April

9, 1991 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLI

No. 25

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before moving on to routine business, on behalf of hon.

Members I would like to welcome to the galleries today a delegation representing

the town council of Twillingate in the persons of His Worship Mayor Harry

Cooper, councillors Loveridge and Mr. Stockley, and the town manager, Mr. Hall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

of Grand Falls-Windsor Mr. Mal Andrews, Chairman of the Central Newfoundland

Community Futures Committee, and Mr. Winston Snow, Executive Director of the

Central Business Development Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

the Minister of Education. I would like to ask the Minister if he could advise

the House what specific community college campuses around the Province will be

eliminating the pre-vocational school programme at their institutions next year.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the program has been downsized

over the last seven or eight years, and I think there are about five campuses

left of the original twelve which had pre-vocational programmes - there may be

six. Placentia had a program which was to be phased out over a period of time,

and that is being eliminated this year; Bonavista is being retained for this

year; Springdale has been eliminated; Lewisporte and Gander - that is five.

There may have been a class in -

AN HON. MEMBER: Baie Verte.

DR. WARREN: Yes, Baie Verte. That is six. There may have

been a class somewhere else. I know Seal Cove was eliminated four or five years

ago, Port aux Basques is gone; there may be a class in St. Anthony, but I think

these are the ones.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Clarenville?

DR. WARREN: No, not in Clarenville, that was gone. Seal

Cove is the big one and that has been gone for some time, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that the

Minister has confirmed that this pre-vocational programme will be eliminated,

certainly in five or six rural centres around Newfoundland and Labrador, let me

ask him this: Is the Minister aware that in the areas served by those programmes

the high schools just do not have the facilities and the equipment necessary for

those programmes? And if he is aware of that, what plans does the Minister have

to enable those school boards and those schools to offer a pre-vocational

programme to their students so that they will have an opportunity to be able to

equip themselves with those skills?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for his

question. It is an important question. This programme has been an important

programme; I think it was initiated back in 1974, and about 1984 for a variety

of reasons the former administration decided they would be phased down and

phased out.

Mr. Speaker, this year, because of the financial crisis we

have terminated the programme. But we have had some consultation with the boards

over the last year. In Central Newfoundland in particular we have had a

committee looking at ways and means of dealing with the problems which result

from the elimination this year.

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to do a number of things: we are

prepared, for example, to make the facilities available to all the schools if

they want to use the facilities. I think there may be an exception with

Placentia, because Placentia is a very busy campus and they may not have the

facilities. But we have offered to the boards access to all the facilities and

they would provide the teaching staff next year. Mr. Speaker, we have also

offered the boards any excess equipment and materials, to be made available to

the schools if they want to set up multi-purpose rooms. The third point, Mr.

Speaker - this is an involved question, so I will make just one additional point

- is that the nature of the pre-vocational programme is changed. I am sure the

former Minister of Education and the former Minister of Career Development know

that with the high school programme the nature of the programme changed and some

of the programmes in the vocational schools were not as appropriate today. I

think they were in the process of being changed anyhow, and with the high school

programme they were taken over by the regular school programme.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is going to be

honest with this House he will admit that the former Administration made a

conscious decision to keep the pre-vocational program in rural community

colleges in this Province to benefit rural students -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: -on the premise, Mr. Speaker, that high

schools in the urban centres had access to the Industrial Arts Program.

MR. SIMMS: Exactly.

MR. RIDEOUT: Now let me ask the Minister this: How does

he propose to deliver to students in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labardor a

pre-vocational program so that they will not be discriminated against as opposed

to students in the urban centres in this Province?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the hon.

Member's premise. We had programs in Port aux Basques, we had programs in St.

Anthony, we had programs in other communities that have been phased down over

the years before this Administration took over, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. WARREN: Secondly, some other school boards in rural

Newfoundland have not had advantage of this program, they have had to provide

the facilities themselves. They have done it. Now, Mr. Speaker, we will, as I

said earlier, work with the schools that are negatively impacted at this point

in time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: If the hon. Member did not hear what I said,

I will repeat it - we will make all the facilities available in the colleges so

that school boards can use them over the next while.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: No. If they take over the staff, we will

provide the facilities free of cost. We are going to provide an opportunity for

the schools to use the college facilities as long as possible, Mr. Speaker, so

that a transition can take place. Some of the school boards have already made

applications to the DECs to build multi-purpose rooms so that they can offer an

enhanced pre-vocational program in the schools, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the policy of this Government seems to be to

reduce everything and everybody to the lowest common denominator, and that is

called rationalization. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister this: Is the

Minister now telling the House that laying off teachers, laying off

post-secondary instructors, eliminating courses and eliminating pre-vocational

courses in rural Newfoundland is rationalizing the post-secondary education

system? Does he want us to believe and the people of this Province to believe

that that kind of rationalization will produce a better system? That seems to be

the buzzword of the Government, rationalization will produce a better system, is

that what the Minister is talking about?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon.

