. S Province of Newfoundland FORTY - FIRST GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Volume XLI Second Session umber 66 . VERBATIM REPORT (Hansard) I. Speaker: Honourable Thomas Lush 11 Monday [Preliminary Transcript] 29 October 1990

S . L The House met at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Speaker (Lush): Order, please! Before proceeding to routine business, on behalf of hon. Members I would like to welcome to the House the Newfoundland students who were involved in designing three Christmas cards for the Canadian Red Cross Society. The overall concept of the card design was to bring focus to the Christmas spirit and the importance of the Red Cross in helping, caring and sharing with people throughout the world and in our community. These students are Khrista Shave of the Donald C. Jamieson Academy, Stephen Paul Lilly of the Donald C.

Jamieson Academy, and Leanne Faulkner of the Matthew Elementary School in Bonavista. I should point out that Khrista is eleven years old, Leanne is eleven, and Stephen Paul Lilly is twelve years old. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: Also, I have been informed, present in the galleries today is a former Member, Mr. Ray Guy. I would like to extend a welcome to that former member, who represented Grand Falls. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Oral Questions Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, the March 15 Budget the Minister of Finance brought into the House of Assembly estimated that $966,900,000 would come to this Province this year from the Government of Canada in the form of equalization payments. Last month the Premier announced that the $10.2 million surplus the Budget predicted for this year was gone and that it would be replaced by a $120 million deficit, due in large measure to this unexpected shortfall in equalization from the Government of Canada. Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Premier could tell the House what the latest estimate is, how much Newfoundland and Labrador will receive this current fiscal year from the Government of Canada on equalization. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Premier. Premier Wells: Mr. Speaker, let me just restate so that at least it is accurate, because the underlying presentation of the hon. gentleman is not completely accurate.

The position we stated earlier is that of the total that we now projected of approximately $120 million, some $63.7 million was due to the fact, not that there was a decrease in equalization, but that we would get $63.7 million less than had been originally anticipated and estimated by the Federal Government at the time we did the Budget. The balance, I indicated at the time, was due to expected shortfalls in our own revenues plus some unexpected expenditures, and that totalled to make the difference.

In large measure $63 million I guess is half or a little better than half, so I guess you could say that is due in large measure. Now, then, the equalization that was suggested would be reduced to approximately $906 million, so that is a reduction of some $63 No. 66 Rl Ll October 29, 1990 vol XLI

million. I believe about two weeks or so ago there was an other estimate made. I do not have the details of that in front of me at the moment, but that other estimate indicated that the decrease might not be that much, it might only be about $40 million. An Hon. Member: Forty-three Premier Wells: Forty-two million, somewhere in that vicinity. Anyway, I think now the re-estimate is instead of being reduced by $60 million, it is going to be reduced by $40 million. We are not prepared to jump at that and change our plans now, because we think in December, when the estimate comes out again, it may be changed again.

It is the reason why we did not jump right away when the first estimate caine. And hon. members opposite know, they formed the Government of this Province not so long ago, you do not jump immediately when these things out because there may well be changes. And we think now there may well be changes, and we probably jumped too fast the last time in concluding that we might have a $120 million deficit. But in the circumstances, where Canada was heading into a recession, we think we •took the right course. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: A supplementary, Mr Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, the Premier was very definitive and very definite a month ago when he said that equalization payments would be down by $63.7 million, and he reconfirmed that figure here again today and that, therefore, that accounted for a large part of the projected deficit by the Province. Now, I want to ask the Premier this, Mr. Speaker. Will the Premier conf inn that the equalization entitlement from Ottawa as of October 1, 1990 is projected to be $960,469,000, nearly $19 million more than the Province received last year and only $6 million less than the Minister of Finance projected in his budget on March 15, 1990?

Are these the new estimates, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Premier. Premier Wells: No, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: Mr.

Speaker, will the Premier confirm then that the so-called reduction in equalization payments, which he referred to in his October statement, was, in fact, a payback of $34 million in overpayments from the previous year, an amount which the Government, if it had wished to do so, could have repaid out of last year's surplus but the Government for accounting reasons and so on agreed to bring over into this year's Budget so that the $34 million payback is the most significant number in the amount of the reduction that the Premier talked about in October? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Premier. Premier Wells: Mr.

Speaker, I am not sure if the Member was in the House at that particular time. This issue has already been discussed and I think I have made it clear that the Province had a choice. If I did not, I believe the Minister of Finance did. The r L2 October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 R2

. . Province had a choice last March. It could have said, okay, we will take that into last year, and that would have decreased the surplus we had last year by some $34 million. Well, that was the choice we made. Now, we made the choice for this reason, Mr. Speaker. We made the choice because if we had taken $38 million of Newfoundland taxpayers' cash now and given it back to Ottawa, then that was $34 million we would have had to borrow and pay the interest on.

By taking this choice and paying it over a twelve month period, with twenty-four equal installments, we save about $2 million for the taxpayers of this Province and we thought that was pretty good financial management. So a good portion of it is, in fact, done or resulting from financial management. Now, hon. Members opposite know that. The same financial advisors, Mr. Gill and others in the Department of Finance, made the same kinds of decisions at the same time when hon.

Members opposite formed the Government and acted in the best interest of the taxpayers of this Province, and we did likewise. million or $25 million the other way, so don't rush at it.' Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It may .very well be different in December, but the point is that as of October 1 there is only a $6 million difference in the Minister's projections and what the estimates are from Ottawa. Let me ask the Premier this, Mr. Speaker.

Since the October 1 estimate, and the Premier can have that checked, he does not have to take my word for it, on equalization is only $6 million less than the Minister of Finance projected in his Budget on March 15, will the Premier now admit that the $120 million deficit, or the $200 million deficit, or $300 million, whatever the deficit is estimated to be today, is at that figure primarily because of gross over estimates by the Minister of Finance in Provincial revenue, not a significant shortfall in Federal revenue? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Premier.

I met, as a matter of fact, I guess last week, with the senior officials in the Department of Finance and they told me then that the re-estimate was that instead of being $63 million short due to this payback and so on, instead of being that, it would be about $40 million or so. So it would be $20 million less than we had originally anticipated the shortfall would be. But they cautioned me. 'Don't rush at that, Mr. Premier,' they said. 'tn December, when the estimates come out again, it may be $20 Premier Wells: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not admit that because as nearly as I know, it is not so.

Now, unless those two senior officials from the Department of Finance were deliberately lying to me four days ago - An Hon. Member: Senior officials (inaudible). Premier Wells: Yes. I say unless they were. And I do not believe they were. So unless they were deliberately lying to me - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). No. 66 R3 L3 October 29, 1990 vol XLI

Premier Wells: If the Member will wait a few minutes I will tell him. Unless they were deliberately lying to me last week when they sat in my office and said to me, 'Premier, the figure, as a result of the October estimate we got just last week, looks as though instead of it being a shortfall of $63.7 million, that shortfall, according to their estimate now, will be some $20 million less. That is what they said to me last week.

I have no reason to doubt those officials, but I will go on the basis of what the hon. member says and I will have a check made with those officials immediately and I will provide the information to the House. So, Mr. Speaker, I will not make the admission that the Leader of the Opposition invites, but I will repeat what has been indicated earlier so that the hon. member will know the full story, that a significant part of the shortfall is due to a lowering in the provincial revenues from retail sales tax and gasoline tax and other taxes, as we indicated at the time, due, Mr.

Speaker, to the impact on the Province of a number of significant economic events: What has happened in the fishery, Daniel's Harbour, Long Harbour, the closure of the paper machine at Grand Falls and, Mr. Speaker, the national economic recession induced by the present Government in Ottawa. All of that impacts on the Province and contributes, along with the others, to the revenue shortfall, and that's the explanation. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All the things the Premier is saying now the Government must have had available to them last year when they were drawing up their estimates for the Budget. (Inaudible) is different. I want to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, one final question.

When the Premier is talking about now a new figure, or a new revised figure, or a new estimate of $40 million on equalization, is not the Premier including the $34 million from last year's overpayment, plus the projected $6 million the Federal figures are now suggesting, to come up with his $40 million so that, in fact, the numbers we are saying here today are in fact the latest estimates? Ms Verge: Smoke and mirrors. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The hon. the Premier. Premier Wells: Thank you. No, Mr. Speaker, the smoke and mirrors are coming from the other side.

We are going to receive in this coming year that $34 million plus some more less than we receive, than had been estimated. One of the reasons why we are going to receive that $34 million less is because we did not take cash out of our Treasury and pay it back In respect to prior years. What we said was, no, we will take it in the future because that way we save $2 million. The simple truth is, we are going to get that much less. Mr. Rideout: Right. Plus six more. (Inaudible). Premier Wells: That is right That is where the 40 comes from. . . L4 October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 R4

. 1 S 1.44 Mr. Simms: (Inaudible) in your Budget. Premier Wells: The Minister of Finance explained all that in the Mouse, so I do not know. Maybe - Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Premier Wells: Maybe the Leader of the Oppositi on has just read Mansard, Mr. Speaker, and discovered what the Minister of Finance said in it. That is too bad. Mr. Rideout: (Inaudible) cover it up. Premier Wells: Now, Mr. Speaker, I will tell hon Members, the latest estimate that we have as to the shortfall in revenue from that which was originally estimated.

Here is what the latest figures are, and this is the latest formal figures we have from the Department of Finance. The provincial tax sources will be approximately $16.3 million less than we estimated, all provincial taxes. Some are showing an increase over and above what we estimated, some are showing a decrease. The net differential is that in total we will be down $16.3 million less than we had estimated. The shortfall from the Government of Canada totalled some $68.8 million, total. Now, I do not - Mr. Baker: That isEPF and - Mr. Rideout: That is EPF. Premier Wells: That is everything.

Everything is included in that, less than had been originally estimated. It will be down $68.8 million. So, clearly, the more substantial impact has been on the reduction in the Federal payments. I do not say it is an absolute reduction from the prior year, but it is a reduction in the increase that would normally have taken place as well. So the totality of it is a loss from the Federal transfer payments of $68.8 and an estimated loss of provincial revenue of $16.3. Now, so far as I know, that is the latest figure - Mr. Baker: Last night's.

Premier Wells: Last night's figures out of Treasury Board, so it is hot off the press. Mr. Rideout: None of which you knew when you brought in the Budget (inaudible). Premier Wells: None of which I knew. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern. Mr. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands. The City Council has given approval for the establishment of a facility for the storage of liquid waste. This facility will be located at the corner of Logy Bay Road and -Sugar Loaf Road.

Many residents of Sugar Loaf Road, Outer Cove, Middle Cove, King William Estates and residents of the East End in general, have expressed great concern about this proposed facility. I want to ask the Minister is he aware of all the waste that is to be stored in that facility, such L5 October 29, 1990 vol XLI No. 66 R5

as chlorine, sodium sulfate, herbicides and others, all very, very hazardous? If there was an explosion, fire, leak or other accident so near the populated areas, there could be great risk to human health. particularly as the nearest hydrant is one quarter of a mile away. As well, does the Minister understand that the water table in that area is very high and there is a potential danger to city waterways, such as Virginia Waters, which' is very close to this proposed site? .

