March 4,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 2

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. Government House Leader I would

just like to welcome to the House the new Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a bit premature

to recognize me as the Government House Leader, but in due course, all in due

course.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the indulgence of the House

and ask the House to agree to send condolences to the family of a very prominent

lawyer here in the city, Thomas Williams, known to all who knew him as, Tommy.

He was a former commissioner of the Public Utilities Board. His passing, I

understand, at least from those in the profession, is a big loss to the law

profession. His passing is also, I think, a big loss to the sporting fraternity.

He himself had been elected to the Newfoundland Sports Hall of Fame in 1982.

Indeed his great passion was tennis and just a few nights before his passing, I

think on the Monday night, I understand, he played a couple of sets and won two

sets, six love, and then promptly phoned his boys to tell them what a great job

he had done in tennis. But most of all, Mr. Speaker, to those who knew him he

was a real gentleman. He has made a significant contribution to all facets of

life in our Province and he will be greatly missed by all who knew him. I would

like the House to send condolences to his family, his wife Terri, his daughter

Nancy, and to his sons, Danny, Tommy, and Ed, and ask that our deepest sympathy

be passed on to them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have somewhat of a personal

reason for joining in the remarks by the hon. the Opposition House Leader. I

have known Mr. Williams for some twenty-five years as a fellow member of the bar

and have always enjoyed the many discussions that I have had with him over the

years. I have found him to be a fine man and a very pleasant man to be with. I

enjoyed the few occasions, and there were not all that many, when we encountered

one another legally, but enjoyed more the occasions when we encountered one

another on a personal basis. I join with the Opposition House Leader in

extending sympathies, and the request that Your Honour extend the sympathy of

all Members of this House to the family. I know his son Danny, who is also a

fellow member of the bar, somewhat better than I knew Mr. Williams, and worked

with him extensively over the years, particularly in a business venture that he

and I were both involved in at one time.

I called Danny and expressed my personal sympathy and I am

happy to join with the Opposition House Leader in supporting the request that

Your Honour extend the formal sympathy of all Members of the House.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too would like to

join in the motion by the hon. the Opposition House Leader and make the motion

unanimous, if I may. I have been associated with Mr. Tommy Williams from my

first day as an articled clerk, and, of course, as a friend of all members of

the family and particularly, of course, in law practice with his son Danny

Williams. Mr. Williams will be sadly missed by certainly his family, but also of

course by the community at large. Mr. Williams was a great Newfoundlander, a

very fine human being and well loved. I have to say personally that he was a

good friend. I would like to join in the motion that the House send its

condolences to the family signifying the very great sorrow we all share today.

Statements by Ministers

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I

wish to advise this hon. House that the hon. Premier and myself this morning

attended a signing ceremony for the new Canada/Newfoundland Cooperation

Agreement for forestry development in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: The signing ceremony was attended by the hon.

John C. Crosbie, the hon. Elmer Mackay and the hon. Frank Oberle on behalf of

the Federal Government and the hon. the Premier and myself on behalf of the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The new agreement calls for a total expenditure of $64.3

million over a period of five years starting April 1, 1990 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: - which means that expenditures incurred on

cost-shareable programs in 1990-91 will also be eligible for claim under this

agreement. The agreement is cost-shard between the Federal and Provincial

Governments on a 70/30 basis.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement augurs well for forestry in this

Province. We have one of the finest forest improvement programs in Canada. The

thinning program for example is one of the largest in Canada and it has been the

focus of attention across Canada. While we will be maintaining a significant

reforestation program for the areas which do not regenerate naturally, we will

continue to use the advantages of our abundant natural regeneration and then

improving it for better growth through thinning programs.

Mr. Speaker, the new forestry development program funded in

this agreement recognizes the need for integrated forest management and

sustainable development. We will, therefore, be pursuing a number of new

initiatives such as development of community forests, private woodlot

management, integrated management planning concepts and new areas of research

and technology transfers.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland has embarked on a new era of

managing its natural renewable resources. With the passage of the new Forestry

Act in the last session of the House, and now with the signing of this

agreement, we are well on our way to managing the forests as forest ecosystems

for production of all forest products and services from this ecosystem. We will

not only be managing the forests for wood production, but also for enhancing

other values such as wildlife habitat, water, soil and a green and healthy

forest environment for the use of our people.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement will provide a basis for making

our forest industry more viable and our forests more vigorous and healthy for

the use of all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this

opportunity to acknowledge the excellent spirit of co-operation between the two

levels of Government. I would like to express appreciation to the three Federal

Ministers - the Honourable John C. Crosbie, Honourable Elmer MacKay and the

Honourable Frank Oberle for taking time to come to Newfoundland and making this

worthwhile agreement possible. I would also like to acknowledge the fact that

this Government and the Honourable the Premier, have been most supportive of

enhancing the productivity of the forest resource of this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I would like to thank the Minister for sending

me a copy of his statement before coming to the House. From the outset I would

like to say that this is something constructive and I would have to, I suppose,

echo the comments of the Minister in saying that this is a good thing and a

great thing for the Province. The only thing about it, I do not know how much

was hung up last year pertaining to any silviculture programs or thinning

projects in the Province; I hope none. If there were, I hope it can all be

re-claimed from last year. Because, as stated in the statement, it is very

important.

I suppose we have all come to realize how important forestry

is to this Province, and how important, Mr. Speaker, it is now, especially now,

to a company like Abitibi, or Kruger, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. We have

finally realized that we are coming to a time in this Province when we have no

other choice but to act. If not, in eight or ten years - not fifteen or twenty,

in eight or ten years - in this Province, or probably sooner if we do not act

with regard to a good silviculture program and thinning program, we will be in a

lot of trouble.

Especially mentioned was the thinning program. This is one of

the largest in Canada, and I, for one, along with the companies, I am sure

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper anyway, and I am sure Abitibi-Price, would rather

see a lot more thinning than they would silviculture programs themselves. It is

the fastest way to accommodate the cutting of trees. We have a good silviculture

program. We need more I know, but then, again, it takes fifty to sixty years for

a tree to mature to the point of harvesting. But a good thinning project, and

good thinning with consultation between government and the forest product

industries in the Province, will make sure that our product, our resource to

keep those mills going over the next number of years will be available in a

shorter time period than it is with the silviculture programs.

The Minister also mentioned private wood lot management and

so on, integrated management planning. This has been going on in Europe for

years very successfully, especially their private wood lot program. It is

something which can be accommodated here as well. We have also seen that on the

west coast of the Province in certain areas, especially in the Codroy Valley

area in the last two or three years.

One of the things they do in Europe, Mr. Speaker, in Sweden

and Norway especially, and I guess the Minister is quite aware of it, is cut and

plant; you cut and you plant. Never mind this coming back a year or two or three

or four later and going over something it is too late for, as far as I am

concerned. We should have done it years ago in this Province, but now, today, I

think we should take advantage of it.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, it is a positive thing for the

Province and I look forward to seeing what happens with regard to the thinning

and silviculture programs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East is speaking

to this Ministerial Statement?

MR. HARRIS: I rise to speak to this statement, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of such an

attempt being made by the Member for St. John's East, I think it would be

appropriate to deal with this matter quickly and very early on in the Session.

It is clear, I think, that the right of reply to Ministerial

Statements applies to official opposition parties, or parties recognized in the

Legislature. The hon. Member of course is an individual Member, not unlike those

others in the House who sit both in the back benches on the Government side and

over on this side as well. I think the practice, or at least the intent of the

rules of the Committee which had been tabled in this House late last Fall I

guess it was, is pretty clear on what the intent of an official party would be

in terms of recognition in the House. I rise on a point of order so that Your

Honour will rule on this matter, and we will get the matter straightened away

right at the beginning of this session rather than have it drag out for any

great length of time.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To that point of

order. The Opposition House Leader is correct when he says there is a Standing

Orders Committee that introduced a report in this hon. House. Unfortunately, the

session prorogued and presumably this motion will be reintroduced at some point

in time shortly to allow for some limited debate in the House concerning the

report of the Standing Orders Committee. Perhaps the matter will be dealt with

more fully at that time, because that will be one of the points of discussion

and perhaps some debate, and will require at that point in time a decision of

the House.

MR. HARRIS: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I assumed the Member is speaking to the

point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the hon. the Opposition House Leader speaks of the

official parties. Obviously, the Opposition House Leader is the House Leader of

the official Opposition. On a point of order such as this I understand, Mr.

Speaker, that your ruling will be based not only on the existing rules and

procedure of the House but also upon precedent. It is my understanding that in

previous Assemblies, when the hon. the Opposition House Leader was a Member of

the Government, there was a practice of the Member for Menihek, sitting as a

representative of the New Democratic Party in this House, speaking to

Ministerial Statements. In view of that particular precedent that is before this

House, I believe it would be appropriate that the Member for St. John's East,

sitting as a representative of the New Democratic Party, be given an opportunity

to speak.

As the hon. the Government House Leader has said, the

Committee has reported. But that is a Committee of this House, and other than

tabling a report in the House it has no official status at this point in time,

it is merely the opinion of the Members of that Committee after deliberations

and presentation of its recommendations to this House.

So I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the existing precedents of

the House be followed and that I as the representative of the New Democratic

Party in this House be given opportunity to speak. I understand my colleague,

the hon. Government House Leader, may well be concerned that this party have an

opportunity to speak and respond to Ministerial Statements, but, nevertheless,

the rules of the House precedent I think ought to be followed in these

circumstances.

MR. SIMMS: To the point of order, one quick reference.

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

MR. SIMMS: Since the Member for St. John's East has

raised this point of precedent I just want to draw to Your Honour's attention

the appropriate references in Beauchesne which point out quite clearly that a

precedent on one occasion does not necessarily imply that there is a precedent

forever. I would ask Your Honour, if he intends to research the matter, that he

research that point, because I think that is important.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, clearly in this House

in order for a Member to speak to Ministerial Statements it happens under one of

two conditions: one, that the Member be a part of a parliamentary group, or two,

of course, by consent of the House. Naturally, by consent of the House just

about anything can happen.