Leader gets his information. In this House, and the House Leader agreed to this

some days ago, virtually all the teachers that are being lost in the

Kindergarten to Grade X11 system this year are the result of declining

enrollments. We did not hire back fifty.

AN HON. MEMBER: It did not happened in other years.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, it happened every year except

that fifty were hired back. Perhaps my hon. friend who is nodding over there

knows, and we have admitted that we did not hire back fifty this year. But the

133 teachers are the result of declining enrollments.

MR. RIDEOUT: You make it sound as if (inaudible).

DR. WARREN: I would like to answer the question, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. WARREN: Now when it comes to rural Newfoundland we

did look at the possibility of phasing down and perhaps even closing some of the

most rural campuses. They were underfunded, they were underutilized, and we

thought perhaps this year we could rationalize the system - to use the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition's term - by closing some of the campuses. This

Government decided not to do that. We decided to keep these campuses open and

convert them to adult learning centres, and I am delighted with the response we

have gotten from the principals of the colleges and with the potential of that

concept for the future. We are going to promote rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker,

and certainly we are going to promote education.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the

Minister of Education. Yesterday the Cabot Institute announced the

discontinuance of seven programmes: clerk typing; apprenticeship hair styling;

hotel/motel restaurant operations; meat cutting; short hand typing; commercial

baking; and waiter/waitress training. In addition the number of students in the

commercial cooking programme will be reduced.

The board said it had been assured that many of these

programmes will be made available in the St. John's or immediate area subsequent

to the implementation of the White Paper on post-secondary education. Can the

Minister advise which of these programmes will be offered in this area and when

they will be offered?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, Cabot Institute was faced with a

problem that the Government was faced with this year, not enough money to do

everything it wanted to do, and it looked at all the options. Mr. Speaker, I

think there are fifty to sixty programmes at the Cabot Institute. It is an

excellent institution and this year they made other cuts which made it necessary

to cancel or to eliminate or to reduce only eight programmes. And some of these

programmes are reduced for this year only.

Mr. Speaker, hair styling is offered in a number of campuses,

I do not know the number, there may be ten campuses where hair styling is now

utilized. They have reduced to one class the hair stylists.

Mr. Speaker, there are one or two other programmes. Let me

take the clerk typist: This is cancelled for 1991-1992. It is my understanding

clerk typing is offered in a number of private and other institutions. I can get

the information as to which campus later on.

The private colleges offer a very valuable service to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: They do! And I am pleased to see my hon.

friend from Grand Falls mention that. Mr. Speaker, hotel management concerns us.

The Board of Governors decided to cancel hotel/motel management for 1991-1992.

Tourism is important: I have talked to the Minister of Development about this.

We know that they have a programme on the west coast for that and we will

monitor that very carefully.

Butcher meat cutting: cancelled for 1991-1992. Commercial

cooking: I think they are accepting some pre-employment and employment in

commercial cooking. So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we are delighted that the

Cabot Institute could reduce things other than programmes and only eight

programmes are being downsized or eliminated in these very difficult times.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister talked about

everything except the answer to the question. I asked him which of these

programmes will be offered as committed in or near the St. John's area and when.

The President of Cabot Institute has said some of these courses will not be

offered at all. What does the Minister of Education say to students who wish to

enter these programmes, many of which are courses which only students who have

not completed high school can enter, limited choice programmes. Is he now

telling these young people they have no right to job training at all?