In view of these facts, will the Minister ensure that this facility' not become a reality in this area, so close to heavily populated areas and to environmentally sensitive water courses? Mr. Warren: Good question. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands. Mr. Kelland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess the fact that is the first time the hon. Member has been up on environmental questions since last spring, he has decided to make use of this opportunity to jam as many questions as possible into his short time frame.

However, to answer what I read as the gist of what he is trying to get at, just recently the project the hon. Member is talking about was registered with our Department under the Environmental Assessment Act. As the hon. Member knows, there is a forty-five day period in which the public and any interested party can have input, and to prejudge the project prior to that public input and proper assessment by a committee would be inappropriate.

All the points he raised, and all the points and concerns anyone may have, will be given full review when the input period of forty-five days is completed, and I will be able to provide him some additional information then. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern. Mr. Parsons: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister commit to the conducting of a full EIS, Environmental Impact Study, including public hearings, before such a facility is established? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands. Mr. Icelland: Somewhat redundant, Mr. Speaker.

Nevertheless, there is a process in place, and the critic for environment matters is fully aware of the process. We are currently in that proceths. Registration was announced a couple of weeks ago. There is a period of public input. And to prejudge any part of that project prior to public input would be inappropriate and improper to do. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern. Mr. Parsons: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder does the Minister know that Sanicare has been sold to an American-based company - I think it is common knowledge - called nFl, which has its headquarters in Texas? This company is heavily engaged in hazardous waste disposal. Can the Minister confirm whether or not this is true? And is he concerned that the Americans may, through the acquisition of this local company, be attempting to get a foot in the door as a way to make Newfoundland the dumping ground for North S S S L6 October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 R6

. 'V America? Some Hon. Members: Hear hear! Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister for Environment and Lands. Mr. Kelland: Mr. Speaker, it sounds a little hypothetical. I could probably confirm the location of the headquarters but beyond that, you are posing hypothetical situations and I have no particular comment on that. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Harbour-Main. Mr. Doyle: I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I guess the Minister has to be aware by now that the state of labour relations in Newfoundland and Labrador is rapidly going downhill.

Currently there is a strike at the Marine Institute; you have the Student Assistants who are still out on the picket line; you had nurses demonstrating en masse at Confederation Building last week; you have firemen disgruntled; you have the teachers up in arms, and now, today, the Federation of Labour was out in front of Confederation Building demonstrating, as well. Now the Minister has made the comment that labour relations are the best they have been in years. Does she still stand by that statement, in view of the current problems we have in the labour movement today?

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. said that in the private sector labour relations are very stable. I gave the example, I think, the time he is quoting me, that out of seventy-three sets of negotiations, we had only had five job actions. Since then that has changed, and we now have six job actions and seventy-five negotiations in the private sector. I would suggest that anybody who is quoting me will be quoting me correctly if they address the private sector. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main. Mr. boyle: I could say to the Minister, Mr.

Speaker, that the reason the private sector are solving their disputes is because the Minister of Labour and Treasury Board have not been involved in that process. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Doyle: It has been the unions, the private sector, and the collective bargaining process taking its course, and that is why there have not been any problems in that area. Now, .1 ask the Minister again, how does she explain the comments by both the Federation of Labour and NAPE, that labour relations in the Province have never been worse and they are getting worse on a daily basis?

Can the Minister explain what is prompting the Federation of Labour and the Labour Movement generally to say what they are saying, and is there any plan to avert the collision course that Government is on with the labour movement in Newfoundland?, Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Ms Cowan: I certainly have not Minister of Employment and Labour • made that statement, Mr. Speaker. Relations. Let me clarify what I did say. I Li October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 Ri

Ms Cowan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker First of all let me say that many of the private sector negotiations have been so successfully solved because of the diligent and conscientious work of the conciliators in the Department of Labour. Now, let me have a go at the question on the public sector. First of all, I think if you were listening properly to Mr. Parsons the other night, when he spoke about his meeting with the Provincial Cabinet, he started off his comments by saying that it was the best meeting he had ever had with a Cabinet in the Province.

However, he was caught a bit short because he had written his press release before he went to the meeting. I would like to say that the Federation of Labour has as one of its members the Public Service Unions, and there is no doubt that there are problems at this stage in negotiating agreements between the public service and the Government. As Minister of Labour I am watching these with a great deal of interest and when these are all over, if there is any adjustment needed to the whole process, then you can rest assured that that adjustment will be made. Let me also say, Mr.

Speaker, if I may before I sit down, that we are reaping what hon. members on the other side sowed. Ms Verge: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main. Mr. Doyle: Let me ask the Minister a very straightforward question. I do not expect to get an answer, because I never get an answer from the Minister. Let we ask her a very simple question.

The labour movement has publitly stated that two of the main reasons associated with the climate we have in Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to labour relations is, number one, there is never any consultation with the labour movement on matters which affect them directly and, number two, there is gross incompetency at the ministerial level within the Department of Labour. Now, is there anything the Minister is able to do to show labour that she is competent in that portfolio? Does she have a plan?

As I asked her a couple of moments ago, does she have a plan, and can we expect labour relations within the Province to improve over the next couple of months, instead of getting worse as they have been? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Ms Cowan: Again let me clarify that we talking about labour relations in the public sector.

I think it is extremely irresponsible for the hon. gentleman to keep saying that labour relations in this Province are bad because that is discouraging to groups who might want to come and invest in this Province, and I think it is most inappropriate. - As to his questions about, are things going to straighten up in two months? I would say that it is going to take a good deal longer to straighten up, again, what we were left with. The unhappy attitude that the public service had towards Government has carried over into our particular Government, and it is very, very difficult to come to grips with.

No, it will not change within two months I ant quite sure, but we are L8 October 29, 1990 vol XLI No. 66 R8

fl . working on ways in which we can address the problem and see a happier future for those particular rounds of negotiations in the future. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Mr. Meant: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few days ago, the Minister of Finance verified the fact that the cut in substitute teachers had nothing to do with this year's Budget, or the problems presently being experienced in relation to the Budget, because it was contained in the original budget. Will the Minister of Education tell the House the real reason for slashing 10,000 substitute teaching days? Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Education. Dr. Warren: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to read the transcript, the response to the hon. Member's question, but I doubt if the Minister of Finance said what he is quoted as saying. So I will read the transcript. I am delighted to have the question on substitute teachers. I think the time has come to put some real facts on the table on substitute teachers, Mr. Speaker, and if the Member will forgive me, I will take a little time to do that. Some Hon. Members: No no. Dr. Warren: I intend to do that, Mr.

Speaker, with your permission. this past year was reduced from $14 million to $12.8 million. Substitute teacher costs in this province a year ago, $14 million. And I have read the records of the hon. Member in the last few weeks, and I have found that the Government has been trying to cut substitute teacher costs for the last three or four negotiations. I would like for him to come clean with the House and with the people of this province, Mr. SpeakÔr. We cut substitute teacher costs from $14 million to $12.8 million. Substitute teachers last year took up 90,000 teacher days.

We asked school boards this year to help us reduce that number of days from 90,000 to 82,000. Substitute teachers in this Province used on the average eleven or twelve days a year. We said this year, Mr. Speaker, we would like for the boards to reduce that by one day for each teacher in a board. In other words, if a board has 200 teachers, reduce it by 200 substitute days. One day for each teacher. Down from twelve to eleven, or eleven to ten. Mr. Speaker, we did it because we do not have all the money we need for education. We found money this year to put $1.7 million into computers.

We put money into instruction materials. We put money into a lot of other things, Mr. Speaker, so that is why the money was used. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. An Hon. Member: In Question Period? Dr. Warren: Mr. Speaker, the funding for substitute teachers Mr. Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me correct the Minister. The former government did make some provisions to cut the teacher bill, but they did it by reducing salaries over the L9 October 29, 1990 Vol XLI tb. 66 R9

first few days. They did not cut days. And I ask the Minister if he agrees with educators when they say that the reduction in substitute teaching days will virtually eliminate all leaves for professional development activities? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Education. Mr. Doyle: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. Member would tell me how they are going to reduce pay? My understanding is they were proposing for the last two or three sets of negotiations to reduce the pay to a certain per diem for substitute teachers. Mr. Speaker, the question on the impact on in-service.

It has had an impact, it does have an impact. But to cut one teacher day per teacher for each board could come from in-service, it could come fiom all other kinds of leaves. Teachers on the average use twelve days per year. Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit disappointed that people are saying that this will eliminate the in-service program. One day per year, Mr. Speaker. Teachers, I think, will be willing to spend perhaps a Saturday doing in-service, perhaps an evening doing in-service. They have done that In the past.

I have talked to teachers in the last few days who would be prepared to make up that day to help the Government in these difficult fiscal times; after school, on the weekends, perhaps a day in the evenings, Mr. Speaker, and I hope they will do that, because in-service education is important. Mr. Hearn: Mr.

Speaker, let me ask the Minister then, since boards do not have any control over 80 per cent of the leaves taken by teachers under the collective agreement, when the Minister suggests, as he did on radio a while ago and as he has just verified here again, that boards can reduce the effect on professional development by trimming leave days from all categories, and that is just what he said that time, is he telling school boards to break the collective agreement? Mr. Speaker: the hon. the Minister of Education. Dr. Warren: No, Mr. Speaker.

We are asking school boards in these very difficult times to perhaps help the Government by reducing the in-service and all the other leaves by about 8 per cent. That is all we are asking, and this year we think most of the boards will meet that objective. Fifty-seven per cent of all the leaves go for sick leave. That is reasonable. We do not think that is unreasonable. Sick leave is there.

But there are other leaves, such as special leaves, that we ask school boards to attempt to reduce this year, and most school boards, even though they are going to have a difficult time meeting that goal, are working hard - and I want to pay tribute to them - are working hard to help meet this goal. In fact, some school boards have said that they will use other means, creative means, of providing in-service, so that the students in the system will not suffer. . . Some Hdn. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Mr. Speaker: the hon. the Member for Fogo.

LlO October 29, 1990 vol XLI No. 66 1110

• Mr. Winsor: Thank you, Mr. the winter

schedule in place, but Speaker. I will certainly check the records and give the member an answer. . . Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Winsor: My question is to the Minister responsible for Work, Services and Transportation. The Minister's department has recently reduced the level of service on the Fogo Island/Change Islands run from five trips to four1 and now more recently, to three. How can the Minister explain this decision to reduce by that amount, when this Government committed itself to improving the service, not downgrading it? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Work, Services and Transportation. Mr. Gilbert: What we did, Mr. Speaker, was revert to the winter

schedule that we do every year. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Fogo. Mr. Winsor: Mr. Speaker, that is not correct; 1989 had a poor trip. In light of the fact that high traffic volumes for the past month has necessitated an extra trip, or maybe two a day, will the Minister not review this decision and re-instate the four trips that were in place earlier this fall and for all of 1989 during the fall season? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. Gilbert: Mr.

