there and watch what is happening? How come he can turn around and
to the large urban centres, when we talk about centralization again, like Corner
Brook and pump in literally hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I am not
saying that it should not go there, Mr. Chairman. I am not saying that at all.
But why can he not do the same for CBS and other parts of the Province? When are
we going to get the final documentation on the amalgamation issue? When are we
going to know what towns? The groupings as the Minister says, when are we going
to know when they are going to take place? Those are the questions which have to
be answered in this House.
When is the Minister going to tell us how much money is in
the Budget for capital works in Municipal Affairs. The Budget last year
addressed it. But I can tell you the Budget last year was not factual, Mr.
Chairman. The Budget last year was not factual when it came down to it. He said,
we are going to spend $55 million. I challenge the Minister to show where they
spent $55 million in this Province. He can probably do it if he counts the debt
charges that were incurred by the various municipalities throughout the
Province, but in terms of the Government calling tenders for $55 million worth
of work, it did not happen.
The Minister of Health stood in this Legislature today and he
knew all about capital expenditure for the Province, but the Minister of Health
did not know how much current account was reduced by for Burin Peninsula health
care. Well let me tell the Minister of Health. If he does not know, I know. The
amount, Mr. Chairman, is $1,029,000. That is what it was reduced from last year.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Chairman, probably I should be
minister, but I could never be a minister in a government that socked it to the
people of rural Newfoundland the way they have. I was a Minister in a Government
that was a caring Government, a Government that had feelings for Newfoundland,
Mr. Chairman, a Government that was committed to rural Newfoundland. That was
the one I was Minister in, Mr. Chairman, and before long we will be back there
again.
AN HON. MEMBER: Do not let them go dry!
MR. TOBIN: What happened, Mr. Chairman, to the Budget?
Last year the Budget announced $55 million for capital works, for water and
sewer. This year, Mr. Chairman, there is not one penny mentioned, not one penny
mentioned in the Budget for capital works, for water and sewer.
AN HON. MEMBER: Not a copper! Not a copper!
MR. TOBIN: Not a penny, Mr. Chairman.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, about the only penny. If
you are talking about it in terms of sense, he is probably the only one over
there.
MR. DOYLE: Common sense is not so common.
MR. TOBIN: Now having said that, Mr. Chairman, you look
at the Burin Peninsula. What about the cutbacks at the Harbour Breton Hospital,
Mr. Chairman? When is the Minister of Health going to tell us whether or not
there have been cutbacks in the Harbour Breton health care system? When will he
tell us what was told to the Chairman or the administrator yesterday in Grand
Falls? And how many positions are going to be eliminated?
We were all beginning to wonder why the Member for Fortune -
Hermitage was in such a rush to join the Liberal Party. Was it because they cut
back health and education and social services? Was it because there was a $5
million cut in the Budget for fisheries? Was it because there are people getting
laid off in the health care system in his District? Was it because there were no
more of his constituents at the Marystown shipyard? Was it because of a whole
lot of these issues? Is that the great vital leadership he believed in, Mr.
Chairman, one that is going to bring rural Newfoundland to its knees? One that
is committed to the resettlement program of the 1960s? Is that what he believed
in? Because that he is not what the people of Fortune - Hermitage wanted. And I
doubt, Mr. Chairman, if it is what the 200 people who wanted him to join the
Liberal Party wanted. The 200 Liberals who are in Fortune - Hermitage, I doubt
if that is what they wanted. But I can tell the Member for Fortune - Hermitage
that his stay -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. TOBIN: I would suspect, Mr. Chairman, people have the
right to come and leave, unless the Government is going to dictate that now,
when they can come and when they can go. That would not surprise me one bit. The
arrogance of this Government would not surprise me one bit. As a matter of fact,
anything is possible in a dictatorship - anything, anything is possible in a
dictatorship.
AN HON. MEMBER: That is right. You have got it.
MR. TOBIN: There is nothing spared, Mr. Chairman in a
dictatorship, nothing. So that would not surprise me. And I want the Minister of
Municipal Affairs to stand when I sit and tell me how much money is going to be
spent in capital works this year - how much, Mr. Chairman. What we have seen in
this Province in this Budget is a SCUD attack on the economic conditions in this
Province. That is what they have unleashed. The Minister of Finance has
unleashed a SCUD attack on the economic and social well-being of this Province.
That is what is happening.
AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the Minister of Finance? This is
his bill.
MR. TOBIN: That is right. Where is the Minister of
Finance? It is his bill. I can tell you where the Minister of Finance is. He is
not allowed in the House; he is not allowed to come in and answer the questions.
That is why he is not here. The Minister of Education -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the two of them would be a lot
better off in the closet over in the university.
MR. DOYLE: They have no more direction than a SCUD
missile.