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

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, we have started

streamlining of the system. There is some duplication; there were some courses

offered at one campus not being fully utilized. In this difficult process we

have gone through the colleges have been most co-operative in trying to preserve

those programmes where there is a need and which are not available in the

region. I think, Mr. Speaker, I will provide for the hon. Member the list of

courses. I could go through them. Hair dressing, let us take that one, is being

eliminated. It is offered at Cabot, a reduced - Seal Cove, Placentia, quite a

number of campuses. If he wants to ask me about where one programme is being

offered, I can provide that information for him.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will take

him up on his offer. Some of the programmes are supposed to be offered at Bell

Island and Seal Cove, and these facilities are strongly suggested to be on the

chopping block next year. What assurance can he give that these facilities will

stay in place and that the programmes will continue?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for his

question because I want to allay these fears, that these campuses are going to

be closed in the immediate future. The hon. Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island

invited me to visit Bell Island and I was really impressed with what is being

offered over there, and this Government is going to continue that programme. We

are working with the Federal Government. The Federal Government is already

putting, I have heard, $500,000 or $600,000 into training programmes on Bell

Island. We have downsized it this year, but we want to work with the Federal

Government, with Community Futures to make that a very vibrant campus. These

campuses have tremendous potential for adult education in this Province.

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

Capes, a final supplementary.

MR. HEARN: Many of the programmes being cut by Cabot, as

the Minister has alluded to somewhat already, are central to our tourism

industry. Will not the Minister agree that the cancellation of programmes will

adversely affect this vital industry, and how does this promote economic

development, which the Government talks so much about?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have been in contact with the

Minister of Development and with Hospitality Newfoundland; his Department is

working with them. We want to ensure that anything we do in education does not

impact negatively on the tourism industry - it is a very important industry. We

have excellent programmes in place, and we will monitor what is going on to

ensure it does not hurt the tourist industry.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the

Minister of Education as well, a follow-up to some questions I asked a few days

ago. He will recall that on Friday - and if he reads Hansard he can see clearly

what he said - I asked him to confirm that he had dramatically underestimated

the job losses in the post-secondary system. At that time, not all the figures

were in. Now the figures for Fisher Institute, Cabot Institute and the Marine

Institute are in and they have announced the job losses from their facilities.

Can he now confirm for the House that the job losses in our post-secondary

system total 362, not the 200 announced by the Minister three weeks ago?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have a little bit of bad news

for the Opposition. The estimates they have are grossly exaggerated. It may be

that we underestimated the number of people who will be displaced or laid off as

a result of our fiscal restraint this year, but the numbers they talk about, the

500 to 600, is a gross exaggeration of the numbers. There are quite a number of

positions affected, and in the next few days I will provide for this House a

breakdown of the numbers affected: the number of vacant positions not being

filled, the number of people who are retiring, the number of people who will be

going to contract training programmes, the number of people who are going to do

part-time, and the actual number of layoffs. The number of layoffs may only be

fifty or sixty higher than the number we projected earlier on, but I will

provide these data for the House in due course.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed with the

Minister of Education, who somehow gives the impression or likes to give the

impression that he is always honest and direct. When he announced three weeks

ago there were 200 job losses, he even made the point then of saying: now, of

course not all of these are layoffs, there are 200 job losses.

We are using the same figures based on the announcements made

by the various institutions, I have it here and I will table it.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking him to confirm that the number of

job losses in the post-secondary institutions is not 200 as he announced in the

House, but rather 362. Will he confirm that and stop playing games?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I do not play games. I try to

provide the information as best I can. I have said it is premature to provide a

final figure yet, I will have them later in the week. There are 360 positions

affected, I mean it may be 350, 340 positions affected.

MR. SIMMS: Why did you not say that in the first place?

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I did earlier in the week. I

said we underestimated the number of positions affected. Many of these

positions, Mr. Speaker, were temporary positions for this year only, so I will

get the data. Certainly the positions affected were more than 200, significantly

more than 200, but the actual number of layoffs, that is a different figure, Mr.

Speaker. I will provide this data in the next week or so when I get all the

breakdown; in fact, I will provide the positions affected, vacancies existing

for some time, temporary appointments -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

DR. WARREN: - that were terminated, options for

redundancy and so on, Mr. Speaker, for the Members of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Minister went

through that.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we see it now. The Minister is

scrambling now to try to cover up for what he said two weeks ago, that is what

has happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right, deceit.

MR. SIMMS: Can he now tell us then, since we had to ask

him twice to try to confirm 360 positions, job losses which he now has confirmed

- job losses, 362, Mr. Speaker, some of which will be lay offs, those are his

own words, Mr. Speaker. Is he in a position now then, to tell us what is

happening at the school board levels? I know he is anxious that I ask that

question because he wanted to get back at me for raising the twenty-two at the

Roman Catholic School Board, can he tell me how many other positions have been

eliminated, maintenance and janitorial level at the other twenty-seven school

boards, does he have an answer to that question or how far are his estimates

out, there?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member must realize

that the school year extends through to June and school boards are not going to

take action right now. We do not have the full data on that, but I have promised

the House that once I get all the figures, I will make them available, Mr.