Speaker, I do not know the statistics the gentleman is talking about, but the last ones I had indicated that the service there now was providing adequate service with Mr. Speaker: Question Period has expired. Notices of Motion Mr. Speaker: The hon. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I will on tomorrow move, pursuant to Standing Order 50, that the debate or further consideration on Motion Mo. 1,

an Act to Authorize the Raising of Money by Way of Loan by the Province - Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Order, please! The hon. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: - standing in the name of the hon. the Minister of Finance and any amendments to that motion shall not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any resolutions, amendments, clauses, •sections,

preambles, schedules, titles relating to Motion 1 shall not be further postponed. Mr. Speaker: Further Notices of Motion. The hon. Opposition House Leader. Mr. Rideout: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce Lll October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 Rh

the following resolution.

WHEREAS the present Government of this Province when in Opposition criticize the former Government for undue economic restraint in the health care sector; and

WHEREAS the present Government has promised to provide high quality health care for all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador regardless of the cost; and

WHEREAS the present Government has announced it will hold provincial expenditures on health in 1991-92 to 1990-91 levels which because of the continually increasing cost of providing health care will in effect mean a cutback in expenditures on health care next year, and

WHEREAS a freeze in provincial expenditures on health will mean a - reduction -i-n the health- services -available to the people -of- Newfoundland and Labrador;

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the present Government to fulfill its commitment to provide high quality health care for all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. The provision of which shall preclude health care staff shortages, hospital and nursing home bed closures, and unreasonable delays for hospital and nursing home admissions and for other medical services. An Hon. Member: As promised Mr. Rideout: As promised. Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Health. Mr. Decker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Member for Torngat last week in Question Period referred to laypersons in the northern communities dispensing drugs. I have checked with the Executive Director of GRHS and have been advised that in the two communities referred to GRE-IS does not have registered nurses in these communities on a full time basis. In these communities they have lay dispensers, these are persons who have had on the job training by professional staff. Lay dispensers distribute only specific drugs based on specific instructions from health professionals. Mr. Warren: Shame! Shame!

Mr. .--Decker: Mr- Speaker, - this is -- a Long established practice and may also be put in place when large groups of families or settlers go to summer settlements for fishing. Mr. Warren: (Inaudible). Mr. Decker: The system is being very well managed with specific policies in place that are being strictly monitored and adhered to. Mr. Speaker, I should point out that this system was started approximately one hundred years ago when Sir Wilfred Grenfell caine to Northern Newfoundland and Labrador. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. Mr. Carter: Mr.

Speaker, you recall on Friday the Leader of the is . . L12 . October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 1112

. . Opposition asked certain questions of me regarding the recently released Dunne Report on the Fisheries, at which time I indicated to him and to the House that I would not mind tabling copies of our representation to the chairman of that committee. Mr. Speaker, I have here a copy of our representation, the recommendation to the Harris panel. My subsequent recommendation to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as well as a covering letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans dated April 25. I should add there were no written representations made to the Dunne Committee on behalf of my department. No written.

My senior officials appeared before the committee, and basically you said the same as we said previously to the Harris panel, a copy of which I am now prepared to table. tlt, Sims: On aoint of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: On a point of order, the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Yes, the hon. Minister of Health just replied to a question. He had the answer written out presumably. I wondered if the Minister might be prepared to table that. I know it is in Mansard but we would have to wait until tomorrow. We would like to have a quick look at it. Is there any chance of getting a copy of his answer? Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Health. Mr. Decker: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have briefing notes which were prepared for me by my Department. I did not read it verbatim, I referred to the gist of it. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in a week that we have had an experience with Ministers in this House with paper in front of them responding to a question which can only lead a person to believe that they are reading a prepared answer or a briefing note as the Minister of Health referred to it or something. But, Mr.

Speaker, it is pretty clear, the rules of this House in Beauchesne, that if a Minister quotes from a document the Minister must table it. That has been the time honoured sacred practice in this House over the years. So, Mr. Speaker, we have to get to the bottom of this one way or another. If Ministers are going to get up andtaketheHouse on their back, cover up and hide, we do not know, Mr. Speaker, if what the Minister said into the record was, in fact, what was in front of him. So, the Minister must table whatever it was he was quoting from. He read it almost verbatim. Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Government House Leader. Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel I must respond to the childish outburst from the Leader of the Opposition. There are many time honoured traditions in this House and one of these time honoured traditions is that when a Member states something as being true that you have to take the Member's word for it. The Minister has said - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). L13 October 29, 1990 vol XLI No. 66 Rl3

Mr. Baker: No, just wait now. the Minister has said that he was not reading verbatim from a report or anything else. He was simply not reading verbatim from the piece of paper he had in front of him and we have to accept his word for that. But, Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the Minister would not mind at all tabling what he has there in his hands if only to prove that the Leader of the Opposition is dead wrong. There is no point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Mr. Sinus: To that point of order Mr. Speaker: Order,- please! I am trying to establish order for the hon.

Member before I recognize him. The hon.; the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Thank you. I appreciate it very much. Just to that point of order: then why did the Government House Leader allow this discussion, debate and argument to go on, because we asked the Minister of Health initially if he would table it and he said no, and now you just got up and said he would. What is the argument? Table it and get on with business. Mr. Speaker: to the point of order, the Chair would like to clarify this. Every time an hon. Member stands with something in one's hands that one is under no requirement to table it.

One does not know that it is a document even though the time honàured precedent in this Mouse is that one cites from a document. the Chair has no idea that is a document. A piece of paper is not a - document. One could have precisely anything. Someone has to be guided by what the Minister says. If the Minister indicates that it is a document then the Chair, obviously, has something to go by, but the Chair has no indication that the Minister was doing anything other than quoting from notes. If the Minister wants to table it, of course, then he is quite at liberty to do so. Mr. Simms: Agreed to table? Mr.

Decker: Mr. Speaker, I do not see what all the fuss is about, there were a few copious notes I have there, but I will certainly table it. I can tell hon. Members Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible). Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Mr. De'cker: I can tell hon. Members it is not signed by a concerned citizen like the piece of paper which was tabled last week. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! There is no point of order. Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible). Mr. Decker: I do not see why he is all puffed up over there about it. I have no interest in this. Mr. Simms: (Inaudible). An Hon. Member: Don't be so childish. Petitions Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Member . S . L14 October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 R14

. for Humber East. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Ms Verge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present a petition of several students of Memorial University who come from different parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. These Memorial University students are protesting the Government's October 1st cut in social assistance to single parent families in the Province.

The prayer of the petition is as follows: Therefore your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse its change in policy and continue to permit social assistance recipients to retain a substantial portion of maintenance and child support payments as well as regular social assistance. Mr. Speaker, on October 18, the Premier addressed a similar petitionand' in doing so promised the. House of Assembly and the people of the Province that he would get all the details about the change and evaluate the situation.

He committed to the House and to the people of the Province that the Government will see everybody is treated in a fair and balanced way. He acknowledged it was possible that the Government had made a mistake. never married? How is that fair? I say to the Premier how is it consistent to allow children of social assistance recipients who are able to find a job and earn some income, to keep up to $115 a month of that income in addition to regular social assistance and not allow single parent families to benefit from receipt of child support.

In one case the father is present in the household, in the second case the father is absent. How is that fair? Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier for him to explain to the House of Assembly and to the people of the Province how it is fair to reduce the income of a single mother and three children from $650 a month to $550 a month. How is that fair and balance? How does that accord with the Premier's promise of leading a compassionate, Government? How does that accord with capital 'L' Liberal philosophy? Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Premier is not listening to me.

He seems to be extremely uncomfortable with this subject and I can certainly understand why, because there is no 'defence for the cruel and callous reduction in social assistance for single parent families that this Government inflicted on the Province on October 1. . Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Premier about his promise a week later, he said he had asked the Minister of Social Services if people were being treated in a fair and balanced way, and when the Minister replied yes, the Premier was satisfied.

Now I say to the Premier how can the Premier conclude that it is fair to penalize children of social assistance recipients who are separated or divorced or who were Some Hon. Members: Hear1 hear! Ms Verge: So I call on the Premier to fulfill the promise he made on October 18, of getting all the details of this change, getting all the details and admitting the mistake that was made. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. L15 October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 RlS

Mr. .Speaker: Further petitions? Orders of the Day Mr. Furey: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker Mr. SDeaker: The hon. the Member for Eagle River. Mr. Dumaresgue: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a few minutes to make this House aware of the work of the Committee on Elections and Privileges when it dealt with the issue of broadcasting the House of Assembly proceedings. I just want to outline the recommendations that we made and some of the rationale for making these recommendations.

First of all, last fall we were mandated to address the issue of whether we would ., bring audio, radio coverage of this House of Assembly into being, and'tn March 13 of this year we submitted a report recommending that radio access be given to all media, and this has taken place and gone on since that time. However, a second part of our initial mandate was to decide on and recommend whether there should be TV coverage of the next session of the House and therefore the new House , of Assembly. And in addressing that issue, Mr.

Speaker, we had public hearings and we also went to three other jurisdictions in Canada and we heard some twenty-three witnesses. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we reached a number of recommendations iespecting the financing, distribution and administration of a system to govern the televising of the new House of Assembly.

I might point out that in all of our journeys and in all of our consultations, be it with the public or other experts in this field, the question of financing always came up and I would have to say that it was the biggest concern that was raised when our committee had to deal with this recommendation.

Many people of course wondered, do the people really want to have the House of Assembly broadcasted, and on that point we had to, I guess, take a leap of faith and assume that, apart from the fact that there has been direct representations made to the committee, that there should be access to the House by T.V., we had to assess whether the fact that we never had any quantitative data, I suppose, in terms of a poll or anything like that, which would judge whether the people wanted it, we did conclude, Mr.

Speaker, -that we 'felt it was a necessary thing and therefore we unanimously recommended that television come in to this House of Assembly. Principally, the rationale for it was, it is a matter of I guess, of coming to grips with the age in which we live, it is now an age of television and practically all other jurisdictions in the country have some access, if not full access to the legislative proceedings by television, and indeed many of the countries of the western world, and I might also add, that many of the countries in the eastern bloc have access of the legislative proceedings by television.

On the aspect of distribution, we had to deal with a recommendation whether we should have the signal distributed throughout the r . r L. L16 October 29, 1990 Vol XLI Mo. 66 R16

S L Province, and the committee again recommended that there should be distribution to as wide an audience as possible in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I might point out that the CBC provincial management came to the committee and recommended or certainly made aware to the committee, that they would be prepared to have the signal go throughout the Province the following morning for at least an hour, so we certainly thought that was a good gesture, albeit not what we would like but again the cost was a very big factor in our recommendations, because in order to have gavel to gavel proceedings of the House broadcast to every part of the Province, it would mean having a separate satellite channel and that would run us into well over $1 million, so certainly that was not entertained.