With respect to the previous Member, to whom the Member

referred, Mr. Fenwick, the decision was made when there were two members, and at

that particular time the decision was not all that clear. But it seemed to be

that the Speaker of the day recognized them for the purpose of the House as a

parliamentary group. But nowhere in our Orders does one member constitute a

parliamentary group. However, we have done some research to find out whether or

not the previous Member, Mr. Fenwick, was allowed to comment on Ministerial

Statements when he was a single Member, and there is not much in our research

that we can find to that effect. I can only say I am quite certain that if he

were permitted to speak when he was one member, that it was by consent of the

House. But on several occasions Speakers have made rulings in this House that in

order to respond to Ministerial Statements, a member must constitute a

parliamentary group.

I will research it, and our staff will research it further,

but until I come up with further evidence, further proof, I would have to say at

this point that the hon. the Member for St. John's East is not permitted to

comment on Ministerial Statements.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: I would then, Mr. Speaker, ask the unanimous

consent of the House to speak in response to Ministerial Statements?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this to a point of order, or a point

of privilege or what?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has made a ruling that as far as the Chair is

concerned, at this point the hon. the Member for St. John's East, pending

further research by the Chair, is not permitted to speak on Ministerial

Statements. I will have that decision tomorrow. I have indicated that all the

research we have now does not show anything substantiating that one member can

speak to Ministerial Statements. When I took my seat the hon. Member asked,

under the circumstances might he have consent of the House to speak to the

Ministerial Statement. All the Chair can do is ask whether the Member does have

consent of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is not exactly a Statement

by a Minister, but the hon. the Member for St. John's East drew to my attention

something which may have been erroneous in a statement I made on opening day,

that a member in the Nova Scotia Legislature who wanted to cross the floor and

join the Liberal Opposition there was a New Democrat. That may not have been

totally accurate. He was indeed a New Democrat originally, and was elected to

the House. I do not recall whether he was elected as a New Democrat or elected

as an independent, but he was at the time he sought to cross the floor sitting

independent from the New Democrats. I believe that is correct, so I do not want

that incorrect statement to be on the record; he may even have been elected as

an independent, Mr. Speaker.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as Minister with responsibility

for sport, I think it is appropriate that the House of Assembly recognize and

congratulate all the athletes who represented our Province at the Canada Winter

Games. Our athletes and coaches, together with the officials and the many other

behind-the-scenes people, represented our Province with distinction and we are

indeed very proud of their performance in Prince Edward Island.

The Community Recreation, Sport and Fitness Division of my

Department was very much involved with these Games and I do know that all our

athletes worked long and hard in preparation for the Games, and participated

diligently and untiringly in the various competitions. I had the privilege of

witnessing many of the events and I can assure you that the Newfoundland

contingent was comprised of a young, enthusiastic and energetic group of

athletes, coaches, officials and volunteers. In all, they are a remarkable group

of individuals.

It is my personal belief that the success of these Games is

not fully measurable or visible in the number of medals which are won or, for

that matter, in the overall standings. These games constitute a tremendous

amount of athletic enjoyment, character formation, the chance to establish new

and lasting friendships and, of course, the opportunity to compete with Canada's

best.

I do want to assure our athletes that sport is and will

continue to be a high priority with this administration. As a Government, we

recognize that we have a duty and a responsibility to our athletes to improve

and to expand upon the opportunities available to them to participate and

compete effectively in sport at the provincial, national and international

levels. It was for this reason that Government made a significant financial

contribution to our athletes participating in these Games.

In conclusion, I want to express our congratulations not only

to the athletes but to the coaches, officials and volunteers, the many people

who gave so freely of their time, energy and talents for the benefit of our

athletes. Each and every one of you has every reason to feel proud of your

accomplishments and your performance at the 1991 Canada Winter Games in Prince

Edward Island. To all of you, we extend our best wishes for continued success at

all future events. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, let me thank

the Minister for the advance copy of his Ministerial Statement. We on this side

MR. SIMMS: The wrong mike is on, Mr. Speaker.

MR. RIDEOUT: Wrong mike, Jack.

MR. WINSOR: We on this side of the House also want to

congratulate the athletes and coaches on their fine showing in the 1991 Winter

Games. The athletes and coaches no doubt, as the Minister said, worked

diligently and untiringly in their various competitions.

I would like to take strong exception though to the

Minister's statement, `I want to assure athletes that sport is and will continue

to be a high priority with this administration.' Recreation practitioners in

this Province know that sport is not very important in the scheme of things with

this Government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: For athletes to develop you need facilities,

and this Government has had no commitment to recreational facilities in this

Province: it cancelled the capital works projects for facilities last year; it

announced a recreational regional facilities policy that it was going to

implement and it failed to live up to that. So how can athletes excel if this

Government does not provide the necessary infrastructure for them to develop as

athletes?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: The 1999 Winter Games, I understand, are

committed to the town of Corner Brook and that area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: City!

MR. WINSOR: City. Right! And if the Minister does not

make a greater commitment to the construction of facilities and increase money

for the coaching of these athletes, then I suspect our Winter Games will be in

deep trouble as long as this administration is in power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had intended to

pose my question to the Minister of Finance, but in his absence I will direct

the question to the President of Treasury Board.

When the Minister of Finance brought down his Budget in this

House in March of last year he predicted a current account surplus of $10

million. In September, Mr. Speaker, that figure was revised to a $120 million

current account deficit. In the House, on Thursday, the Premier in his speech

made reference to a $200 million deficit. Over the weekend the President of

Treasury Board made public reference to a $215 million deficit on current

account. Now the question I want to ask the President of Treasury Board is this,

Mr. Speaker. Can he tell the House whether or not the last official estimate we

heard in this House, of $120 million deficit on current account, is still the

figure being projected by the Government or is there some other figure?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very happy to

have the opportunity to clear up the obvious misunderstanding the Leader of the

Opposition has. There are a number of-

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well, if the Member would listen, he would

probably get straightened out quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: No wonder they are mixed up.

MR. BAKER: We are talking about a number of different

figures here. First of all, you have to distinguish between the fiscal years

1990-1991 and 1991-1992. That is the first thing you have to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right, right.

MR. BAKER: In terms of the 1990-1991 fiscal year,

sometime late September or early October we announced that we had serious

financial difficulties, there was a decrease in our revenues from the Federal

Government as well as our own provincial revenues, and there was some increase

overrun in expenditures that would cause approximately a $120 million deficit on

current account for the 1990-1991 fiscal year. That figure has vacillated

slightly month by month, but I would re-affirm to the Opposition Leader that in

fact that is still about what we are projecting, about $120 million deficit for

this current year on current account.

The other figures, Mr. Speaker, come from an estimation of

what would happen during 1991-1992 if we continued with our present practices

and increased spending in Departments according to the normal increase in

expenditures, and we talked in terms of a $200 million projected deficit for the

next fiscal year, 1991-1992, which is a different fiscal year so it is a

different number. That has also changed from time to time. At one point in time

we announced publicly, as well, that the estimate of $200 million was probably

$189 - $190 million, and there are monthly changes.

As a result of the Federal Budget there was an effect

somewhere between $10 million and $15 million on the Province, so our original

estimate of a possible $200 million deficit in current account next year because

of the Federal Budget becomes $210 - $215 million, in that range. So the extent

of the problem that we now have to deal with through our Budget, which is coming

shortly, we would have to deal with about a $215 million problem on current

account, had we continued the way we have been going for years in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good explanation (inaudible).

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

President of Treasury Board for his answer. So still the official projected

deficit for the present fiscal year, 1991, is $120 million approximately. Well,

we can understand it can vary a little.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister this: In the 1990 Budget

the Minister of Finance forecast that $1.394 billion would accrue to this

Province in various federal sources. May I ask the President of Treasury Board

what the most current projections of revenue is for the current fiscal year? I

am not asking for the next fiscal year, but for the current fiscal year. Is that

still a good solid figure as far as the Government is concerned?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the amount we end up getting from

the Federal Government during this current fiscal year will be down from the

amount that was projected in the Budget of last year; a year ago in March. So,

it will be down. As to the exact figure, it fluctuates from time to time, and I

will certainly get an up to date figure for the Opposition Leader and get it to

him as quickly as possible, but it will be less than what was projected in the

Budget a year ago.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we are just two or three days

away from a new budget and I am really surprised that the President of Treasury

Board would not have that projection right at his finger tips, but -

MR. SIMMS: He has it.

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, I am sure he does, and we will get it on

Thursday I suspect. But anyway, I have another question for the Minister, Mr.

Speaker. In the '90 Budget again, in the 1990 Budget, the Minister of Finance

forecast $1.568 billion in total in Provincial revenues. Now, can I ask the

Minister whether or not the current projections are still on target for that

almost $1.6 billion in provincial revenues for the current fiscal year? I am not

asking about the next one; for the current fiscal year, the Budget that is still

before this Province.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I do not have that figure right on the top of my

tongue, however, the Provincial revenues during the year have deteriorated in

one area in particular which has to do with the retail sales tax. So, there has

been some deterioration in provincial revenue during the year, yes.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I wonder had that figure really

deteriorated with the piggybacking that the government has been onto over the

last several months.

Now, let me ask the President of Treasury Board -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The Minister of Finance announced a whole

bunch of piggybacking I say to the Premier. Where has he been?

MR. SIMMS: Christmas Eve he announced it.

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the President

of Treasury Board one more question along the same lines. I have asked him about

federal revenue projections in the present Budget, whether or not they are still

on target. I have asked him about provincial revenue projections in the current

Budget, whether or not they are still on target. Now, let me ask the President

of Treasury Board this: In the 1990 Budget, the government projected a current

account expenditure of $2.952 billion, almost $3 billion in current account

expenditure. Can I ask the President of Treasury Board to tell the House whether

or not that figure is still current, or if it is not, what is the correct

figure?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two points: first of all, the reference to the piggybacking.

For quite some time there has been, according to your definition, piggybacking

in terms of taxation for many, many years. The RST was always enforced on top of

the manufacturer's sales tax, and then when the GST replaced -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well, do you want to listen or don't you.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. BAKER: You don't. Well, I will say it anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are supposed to provide the answers.