Speaker.

We know that school boards have had to take restraint

measures and, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the educational agencies,

the Boards of Governors, the Board of Regents, the School Boards. They have been

able this year to take fiscal restraint measures which make it possible for them

to retain quality education in these very difficult times, Mr. Speaker. They

have really co-operated with the Government and I want to pay tribute to all

these agencies for what they have done to work with us to make sure that the

impact on programming is minimal in the school system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

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

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. As the Minister is aware, the

labour force data for March was released on Friday of last week by Statistics

Canada, and the data indicates that the unemployment rate is now at an appalling

22.3 per cent, 22.3 per cent, which means that virtually one out of every four

Newfoundlanders looking for work in the Province is now unemployed and that does

not include the so called discouraged worker, the person who has given up

looking for work altogether.

Now, how can the Minister of Labour, after twenty-two months

in that portfolio justify having allowed the Province's unemployment problem to

grow so badly and not introduce some kind of a programme, some kind of an

employment programme to offset what is rapidly becoming, what is, an emergency

problem?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the hon. Member, how, when he was in -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I assume the Speaker will tell me

what to say and what not to say, thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Go ahead.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could better answer the

question if it could be explained to me why, in March of 1985, the unemployment

rate was 24 per cent in this Province, and we did not at that time have a

national recession, nor did we have a fishing problem. In fact, that was the

year we had the highest prices for fish that have ever been seen in this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. COWAN: I am not particularly pleased with the

statistic, Mr. Speaker, nor is our Government. However, we are pleased in the

light of looking at an example such as I have just given from 1985 and in some

of the years following 1985, because there is this recession nationally and

provincially, and yet our employment figures are not that out of whack with what

they have been in past March months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. Let me remind

the Minister that when the former Administration left office twenty-two months

ago the unemployment rate was at 17.3 per cent. Today it is at 22.5 per cent, a

full 5 percentage points increase in twenty-two months. Now we have a labour

force in the Province of 235,000 people, Mr. Speaker, and it has been higher. It

has been higher than 235,000. Today we have 52,000 people out of work in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is the highest number out of

work since the Government said: pack your bags and come home. Now let me ask the

Minister what hope can she offer, and what suggestion can she make to that 22.5

per cent who cannot find work, to help them find work, some of whom

incidentially are sending their children to school hungry every morning. What

suggestion can she make for them?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say that during the time we have been in Government

the unemployment rate has been at 17 per cent. It is very easy to just stand

here and grab numbers out of the air and say when we left it was this and today

it is that and so on without taking into account any of the seasonal factors

that are at work or the recession that is going on in the Province, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. COWAN: I am, as I said earlier, pleased. I have said

on several occasions that we are holding our own as well as we are, and the

positive thing about this whole unemployment picture, Mr. Speaker, is this, that

the people in Newfoundland who have jobs are holding those jobs, and the growth

in unemployment is caused by a massive increase in the number of people looking

for work. So we have to be pleased about the fact that there are not the layoffs

that we would anticipate that would take place normally during a recession. But

we do have to have concern about this growing work force and we are addressing

that in many ways, for example, through the Newfoundland/Canada Youth Strategy.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the Minister

can say that the Government is holding its own with a 5 per cent increase in

unemployment, with 52,000 people looking for work. Now the unemployed in the

Province have increased by 11,000, the employed have dropped by 3,000 since this

time period last year. Now given that fact alone, does the Minister not consider

the Government's efforts at job creation to be a dismal failure? And how can she

continue as a Member of a Cabient who has cut the only employment program she

had by $700,000 when unemployment in the Province is rampant, when it has grown

by 5 percentage points over the last twenty-two months? How can she justify

that? How can she continue as a Member of that Cabinet when they will not give

her the tools to do the job?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Again the gentleman -

AN HON. MEMBER: Again the gentleman -

MR. CRANE: We have a parrot over there too now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Minister to continue, please.

MS. COWAN: Thank you very much.