As 'far as the administration of the system is concerned, Mr. Speaker, our journeys and consultations led us to conclude that the best system would be a five camera computerized system similar to the one in operation now in Saskatchewan, in which two of the cameras would have a manual override and could be used to take pictures of significant occasions. So, Mr. Speaker, when we concluded our report and it was submitted to this hon.

House a week ago last Tuesday, we made the recommendation that there should be access to the House, and I guess if there is one noteworthy point I still would like to reiterate is, that the financing was a top concern of the committee and I would imagine in light of the economic situation in which we find ourselves today, that it will be a top concern of all hon. Members. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would just like again to thank the members of the committee who served with me, particularly the vice-chairman, Mr.

Hodder, the Member for Port au Port, the Member for Bonavista South, the Member for Pleasantville and the Member for Ferryland. In reaching our decision today, Mr. Speaker, I hope hon. Members will take into consideration what I have noted about the consultation and indeed what is in the report. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Port au Port. Mr. Hodder: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few words, a very few words, on this particular Committee.

As the Member for Eagle River has pointed out, the Committee was asked two basic questions and that was the broadcasting of the House and the second one was the televising of the House. Of course we are now broadcasting the House and, I think, Members have seen some changes because of that. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the report Of the Committee, which was unanimous; I am concerned that it might not be put into practice. I think it is right that the House be televised, and I think in this day and age that politicians have to be accountable, and that the best electorate is an informed electorate. Now, Mr.

Speaker, why else would the Government have struck the Committee and allowed it to deliberate for this period of time unless they intended to do something about it? Now, I would be the first to say to the House, Lll October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 R17

and particularly in these particular times, that we cannot open up the Treasury in order to bring a very expensive system in, but there are a number of other alternatives. The only televised proceedings we see in this Province is the House of Commons, and if one were to look at the Ontario Legislature they would find that the quality is much better than the House of Commons, but the cameras in the House of Commons are ancient. You can buy one of the cameras that they have in the House of Commons for very, a very small amount of money, perhaps $300 or $400 each. Now, what I am saying, Mr.

Speaker, is that we do not have to have the first class technology to have a good picture and to have adequate coverage, I should say, of the House. We are, we know, moving into a new House of Assembly and, I think it is incumbent upon Members, - -incumbent upon Government, upon the Cabinet, to come up with an adequate system which is not going to be expensive for the taxpayers of this Province. I do not suggest, Mr. Speaker, as the member for Eagle River has said, that we should take care of the distribution. If we are going to do it ourselves I think you would have to do it fairly and honestly.

You would have to make sure that the Labrador portion of the Province had the same coverage as the Avalon Peninsula portion. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that if for this period in time, we were to make the signal available outside of the Chamber for those who wanted to use it - and there are proposals, such as the one from CUC which would give us Question Period for an hour a day, five days a week - I think that if we do not try to be everything, that we can do an adequate job in an inexpensive way. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a backward step to ignore the report of the Committee.

I think that this is a reform, such as the Public Tendering Act is a reform. Such as, I should say, that the ombudsman, when we brought him into the Province, it was a reform which was happening all across Canada, we just happened to be the first Province to drop it. But Mr. Speaker, it is a reform. The world is becoming quite small. We can see now what the troops - as someone mentioned - in the present Gulf crisis, that if it had been Hitler and Roosevelt in this particular time, you would see the Second World War being portrayed on television as you are seeing now.

With the world becoming smaller and smaller we will be one of the last legislatures to broadcast or to televise in some way. I understand that nine out of thirteen I believe of the Legislatures in this country at the present time, broadcast. Mr. Speaker I think it will help this Chamber immeasurably. I think it will help the decorum of Members. And I should say on that point that a lot of the people we spoke to when we talked to other legislators in the country, did not like television. Particularly where it was new. Because what will happen is that it will change the House of Assembly as we know it.

I think if you talk to liPs though, that television has become in the House of Commons, something which is almost part of the institution now, because it has been there long enough. But I do not think that comments . L18 October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 R18

. . 1 . of other Members - I think we ourselves probably will resent the fact - - I read an

article in Maclean's magazine about the effect of television in the British House of Commons, the Mother of Parliament. I understand that one of Mrs. Thatcher's big assets was that she could shout loud and that her shrill voice could reach above the hubbub in the House of Commons. But now she is so quiet that the Speaker has trouble hearing her. But television has done that and will do that to us. But Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should be afraid of change for the sake of change. And I think that we should follow along, Mr. Speaker; I do not think that we can turn back.

I think that in the British House of Commons it was tried on seven or eight different occasions to get television, but eventually the Mother of Parliaments was televised. Most Legislatures in the United States are televised; most Legislatures across Canada are televised. I think that the people deserve openness. Some people say that we should maintain the mystique of this House. I do not think that is a valid argument. I think, Mr. Speaker, we underestimate the people - not everybody wants to see us. A lot of people say they do not want to see us. I am sure there are a lot that do not.

But there are an awful lot of people who would cover the debates. And the other thing, Mr. Speaker, I do not always think that what happens in this House gets adequately portrayed outside the House of Assembly, and I think this would be a way in which the people of this Province would directly see what we are doing. Mr. Speaker, I do stress that we must be careful with costs, but I do believe we should go ahead with it. I would like to thank the Committee, Mr. Dumaresque and the other members of the Committee. The Committee worked hard at the job and we are unanimous in our recommendations.

I do believe Government should act on that, particularly at this particular time when we are moving into a new House. Again, to sum up, I do not think we have to go for any cadillac system, I think we can have an adequate system without having to pay a lot of money for it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the hon. President of Treasury Board the Chair wants to make a ruling on a point of order that was raised on Friday, re the tabling of a letter by the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains. I notice the member is not here.

I do not know if members wanted me to wait until he is here, but the Chair did not want to delay on that. First of all, I want to point out to hon. members that in this matter we are talking about two things. One, we have had a lot of debate in this House about the tabling of documents. It is a precedent in this House that when a member quotes from a document it ought to be tabled. We have had much debate about that, about documents and objects, as well.

We have had objects ruled not to be tabled, but with respect to documents being quoted by members on either side, in most of the rulings I find that they have been tabled. Now, the question here, though, was not quoting from a document, the question was whether the document met the requirements for tabling. Again, many L19 October 29, 1990 vol XLI No. 66 Rl9

decisions by Speakers, which I have read over the weekend, make a distinction between documents and letters. There are much questions about documents as well as to what constitutes a document, but clearly there is distinction between documents and letters. I quote for hon. members Page 155 of Beauchesne, Paragraph 495. For the benefit of hon. members, this is a whole

section on the tabling of documents and hon. members ought to be familiar with it. I am just going to read the ones I consider to be apropos -. 495,

Section 2 "It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda." The other one I would like to read is Section (5). Although I have more or less discarded that, for the benefit of hon. members, "To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence the debate.

The admission that a document exists or the reading of the salutation or address of a letter does not constitute citing." Then, Section (6) "A private Member has neither the right nor the obligation to table an official, or any other, document. That ruling was sustained by the Deputy Speaker at the time, I believe, Deputy Speaker Aylward. He is the only one I can find who used that particular one in recent years. The more apropos rulings are on Page 152 of Beauchesne, Paragraph 498, Section (1).

"An unsigned letter should not be read in the House." Of course it goes on without saying that since it should not be read it, it ought not be tabled. Section (3).

"When quoting a letter in the House, a Member must be willing either to give the name of the author or to take full responsibility for the contents." And 499 says, "Telegrams should not be quoted in the House as there is no way of ensuring the authenticity of the signature." Of course that is the reason why with the letter we said the Member should be willing to give the name of the author, because with all things being documented in the House, it is necessary to be able to trace their authenticity. Somebody said 'a phone number', but I do not think we could get into that position, where we accept phone numbers.

So for these reasons I would suggest that the hon. member was out of order in presenting the document and ought not to have presented it, so I ask the table to pass it back tohim. The hon. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to take a few moments to comment on the Committee, the work the Committee has done and the Committee's report. First of all, Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that the Committee looked at and spent so much time examining the idea of a televised House of Assembly.

I believe their conclusions are well-founded, the fact that it would be nice and appropriate to have the House of Assembly televised. I think the Committee examined a number of alternatives and decided eventually that perhaps they did not want a make-shift system in place, that perhaps if we are going to televise the House, then we should have a proper system installed, S . . LW October 29, 1990 vol XLI No. 66 R20

r IE . with the proper types of cameras and the proper regulation of the cameras and so on, Mr. Speaker. So they opted for that particular choice. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to say to you and to members of the hon. House that I agree that televising the House is something that should be done. However, Mr.

Speaker, I hesitate and cannot recommend at this point in time, with the financial situation we are in, and with what we are asking school boards and hospital boards and Government departments to do and so on, I think it would be unwise at this point in time to get into an expenditure of $500,000 or $750,000 or whatever amount to install the proper system. I would suggest to hon. members that I would be quite amenable to, and I think Government would be amenable to, at some point in time going with a built-in system.

And it is kind of unfortunate that we are in the situation we are now where that kind of an expenditure would to the people of the Province seem to be a complete waste when we are hearing all kinds of dire consequences from the fact that our revenues have, been cut. Mr. Speaker, regrettably we cannot support the immediate installation of television into the new House of Assembly along the lines recommended by the Committee. However, the reason I am saying this is because of the financial situation.

The Committee examined or, I believe, started to examine a lot of alternatives with regard to television in the House and there were alternatives, perhaps, that were examined fully or partially that would be more acceptable in terms of a financial cost to Government. So what I ala going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that

whereas Government cannot put out that kind of money now to put TV in the House of Assembly, that perhaps if the Committee, the same Committee were to go back and have another look at some of the options that exist - you have to realize that when the Committee was put in place they were not told about this, and did not know about this, and that the circumstances have changed. I think it would be a useful exercise if the Committee got together again and came up with further suggestions as to what can be done now that would not incur this big cost on the taxpayers of the Province. Mr. Speaker, in

summary, Government's position is that

whereas it would be proper to do it at some point in time, at this point in time we cannot allocate the funds to put the proper television network into that House of Assembly, and that we recommend that the Committee go back and have another look at a more cost-effective way of doing it. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Like previous Members who spoke on this question today, I will not take a lot of time. But I do want to take a few minutes to speak on behalf of ray colleagues I lead on this side of the House.

Our Vice-Chairperson on the Committee has spoken, and spoken very eloquently, on how he and most of our caucus feel on this particular issue. Mr. Speaker, before doing that I do want to take the opportunity, as well, to congratulate Members from both sides of the House who L21 October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 R2l

served on that Committee and who, in my view, did a very admirable job, a very excellent job, really, in addressing the question that we as Members of this House submitted to them for study, for a report and for recommendations. It is very difficult, Mr.