MR. BAKER: I am trying to give an answer if hon. Members

would listen. It is as simple as that.

Always, the RST was put on top of the manufacturer's sales

tax. The manufacturer's sales tax was removed and the GST brought in, and in

order not to suffer any serious deterioration in revenues we had to keep the

situation the same as it was before and has been for years. So, there has been

no sort of additional tax effort in terms of the piggybacking being a new

measure. It is something that has been in place for quite some time.

Now then, in terms of the other part of the real question

asked by the Opposition Leader which had to do with provincial expenditures,

current account expenditures, and again I do not happen to have the exact

figures to the decimal place on the tip of my tongue, however, there has been,

and I believe we have announced a couple of times, an increase in current

account expenditures.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Government House Leader as

well, the President of Treasury Board. I might, just in a way of a

preamble, say

that the piggybacking that we were referring to and everybody else is referring

to, of course, has to do with the piggybacking on cafeteria meals, on clothing

and items of that nature. They do not have manufacturing taxes included in them.

Those are the items that we are talking about. The government did do that and

does get additional revenue from it. That is the point that the Leader of the

Opposition was trying to make.

I want to ask the President of Treasury Board a totally

different question. Can he confirm whether he or any other minister of the

Government have in the very recent past met with senior public sector union

heads or representatives to discuss the Provinces financial difficulties, and in

particular, the plans that the Government has to downsize the public service?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is true that since October, as

a matter of fact, last October, I have been having meetings. They have been held

periodically with the leaders of the public service unions. I have discussed

with them a variety of things including the Government's financial position,

giving them details on our financial position, asked them for input they might

have in terms of the exercise we are going through, which certainly would

involve downsizing. I have asked them to go to their membership and so on, and

the reason was obvious. We have gone to the institutions around the Province and

asked for their input, we thought it would be proper to have input from the

workers and the unions representing the workers before we actually made our

decisions in terms of handling our $215 million problem in the coming fiscal

year.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I guess my question was perhaps

not quite clear enough. I want to ask the President of Treasury Board a fairly

straightforward question. Has he, or any Minister of the Crown, he or any

Cabinet Minister or Premier of the Crown, met very recently with the heads of

the public sector unions and have they in fact informed these unions of the

effects the 1991-92 Budget will have on their membership? Has he done that very

recently?

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

MR. BAKER: I understand the Opposition House Leader is

talking about public sector unions and not private as he indicated. Absolutely.

As a matter of fact, I guess the most recent meeting I had with the head of a

public sector union was within the last three or four days. The answer to part

of his question is, no, we have not given them any details in terms of the

effect on their particular unions, no.

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

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

I wonder if the Minister would tell the House what he told

the unions in the last three or four days? Could he tell the House?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have already described in

general terms what we are talking about. We are talking about handling the $215

million problem. I have been talking to them ever since very early last October.

These are the discussions we have been having and I feel that even if I wanted

to at this point in time at the spur of the moment I could not come up with the

details that we talked about. We just discussed everything. That is all I can

say to the hon. Member. The unions have not been told what the Government plans

to do. They have not been told the extent that this will affect their unions and

so on. If this is what he is getting at the answer is, no.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Premier. The Premier and the Government

were elected on a platform of fairness and balance, and specifically of

promising to introduce and enforce pay equity legislation. Exhibit A is a

Liberal campaign brochure bearing the Premier's photograph. On assuming office

the Government adopted the policy of the previous PC administration of

implementing pay equity for public employees by negotiating with public service

unions. Can the Premier indicate whether the Government remains committed to

implementing a pay equity program in 1991-92?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can only say to the House, Mr. Speaker,

that the Government commitment to pay equity remains as it was. We think there

should be pay equity in the public service and we are quite prepared to work

towards coming to an agreement as to when and at what rate it can be

implemented. Now, to implement a pay equity program in one fell swoop is

virtually impossible for the Government to cope with financially, so the

probability is it will be implemented over a period of time. The Government's

commitment to implementing pay equity will remain and if we work out the details

and the basis for it, the agreement for it, in 1991-92, I would expect that the

implementation of it will start in 1991-92. I do not expect, and would not

expect, that we would reach absolute equity in one year. I would not contemplate

that, but I suggest to the hon. Member that she and the other Members of the

House might wait until Thursday's Budget to get the statements directly from the

Minister of Finance as to what Government intends in terms of expenditures

during the coming fiscal year.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the

Premier. How does the Premier respond to the story that is circulating that the

Premier recently discussed his thoughts of axing the public sector pay equity

programme and in doing so, commented that: women have waited 400 years, so what

does it matter if they have to wait a few more years?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Very simple, Mr. Speaker. Like I always

respond. I do not respond to stories circulated by the hon. Member for Humber

East or the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia or the hon. Member for anywhere. I

do not respond to stories circulating.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I assure the Premier

it is not a story that I originated. Others involved in the women's movement and

the labour movement have told this story to me. My final supplementary to the

Premier is: when is the Government going to introduce in this Chamber the

promised pay equity legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member

is talking about, the "promised pay equity legislation." They formed the

Government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: - and for an eighteen year period - it is

a pretty good picture, too, as I -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: They formed the government for eighteen

years!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Eighteen years! Eighteen years!

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

PREMIER WELLS: They formed the Government, or constituted

the Government of this Province, for a period of eighteen years, and in eighteen

years they were never able to achieve pay equity. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been

in a little more than eighteen months. Just give us a little time, we will solve

that problem fairly soon, as we are slowly and steadily and reliably solving all

of the other problems, and as we will steadily and reliably meet every

commitment we have ever made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, my question is - in the absence

of the Minister of Education - to the President of Treasury Board. In the Sunday

edition of The Evening Telegram the President of Memorial University, Dr. Arthur

May, was quoted as saying: our tuition fees are two-thirds of the level of the

Atlantic university average; that we are charging $1,350 a year compared to

$2,000 per year in other universities; and that Memorial University might be

perceived as an institution that people attend only because they can't afford to

go anywhere else - a university of last resort.

Can the Minister tell the House whether he agrees with the

strong implications by the President's comments, that Memorial university is, or

is becoming, a university of last resort?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the strong

implications the hon. Member is talking about. First of all, I have not read the

report purportedly made by Dr. May. Obviously this Government does not believe

that Memorial University is a university of last resort, I think that is really

obvious. If the hon. Member wants to get information about statements supposedly

made by the President of Memorial University, I suggest he, after the session,

go over and have a chat with Dr. May.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: I think the Minister realizes only full well

that the statements made by Dr. May are out of frustration with the lack of

funding for the University. Does the Minister then agree with the further

implication, that in order for the University not to be perceived as a

university of last resort, that we should immediately jack up fees to $2,000, an

increase of close to 50 per cent?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned these

kinds of things are purely hypothetical because as I indicated earlier I do not

know if the statements were made. I do not know the context in which the

statements were made. I suggest again if the hon. Member wants to discuss the

philosophy behind it, and find out exactly what Dr. May said, that he go and

talk to Dr. May and find out. Mr. Speaker, I do not respond to questions based

on hypothetical comments that have been made, and obviously the Government

believes that Memorial University is a first class university and will continue

to be so for years to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to hear the Minister say that. Can he now tell us

then or can he assure the House that the Government will provide the necessary

support to the University so that the University will continue to be open to all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, not just those who can afford to pay the

higher entrance fees?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In a short time when the Budget is presented the hon. Members

will know how much money this Government will provide to Memorial University.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question was going to be for the Minister of Education,

but in his absence I will ask the President of Treasury Board. The faculty and

students of Cabot, Fisher, Marine and the other community colleges have

expressed great concern to this Administration about pending budgetary freezes

for 1991-92. Can the Minister indicate if he has had some discussions with these

administrations as to the programs for these institutions for 1991-92?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we went through a process. When

we discovered the situation we were in we went through a process whereby we

contacted all institutions in the Province, in particular, health and education,

but all aspects of Government, and asked them what would happen if they had a

frozen budget in the coming fiscal year with the same amount of money they had

in the previous years? We have received that input. In the process of doing so

there have been a lot of statements made in public and comments undoubtedly fed

by Members of the Opposition, making statements about things that were going to

happen when in fact nobody knew whether they were going to happen or not.

So, Mr. Speaker, the students obviously have expressed

concern about what they have been told are these huge cutbacks and so on. And

the response seems to be what is going to happen is going to be devastating to

various segments of our Province, the segments of the service in our Province

and so on. I can understand that.

I regret very much that we had to go through this process,

but we had to. And we will go through the same process again. It raised doubts,

it raised fears in all segments of the public service in the Province, but it is

a process that had to be gone through of necessity. We had to be straight, open,

and honest with the public service in the Province and with the people in the

Province as to the seriousness of our financial situation. We had to be open and

honest and we had to receive the feedback. The institutions that make up the

education sector at this point in time do not know how much money they are going

to have next year. That will be revealed in the Budget. And I would suggest that

the concerns about specific effects on any of the systems are better handled

after everybody knows for sure that there are going to be effects and exactly

what these effects are. At that point in time then we can have a much more

useful dialogue about these effects. But right now it is all blind, so to speak,

and the institutions do not really know what they have to operate on next year.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary. The Minister's answer on that question was

just as vague as he has been since he announced his first Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINSOR: A freeze all year.

MR. SPEAKER: This is an appropriate time to remind hon.

Members that there is no debate on the answers. In a supplementary the Member

should proceed to the supplementary immediately.

The hon. Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Minister confirm then that this Administration is

committed to a full range of course offerings and programs at the various

institutions, similar to the programs that are in place this year?

AN HON. MEMBER: No cutbacks.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we are operating in terms of

amounts of money that we provide to the institutions at a certain point in time.

On Budget day they will know how much money they will have to spend. At that

point in time they will have to make decisions on how to cope within that amount

of money.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier-

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, clearly there is a practice in

the House, although it is up to the Speaker - but most Members who ask questions

generally get a couple of supplementaries, especially if the Speaker has advised

them just at the previous supplementary, the first one, to get right to his

question. I am not sure if Your Honour saw the Member for Fogo, but I believe he

had one other-

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair did not see the hon. Member for

Fogo.