I would like to point out to my hon. critic, as he has done

many times before, he is trying to mislead this House. The Employment Generation

Program is not the only Employment Generation Program in this Government, and he

repeatedly stands up and says that it is the only program designed to increase

employment opportunities. That is totally wrong. And the only thing I can say is

what I say to him every time when he asks that same question, Mr. Speaker, is

that we have many programs in Government both in my Department and in other

Departments which are working towards decreasing the number of people looking

for work, those who are unemployed.

For some reason every time I mention the Canada/Newfoundland

Youth Strategy he just seems to wave it off. I find that a very cynical

approach. There are massive amounts of money coming from the Federal Govenment

and the Provincial Government into this Province to help our youth. We have to

be extremely concerned about the high unemployment level our youth have, those

people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, we are focusing on them in

a very, very big way. I would be only too pleased, Mr. Speaker, to table in the

House some of the programs that we are undertaking in that area because they are

just too diverse and too numerous for me to enumerate as I stand here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. COWAN: We have, as well -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I realize that we are into a large area when we are talking

about generation of employment, but I ask the Minister to please clue up her

answer in a very few seconds.

MS. COWAN: You can see how difficult it is for me, Mr.

Speaker, because we do indeed have many programs that are aimed at reducing

unemployment in this Province, and it does take me too long as I stand here in

the House to list them all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the hon.

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Given the big disaster that we had

with the Ocean Ranger and the Royal Commission of inquiry that the Provincial

and Federal Governments were involved in - in particular the aspects of

occupational health and safety - no doubt the lengthy meetings that have been

held in preparation for the Hibernia development project, how could the Minister

stand in this House as she did last week and say that at this point in time her

Government was not certain what the jurisdiction over occupational health and

safety was for the fatal accident that occurred at Bull Arm on Good Friday

evening?

If she is now certain let her tell the House whether she has

satisfied herself as to her jurisdiction over that accident site.

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Under the

Atlantic Accord the Province does have jurisdiction for any shipping-boating

activities in the Mosquito Cove area.

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

MR. HARRIS: Given that the Minister has now acknowledged

that she has responsibility for occupational health and safety there, can she

tell us why her Department has not undertaken an investigation under the

appropriate sections of the Occupational Health and Safety Act where an accident

has taken place at a work place, according to

Section 52 of the Act?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, why he keeps

saying we have done nothing when I have stood up here day after day and said we

are. Nodeco, my Department and the RCMP are all out there investigating, and I

have said that. I do not think I have mentioned Nodeco before, but I have

mentioned that time and time again. Early last week I was not sure of the

jurisdiction there but I said that was not stopping us from going out there to

investigate. So I do not know what the hon. gentleman's concern is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker -

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

MR. HARRIS: If the hon. Member can confirm to this House

that her Department - and not the RCMP conducting some other investigation -that

one of her officers is conducting a formal investigation into that work place

accident, if she would confirm that to this House now and not say she is

monitoring or if she is waiting for some other reports of somebody else. Is she

or is she not having officials of her Department conduct a formal investigation

under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, yes or no?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: An investigation by my Department is taking

place, by Nodeco, and by the RCMP. I did not use words - "monitor" or whatever

this business is he is quoting. I find it very very difficult to stand up here

and say this day after day. I do not know whether he has a hearing - well, he

must have a hearing problem, because I do not have a problem expressing it.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question yesterday

about the cost of Harlow. I think that was the question. I do not have a written

response. The Opposition House Leader, I think, asked that question. The annual

budget is approximately $300,000, Mr. Speaker. The operating grant to Harlow

this year is $188,000 so that the other monies are coming from other sources of

revenue. I was very pleased to find out, Mr. Speaker, that Harlow is used

extensively. The second part of his question asked about the use of Harlow.

Harlow is used extensively by Newfoundland students, 100 students -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, 100 students from rural

Newfoundland and all over Newfoundland attended Harlow last year. Teachers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. WARREN: I do not have the value of the assets, but

the students - Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order please!

I would ask hon. Members to please co-operate in this matter.

When we are giving answers to questions for which notice has been given,

Ministers should be brief and give precisely what was asked. It is difficult for

the Chair unless I have the question in front of me. I know that the matter of

cost was asked, whether or not the last question was asked I have no idea. But I

ask the Minister please to finish up very quickly.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, with respect the hon. Member

asked if this money could be better spent in rural Newfoundland on extension. I

was answering his question, Mr. Speaker, directly, that hundreds of students go

to Harlow to do teacher training from business, from engineering. I know the

university has reviewed Harlow, but I can assure you that many Newfoundland

students benefit from that program, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Let me refer the Minister, if I may, to page

841 in Hansard so he will know what the question was. The second part of the

question was the annual cost of operating and then the dollar value of the

assets. That is the question I would like for him to answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well you answered the other

part like you just

answered it then, the same answer. You did not take notice of that part.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question

for me, as the Minister, to advise the House when the newly amalgamated town of

Grand Falls - Windsor will receive the $1.25 million for capital works committed

to it by the Government during the recent amalgamation negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, of course, the municipal capital works both

water, sewer and roads are presently being considered by my department.