Speaker, at a time when we are in difficult financial circumstances, to argue with the position as laid forth on behalf of the Government by the Government House Leader, how we could justify spending relatively large sums of money to install television in the new House when hospital beds have to close or teachers are being laid off and Social Services have been cut back. I think there would be, perhaps, some backlash if we were to proceed - Mr. Efford: There are no Social Service cuts. An hon. Member: What are you talking about? Mr. Efford: Mr. God, (inaudible) just as stunned as (inaudible). Mr. Rideout: Mr.

Speaker, collectively in this House, if everybody's stunnedness was added together, it would not exceed the stunnedness of the hon. Minister. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me come back to debating the report submitted by the Member for Eagle River. I believe there would be some degree of apprehension by the people of this Province if we were to proceed to spend large sums of money on installing television equipment in this House or in the new House right away. I believe that would be the case. However, Mr.

Speaker, I believe that it is possible to achieve the goal of having a fully televised House without spending the sums of money or the kind of money the Committee is talking about. I have been told, for example, that in other jurisdictions the kind of equipment - I mean, we have to make a decision here. Can we afford a deluxe system, or is there some middle ground where we can afford to begin the televising of this House at some reasonable cost?

I think the Government House Leader's suggestion that the Committee continue to exist and continue to examine some other options and identify the cost of those options and come back to us with some recommendation is a good one. Now I do not want that to be interpreted, Mr. Speaker, as being a licence for the Government and/or the Committee to procrastinate forever. I do not think that would be necessary. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Hideout: I understood you moved it, so I will second it, okay? Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of other things I would like to say.

Personally, I am all for having a fully televised House as quickly as possible. That is my own personal position. Now, Mr. Speaker, having said that as Leader of this Party, I can tell you that there are Members in our caucus who are not for that. Now whether they might change their minds at some point down the road, as they look at evidence from other jurisdictions, I do not know. But if unanimity were required in this House today in order to do it, there would be - I do not know about the Government caucus, I do not know if it is unanimous or not, but there are still people on this side of the .

L22 October 29, 1990 vol XLI No. 66 R22

S LI L House who are very apprehensive about fully televised coverage, and I have to respect their opinion. But I can say that the vast consensus of people on this side of the House is that we should do it, we should go with it, we should bring this Parliament into the 1990s and on into the next century, by doing what has been done by almost every other Legislature now in Canada. I mean, the House of Commons is televised, Ontario is televised - Mr. Simms: Russia. Mr. Rideout: - Manitoba, Saskatchewan. I am not quite certain about British Columbia. Alberta is, Quebec is.

New Brunswick is, Nova Scotia is about to make the move, I understand. Over the last several months the Mother of Parliaments has made the. move. For God's sake, the \ Parliament of the Soviet Union is being, televised and displayed, not only in their own countries, but all over the world those days. So it is a natural evolution from Hansard to the Radio feed to which we agreed last year, to television.

But I do understand the Government House Leader's concern about a deluxe system, but I believe that the committee, if it were to go back and do some more work, can find a system or can make some recommendations on a system which is a lot less costly, and therefore it could be done at significantly less cost to the taxpayer. I would be prepared to support that with one caution.

In view of the fact that the new House supposedly will be ready for the spring session, I would like the committee to do its work, get on with reviewing those other options, whatever they might be, and perhaps report to us before this session is over as to whether or not you were able to identify an option that would, perhaps, be within the fiscal limits of the Government, and would, perhaps, be within the ' time limits of being able to have the new Legislature ready when we meet there, whatever time it will be in 1991. I would like to see it happen but as I said - Mr. Simms: No more trips, though. Mr.

Rideout: No. There is no need for the committee to go out of the Province anymore, Mr. Speaker. In this time of restraint, the few dollars they would save by . not going away could, hopefully, reduce the cost of the system.

Seriously, I must say once more that there are still some members who feel very, very uncomfortable about the whole television question in this House, but I think the vast majority might feel that the time has come to open up this Legislature in every way, to become a modern legislature, a modern Parliament so that the people of ' this Ptovince can see what their members are doing in the real situation, not in a scnsm.

The voice on the radio is not bad, coming across the TV screen or whatever, but do as they are doing in practically every other jurisdiction now in the western world, and that is to allow the television cameras in here and open up this place and make democracy what it should be, let the people know what is going on in here. No. 66 R23 L23 October 29, 1990 vol XLI

An Hon. Member: Like City Hall Mr. Speaker The hon. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe, according to the coments made by myself and the Leader of the Opposition, the motion perhaps should be that the report be sent back to the comittee for a further report before the end of the year. I believe that is what we agreed on. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Sims: Mr.

Speaker, the motion before us is to concur in this report as presented, and I do not think there is any problem voting with that, but the added suggestions by both sides, that the committee reconvene and have a look at some other ways and so on and bring back another report, we. can do that by agreement and by direction. I think the motion on the floor now is to concur in this report.

I do not think there is any need to defeat that; it is better to pass that and then we make an agreement or whatever, or a further quick motion to ask the committee to go back and look at another way, or a cheaper way, something along those lines. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Government House Leader. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Baker: Okay, Mr. Speaker. That is satisfactory. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Sims: Mr. Speaker, but - Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. The Opposition House Leader. Sorry! I was right the first time. Mr. Simms: What did you call me? Mr. Speaker: I was right the first time.

I thought I wasn't correct, but I was. Mr. Sims: I thought maybe if the Government House Leader could comit to the suggestions that were made and say that we will as a House by agreement ask the comittee to go back to the table again and rework along the lines which have been-suggested, then we can do that by agreement after we vote on this particular motion. I think probably that is the simple way. Question - the report be concurred in. Mr. Speaker: The motion is that the report be concurred in. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

On motion, the report of the Comittee on Privileges and Elections was concurred in. Mr. Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to be caught in a bind, but as long as it is understood that by voting for the concurrence motion we are not then committing to running off and spending a half million or three-qarters of a million dollars on the system. Mr. Speaker: Are we looking at a further amendment? Mr. Simms: Well, I would suggest by agreement. The Government House Leader can say we will direct, and we will agree to do it. Mr. Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If we have agreement of the House, we .

L24 October 29, 1990 vol XLI No. 66 R24

. . Pi can simply direct the committee to go back. The fact of the matter is, we have indicated that a large expenditure at this point in time is not appropriate, and we will try to find quickly some other way of providing that service which will not incur that expense. Mr. Simius: Right. And then they have - Mr. Baker: So if we could by agreement agree that the Committee goes back now and looks at that aspect of the report. Mr. Sims: Or word that as a motion and we will agree or second it. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members have all heard the motion.

Motion, that the Committee return to consider other options re televising the House, carried. Mr. Speaker: The Government House Leader. Mr. Baker: Motion 1. Mr. Speaker: To move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions related to the raising of loans by the Province, and that I do now leave the Chair. On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions, Mr. Speaker left the Chair. Committee of the Whole Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to take a bit of time again today to have some further remarks on Bill 39 - I think it is Bill 39 - which is The Government Loan Bill. The authority the Government is requesting from this House to go out and to borrow $325 million additional dollars, that is really the pith and substance of what we are talking about in this debate, Mr. Chairman. That is what the Government is asking authority to do. Now before I get into the meat of what I want to say today, Mr. Chairman, I want to make this observation.

It was only one week ago Tuesday past that this House reconvened, having been adjourned since June of last year. By the way, Mr. Chairman, the Government could have had their Loan Authority Bill any time they wished last spring if they had not gotten so wrapped up in other matters and then decided to let the House go home for the summer. They could have had their Loan Bill last spring, and I suspect they now regret they did not, which is the normal thing to do, by the way. The normal thing to do is to do your borrowing requirements in the spring, before the House adjourns for the summer.

But be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, here is the situation we find ourselves in as legislators in this House today. We find ourselves coming back last Tuesday and the Government's first order of business, a $325 million borrowing requirement. That was the first order of business the Government brought before this House. So we debated that bill last Tuesday, or Tuesday a week before, the next day, Wednesday, was Private Members' Day, the next No. 66 R25 L25 October 29, 1990 vol XLI

day was Thursday, on which day we did a partial debate on the Loan Bill. Because by agreement we did the Hibernia legislation and put the Hibernia legislation through all three stages, and finished off the afternoon with further debate on The Loan Bill, the House did not sit the following day because of our Party's Convention. So therefore, the first week we were sitting we had a day and a bit debating this $325 million Loan Bill. Last week we had Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Thursday night and Friday, and we are started again today. The sum and essence, Mr.

Chairman, is that on $325 million Loan Bill we have had as of this moment approximately five days debate. Now under normal circumstances, Mr. Chairman, it might be fair for Government supporters to say that that is adequate. It might be. Three 'hundred and twenty-five million dollars additional borrowing is not to be sneezed at when you look at the debt this Province presently owes.

It is a big sum of money, but under normal circumstances the Government might be able to make the case that, look, the Opposition is doing nothing but filibustering here; they do not want to be co-operative here, and we are going to make moves to get our legislative program moving forward. Under normal circumstances. But, Mr. Chairman, I submit to this House that we are not facing normal circumstances today in this Province. We had a Minister of Finance who on March 15 brought in a Budget that projected a $10.2 million surplus on current account, Mr. Chairman.

I know how you divide up between current and capital account. I know how you do that, Mr. Chairman. There was an overall deficit when you add in our capital requirements, but on current account, the money you use to pay the light bill, pay salaries, pay heat, and the other daily expenses of running the Government, the Minister projected to this House that he would balance the books and he would have a surplus of $10.2 million on that side of his ledger. That is what he told this House.

This is why we are not facing an ordinary situation today, six months after the Minister brought in that Budget, if you can really make the case that it was a Budget, it was just a slapping together of numbers, but six months after the Minister did that, Mr. Chairman, he and the Premier had to go before the people of this Province and say, oh, no, it is not a $10.2 million current account surplus, it is now a $120 million current account deficit. That is why, Mr. Chairman, that all things are not equal in this House today.

If the Minister had to have the intestinal fortitude to bring in a new Budget, or to bring in a revised Budget, or to be honest last Spring and amend the Budget. The Minister and the Premier have told us in this House that they were advised of the shortfaLl verbally on March 30 last year, that it was made in writing to them on April 4, before the Budget debate had even begun. Yet, Mr. Chairman, they let us go right through the charade of asking questions and then giving answers on numbers that were no longer operative.

Now that lays the stage for this Opposition having to do what we have been doing over the last five or six days, and that is questioning in detail the health care cuts that the Government says is coming in this Province, the education cuts they say are coming, and the social S 1 S . L26 October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 R26

. C . services reductions they say are coming. We have no choice, Mr. Chairman. We would be totally irresponsible, we would not be fit to represent anybody here if we did not take the only avenue that was open to us as an Opposition, which was a money Bill, the borrowing Bill, to try to get answers from this Government. Mr. Chairman, having only spent five days doing that what has the Government now done? They have used the closure rule to get this Loan Bill approved. The Government House Leader gave notice today so it will be on the Order Paper.