The hon. the Member for Fogo, on a final supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister

then, give an unequivocal commitment to the students presently enrolled in

multi-year programs at Cabot and the other institutions like Secretarial Science

Programs, that these programs will not be cut after the students have gone

through one year, that students who are presently enrolled in two, three and

multi-year courses will be able to complete these programs at the various

institutions throughout the province, because there is a fear out there that

these programs are now going to be axed?

MR. SIMMS: You have to repeat it, I do not think he

heard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. BAKER: I was going to make the comment to the

Opposition House Leader that quite often the question does not matter that

(inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) anyway.

MR. BAKER: The answer is that whatever has to be done,

whatever the effects are, we will ensure that it is done with consideration,

with humanity and bearing in mind the people who are affected.

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

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

the hon. the Premier and it relates to Bill C-69 in the Federal House. It was

introduced in the Federal Legislature last May, Mr. Speaker, the-

MR. SIMMS: You are not in the Federal House now.

MR. HARRIS: - question has to do with the Government's

response to that legislation and I want to ask the Premier, what action his

Government has taken to ameliorate the effects-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - of the loss in established programs

financing to this Province as a result of that Bill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: With great respect, I am not sure that the

hon. Member's question is a fair one.

We responded at the time and told them clearly that we

disagreed with it; we thought it was wrong, we thought it put Medicare in

jeopardy and I still think that. I still think it would put other programs in

jeopardy and I disagree with the approach of the Federal Government in

establishing these programs on a joint 50-50 basis, bringing them along so far

and then saying: from here on in Province, you have to take total responsibility

for it - when we do not have the financial resources to cope with it.

Now, that particular Bill will have the effect of shifting

substantial additional financial burden to the Province and the Province has a

very limited capability of coping with it. How we cope with these things will be

disclosed when the Minister delivers his Budget on Thursday. We will then be

responding in effect to the Federal budgetary decisions that were made in last

year's Budget and the Budget of the year before.

The main effect of the Budgetary decisions this year will not

be felt until next- the fiscal year after this coming one and for the next two

or three after that - those impacts will take place then, including the effects

of Bill 69. I believe that those cutbacks and restraints on Federal spending in

the social fields will transfer to this Province a burden that we do not have

the financial resources to cope with at this stage.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Premier in

the Fall of this year indicated that he was not certain of the effects of this

legislation, now I guess he is. Why does the Premier not take upon himself -

this cause of deterioration of contribution to provincial assistance to

Education and Health - as a cause across this country, like he has with other

matters; why does he not do that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility of

being Premier of the Province in all of its aspects, that one included. I cannot

divert my attention to one thing only and make it a national cause across this

country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

PREMIER WELLS: And all these years I thought I was not a

funny, entertaining speaker. Obviously I am, and I have been underestimating

myself, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: You are not entertaining.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: The simple answer to the question, Mr.

Speaker, is that I can have some impact, but the same kind of impact as other

premiers can have in expressing their concerns, as they have about the impact of

Bill C 69. I can do that. But I can't drop everything and make this a national

cause and take it across the country. I have responsibilities other than that.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

ooo

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

Whereas the economic performance of Newfoundland and Labrador

has worsened substantially since the current Government assumed office almost

two years ago; and

WHEREAS this worsening economic situation has severely

affected the ability of the Government to maintain essential public services;

and

WHEREAS three successive Speeches from the Throne have

promised an economic plan for the Province and no such plan has yet been

produced; and

WHEREAS the Government has shown a total lack both of

economic leadership and of a clear positive vision of the future of Newfoundland

and Labrador;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House condemn the

Government for its failure to provide economic leadership and to promote

economic development for Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is a little bit out of practice

and we skipped over an item. Would hon. Members agree to going back to Item C

and we will come back?

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

table the reports of the exceptions to the Public Tendering Act that have been

presented to me since the last sitting of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I want to give notices of some

motions on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Finance who is away on Government

business today.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce a Bill entitled,"

An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting A

Pension Plan For Employees Of The Government Of The Province And Others."

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a Bill entitled, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Between The

These Governments And Their Agencies."

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a Bill entitled, "An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For

Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, The St. John's Fire Department,

And The Staff Of Her Majesty's Penitentiary."

I give notice that I will tomorrow move that the House

resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider the

raising of supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

I also give notice, Mr. Speaker, that I will tomorrow move

that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to

consider certain resolutions for the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House

resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain

resolutions for the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion. The hon. the

Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Dealers

Act," and I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill

entitled, "An Act To Amend The Optometry Act, 1981."

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. The Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The City Of

Corner Brook Act, 1985, The City of Mount Pearl Act," and, "The Municipalities

Act, Bill No. 11."

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on tomorrow I will ask leave to

introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador is

critically dependent on the ongoing performance of the fishing industry, and

WHEREAS the performance of the industry and the economic

well-being of hundreds of communities throughout the Province are affected by

fisheries management decisions of the Federal Government, and

WHEREAS (audio trouble) in waters adjacent to Newfoundland

and Labrador, and

WHEREAS criteria of the 1990s under the utilized groundfish

program gave priority to fisheries related companies, or vessels adjacent to the

resource, and

WHEREAS the 1990 program criteria also gave special priority

to the needs of those fish plants that would otherwise close, and

WHEREAS these priorities have been totally removed in the

1991 groundfish development program,

BE IT RESOLVED this hon. House to call upon the Federal

Government to reinstate in the 1991 groundfish development program those special

provisions of the 1990 underutilized groundfish program that gave priority to

adjacency considerations as well as to the needs of those plants that would

otherwise close;

AND

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call upon the Federal

Government to attach greater priority to the onshore processing of underutilized

species, and that Greenland halibut, turbot, in waters immediately adjacent or

adjacent to the Province in areas 2J and 3KL be excluded from the 1991

groundfish development program, given that its inclusion will adversely affect

the interest of traditional local user groups, particularly the inshore fixed

gear sector.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The

Newfoundland Law Reform Commission Act."

I give further notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Provincial

Court."

I give further notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting

Juries."

I give further notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Evidence Act."

And finally, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I wish

to rise today to present a petition on behalf of some 400 teachers, all members

of the Waterford Valley branch of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition reads: As parents and

educators, we, the members of the Waterford Valley branch of the Newfoundland

Teachers' Association, wish to convey our extreme displeasure with this

Government's policies and attitude toward education and teachers.

The severe Budget restrictions, with their resulting cutbacks

and freezing of further spending in 1991, and the lack of government willingness

to bargain professionally and in good faith with the teachers of this Province,

can only impact negatively on the education of our young people. On behalf of

our children, our students and ourselves, we protest. Young Newfoundlanders,

like their counterparts throughout Canada, need to be poised to meet the demands

of the twenty-first century, not mired in the midst of the twentieth century.

Mr. Speaker, there are some very strong words in this, some

of the strongest words I have heard in petitions presented to this House of

Assembly. The Waterford Valley branch, at least, of the Newfoundland Teachers'

Association, can see the problems this government is going to create. They have

created some, but they are about to create many more problems in the education

of the young people of this Province, Mr. Speaker. I guess the point that

strikes home with me, Mr. Speaker, in this petition to the government, is that

we all know that in national exams, when our students are compared with students

of the same grade and age throughout Canada, our Newfoundland students come up

short of the national standard, Mr. Speaker.

So the answer to increasing our children's possibility of

being competitive in this nation of ours, Mr. Speaker, especially in getting a

good education, would be to help them get a better education. But this

government's answer, Mr. Speaker, to the children of this Province is to cut

back on education, to double up classrooms. I am sorry the Minister of Education

is not here today. To double up classrooms, as he said, could mean $30 million

cutbacks, or it could be as much as $30 million taken out of the education

budget, Mr. Speaker, which cannot possibly do anything to help our students in

this Province get up to the national average of comparable students throughout

Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the two former presidents of the NTA, who

sit across from me in this House, will take up the cause on behalf of their

former colleagues. They were out on the steps of Confederation Building not too

many years ago asking for similar benefits, Mr. Speaker. I know in one case when

they tried to get a strike going they were months and months trying to contrive

an issue, and the substitute teacher issue, I guess, was the one they grabbed on

to. Well, Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) issue at all. At that time, did they deserve

a strike, Mr. Speaker, as we have now with cutbacks and doubling up of

classrooms and having our young people get less education than others? I would

also recommend that the St. John's Members in this House of Assembly have a look

at this petition to see the names on it. I know at least 30 per cent of them

worked on Liberal campaigns last time. But there is one name that is conspicuous

by its absence, the name of a member of the Waterford Valley branch of the NTA,

who now happens to be the President of the Liberal Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Already, Mr. Speaker, he has deserted the

people who worked for him during the last election. He would not put his name on

this petition because he is concerned about the Premier's new policy for the

Liberal executive: were he to put his name on this petition, he would not be

allowed to run for the Liberals next time. That is one of the reasons why he did

not put it on there, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, 63 per cent today. What about in a

week's time? We'll see.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wait until your Budget comes down.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I know of several on this

who, up until a few months ago, were members of the Liberal Association of

Kilbride. It has never been very active but it is now dead, because these were

the only four members in it. And one of them, a former vice-president, presented

this to me and gave me this petition to present.

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! By leave!

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand in support of

the petition so ably presented by my colleague, the Member for Kilbride. I say

to the President of Treasury Board that the games he and his colleagues are

playing with the teachers are having an extremely serious effect on the

education system of the Province. Not that we do not negotiate, and that in a

negotiating process there is give and take, there are good times, there are bad

times. But what is happening now that the charades being played by Government

have caused a tremendous amount of uncertainty within the educational system of

the Province, a number of teachers are upset, number one, that the whole thing,

the whole process has taken so long and that the achievements are so few, but

mainly the uncertainty and discontent that exists carries over to the students.

And that is the sorrowful thing about it, because they are the end beneficiaries

of anything we do in the educational system in this Province.