Priorization has been done in the regional offices and is now in for

consideration by myself and the executive staff and subsequent to that, of

course, Government approval. So at that time when that process is complete

announcements will be made on all towns and cities in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion. I passed over that,

sorry. Petitions.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister wants to do a notice of

motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I

will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The

Queens Council Act." Thank you.

Petitions

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to present a petition on behalf of residents of

Labrador City and Wabush. The prayer of the petition is: whereby highway

construction creates employment and

whereas completed highways are a lifeline of

increased economic activity we ask the Provincial Government to accelerate the

construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway to begin immediate construction from

Churchill Falls to Goose Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many signatures are on that?

MR. A. SNOW: There are twenty-eight, I believe it is.

I am pleased to speak to this petition and to support the

petition. As we all know, to improve transportation is really to improve one's

economy. The highway in Labrador is commonly referred to as the Trans-Labrador

Highway but some people even call it a freedom road. The one I am speaking about

is a highway that is approximately 600 kilometres long and it stretches from

Goose Bay to Wabush. This is the one I specifically want to speak of, although I

think of the whole picture of a highway in Labrador that goes from the west to

central Labrador and on, possibly in later years, to the coast. In order to have

that complete highway we must do it in steps. Before we start walking we must

crawl and before we start talking about building a highway right across Labrador

we have to build it in sections, as the highway was constructed. The initial

part, or one of the longest stretches, the 300 kilometres from Churchill down to

Goose was built, I believe, during and after the construction of Churchill

Falls. The highway has been done in different stages under different Government

programs. The latest development has been under the recovery program in 1983,

and again under the ERDA program in 1985. The first one was $16 million and the

second was $24 million, and $19 million came out of the Roads to Rails

Agreement. That has just about completed a highway system from - albeit it is a

dirt road with a certain amount of granular material on it - from Labrador City

to Goose Bay, with the exception of one bridge that is presently under

construction, and that should facilitate people driving from Goose Bay to the

Trans-Canada Highway network system out through Western Labrador and down to

Baie Comeau and then they can hook into the Trans-Canada Highway system. This

will be a tremendous benefit to the people of Goose Bay but also to the people

from other parts of this country who wish to travel into Labrador to a great

wilderness area, and of course that would tremendously help the proper

development of tourism in Labrador in general. Apart from the instant employment

that it would create I think it would open up tourism opportunities, more

lumbering opportunities, and make it an easier and cheaper access for mining

exploration to occur. It could also possibly lower the cost of living and

improve the quality of life for people who live in western Labrador, in the

Churchill Falls region and in Happy Valley, Goose Bay. There are merits for

doing this, for accelerating the construction they talk about in this petition.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there are some funds remaining in one

of the last agreements which is the Roads to Rails Agreement, and I hope that

this Administration sees fit to call tenders this year. Now, I hope the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation is listening because they should call

tenders this year for granular material to be applied to the road surface from,

I believe it is Emerald to the Ossok Bridge. I am also surprised that the

Economic Recovery Commission has not suggested to this Administration that this

is one of the major projects that this Government should look at. The opening up

of Labrador with a highway network is an imaginative development that could

create thousands of jobs and create a tremendous opportunity for this Province

to develop. Mr. Speaker, we should not only look at it in the perspective of

having another road to plough. We should look at it as a gateway, as an

opportunity of development, as an opportunity to create more wealth in this

Province. Albeit, it is in Labrador but it still can create wealth, and I am

surprised that the Economic Recovery Commission has not suggested, as I will, to

this Administration, that they should sit down with the Federal Government and

renegotiate the fourth agreement. Three are already done: A fourth agreement to

facilitate an immediate start on construction, or the improvement of the highway

from Churchill Falls to Goose Bay.

Thank you, very much.

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: I would like to make some brief comments in

reference to the petition offered by my colleague from Menihek District. I

waited a few seconds to see if anybody on the other side had an interest, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) we may.