If he wants to call it tomorrow then by one o'clock tomorrow night the Bill must pass. If he waits until Thursday and wants to call it on Thursday, by one o'clock Friday morning the Bill must pass. The point, Mr. Chairman, is that as of this day, as of tomorrow when this House - reconvenes at two o'clock tomorrow afternoon, the closure motion will be on the Order Paper. The Government can call it then any day they wish, and one o'clock the following morning debate must cease.

After five days debate, after six days debate, after seven days debate, after eight days debate, we do not know when they are going to call it, but we do now know their intention, Mr. Chairman. And if we were to continue for another ten days, another two weeks, or another three weeks, Mr. Chairman, probably some would say we are not doing our duty. It is so severe we should stay at this much longer. It is so severe that perhaps we should be at it a month, or six weeks, to grill the Government to get the answers.

That is why we are not in the same position this day as you would normally be on a Government borrowing Bill, because the fiscal position of the Province is quite different than we have seen it for quite some time. If the Government comes to this Opposition and says they have a window of opportunity to raise money, which the Government has not done yet, but if they come to us and say, look, unless this Bill passes we are not going to be able to float a $100 million bond issue next Thursday, then if that is the situation come and talk to us, Mr. Chairman.

If it is not do not sit over there and fearmonger and try, by innuendo, to say that is the situation. If the Minister wants to come to us, or the President of Treasury Board, and say, we have an issue ready to go and if we do not go within this time frame it is going to cost us extra money, then, Mr. Chairman, this Opposition is a responsible Opposition and we are not going to impair or jeoparadize any more than it already is, the fiscal position of this Province. We have already said that to the Government House Leader.

Our House Leader has said, if there is something in the works and you need this Bill to float an issue or to do a loan, or whatever, let us know. We asked you to let us know and we will consider that and we will get back to you and see where we are going to go on it. The other thing, Mr. Speaker, on this particular loan bill that galls me from an Opposition perspective is that we cannot get any answers. I do not know if the Minister of Finance has spoken on this bill yet. Dr. Kitchen: I have not had a question. Mr. Rideout: Well, now Mr. Speaker, he has not had a question.

On Thursday of last L27 October 29, 1990 vol XLI No. 66 R27

week I riddled off, and I read them off here, one, two, three, four, five, six, and they were - let me read one of them to the Minister again. In the March 15 budget that he brought down, the Minister estimated total revenues of $1,393,946,000 from the Government of Canada. Last Thursday I read that figure into the record of this House. Two weeks later the Minister was informed that there was going to be a reduction.

I told him how much that was, although he did not tell this House. t asked the Minister then, taking into account the figures that he gave us, the $63.7 million less in equalization that he and the Premier said that we were going to get - I will get on that in another way now in a few minutes time - but at the time we did not know anything else. These were the figures we were working with. I asked the Minister if, because of the $63.7 million reduction in equalization, if the revised estimates of revenues from Federal sources was now, as of last Thursday, $1,330,246,000.

And I went on to ask him another question about his revised revenues and about his revised expenditures. And I went on to ask him another question about his combination of Federal revenues and Provincial revenues. I asked him six detailed financial questions during the hour that I was speaking. Went through them, Mr. Speaker, item by item, and they appear in Hansard. Now I know the Minister was not in his seat all during the while I was speaking. But Mr. Speaker, Thursday went by. Thursday night went by. Three hours, the debate in this House Thursday night. Another couple of hours Friday morning, Mr. Speaker.

And not one squeak. Not one peep from the Minister, to answer detailed questions put to him by a Member on this side of the House. Other Members over here, Mr. Speaker, have asked detailed questions. Mr. Speaker, doesn't this House have a right to expect from the Minister of Finance an answer to a question like this? Doesn't this House, don't the people's representatives have a right to expect an answer? It is not a question that is embellished with political rhetoric. It is not a question that has any political overtones to it. It is a direct question. Are your estimates this figure now?

I mean, you are the one who told us, Mr. Speaker, that you are $120 million in deficit, $130 million if you include the $10 million surplus. You are the ones who told us that. You are the Government. And now I am asking you, because you gave us this figure, is this now your best revenue estimate from Ottawa? Do I not have the right to expect a reasonable answer to that, Mr. Speaker? An Hon. Member: Sure you do! Mr. Rideout: Doesn't any Member of the Opposition who asks a similar question have a right to expect an answer?

Don't the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have the right to expect such a question to be answered? But no, Mr. Speaker. This Government, under the leadership of this Minister of Finance, who is content to sit in his seat, to grow on to his seat, Mr. Speaker, to grin when it suits his fancy to grin, and to hide behind a closure rule to get this piece of legislation through. Not prepared . . . L28 October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 R28

I . to answer any questions. An Hon. Member: Shame. Mr. Rideout: I will send the Minister over a copy of the questions if he wants them. Because they are technical questions on technical financial matters and I had them written out, but they are read into the record. I wish the Minister would go before this House rises tonight, and call in one of his officials and say, look now, what the Leader of the Opposition was asking here is very simple, let's get the information. And if we get some information from the Government, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to let the loan bill go.

But I mean, I cannot, in conscience, let this loan bill go when the Minister is not making an effort even. Even if he got to his feet and gave some kind of a tired old political speech, at least he would be doing something to earn his Ministerial salary, Mr. Speaker. An Hon. Member: Minister of arrogance. Mr. Rideout: I am not talking about the responses that we get from the Minister of Social Services or the Minister of Health.

I am talking about the Minister of Finance, who brought in the budget, and when there are technical questions, legitimate in my view, asked to him about his revenue and his expenditure and his revised numbers, I would think that the Minister would feel duty-bound to run out of this House, call up his officials, make note of the questions, and come back and stand up after one of us sits down, for fifteen or twenty minutes, half an hour, whatever it takes, and answer the questions. Now if that was the attitude of this Government, Mr.

Speaker, this loan bill would probably be approved by now - if that was the attitude. But no, the attitude, Mr. Speaker, is to stonewall, to cover up, to sit down and say nothing and do nothing, and by and by we will whip in the closure rule and we will get her approved anyway. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the Government that talked about openness, democracy, being open with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. And that Minister sits over there stone-faced day after day - An Hon. Member: No, that is not true, (Inaudible). Mr. Rideout: - and will not get to his feet. He has not.

He has admitted in this House already today that he has not answered the questions that I put to him on Thursday. And then, Mr. Speaker, to add insult to injury, we saw the performance put on in this House today by the Premier. Aided and abetted, Mr. Speaker, back in the middle of October, by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance and the Premier told the people of this province in October that we were running a $120 million deficit.

And they made it abundantly clear, they made it clear in this House since the session began Tuesday before last, that the single most important reason for that $120 million deficit was a reduction in the amount they expected on equalization, by $63.7 million. That is the reason they quoted when they had their press statement. . That is the reason they have, given this House day after day when it has been raised L29 October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 R29

in Question Period. Now Mr. Speaker, if you go to the Government's own financial documents of. March 15 1990, you will see that the Minister of Finance at that time estimated that this Province would receive $966,900,000 in equalization from the Government of Canada for the fiscal year 1990/1991. That is the figure that the Minister put before this House, that this House accepted, and that went out before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

They then, in October, caine before the people of this Province - the House was not in session, they did it through a press conference - and said, no, that is now going to be $63.7 million less. That is what they told us, and for that reason, in fact the major reason, we are going to be running at least a $120 million deficit. The Minister keeps nodding his head, so I am right spot on the mark so far. What they did not tell us at that time Mr.

Speaker, was that the most revised estimate, the October 1, 1990 revised estimate for equalization from Ottawa for the whole of this year - and we know it might change again in December, who knows, it might change up, it might change down - was $960,469,000. Nineteen million dollars more than we got last year, Mr. Speaker, in equalization, and only $6 million short, as of August 1, of what the Minister projected in his budget March 15. Now, Mr. Speaker, where, all of a sudden, did this grand emergency fiscal situation come from that the Premier and the Minister talked about in October?

They did not tell us, for example, in October - they told us later when the Mouse opened after the questions were asked. They did not tell us, for example, in October, that part of the equalization shortfall was because this Government decided in its wisdom or lack thereof, well that is something they have to answer for, but it was this Government that decided that they would re-pay a $34 million overpayment from last year in equalization, the Government was overpayed $34 million. It was this Covernment who decided they would re-pay that in this fiscal year. Did they tell us that, Mr. Speaker?

Did they tell us so that we could subtract that $34 million from the $63.7 million and say, 'yes, in that case then the equalization shortfall is somewhere in the area of $30 million.' No, Mr. Speaker, no such thing as honesty and straightforward, come forward and tell the facts and tell the truth. No, that was covered up. That was hid away until we got into this House and people started asking questions. Did they tell us, Mr. Speaker, that the Ottawa estimate as of October 1st for equalization was only $6 million short of what the Minister projected in his March budget? Mo, Mr. Speaker.

They told us that it was $63.7 million short. That is what they told us. More dishonesty. More deceit. More cover up. The statements that have been made by the Premier and the Minister of Finance since they started talking publicly about the fiscal situations facing the Province is just as fraudulent and just as deceitful as was the budget itself, Mr. Speaker, and they are continuing to do it. ci . 11 £30 October 29, 1990 vol XLI Mo. 66 R30

. . Mow, Mr. Speaker, if the October estimate out of Ottawa is only $6 million short of what the Minister's own figures were - Dr. Kitchen: Ottawa's figures Mr. Rideout: No, I am talking about If it Is only $6 million short of what your budgetary figures were. Dr. Kitchen: (Inaudible) buddies in Ottawa. Mr. Rideout: It is not my buddies in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker. You call up people in Intergovernmental Affairs and the Department of Finance officials and ask them - that is not buddies in Ottawa, Mr.

Speaker, that is people who work for the Government of Canada - and say what is your latest revised estimates of equalization payments for Newfoundland? No trouble to get the information, Mr. Speaker. None whatsoever. Dr. Kitchen: (Inaudible) and hid it away in March. Mr. Rideout: Hid it away in March. Why didn't you pay it in March? Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is honesty. If - Dr. Kitchen: (Inaudible). Mr. Rideout: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance will have an opportunity when I sit down, if he so wishes, to get up and answer all six questions that I asked him on Thursday which he has not got to his feet on at all yet. He will get a chance to get up and respond to what I am suggesting here today if he so wishes, but he has no right to sit over there in hiS chair and babble on like somebody who obviously does not know what they are talking about. Now, let me continue with the Minister and I hope he will get up.

If the latest Ottawa estimates, that is the point I was trying to make, are only $6 million short of what the Minister estimated himself in his budget in March, if that is the case then the operative question, Mr. Speaker, is do we still have a $120 million or a $130 million problem on our deficit? What is the deficit if those figures are correct? We know that $34 million of the $63.7 million was the payback of an over payment. But if the Ottawa figures are correct what is the current account position of this Province today? And when one asks that question, Mr.