I remind the Minister that it is now over six months, more

than six months since the collective agreement ran out with the Newfoundland

Teachers' Association and still we see `talks now have broken off'. So instead

of making progress and getting close to signing an agreement, it seems that the

opposite is happening. I would also remind the Minister perhaps that if he

researched he would find that the last agreement, signed when the Opposition

House Leader was then President of Treasury Board, was signed before the old

collective agreement ran out. Not within days or weeks or a few months, but even

before the old one ran out, the first time it ever happened in history. So maybe

the President of Treasury Board should talk to the former President of Treasury

Board and get some hints on how to negotiate a proper collective agreement.

But I would suggest to the Minister that he stop playing

games with the Newfoundland Teachers' Association, that he sit down and address

the issues properly so that the children in the schools will not be affected by

the uncertainty that presently exists, and hopefully we will see a quick

collective agreement. Because if not, if we get into a situation whereby

teachers go on strike and so on, at this time of the year in particular, the

people who will suffer most are the students, and those are the ones with whom

we should all be concerned. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition I wish to

present on behalf of 450 people in the District of Windsor-Buchans, represented

by my friend, the Minister of Forestry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, that is not exactly what this petition

says.

Mr. Speaker, my friend for Windsor-Buchans will remember the

occasion when this petition was presented to me because I believe, in fact, he

had another petition presented to him at the same time, if I remember correctly.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SIMMS: Oh, yes. It is a separate petition. I expect

him to be presenting it in the House any day, if not today. Perhaps he is doing

it today. Nevertheless, it is a petition which was presented to me, Mr. Speaker,

at a public forum held on January 14 at St. Francis Xavier School, in the

Windsor portion of the new Town of Grand Falls-Windsor. At that meeting there

were, I think, somewhere in excess of 600 teachers, students, parents and

citizens of the surrounding communities in that particular region, over 600. It

was one of the largest public meetings, I think, held out in the area, with the

possible exception of the public meeting that was held when I was nominated for

office - that was a bit larger. But, Mr. Speaker, at that meeting the Member for

Windsor-Buchans and the Member for Exploits, the former president of the NTA,

one of the two former presidents who sit in the Liberal caucus, and I were

invited to sit on stage. I was delighted to do so, of course. I am not quite so

sure if my two friends were as delighted as I was, but certainly they did

appear. And I do not want to be disparaging at all towards either of their

performances, but just let me say that the background of the former President of

the NTA did show through and he was able to deal with some of the questions,

although I think he had a rough time, but not nearly as rough as the Minister

who was representing the Government at that public meeting, my friend from

Windsor-Buchans.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what did these 450 people say? and that is

just one petition? Well, the prayer of their petition is pretty straightforward

and I will read it: `We are very concerned about the proposed and/or planned

cutbacks to the primary, elementary and secondary education programs in this

Province. Our Province has the lowest literacy rate in Canada already. More

dollars, not less, are needed to ensure that the graduates of the future in this

Province are brought up to the national standards. More dollars, not less, are

needed in rural Newfoundland to ensure that there is equality of educational

opportunities in this Province...' And they, of course, petition the Government

to respond to this petition.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I only have a couple of moments so I want

to get right straight to some of the comments that were made at that public

meeting. Now as the Members will know, I believe, I sent a letter to the

Minister of Education giving him my views on what occurred at the meeting, and I

did it fairly clearly. I think I took a note of just about every comment that

was made from the floor to the best of my ability, unless I missed one or two,

because we were all asked to give a report to the Minister of Education. Here

are some of the comments made at that public meeting, Mr. Speaker, just to give

you some idea. Government representatives at the meeting were indeed accused of

sidestepping the questions they were being asked that night. Well, I think that

was to be expected. But certainly they were accused of that, sidestepping

questions. There was a comment from a parent about the lack of leadership in the

Province these days, the Government moving in the wrong way and making the wrong

decisions. Another comment: teacher morale is at an all-time low and this is

terrible for education, but even more terrible for the kids. Where is Dr.

Warren? Where is Premier Wells? That was a question that was put throughout the

evening. Where is Premier Wells? We heard a lot from him on Meech Lake, but

nothing on this.

A question to Mr. Grimes put that night, Mr. Speaker, a very

important question I thought.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who?

MR. SIMMS: You have an ethical responsibility, I think

was the way it was put, to ensure the students get a good education. Don't you

have difficulty sleeping at night? or words to that effect, I think was the

question put to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Now the Member for Exploits handled that

question as best he could, considering the way the question was put.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this. At that

meeting those six hundred or so parents and students and teachers expressed a

considerable amount of frustration and anger at what has been going on in the

Province now for the last six or seven months, at that time for three or four

months. And, Mr. Speaker, whether there are cutbacks or no cutbacks come next

Thursday, the fact of the matter is these people and hundreds and thousands of

others like them throughout the Province have gone through an awful time of

anxiety.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: So I hope the Government will respond

positively to this particular petition.

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to take a few

moments and support the petition so ably presented by the Member for Grand Falls

and to say that on today, the beginning of Education Week, it is fitting that we

have several petitions in this House relating to the educational system in this

province. Mr. Speaker, what is happening in this Province, what the Member for

Grand Falls has just said, is that there has been irreparable harm done to the

education system already this year by a Government that seems to delight in

psychological warfare against its public servants in one regard -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POWER: - and against its teachers in another. All of

these threats of cutbacks sometimes have the same effect, in that they can make

sure that the students who are in classes in Newfoundland this year are getting

a demeaned education because teachers are concerned about their own security.

Last fall we saw how difficult it was to (inaudible) in the Student Aid

programme, to get those student aids, to make sure they had jobs, to make sure

they were not all going to be laid off, to make sure that some of the most

disadvantaged children in our school system were going to have special treatment

this year.

This morning I attended an Education Week proclamation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You broke the law. Be quiet.

MR. POWER: An Education Week, Mr. Speaker, where, for the

first time since I have been in this Legislature, fifteen or sixteen years, the

Government has not got up at the beginning of Education Week, either the Premier

or the Minister of Education, and officially declared Education Week as open, as

being proclaimed, as being an important week in the lives of Newfoundlanders,

all those people involved in the educational process. Today, in this new

Legislative Assembly, there was not one mention by one Member of the Government

of the beginning of Education Week. The hundred years of - the legacy of growth.

Why didn't they mention it? Do you know why, Mr. Speaker, they didn't mention

Education Week? Because they are ashamed, ashamed of what they have already done

for the educational system in their two years of Government. And they are also

equally ashamed - and probably do not have the full support of all their caucus

- for what they are about to do to the education system on Thursday. That is why

there was no mention of Education Week.

The education system in this Province is, I suspect, worse

today than it was two years ago. In this wonderful brochure the Member for

Humber East mentioned earlier on when she was questioning the Premier - this is

the Premier's brochure, albeit with a lovely picture and lots of nice -

AN HON. MEMBER: You can have one like that (inaudible).

MR. POWER: - nice decorations. Maybe I will have one. But

when I put something on my brochure it will be the truth! It will not be lies,

and it will not be gobbledygook!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POWER: Now either the Premier was lying or he was

telling the truth when he put in his brochure - when he said he wanted to be

Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador he said: a Liberal Government will provide

students with equal educational opportunities regardless of where they live in

this Province. The second platform was, they will reform the school tax system

to make it more efficient and equitable. Have those things been done? Do all our

kids in Newfoundland, on the coast of Labrador and in Ferryland, have the same

opportunity that children have in St. John's? The answer is no. No, we do not

have equal educational opportunities in Newfoundland.

And this Government, which said that education was to be one

of their priorities, has now put it on the back burner, has now said that what

really matters in Newfoundland and Labrador in tough times is to make sure that

Standards and Poor and Moody, and the credit rating agencies in New York, do not

downgrade our credit rating because we do not want to borrow any money. So

everything that is in the social sector - health, education and welfare - are

being put on the back burner so we can balance an account to make sure that the

Premier and the Minister of Finance are treated with some kind of fiscal respect

when they go to New York.

Mr. Speaker, I say in this week of education it is time for

this Government to start moving education forward rather than putting it

backwards, as they have been doing for the last couple of years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask Members on my left to please restrain themselves.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the enthusiastic

reception I got from the Member for Carbonear and other Members opposite.

I wish to present a petition of 284 residents of Pasadena.

The petition was taken up by the Pasadena Home and School Association. Your

Honour has seen the petition. I went to Your Honour's office just before the

House sat to show Your Honour the Petition. It is not in exactly the correct

form although the intent is clear. It says: We the undersigned respectfully

request your department not proceed with recently announced cutbacks to the

education budget.

Similar petitions have been ruled in order by Your Honour and

presented earlier in the Sessions of this Assembly. But before I proceed

further, I would like to have the permission of Your Honour to present the

petition.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Member. The Member did show me

the petition, and again, in these situations I generally put it to the House.

The prayer is not exactly - as the Member said - according to the requirements

of our House, but I ask hon. Members for their consent.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Your Honour.

As I said before, this is a petition of 284 citizens of the

town of Pasadena. Pasadena has a population of 3,500, so it is quite a high

percentage of the citizens of that town.

The petition was spear-headed by the Pasadena Home and School

Association, and the president of the PTA asked me to present the petition in

this Assembly and refer it to the Minister of Education. It was taken up in the

late fall and arrived at my office in December just after the House recessed for

Christmas. So, this is the first opportunity I have had to present it in the

Assembly, and it is fitting that this is the first day of Education Week.

The prayer of the petition is as follows: We, the undersigned

respectfully request your department not proceed with recently announced

cutbacks to the education budget. Such measures can only restrain opportunities

for progress in our education system and down-grade the quality of education in

our Province.

Our school boards are trying to provide programs for our

children which will prepare them for the future. This is being done with limited

resources. We ask that these resources not be eroded any further.

Mr. Speaker, Pasadena is a progressive town. It is

prosperous. Most people there are employed. It has vitality. The business

community is healthy. There is a Venture Centre which is an innovation in the

Province in terms of assisting new business starts. One measure of the

progressive attitude of Pasadena is that for the past ten years there has been

one jointly operated high school. Pasadena Academy serves all the senior high

school students in the Pasadena area, young people of all denominations go to

the one high school. It is jointly operated by the Deer Lake integrated board

and the Humber - St. Barbe Roman Catholic board.