MR. TOBIN: Because what is taking place here -
MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the Member for St. John's South
can make fun of the Educational announcement made today by the President of the
University, he can make fun of that if he wishes, but I can tell him that his
constituents who go to university will not be laughing at it, and I do not think
he should laugh at it.
The same Member who yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I say to my
colleague from Mount Pearl, the Member for St. John's South and Hansard will
show it, I had to get up and correct when he said we should close down Mount
Pearl. That is what the Member for St. John's South said yesterday, Mount Pearl
should be closed down, and now he is laughing at the cutbacks at Memorial
University.
MR. HODDER: That is his petty jealousy coming out.
MR. TOBIN: That is what it is, petty jealousy. And those
are the factions this Government is made up of.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister of
Municipal Affairs if he will give us some indication as to how much money is
going to be spent in the capital budget this year. I would ask the Minister of
Transportation if he would stand up and tell us when construction is going to
start on the Burin Peninsula Highway. I would also like the Minister of
Transportation to tell us if he has the courage to face the people of Burin
Peninsula next Tuesday, where he has been invited, and the Minister of
Development and the Premier, where there are 800 or 1,000 people who want to
come and question them.
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes?
MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there are 1,000 people and
they want to question the Minister, and they will be there, as to why they want
to create such chaos at the Marystown Shipyard. Will the Minister have the
courage to come down and face the 1,000 people who are in trouble, who are
crying out to this Government for help? Will he do it?
AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the same crowd who (inaudible)
the bus?
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the Member for St.
John's South that the people on the Burin Peninsula today are very concerned.
There will be 300 who will have to leave Marystown this year and go to the
mainland for work.
MS. VERGE: How many have already left?
MR. TOBIN: About 400 or 500, Mr. Chairman. I can tell the
President of Treasury Board that I had a call from a fellow at Christmas, a good
friend of mine, a young man about twenty-five, who is now living in Ajax,
Ontario, formerly from Marystown. The night before he called he was at a party
in Ajax and there were 125 young people there from Marystown, all of whom had
left in the last year. That is what is taking on the Burin Peninsula, and
throughout Newfoundland, no doubt. There were 125 at that Christmas party in
Ajax, and every one of them had left Marystown in the last year. That is what is
taking place in this Province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
The hon. Member's time has elapsed.
At this time I will announce the questions for the Late Show.
Question number one is from the hon. the Member for Harbour Main to the Minister
of Employment and Labour Relations. He is not satisfied with the answer given on
the Employment Generation Program. Question number two is from the hon. the
Opposition House Leader. He is dissatisfied with the answer given by the
President of Treasury Board concerning alternatives to saving jobs, money and
essential public services. Question number three is from the hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains to the Minister of Education. He is not satisfied with the
answer given with regards to the church colleges and residences electrical
rates.
The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I think
this is the first time I have had the opportunity to rise in my place in this
new Assembly, but it will not be the last.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, I must say that first when I
came in here I thought it was something that did not tickle my fancy. But after
a couple of weeks here, it sort of grows on you. I think even the press have
much better facilities now than they had previously. I think this will grow on
us, and I think it had to come. I believe the old Assembly gave you a greater
feeling of togetherness, there was more warmth, but apart from that, because of
access and other things I think this is a good place, it is a good Legislative
Assembly. I have travelled around many cities in Canada and I think it should
get a good rating.
Mr. Chairman, the other thing I would like to say about this
new Legislature is that we all know that each Legislature in the Western world,
and from my point of view especially in Canada, has great importance as it
pertains to liberty, and I think it was quite ironic that the day this new House
opened, the Persian Gulf war ended. To me that meant a great deal, because over
the past few weeks I am sure each Member in the House had at some time or other
been to events associated with the Persian Gulf and with people who had men and
women over there. When I came in that day the war was not as yet over, and I do
not think there was anyone who thought at that particular time that it would be
finished so quickly that night. It gave me a feeling of what they were over
there for. When you come in here and you see everything so free, so easy, our
freedoms, each one of us here has the right to get up and address the Assembly,
each one of us has the right to question the other person's ability as it
pertains to each Department, it is a wonderful feeling and it is wonderful to be
part of it. I, for one, feel so proud in that respect.
I am not going to elaborate on it too much, but I am going to
say a couple of words about what I went through prior to the House being open
and during the Persian Gulf conflict. I know the Leader of the Opposition had a
brother over there, and I know there was a lot of sentiment, feeling, or
whatever. I want to say that I attended two major events during that time, one
in Torbay and the other in Pouch Cove, which enveloped the whole surrounding
area.
I do not know if anyone else saw it, but I watched Ron and
Loretta Manning of Torbay being interviewed on CBC. I do not know if anyone else
saw it or not. But of all the people who were down around City Hall waving
banners and whatever, they certainly came across to me as real Newfoundlanders.