Speaker, if we accept the word of the Premier and the Minister of Finance because they knew those things that I am talking about here today and we did not. They knew those things back in October when they made their statement. The operative question then becomes: if our deficit is still $120 million or if it is $130 million or if it is $200 million or $300 million, whatever the figure might be, whatever it is, and the Ottawa projections are correct and we are only going to be $6 million short of what the Minister himself projected, then where is the real problem?

Where is the real problem if those numbers are, in fact, correct, Mr. Speaker? There is only one other problem then, one other source of the problem and that is a gross over estimate of provincial revenues, Mr. Speaker, or over expenditure. If you take out the first one, the transfers from Ottawa, there are No. 66 R31 L31 October 29, 1990 vol XLI

only two more areas left and the two areas left are directly under the control of this Minister and this Government, estimated provincial revenue and controlling expenditures. So, if we are way out of whack on those figures. then, Mr. Speaker, we want to know. We want to know the truth. If we take the Ottawa figure of $6 million and discount the $34 million re-payment, if the Minister's $114 million out on his revenues and his expenditures, tell us, isn't it a proper and appropriate question for a responsible opposition to ask?

Tell us - if the deficit is now $200 million and the Ottawa problem is twenty-five or thirty of that, then is the Minister out $115 million or so on provincial revenues and expenditures? - We do not know, Mr. Speaker, and we will not know as long as the Minister of Finance continues to hug on to his seat for dear life.

We will not know unless the Minister is prepared to get up and share honestly and openly the information that will answer those legitimate questions put forward by the Opposition representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in a global capacity as the Government represents them in a global capacity. If there is going to continue to be stonewalling, and if there is going to continue to be nothing but only silence from the Minister, then, Mr. Speaker, would any opposition in its right mind allow this Bill to pass.

How could any opposition worth its salt at all allow this Bill to pass, giving the Government authority to go out and borrow another $325 million, when the most basic, elementary financial facts have not been put to this House. Why would any opposition, Mr. Speaker, that even remotely considered itself responsible, agree to pass this Bill when question after question after detailed question has been asked, yet the Minister has not once risen in his place and attempted to answer them. Mr. Sinus: He has not even spoken, I don't think on the Bill. Mr. Rideout: I do not believe he has spoken at all.

He introduced it, very briefl, but he has not spoken since, as far as I know, and there have been detailed questions asked about the fiscal position of this Province. How can the Minister, how can the Government, I say to the Government Rouse Leader, how can the Government expect the Opposition to acquiesce by passing this Bill, when those most basic, elementary financial questions; there has not been one attempt to answer them. We will deserve to be tarred and feathered and flung out of here, if we let that Bill go through without those questions, without attempting at least to get those answers.

We would not be fit to stare ourselves in the mirror if we let this Bill go through, and the Government knows that and what is their answer? Mr. Speaker, is their answer, co-operation and answering the questions, is that their answer? Well, the Minister of Finance has not yet stood and I read off six detailed questions on last Thursday and more today, is that the approach of the Government to be co-operative and provide the . . L32 October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 R32

. . . answers? No, Mr. Speaker, so far, the approach has been to stonewall, to continue to covet up, to say nothing. The Minister has not risen at all since he introduced the Bill to provide an answer, not that I am aware of, he certainly has not risen to give answers to my questions. The Government's answer, Mr. Speaker, is the •hobnail boot answer, as Mr. Neary, when he was here, would say. The Government's answer is the hobnailed boot, to drive everybody into the ground, to stifle democracy and bring in closure, that is the Government's answer, not to provide the House with the information and the facts.

Well, Mr. Speaker, r tell you this: we are not going to be intimidated or bowled over by that approach. The Minister of Finance and the Government can have this Bill within hours, if they start giving answers, but if they are going to continue to procrastinate, if they are going to continue to cover up, if they are going to continue to depend on closure, if they are going to continue to say nothing, then, Mr.

Speaker, its closure it will be, because this Bill will not go through between now and Christmas eve, unless we get answers, unless the Government uses the ultimate parliamentary weapon, the ultimate antidemocratic weapon and decides to cut off debate. If that is what the Government wishes to do, there is nothing I can do about it, but I think, that on behalf of the people of this Province, I have a right to expect answers to those questions which I have asked.

We have a right to expect answers to questions which other Members have asked and untLl the Government, particularly the Minister of Finance, gets on his feet and we can glean by listening to his reply, that he is attempting to provide honest, truthful answers, then the Government will have this Bill, if, and only if, Mr. Speaker, they use the closure rule that is brought down today, but they can have it within hours if they decide to be co-operative and give appropriate answers, detailed answers to the detailed questions. that we have been asking over the last several days. An Hon. Member: He is still not up.

Well, I guess it is closure it will be. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Fogo. Mr. Winsor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too want to have a few words to say on this loan Bill, especially since it is a wide open debate that can cover any area of fiscal management, or mismanagement I should say. I want to read to the Minister of Finance, some words that he himself had to say: However, we have been able to produce a Budget that addresses in a very significant way, this Government's three basic priorities of economic development, health care and education. A Budget that does not come down hard on the people.

This is a prudent Budget that will enable us to go a long way towards delivering to all regions of the Province, the fairest, the most equitable level of service, we have been able to provide and still be fiscally responsible to the present and to the future - with the Minister of Finance's signature. L33 October 29, 1990 vol XLI No. 66 R33

And the Minister had the nerve to proclaim that this was a great Liberal Budget. I heard the Minister of Social Services the other day, in trying to defend the indefensible, blame the problem on the previous seventeen years. Mr. Efford: If you want another constituent looked after (inaudible). Mr. Winsor: Yes, I can tell you about the stadium. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs stood in his place in the House and said the program that we have in place is even better. We will not build two stadiums or three stadiums, we will build even more. The question is, when?

Is it going to be in 1990-1991? 1991-1992? If the Member for Carbonear wants to speak - . 1 Mr. Winsor: Threats heard the Minister Services indicate problems were cause Administration of seventeen years. again. I of Social that the d by the the past Mr. Reid: (Inaudible). Mr. Winsor: Mr. Chairman, could you ask the man for silence? Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! (Inaudible) good words. Mr.

Winsor: He said that when this Administration took over, there was something like I think he said about 800,000, I cannot remember, 800 million I mean and now it is up to the range of 5.4 billion, he said. I would like to let the Minister know that last year this Administration borrowed $391 million, this year it is going to borrow $494 million, almost $1 billion in two years, so in seventeen years I suspect the deficit will be much larger. An Hon. Member: But that is not new money though, is it? Mr. Winsor: Borrowing.

Then the Minister of Finance said I suppose the Opposition has to say something about this best Budget that has been introduced in this House in about seventeen years. I wonder does he still say the same thing now - Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! An Hon. Member: Tell us about the stadium out in Fogo. Mr. - Winsor: The Member for Carbonear who keeps wondering about the stadiums. They were stadiums that this administration committed. Not only that since then I think there has been, in fact, perhaps the process got delayed a little. An Hon. Member: What Administration? Mr.

Winsor: The Minister on March 29 committed two major recreation complexes in this fiscal year. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Winsor: Two. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Winsor: What is that? An Hon. Member: When was election day? Mr. Winsor: March 29 this year your Minister committed two major recreational complexes to the tune of $1.5 million, not to exceed $3 million. C S L34 October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 R34

S I . An Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Winsor: No, it was a statement the Minister was going to announce by July. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Winsor: By July this Minister was going to announce the sites. But then in July there was a new kid on the block who got a feasibility done that was not suppose to be included in the phase two applicants. An Hon. Member: Where is that? Was it in a Liberal district? Mr. Winsor: Oh, I could not tell because the Minister of Development is not in his seat, so I could not dare mention where the new feasibility was completed.

Yes, it was suppose to be I think eight, and the number got up to nine to accommodate a certain district in the Province. The Minister of Development is not in his seat, so I would not dare mention where it is. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Winsor: The Minister wants me to tell about the party he had in Noggin Cove, where he had a few words to say and he forgot the grooms name. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Winsor: His name was Ches and he called him Charlie. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr.

Winsor: I want to take a few minutes, they sidetracked me on recreation because - you cannot really say a whole lot on recreation because this Government has no policy for recreation. This is the second year in a row that we see recreation getting shortchanged. Last year not five cents for new capital projects in Newfoundland, not five cents. All they did was carry on the commitments that fortunately the previous administration had made so they carry on - Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr.

Winsor: Does the Minister want to know about the feasibility study that was carried out, I think, for the Port au Choix area that somehow he was able to sneak into the system - Mr. Simms: Was it not included initially? Mr. Winsor: No, no, it was not included initially. And I am not saying these children - Mr. Simms: They were not playing politics? Mr. Winsor: No politics in that, because I think the Minister's statement had said that no new applicants would be considered this year, they would be stage one applicants, all others who had previously completed feasibility studies would be stage two applicants.

We want the stadium that you had committed, not the stadium, we need the sites. We are not so concerned because you made a commitment to the people of the Province that you would announce two sites. What we are waiting for is the announcement. This is very much, by the way, talking about an announcement of things, this is somehow similar to the announcement of the Central Newfoundland Campus that was promised and the Minister of L35 October 29, 1990 Vol XLI No. 66 R35

Education stood in his place time after time in this House - An Hon. Member:, The Minister for Gander. Mr. Winsor: Oh, the Minister from Gander. I cannot tell what the Minister of Gander said about the - An Hon. Member: (inaudible) Government is going to do. Mr. Winsor: No, the Minister never said that. I think the Minister was always opposed to the announcement of a campus for Central Newfoundland, and I do not think he was very supportive of Gander's bid. I was there waiting eagerly, thinking that the President of Treasury Board had lots of influence in Cabinet.

I was supporting the Gander bid I have to confess to my colleague from Grand Falls. I was supporting the Gander bid because of it being, of course, close to my district. In fact some of my district is only fifteen or twenty miles away, and perhaps instead of being on the Gander Bay road towards Gander they could even move it out a little further towards Gander Bay area and that would be my district. I had a vested interest in it and I never once criticized the Minister because I was thinking he was going to be able to pull some punches and get that campus but it did not materialize.

On the matter of education, of course, I spent quite some time in the classroom and I have watched the Minister of Education duck and skate over the issues for the past few days. We watched him, I think it was last Thursday, when he indicated that the strike for student assistants was all but over, there were just a few simple matters to resolve. But, lo and behold this morning the first thing I saw when I drove in were people on the picket line. I said, who are these people, I wonder, are they janitors or maintenance people?

I thought there was a new strike in the school system because I was so assured by the Minister last Thursday that it was all going to be settled. I picked up the paper today and you know what I read, that the student assistants could not even get anyone from Treasury Board to talk to them this weekend. They waited and waited for meetings and lo and behold no one showed up for the meetings. The commitments that had been given were not lived up to. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Sittuns: It might be foolishness to you but it is not foolishness for those students who are out on the street. Mr.