So, despite that consolidated high school operation and the

economies that are associated with it, people in Pasadena are aware that

schooling is being operated on a shoe string and that over the past year there

has been erosion in education funding and in the quality of education. When they

wrote this petition they were thinking particularly of the cut in funding for

substitute teachers this year. That has had the result of disrupting

professional development and in- service programming for teachers and that has

caused school to be closed on school days for teachers to have some kind of

professional development program.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Pasadena who are petitioning our

Assembly and the Minister of Education, realize that education is the key to

successful living. Education in today's economy, which is information based, is

more important that it was in the past. The parents who signed this petition,

for the most part, are well educated themselves and they want their children to

have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MS. VERGE: With leave, Mr. Speaker, I will just round out

the presentation of the petition.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave. The hon. Member's time has

elapsed.

MS VERGE: No leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: No.

MS. VERGE: Okay, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great

pleasure to rise in support of this petition presented by the Member for Humber

East on behalf of parents of Pasadena. But I think really the parents of

Pasadena are speaking for the parents of the Province. Because this

Administration has embarked upon a programme that is virtually destroying the

educational system in this Province, as well as the morale of its teaching

force. Make no mistake about that, the morale of the teaching force in this

Province is at an all-time low and it can only have an affect on the quality of

education delivered to our students, that, coupled with an Administration that

is going to drastically reduce the services offered to our schools by imposing

budgetary freezes.

Now the Premier likes to say there are no cutbacks. But the

fact of the matter is the cost to the educational system has risen by some seven

or eight per cent, maybe ten. On a $700 million budget it means that there is

$70 million needed for the system next year which this Minister has not found.

The Minister has also embarked on a programme of sending a

task force throughout this Province to find out what parents, educators and

other people see wrong with our system. This report is going to be due I

understand some time in the fall. Maybe they have requested an extension. But

even before the report comes the Minister of Education has virtually been

coerced by the President of Treasury Board to already gut the system that is in

place, which can only diminish the education that our students receive.

The Minister of Education has on numerous occasions said that

money spent on education is not spent, it is invested. And that is what the

parents of this Province are saying, that it is now incumbent on this

Administration to set aside what they have already said, backtrack on their

words, and reinvest the money that should be put in education. Because it is not

money spent. It is money invested. If this Province is to survive economically

then the first step is to invest it in education. And until this Administration

addresses that problem then we will experience difficult times.

The parents of Pasadena come from a school where joint

services are already in effect, and the Minister of Education constantly refers

to the need for joint services. If that is already in place, as it is in many

schools in this Province, then the Minister cannot justify his cuts, certainly

to these areas where cost-efficiency is already in place.

I too want to join with my colleagues on this side of the

House in congratulating teachers as they begin Education Week. And then we have

to make note of the fact that the Government for some reason has chosen to

ignore completely the tremendous contribution that educators have made to the

life of this Province. And on this side of the House we certainly want to extend

congratulations to teachers and parents and educators in the Province as they

begin this Education Week.

Thank you.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to very

briefly respond to a few of the points that were brought up. I have been waiting

until enough of them had come along.

First of all, there seems to be some confusion. Some of the

petitions were presented as a response to the announced cuts and so on. There

have been no announced cuts, and Members will have to wait until the Budget on

Thursday to see for sure if indeed there are cuts to the educational system. So

I would like to point out that, first of all, it is not correct to say that cuts

have been announced. No cuts have been announced. Therefore, the comments in

that sense are meaningless.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) freezes.

MR. BAKER: Secondly there have been no freezes announced

either. Nothing has been announced. That will be handled in the Budget process.

I do not know how many times I have to say it. But we have gone out to the

system and asked them what would happen if they had to survive on a budget the

same as last year? That is all. There have been no freezes, no announced cuts.

Any announcements to be done will be done on Thursday in the Budget. So the

comments from that point of view are meaningless, because nobody knows what cuts

they are talking about, to be honest with you.

The second point I would like to comment on is that there

seems to be an indication that our education system is not good. There were a

couple of comments made about the level of literacy, and our students do not

make out compared to other provinces, and so on. I would simply like to make the

comment, that in spite of the fact that we have on paper the lowest

pupil-teacher ratio in Canada, on paper we have the most highly-qualified

teachers in Canada. Then it must be something about the system. Members opposite

were in control for seventeen long, long years. And to have allowed that

situation to develop is absolutely scandalous. Obviously there is something

wrong with the system that has to be corrected. We are now trying to get at what

is wrong with the system and correct it.

Thank heavens there is a Government in power now which is

attempting to deal with the problem and not simply throw money at the problem

the way Members opposite tended to do. So I say thank heavens we did take over.

There were a number of other points raised but I would simply

like to say that the negotiations have been long, certainly they have been long.

But the mess that was left there was so great that it takes a lot of negotiating

to straighten it out. You people left over $1 billion unfunded liability in the

pension fund, going merrily on your way, everything is great, allowing the

pension fund to go bankrupt, teachers' pensions to disappear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. BAKER: You sat there for seventeen years and allowed

that to happen! Make no wonder it takes us a few years to try to straighten

things out.

AN. HON. MEMBER: We were the first (Inaudible) to ever

(Inaudible) money into a pension plan in this Province!

MR. NOEL: So why didn't you put in enough?

AN HON. MEMBER: The first (inaudible).

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

This again might be an appropriate time to remind hon.

Members the direction in which discussion should take place. During a petition -

and I read to hon. Members our Standing Order, number 92, which says: "Every

Member offering a petition to the House shall confine himself to the statement

of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and

the material allegations it contains." And it is not meant to get into serious

debate, or certainly, extraneous matters, but to stay to the allegations

contained in the petition. I remind hon. Members of that and ask for

cooperation.

Further petitions?

Before moving to the Orders of the Day, I would like to

clarify the position which I ruled on a little earlier with respect to the

Member for St. John's East being afforded the right and the opportunity to speak

to Ministerial statements. As I suggested in the ruling, my recollection, after

many many years sitting in this House is that no single Member was given

permission to comment on Ministerial statements other than by consent of the

House, and of course we know by consent of the House Members can do anything,

because the House then suspends its rules and allows a Member to speak by

consent. And the ruling has been made on several occasions.

But with respect to the former Member of the NDP, Mr.

Fenwick, we have two occasions on which he spoke to a Ministerial statement and

I want to bring these to hon. Members' attention. The first was on May 8 1985,

when there was a Ministerial statement given with respect to developments at

Wabush. Mr. Fenwick rose in his place to speak to the issue and after a couple

of sentences, Mr. Barry, who then, I believe, was the Leader of the Opposition,

rose in his place and said: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker

recognized him, and Mr. Barry proceeded to say: So as not to rest on our

prerogatives, by leave Members on this side would acknowledge that the Member

for Menihek should have an opportunity to reply, but I do not think it would be

appropriate to establish the precedent that we have a number of replies to a

Ministerial statement.

The Premier of the day, Premier Peckford in turn spoke to the

point of order saying: We agree with the Leader of the Opposition, that there

are rules and we have to stick to them, but it concerns the hon. Member's

district and by leave, I think he should be able to respond to the Minister's

statement; but it is by leave and the Speaker then forthwith asked the House

whether or not the hon. Member had leave and he was granted leave.

On the second occasion, it was a similar matter referring to

Developments in Labrador City and the Member for Menihek, Mr. Fenwick, got up to

speak to the statement saying: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I know it is by

leave that I get permission to speak at this time, and, Mr. Speaker, intervened

to say: Order please! Is this by leave? And hon. Members said: yes, by leave.

So, there were only two occasions and leave was granted on each occasion, so the

ruling that I have made is the ruling that is appropriate for this House. One

member does not constitute a party and it is only by leave that that member

could respond to Ministerial Statements.

Orders of the Day

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Order 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 1, Address in Reply. The hon. the

Member for Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will

take some short time today just to make a few comments on the Throne Speech

presented to this House one day last week. But before I get into commenting on

the Throne Speech, I do want to congratulate the mover, the Member for

Pleasantville, on his presentation. I do not disagree with a lot of his content

but I am very surprised that he would be allowed to say that on that side of the

House, because it certainly appeared to me that there was a lot of

anti-confederate sentiment in that speech. Knowing the hon. Member as I do - I

worked with him on a committee for the last year or so - I am sure that was not

his intention; but it certainly did leave the impression that the Member for

Pleasantville, the present Member for Pleasantville, could very easily be

persuaded to lean towards anti-confederate sentiments. I am sure when he reviews

his speech he will try to get rid of those sentiments because I am sure he is

very supportive of the Canadian system, the Canadian Federal System that we

have, but like all of us, we would like to see more power taken from the federal

hands and distributed to the provincial legislatures.

I would imagine that was the message he was trying to

portray. In the twelve years that I have been in this House of Assembly, I would

have liked to see more powers given to this House of Assembly that are now

controlled by the Federal Government, particularly in the field of the fishing

industry.

Mr. Speaker, I think had there been more say, more control in

this Legislature over the years, we could have made different decisions about

the fisheries and hopefully we would not have had the crisis that we do have

today in our diminishing stocks of fish. So I would imagine that is what the

hon. Member for Pleasantville was trying to say. But, his Premier, during the

Meech Lake debate, and his Premier's philosophy which he does not hide away

from, is to try to centralize power, centralize federal powers in Ottawa and

centralize provincial powers here in St. John's in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the seconder, the hon.

Member for Bonavista South, who made a very passionate speech on the fisheries

and certainly did a good job.

Of course, the most important ones to thank when a person

gets up to speak on a Throne Speech, the most important and the ones who have a

say in whether you will be here for another Throne Speech or a few Throne

Speeches are the constituents in my district, Mr. Speaker; constituents, who

have become somewhat more irritated, I suppose, or probably more irritated on

the lack of services that this Government is providing them since they took over

in June of 1989. In the twelve years I have represented the District of Kilbride

in this House of Assembly, I have never had so many calls about employment

matters, this year in particular - the last of last year and the start of this

year - desperate calls from people who find it totally impossible to find

adequate employment in an area surrounding St. John's. Usually one would think

if there were going to be opportunities for employment, certainly in a District

like Kilbride the people would have more opportunity than in a lot of other

places in the Province. Many of my constituents have had to leave this Province,

including a sister of mine, who is a well-qualified teacher. When she went to

work with a school board in Southern Ontario - she is a special education

teacher. I think that is what it is called - the school board there said to her,

why would they let such a qualified person leave Newfoundland? That says

something about what is happening in this Province, Mr. Speaker, when our highly

qualified people, and not because it happens to be a relative of mine, but many

of my friends who have taken the time to educate themselves and who have worked

very hard at it are in the same situation, they have had to leave this Province

to find employment in other areas.