And with their two boys over in the Gulf at that particular time, they were by
no means giving in to the feelings that they must have had. They said they were
willing to see their sons over there as long as it brought peace to the rest of
the world.
With that said, Mr. Chairman, I will get on with why I got up
here in the first place, to say a few words about Supply, about this Bill, and
to say to this Government that perhaps, in some instances, there was a need for
restrictions, there was a need for restraints. But, I say to the Government,
from my perspective I think you went at it the wrong way. I really do.
When I was on my way home the other day, I met this guy
coming out as I went into the bathroom.
AN HON. MEMBER: The bathroom?
MR. PARSONS: Just listen now. Anyway, I am always saying
to everyone, `How are you doing?', or `how are you feeling?', or whatever, and
he said, `Pretty bad, boy.' I said, `Why?' He said, `I got my notice today.'
You can laugh if you like. The Minister of Social Services
can laugh. He is a businessman, well off, affluent monetarily, enough shares in
Rolls Royce perhaps to put ten people to work.
AN HON. MEMBER: To hit ten moose.
MR. PARSONS: Yes. But the point remains that this poor
man said to me, `I am going to be laid off.' And he said, `Because of the
contract that was signed, I had bought a new home' - on the strength of the
contract. He said, `Along with things being frozen and the feeling I had even in
that respect,' he said, `I am laid off.' There were tears in the man's eyes. And
for each and every one of the 1,300 people who are going to be laid off - well,
in essence there are going to be at least 2,000 - there are a lot of problems
out there.
I know, perhaps, it might be hard on some Ministers of the
Government to go along with it and say this had to be done. But again, I repeat
myself, Mr. Chairman, I feel there was a different option. I feel that other
options could have been used. I think if they had tried to eliminate some of the
positions, if that was necessary, it could have been done by attrition. And, Mr.
Chairman, if there was a possibility for people to hold their jobs, then,
perhaps, the freeze could have been put on for two consecutive years and it
would have eliminated the need for those people to lose their positions. A
freeze for two years I am sure would create some hardships, but not to the
extent of persons losing their jobs.
Mr. Chairman, in the educational field, certainly there is a
lot of fear out there, but I heard the Minister of Education say today that
teachers would lose jobs only by attrition.
Now I do not know about support staff. I presume there will
be some people within the support staff and perhaps on the boards themselves,
board offices or whatever, who would perhaps lose their positions. There would
be positions identified and perhaps on two boards. But the educational aspect of
it is so important to each and every Newfoundlander, because we know from
history how hard it was to get the system to where it is now. And
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have a right to expect what is best for their
children, just as much right as any other citizen of this great country.
But, Mr. Chairman, that may be as bad as a lot of people feel
it is, but to me the cuts in health play a much greater role in this Province.
Mr. Chairman, we are an aging Province, a Province with a lot of people who are
perhaps not elderly, but getting there. I went into the Health Sciences only a
few weeks ago as I had a friend in there, and I listened to what was being said
by his children. They were saying to me, well look, the nurses cannot even get a
chance to get in to see him. Perhaps they will come to see him, sit him up, put
a pillow underneath his head, turn over the pillow a couple or three times a
day. Mr. Chairman, with 360 nurses gone, how bad is going to be now? I mean, how
bad is it? What if I were in there or if some of my children were in there, or
either one of you were in there, in any of these institutions? I mean, we have
to be careful what we do when we get into cutting health care. It is not like
anything else. Look, it is something we breathe, we think about, we look forward
to. I know when my mother and father became old, it was such a great thing to be
able to get them into a hospital when it was necessary. But, Mr. Chairman, with
these cuts I am really not sure the word necessary is even defined. I do not
think, Mr. Chairman, there is going to be adequate staff in those institutions
to perform the essential duties necessary for health care in any hospital.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!
The hon. Member's time is up.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.
MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. colleague is
challenging?
AN HON. MEMBER: What?
MR. EFFORD: Challenging? I would run if he were. Mr.
Chairman, I think it is about time I made a few comments on the Interim Supply
Bill, but before I do, I have to wonder about the hon. the Member for St. John's
East Extern, if he would listen for one minute. I understand his is real
concerned about health care and the importance of health care to the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, but I have to ask him a question, I have to wonder
how come he changed his mind. Because if we had listened as a Province to the
hon. Member back in 1949 and joined the United States, what kind of health care
would we have had?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. EFFORD: Where we would have had to pay the full cost
of health care.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern, on a point of
order.
MR. PARSONS: Yes, we were anti-confederates, but we were
not pro to joining the United States. We were Newfoundlanders then who thought
we could stand on our own two feet, and we are Newfoundlanders now who think we
can stand on our own two feet. And another thing, Mr. Chairman, because sooner
or later the hon. Minister of Social Services is going to get up waving the
Sprung thing, I will have to say to him in my point of order, that Sprung has
sprung. It is over.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!
There is no point of order.
MR.