Murphy: (inaudible) Mr. Winsor: The Member for St. John's South is against everything so he can bat his gums as much as he wants to and nobody is going to pay any attention. I want to spend a little bit of time addressing the matter of in-service for teachers, because I think the Minister of Education has missed out badly on this one. In his attempt to save some money on Education I think he has missed out badly on the call to eliminate the number of days that substitutes can be called into the school system. If the Member knew what it was like in the classroom he would not make such ludicrous statements.

The Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island should know that already - Mr. Walsh: If I only knew what it was like to have Christmas off, S S S L36 October 29, 1990 vol XLI No. 66 R36

• Easter off and all Summer off I Fogo, and I do not think that is might be willing to give up one right. The hon. member should get day. protection. •! . Mr. Winsor: I thank the Member for his comment. Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Mr. Winsor: Did I hear 'the Member for Mount Scio properly when he said that he would not complain if he had Easter off, Christmas off, and all Summer off? Is thaE what I heard the member say? Mr. Walsh: I would never complain if I had that off. Mr. Winsor: You would never complain. Mr. Walsh: Would you complain if you had that off? Mr.

Winsor: The Member obviously does not know what it is like to be in the classroom. I ask the Chairman to ask the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island to be quite. The Minister can have lots of time to respond. Mr. Simms: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman: The hon. Opposition House Leader on a point of order. Mr. Simms: The hon. Member for Fogo has been struggling now for fifteen minutes to try to get some words out. He is elected to this House and he is entitled to express his opinions and points of view, but, Mr.

Chairman, it is very difficult for him to do it, as you are well aware, when members there, members there, and members there, continuously interrupt the hon. Member for Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Does the hon. Member for Fogo wish to be heard in silence? Mr. Winsor: Yes. Mr. Chairman: Okay. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Chairman: The hon. Member did request silence and there have been interruptions from both sides of the House, and it is unparliamentary for anybody to be interrupted. The Opposition House Leader now has a point of order, that the hon. Member has been continuously interrupted and the hon.

Member now has requested silence. So I recégnize the hon. Member for Fogo. Mr. Winsor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister missed the boat badly when he effectively cut out - the Minister will say that I have not done it, but I am giving boards, they still have substitutes. The fact of the matter is the boards are afraid to use them •because you cannot anticipate an illness will come. I am bold that the magic figure out there is twenty days. If you have a teacher and he is out for nineteen days sick leave for any number of reasons then that counts against your substitute days.

Get twenty, and it is okay. That these twenty days are not going to be included. So a teacher on long-term disability for two or three months could be out for L31 October 29, 1990 vol XLI Mo. 66 R37

forty school days, these forty days will not come from your number. If it is less than twenty they are going to come from your number. And school boards are afraid, very much afraid that somebody could have tonsils removed, for example, take three weeks out of school, or thereabouts which is going to come from their pool of days for substitutes. As a result we have seen already in this House the Special Interest Council, the Arts Councils of Newfoundland could not take place this weekend. We saw last week ads in papers saying that the Phys Ed Special Interest Council would not take place.

And one after the other we hear that the Primary Interest Council have cancelled their annual meeting for next year because they are afraid of the cutbacks. All this at a time when their focus is suppose to be on education. Right now in the school system new programs are constantly being introduced. The Minister, I think last year put something like $1.5 million into computers for the Province. Teachers cannot get adequate in-service for these. An Hon. Member: Why would they cancel the weekend conventions? Mr. Winsor: Why?

Well it was going to extend into a weekend Thursday, Friday and Saturday or whatever it is they go into. So on Saturday, the final day was suppose to wrap up and the President of - Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The hon. Member has asked for silence. Mr. Winsor: So, Mr. Chairman, the Minister inadvertently, I do not think the Minister was aware of the impact of these cutbacks, especially when they were announced retroactively, that this included April, May, and June of last year when there was not one school board in the Province knew anything about it.

The cutbacks were not announced, were not revealed to school boards until September this year. They had already used a large number of the days that were set aside. And what I cannot imagine is how the parliamentary assistant to the Premier and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, both former educators, both former Presidents of the NTA, who spent countless hours and days with professional days, from Nfl, that they did the in-servicing themselves. I wonder how the Minister and the parliamentary assistant can stand by and watch that occur.

The other area that has to be addressed in this is in health cutbacks. The cutbacks, or freeze, if we want to use the word that is being inflicted on the hospital and health care system in this Province can only work to the detriment of these particular boards. The fact of the matter is that some 75 per cent of the Budget that is used in Health is for salaries. I think the Minister of Health, if I can remember him the other day, he said, it was something in the range of $800 million for health care.

That would mean that $600 million has to be used for salaries; 75 per cent of that would be about $60 million which is probably the figure that is going to be cut from health care in this Province. And the I I L38 October 29, 1990 vol XLI No. 66 R38

. r r Minister continually says that there will be no cutbacks. Added to that we find the situation that the young nursing staff who have just been recruited to serve in the hospitals in this Province, they have already been given notice that because of the cutbacks, the threat and the fear of layoffs, they have no choice but to seek employment elsewhere. So the situation in health care is becoming critical. This Administration has done nothing to allay the fear out in the hospital and morale in the health care sector is at an all-time low. People are terrified. They do not know what their jobs are going to be.

They do not know who is going to pay the mortgage next month or the car installments. Because these cuts are coming. The Minister and the Premier can say they are going to wait for the impact statements, but they have been told to hold the budget in line with next year. Unless there are no cutbacks coming, the fiscal situation of the Province is not nearly as bad as they are making us believe it is, and this is an old attempt to get the two major bargaining groups, general service workers and teachers, to think there is nothing there for them and to force them into less than adequate wage settlements.

The Minister of Health is smiling. I do not suppose that is part of an insidious plan he has to try to force the other ones into signing, and they are really not in such fiscal problems or such restraints as they say they are. An Hon. Member: Mr. Chairman (Inaudible). Mr. Chairman:. Order, please! The hon. Member has requested silence. Mr. A. Snow: That is Graham and his munchkins. Mr. Winsor: That would be Graham. That would be the Minister of Forestry. Today in response to the questioning by the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Finance and the Premier, I thought, looked rather sheepish, and rightly so.

Because I think. of . the $960 million that was forecast to come to the Province, they knew in advance that some $34 million was an overpayment on last year. They knew that $34 million was not going to be in the system, yet they did a budget that said it was going to be there. Now what were they hoping for, that Ottawa, the one - a cover up - who never gives them anything, was suddenly going to say we are going to have to balance your budget and give you that $34 million.

The $34 million and the $6 million the October 1st figures indicated, indicate that some $40 million, whicE they talked of, and that is where he got his two figures, the $36 million they were overpaid last year which they knew about and the $6 million that was deficit. The question is, what is the real deficit? I do not know what the deficit is going to be now. We heard an announcement of $120 million. If it is only $6 million less and the Province has only been under some $16.8 million, it should be something in the range of $22 million.

That should be the actual deficit, yet we are hearing figures of $120 million, $200 million. Just what is it? I am much afraid it is only an attempt to force the bargaining units who are left to No. 66 . R39 L39 October 29, 1990 vol XLI

negotiate to come to less than adequate settlements, an attempt to intimidate, to scare them. It is an attempt to scare the rest of the people into settling for less than adequate wage settlements. An Hon. Member: It is shocking. Mr. Winsor: Terrible. The Minister of Labour stood in her place in this House on numerous occasions and talked about the wonderful job creation projects her department had, the Employment Generation Program. If we had Hansard we could look back.

The Minister, I think, said, we will not have projects that will last for ten weeks duration and then be finished and have people back on the social services program and so on, and she went to great length to describe those new programs of Government. I find it passing strange that in some of the programs she announced just recently, one of the requirements is for someone to be on social services. The Minister of Forestry in his projects he recently announced in Silviculture has basically the same lines. Has this Government all but given up on the economic policy this Budget was going to address?

They were going to concentrate on three things: the economy, education and health. We are going to have reductions in education services, reductions in health, I think the focus went down from 16 per cent of the Budget to 16.1, and in that it was commissioned out to the Economic Recovery Team. In the Hansards shortly after the Budget there are some interesting statements. I think the Minister of Social Services has one here himself. Let me see if I can find what he had to say.

He said, 'I mean, it gave us a clear pat on the back, and the Minister of Finance is telling us very, very clearly that the Budget of last week was the best budget to come down in the last seventeen years, since you were on this side, a budget in which the priorities were in the right place. I wondir if the Minister still stands by that, the priorities are in the right place? Because what we see in this budget is a serious attack on health and education.

I would like for the Minister of Education now that he is back in his seat, to tell us, in a few minutes, how education, his triple E, Efficiency, Equality - I forget what the other one was - is being addressed by the severe cutbacks, the restraints that are being imposed on the education system in this Province today. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Winsor: The Minister can not wait to get to his feet. Do you know what the Minister is going to do? The Minister has gone through an old file that he perhaps had in his 1966 - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr.

Winsor: The Royal Commission Report of 1966, I do not know if he is going to dust that off or if he is going through some notes he found up in the Education Department by which he is going to try to illustrate to teachers - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Winsor: I had to suffer through it. I did not read it, I suffered through it. Back in University in my earlier days, I had to suffer through that Royal . . S L40 October 29, 1990 Vol XLI Mo. 66 R40

. . . Commission Report. But the Minister is waiting to get on his feet. I will just bet the Minister can't wait to get on his feet and he is going to say that the previous Minister of Education, he too tried to effect savings in substitute teachers. I am sure the Minister can't wait to get to his feet. Well, let me tell the Minister that did happen, but it happened in a way that there was a negotiation process with the Newfoundland Teachers' Association. An Hon. Member: Come clean. Mr. Winsor: The Newfoundland Teachers Association, Treasury Board, the two parties sat down and they agreed on a method.

And they did not set a number of days, they said that the pay for substitutes - I can't remember the formula - would be set, I think, at per diem. The one they negotiated - let's not talk about the proposals, because in collective bargaining there are all kinds of things. The deal that was eventually settled on would be, I think, a teacher would get x amount of days, something arranged, or 140 or 150. But after three consecutive days for the same teacher, that substitute teacher would get the same pay as the regular teacher.

The problem the Minister of Education has now inflicted on the education system is that there will not be three days pay. There will be no pay, beèause there will not be any substitutes. The Minister is well aware that already in this province - Dr. Warren: (Inaudible). Mr. Winsor: The Minister keeps interrupting. He has lots of time to get up and have his say in Question Period. He dominates - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Winsor: The Minister dominates Question Period in his answers. He goes on and on and on. Now in debate, he has an opportunity - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Winsor: Oh a fine man, yes.

But no clout in Cabinet. That is what I am starting to think. He is losing his clout in Cabinet. The Minister does not believe what he is doing. The Minister does not want to see in-service for teachers cut back. He is a strong supporter. He thinks teachers should be continuously upgrading the