I had never had as many calls about social services as since

this Government took over in the last two years, particularly over the last six

or eight months, concerning things an MHA probably should not have to deal with,

or a Minister should not have to deal with, such as whether a person has the

right to get a taxi to a doctor, and things like that. People are being refused

transportation to doctors. What is happening a lot in the St. John's area is a

person has a medical problem and they were seeing a doctor who might have been

very close to where they lived, but because of different prices in rental units

and the different areas where we have some subsidized rental units, these people

are moved around and if a person who lived in the east end at one time happens

to move to Kilbride yet the medical doctor they saw still happens to be in the

east end, they cannot get to see their doctor, Mr. Speaker.

I have never had so many calls in the twelve years on housing

problems. We certainly need in this area of our Province, Mr. Speaker, more

emphasis on the social housing needs of the people in this area. Both

Newfoundland and Labrador housing and the City of St. John's non-profit housing

should be increased to try to accommodate people who are suffering desperate

hardship in trying to find housing. That, Mr. Speaker, is not going to improve

over the next few years unless employment comes along with it. If there is going

to be a greater demand on housing because of our developments offshore, Mr.

Speaker, certainly the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation - I know

they were planning for the increase but since this Government took over, I do

not think there are any plans. I do not think any of them are doing any

planning. Today in this House, the first time in the twelve years since I have

been elected, I have had to present a petition on behalf of 400 teachers who are

generally concerned. I do not hide away from the fact that there was a strike in

that twelve years. Teachers were on strike but they tell me today that what

happened over the past seventeen years in education, whether they agreed with it

or not, is nothing to what is happening to the education system in this Province

now, Mr. Speaker. Teachers are generally concerned, not only because their

negotiations are not going well, but they are generally concerned about the

education of our young people in this Province.

Before I continue, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate,

on behalf of the constituents of the District of Kilbride and myself, the new

Member for St. John's East and the new Member for Trinity North. I would like to

welcome them to this House and I will certainly be looking forward to and, I am

sure, enjoying the debate and whatever they have to offer to this House, Mr.

Speaker.

We have had a very rough couple of months from a Canadian

perspective and from a world perspective, Mr. Speaker, over in the Middle East,

and I wish to congratulate publicly the armed forces of this country who went

over to a very troubled area of the world and did what they had to do. And I am

sure none of us like the idea of there being a war in this day and age, in the

twentieth century, but, Mr. Speaker, when our armed forces were called upon to

do their job - unfortunately, in some instances, I heard some snickers when the

Canadian Government announced that they were going to send our armed forces to

the Middle East. There were people snickering, saying that the equipment would

never get them there, that the ships would sink before they got there. I heard

those comments. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have a very professional armed forces in

this country. Certainly I am sure all of them would agree that they would be

more inclined to be operating as a peace keeping group rather than what they had

to do over the last couple of months, but, Mr. Speaker, they certainly made me

proud of the armed forces of this country.

It is not easy for me to say that, Mr. Speaker. I was a very

nervous person during that time, because my twenty year old son happens to be a

member of the Royal Newfoundland Militia and I expected at any time that he

might, had this thing gotten any worse, have been called. I certainly would not

like to see that happen, but it is one of the things that could have happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I want to draw to the attention of hon. Members on my left

that there are a number of meetings going on over here, and it is very difficult

for the Chair to hear the hon. the Member for Kilbride. I ask hon. Members to my

left if it is necessary to convene a meeting, that they do so in the appropriate

place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I

appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of comments. I think the Member

for Bonavista South, or maybe the Member for Pleasantville, said when they made

their speech that they were very proud to be the first elected people to speak

in this new House of Assembly. Well, actually they were not the first elected

people to speak in this new House, neither of them. The Speaker, the hon. the

Member for Bonavista North, was the first elected person to speak in this House,

when we prorogued a few days before. So they would be second and third I have no

doubt, and I am sure they will be pleased with that, too, Mr. Speaker.

Just to comment on an

article that was in the media the

weekend. I always read Pat Doyle's commentary, because it certainly has to do

with our House of Assembly. I want to make it clear to him that he has found one

Member in this House of Assembly who is pleased and tickled pink that we have a

new House of Assembly, and I think it is certainly a deserving House of

Assembly; I do not see the faults he says other people see in it. It is

certainly a good place to be, and it is where we should be, where the first

House of Assembly should have been built, Mr. Speaker. One of the reasons I say

that is because when we were up on the 9th and 10th floors, Mr. Speaker, people

would come into this building and demonstrate and we would be up in our own

world, separated from them. All of them could never get up there. And when most

of them did come up there it was dangerous, because they could not get out. But

now, Mr. Speaker, the Government of this Province, the elected people of this

Province have only to listen, as we listened to the students last week, and we

will know every day when demonstrations are coming, and I am prepared to see

many, many demonstrations over the next six or eight months, I am sure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: The comment on the forestry agreement

certainly shows the good ministers on that side. The Minister of Forestry did

sign a good deal, and I congratulate him for it. He did a good deal on The

Forestry Act. He did a good job on that in the last session. He did a good job

on The Forestry Act, now let us see him spend the money prudently; do not let

his leader tell him how to spend it, take control of it yourself so that it can

be spent wisely. I am sure he will do that.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to have a few comments on the Throne

Speech. You know, it is almost a waste of time to comment on it. I mean, it is

just a pile of words, ten or twelve or twenty pages of words, I guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nine pages.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Nine pages is all they could write up

after a full year. The whole plan for the next fiscal year, the next year in

this House of Assembly, the future of Newfoundland over the next twelve months

has to rely on nine pages of words, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: There is no direction whatsoever that I

can see in it. I am probably missing something, Mr. Speaker, but I have read it

over several times now and I see no direction. And most of the problems we are

having in this Province today, in my opinion, are caused - well, probably for a

couple of reasons, but one of the main reasons, I would suggest, is that when

the last election was called, the last group in this Province who expected to be

elected as the Government of this Province were the people sitting opposite now.

They never expected in a hundred years to form the government, so they went out

and promised everything under the sun. It was like an NDP campaign. They could

promise anything, because they thought they were not going to get in.

AN HON. MEMBER: And now they are acting like Tories.

MR. R. AYLWARD: And now they are the worst Tories ever

invented, I agree with that. They are more conservative government now than the

one we have in Ottawa, and that is saying something. They are more conservative

than Michael Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why I think we are in so much

trouble. We have no plan. They promised the sky when they were running, which a

lot of people do it when you get into your campaign. They had a fair realization

of what money was around. They did promise to eliminate the school tax, and that

was a vote-getter, I must say. It was very popular. It was a good vote-getter,

especially outside the urban areas, that promise to eliminate school taxes

alone. What have we seen in the last month or so? I do not know about all school

districts, but I know in my own situation I have had two increases since they

came in, but certainly one this year. I am not complaining about paying it. I

agree with school tax personally, but I would not go around trying to deceive

the people in an election. It is not very popular to be in favour of a tax

during an election campaign, but when people would say to me Clyde Wells is

going to abolish the school tax, I said, rubbish, and I said I would not abolish

the school tax if I were elected. Probably that is why I lost a lot of votes the

last time, but I had to be honest with them. The Government knew that. The

Liberal Party knew when they were going around knocking on doors that they could

not get rid of the school tax. That is a most important funding source to the

school boards, because it gives them a bit of flexibility. What they get from

the Provincial Government goes for teachers' salaries or some capital work,

although not very much capital work lately, so they have some flexibility in

directing some of their monies directly to their needs.

I know one member opposite in this House who did not knock on

doors and say he would eliminate the school tax. I am sure he did not do it,

although I did not follow him around. I am sure the Member for St. John's North

would never go around and say that he was going to eliminate the school tax,

because that Member knows the value of the school tax to the education system of

this Province.

MS. VERGE: He was President of the Provincial Association

of School Tax Authorities.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I know his history. I had him into my

district several times for meetings with parents, and he did a good job at the

time. I am surprised he is still over there, because he knew the blatant - I

cannot say lies, but I would like to. The policies were just not right. He could

not agree with them. I was surprised he lasted the whole campaign. Every time I

would hear about the school tax being abolished, I would think of the Member for

St John's North out campaigning. I did not think he was going to win at the

time, but I am sure he disavowed himself from that. But he still had to stay

over on that side. He can stay there next time, too, when we move over, because

he is probably one of the better Members in here.

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the Throne Speech, it mentions in

here one of the reforms this Government has brought into this House, the

Legislative Review Committees. I do want to say - I do not want to be all

negative - that that is definitely a good reform, but it will only work in this

House of Assembly if, when the Committees make their representations, they are

taken seriously by the different Cabinet Ministers opposite. Mr. Speaker, if the

Cabinet Ministers and the Cabinet itself will not heed any of the

recommendations, certainly the committee system of this Legislature will not

work. We have an example on that side of one Minister who was very supportive of

the Legislative Review Committees. The Minister of Forestry, when he got his

Committee's review, went over it very thoroughly with his staff and implemented

all the major recommendations - very prudent. I must say I want to congratulate

him again. He is going to become paranoid in a minute, if I keep doing this.

And, Mr. Speaker, we have another example across the way of

the exact opposite of what the Minister of Forestry did, and that is the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. When we did the Regional Services

Bill, we put a lot of effort into that and we heard from a lot of people across

the Province. And it was not only the Opposition people who were trying to give

these recommended changes, there were people who came before our Committee and

suggested every one of the changes. Even in the minority report the Opposition

presented, every one of the recommendations that were in that report plus the

regular report were recommendations that came to our Committee from people who

were interested. Most of them came from the Federation of Mayors and

Municipalities, Mr. Speaker. So as far as the Legislative Review Committees go,

they are only going to operate if the Ministers of the departments concerned are

interested in hearing what the Committees are saying.