MR. KELLAND: They may very well still do that, and I hope

they do. I should put some of it in context. There are a couple of different

considerations here, Mr. Speaker. What the thrust of the petition is there - I

can support the concept and the concerns expressed by my colleague quite easily

- is the permanent upgrading, reconstruction or whatever of that particular part

of what we call the freedom road up there, 300 kilometres as the Member says.

We have been making some efforts in the last couple of years

with respect to that particular road. When I hear my colleagues in the House of

Assembly talking about 20 kms. or 30 kms. or 40 kms. of unpaved road in their

districts, I can assure them that I have 300 kms. of unpaved road between two

towns in my District, Naskaupi District, which are Happy Valley-Goose Bay and

Churchill Falls, and it is a seasonal road open for approximately five or six

months of the year.

What this Government did in 1989 from a maintenance point of

view was increase what had been the annual maintenance funding of sometimes

$50,000, sometimes $100,000, up to $200,000. We doubled it. And last year, in

the maintenance season, we went a step further. Though the allocation was for

$200,000, that was done on a contract basis from the Penis River to Churchill

Falls, and an excellent job was done.

That left the portion from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to the

Penis River to be done by highways' crews themselves. In effect, we ended up

with what I had been suggesting for years, at least two crews on that road. So

that I think was a significant change. My only concern with that was it may have

started a little later than I would have liked to have seen it start. But in

effect, as I made eight or nine trips up and down the road through the season,

it was probably one of the better times I have seen it. That was the 1990 travel

season.

The other aspect which I suppose the thrust of the petition

is, is that substantial funding should be put into the permanent upgrading of

the road. It has often been said that if we get mega-projects such as the Lower

Churchill, that that would speed up some efforts with respect to funding. But I

agree with the Member when we talk about these things in and out of the House,

that we should not have to depend on a mega-project in order to get some

concentration of effort into upgrading the road. I do not disagree with that.

However, it is a fact of life that often a mega-project will speed up

infrastructure, or the installation of infrastructure.

I should mention as well that my colleague who is not present

right now, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, is indeed into

active negotiation with the Federal Government to try to allocate a certain

level of funding for that part of the road which, by the way, has never been, as

we all know in this House, a part of any Federal-Provincial agreement.

I can assure him that on a weekly basis at the very least I

discuss this particular matter with my colleague and he assures me that ongoing

and continuing negotiations are taking place with the Federal Government and

within a reasonably short period of time we should hear something positive with

respect to more substantial dollars going into the permanent upgrading of the

road. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise in

support of the petition presented by my colleague asking for the upgrading and

the improvement and the continuation of the Trans-Labrador Highway. I was

interested in listening to the comments of my colleague from Naskaupi. It is

most interesting that he did not mention how he was concerned about the

upgrading of the road from Goose Bay up to Churchill Falls. It is also

interesting to note that last year this Government lost $1.5 million by

re-tendering a contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARREN: No, but you still lost $1.5 million on the

Trans-Labrador Highway - it is all the Trans-Labrador Highway. I would hope, Mr.

Speaker, that Members of this Government will realize that the Trans-Labrador

Highway will be more valuable than the Outer Ring Road is to this Province. The

Trans-Labrador Highway is much more valuable in bringing in tourists, bringing

extra dollars into the Province than the Outer Ring Road will be, and I would

say we should ensure there is more money coming from the Federal Government to

get the Trans-Labrador Highway finished not only as far as Goose Bay, but on

down to the Straits. Because I would think it will be a long, long time before

we will see the road going into Nain or Hopedale, for example, or places like

that. I do not think you will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: There is no trouble to go - in fact, the

survey is already done on the road from North West River to Kitts-Michelin,

which is about 20 miles from Postville. That part of it could eventually happen,

too, but as for getting into Nain and Davis Inlet and probably places down close

to Black Tickle, it is going to take a long, long time. But I can see the

Trans-Labrador Highway eventually going down and connecting with the Straits

area. And hopefully this sawmill operation the Minister of Forestry is talking

about could entice development and improvements to the road.

So the potential is there. All we need is the desire on

behalf of the Government to not look at Labrador because of what you are going

to take out of it, but also because of what you can put into it.

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

Capes.

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

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Legislative Assembly.