The Committee I serve on, the Government Services Committee,

is now doing probably one of the most important bits of legislation. They have

done one and they are reviewing another, and that is our review of the labour

laws of this Province, Mr. Speaker. One recommendation we have heard several

times from a couple of people is to set up a Task Force or have a royal

commission and do a complete review, not do band-aid touch ups. And I am pleased

to see that most of the Committee Members agreed with that approach. We may have

to do something immediately to try to prevent the problem of double breasting,

but there should be a major review of all labour legislation in this Province,

especially the labour standards legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech itself, when you read it over

you get the feeling - when the Lieutenant Governor was reading it the other day,

I got the feeling of complete doom and gloom, like the Premier has given up, he

has washed his hands of it all and is going to hope and pray that the Prime

Minister of Canada will bring back the constitutional issue, and it seems he

probably will, so that the Premier can wash his hands of the nitty gritty of

running this Province, which is difficult at any time, and move out of here

again and go across Canada and deal with the constitution, which he seems to get

a lot of great press from. There was a question asked here in the House today

about another issue that he could probably do the same thing with, but he

refused to do it because it is not glitzy enough I suppose, there is not enough

attention paid to it right now.

Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech there is mention made of

the hydro talks that are on or off or off or on. I believe personally from what

I can hear, which is certainly not from government sources but from people who

are fairly close to what is happening and know something, that most of the talk

about the hydro talks is smoke and mirrors, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there is

a hope in... Labrador of pulling that off.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I know. Yes, I saw that in the paper

today. I follow every news release that comes out, and I hope it is successful.

But I believe it is smoke and mirrors, and I do not believe for a minute that

you are going to do it.

Mr. Speaker, we have the Hibernia project mentioned again in

yet another Throne Speech and that is certainly a project that we all hold out a

lot of hope for. But we are off to a bad start, Mr. Speaker. Because one of the

contracts related indirectly to Hibernia will be the Cow Head contract, and I

understand that there was a local bid and an out-of-province bid in on that for

something like a five or six percent difference in cost; $300,000, I think, is

the dollar value, and we have given all of our jobs to New Brunswick. Now, that

is not a great start for the Hibernia project.

If you are going to rely on the companies involved with

Hibernia to implement the local preference policies or to implement the local

content in that contract you might just as well whistle dixie, because they are

looking for the best prices. And I do not blame them for that. That is what they

have to do; they have to answer to their shareholders. But we have to answer to

the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, and when we answer to the people of

this Province we have to be able to say to them yes, the Atlantic Accord has

been lived up to and the Hibernia agreement has been lived up to, and all the

local content that can be afforded this Province has been looked after, and it

has been looked after by the government. Because it is not going to be looked

after by anyone else, Mr. Speaker.

No, you can get up, you have lots of time to get up on this

one. Mr. Speaker, I only have a couple of minutes so I cannot be sidetracked; I

cannot be sidetracked by rabbits, I am hunting elephants here.

Mr. Speaker, yes, we have a

section here when they get around

to it. It seems like that is what this Government does; when they get around to

it they mention fisheries every now and then, so they got around to it on their

fifth or sixth item in the Throne Speech and they criticized the Federal

Government on their fisheries policies again; Old hat, it has been going on in

this Province for forty years, since, whenever we joined Confederation, but they

do criticize and what I find ironic about it is, they criticize the Federal

Government for their fisheries policies and the Premier of this Province pretty

well agrees with everything the Federal Government has done, his fisheries

policy is almost the same as the federal fisheries policies.

Every now and then we get a little glitch in it, but if you

are going to down-size, yes, that is the best thing to do according to our

Premier; if you are going to professionalize, yes, sure, go right ahead, says

our Premier and no thought of the people. I mean the fishermen in Petty Harbour

- what does that mean, professionalize the fishing industry, what does that mean

to him? He wants to go our and catch his fish and come in and have a place to

sell it, that is what he wants to do. He wants it managed so that he and his

family can make a living out of it, Mr. Speaker, yet, we have again in this

Throne Speech, our Government criticizing the Federal Government's fisheries

policy and yet, behind closed doors they agree with everything that the Feds are

doing with it and in particular closing down fish plants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which party is that?

MR. R. AYLWARD: That is that Liberal Party over there and

the Tories in Ottawa. They are in cahoots on that one. Mr. Speaker, again in the

Throne Speech, it says that: My Government has, in recent months, embarked upon

the preparation of a comprehensive policy framework which would guide the

industry into the foreseeable future. Mr. Speaker, it is about time they did, as

far as I am concerned. They have been floundering around for two years. They are

going into their third year now and only recently they said they are going to

have a look at some kind of a policy paper or comprehensive policies dealing

with the fishery.

I mean, if you are an elected person or you hope to be a

political person in this Province, the first basic thing you have to realize is

that the fishery is the bottom line in this Province, I mean that is it. Not

very many people in Kilbride work directly in the fisheries, but quite a few of

them rely indirectly on the fisheries. If the fishery is bad, construction is

bad, and housing is bad, and everything else that people in my area work at is

bad. And Mr. Speaker there is no money for social programs. A lot of public

servants live in my area, Mr. Speaker. I think it is about time the Government

did get down to work; they should have done it two years ago, they should have

had a plan when they were making all the promises during the election in 1989.

Mr. Speaker, had they had those policies and plans in place, maybe they would

have been able to react to them now or react to some of the problems that are

happening in this Province.

When the Throne Speech was read out, the Government said it

is worried about the Province's financial situation and they are very concerned

about the financial markets of this world, Mr. Speaker. I agree that they are

very concerned about the financial markets of this world in New York or Tokyo or

wherever they are, but, Mr. Speaker, they put more emphasis and more concern

into the financial markets of this world than they have on the education of our

school children, and public servants who work for this Province. They have not

given them very much concern, Mr. Speaker. And they are not giving the sick of

this Province too much concern. They are totally worried about how the markets

will be affected by the next Budget. They should be concerning themselves with

the public services within this Province, Mr. Speaker. The Member for St. John's

South can wave his hands all he likes over there but he is going to sit there

and listen.

I have some good news, Mr. Speaker, I thought I had only

twenty or thirty minutes but now I know I have an hour, so I can continue as

long as I wish. If you were the most talkative person in the world, which I am

not, you could not make up enough stuff about this Throne Speech to say in an

hour, because there is nothing in it. It is a dead, useless, pile of words, a

jumble of words. I want to make another comment here on one line in the Throne

Speech that says, "My Government recognizes that the traditional resource

sectors of the provincial economy do not offer the best immediate prospects for

new job creation." I do not believe that statement is in there. I mean that is a

serious, serious statement. If you want to look at the fisheries alone, there

might not be a great raw resource in the fisheries, maybe there is not an over

abundance of fish to catch, but what we should be trying to do is utilize

everything that comes out of the water, for one thing. Mr. Speaker, we should be

secondary processing the fish, much, much more of it, but when the Government

makes a statement that the traditional resource sectors will not provide the

best prospects for new job creation, I find that shocking, and I am sure the

Member for Carbonear must find it shocking, the Member who represents a fishing

area, and anyone in this House of Assembly who represents a fishing area. Where

is this economic resource crowd, Dr. Howse's bunch? Where do they sit in a

statement like this? Are they putting any emphasis on under utilized species in

this Province? That seems to be a natural. The Member for Carbonear put a

resolution before this House today, as I understand it, and I am sure I heard

him refer to the under utilized groundfish program. He is interested in this,

yet the Government of this Province recognizes that the traditional resource

sectors of the Province do not offer the best immediate prospects for new jobs.

That is a serious, serious, statement, and probably the most serious thing that

is in this document to date because it shows that the Premier and the Government

of this Province have washed their hands of trying to deal with the employment

problems that we have in this Province. They are not interested. They also

established, last year, I believe it was, an agrifoods task force, a task force

on agrifoods. That certainly is an natural resource of this Province. They have

written that off. Whatever that report says now, with one statement in this

Throne Speech, they have written it off because that is not going to offer the

best immediate prospects for new job creation. The quickest way to create jobs

in this Province is to put a bit of emphasis on agriculture. It is probably the

most under utilized resource that we have in this Province, yet one line in a

Throne Speech is going to throw it away. It is going to wash it out. So,

whenever Dr. Hulan comes in with his report, if he ever gets it in, I do not

know that he is planning to get it in in the next while, or if it has gone off

to committees of Cabinet, or what happened to it, or if it is lost, but if Dr.

Hulan ever gets his report to this House it is just as well to throw it in the

garbage dump because the Government has said that the traditional resource

sectors are not going to create new jobs. They are not going to put an emphasis

on it. The Government is not going to. One of the reasons why the report has not

been tabled to date from my suspicious mind, is that they did not want it in

before the Budget because they would be forced to put money into it then. They

would be forced to try and do some of it but now they will bring in their Budget

and they will close down Farm Products, mess around with some other thing, then

the report will come in and they will try to rectify it all again.

I have been reading the task force report. Only two

paragraphs ahead of that they said it is no good. I mean, the Premier said in

the Throne Speech, that this is not going to provide the new jobs. So whatever

is in that Throne Speech, whatever is in that task force report, will not create

the jobs. It is certainly not going to get an emphasis from a Premier who has

already said in his Throne Speech that fisheries is not going to get the

emphasis. And the Member for Carbonear's motion that he put to the House, it is

just as well to throw that away. Because the Premier has said there are no new

jobs in this fishery stuff.

Under-utilized species, he did not even think of them, I

would imagine, if he made that statement. He did not think of the under-utilized

species. Secondary processing. There are more jobs in fisheries that we are

losing to Boston and wherever else - and we did it. If there is a real change

over there, do stuff that we did not do. Increase, get more - do not write it

off and say good-bye to the resource sector. Do not say there are no new jobs in

that stuff, we will just keep that status quo and let it float along and we will

try to find something else. Because there is nothing else.

What else are you going to bring into this Province? Mr.

Speaker, one other thing here that I want to just make a comment on, is that

this Government wants to make an