`The petition of the undersigned Friends of MUN Extension

states that

whereas MUN Extension has provided and continues to provide an

essential service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

whereas no

other agency is capable of providing that service, MUN Extension should be

reinstated. The petitioners respectfully request the hon. House to take such

action as may be necessary to ensure that Memorial University reinstates its

Extension Service and that it be funded and equipped to provide the services it

has traditionally provided.'

It is signed by a number of residents of St. Bride's area,

St. Bride's being the largest of the communities on the Cape Shore. As I

mentioned yesterday, a number of petitions are flooding in from the various

communities, simply because the residents of that general area know full well

the benefit of MUN Extension to them.

The Cape Shore area of the Province is one that was forgotten

for years, completely neglected, and it was with the efforts of the former

Government and agencies such as MUN Extension and the Rural Development movement

that the Cape Shore started to come into its own, and certainly in recent years

has become well-known throughout the Province.

One of the main industries in the area besides the fishery,

which keeps most of my district going, is the great potential of the Tourism

Industry. MUN Extension has done a tremendous job in highlighting that, not just

the raw resources of scenery and historic sites and what have you. And, of

course, we have the beautiful bird sanctuary, the Cape St. Mary's Bird

Sanctuary, which is internationally known.

But the culture and the heritage which is so unique here in

the Province, the very, very strong Irish roots of Cape Shore have been

highlighted well by a number of programmes done recently, most of them with the

involvement, the technical assistance of Memorial University Extension. Local

groups, the Rural Development Associations and the Arts groups in particular,

have developed a number of programmes, put together with the aid of federally

funded programmes plus the technical assistance of, once again, Memorial

University Extension.

All of these things have helped highlight the tremendous

potential, tremendous resources, personal and otherwise, that exist in areas

such as the Cape Shore. So these people find, and when I say people all of them,

because a number of the initiatives taken were done in conjunction with the

whole community, like inter-community hook-ups, where they had forums broadcast

around the Shore through the assistance of local cable television companies and

the technical assistance, once again, in co-ordination with MUN Extension. So

everyone out there has been brought into focus as a player in the development of

the area, and they have seen the potential of having a service such as MUN

Extension provided to the area. So it is with no wonder at all that these people

- in fact, all of them - have come out in support of this body as an

institution, really, in areas such as the Cape Shore.

I highlight the Cape Shore area because that is where the

petitions are coming from. But undoubtedly we will see them coming from the

other three geographic divisions in the district, because all of them

collectively and individually have been helped tremendously by MUN Extension. So

their prayer is, as is our own, to the Government to discuss with the

university, to talk to Memorial University to see if there is some way of

offsetting the loss of funding that will enable MUN Extension to exist as it has

done in the past, because there are rural areas of this Province where the

existing agencies, and this includes new agencies established by the new

Government, just do not fill the void.

We have good Rural Development Associations as mentioned,

good councils, good fishermen's committees.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: These petitions are coming from the Cape Shore

area. We have good organizations, good associations, but each organization has a

specific task; the people involved, many of them volunteer people, and even the

paid ones, have specific duties to which they must adhere. But all activities of

promotion, co-ordination, lobbying and so on, these have really been

highlighted, have been organized, have been presented so well by the

co-ordination and the involvement of MUN extension. So I would certainly support

the petition, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member's time is up.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of

the petition presented by the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Yet

another group from another part of Newfoundland has expressed its concern about

the elimination of MUN Extension and the services it has provided the people of

Newfoundland, in particular rural Newfoundland. I know Government Members

opposite, in particular the Government House Leader, seems to be tiring of

hearing all this bellyaching about people losing Government services. I know he

is also tired of hearing about them losing their jobs and hearing about them

losing their contracts which he and his Government signed with them. It is

understandable that he would be tired of hearing that, because they do not want

to hear about that; they would rather have people hear the kind of platitudes we

heard from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, those kinds of

platitudes about so-called good news when we have an unemployment rate that is

reaching toward 25 per cent - if you count discouraged workers, I am sure we

would get to 25 per cent.

We have in this Province through MUN Extension an opportunity

that has been present for quite a number of years, close to 30 years, a

programme and a service which has been able to give or help give people

particularly in rural Newfoundland a voice and an ability to organize themselves

to tackle some of the problems they have, some of which they can resolve

themselves, some of which they have done by developing organizations such as

community councils and town councils which, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs

knows, historically in Newfoundland have not been developed except in the past

20 or 30 years. They played a tremendous role there, but that was only one step,

Mr. Speaker, in the development of rural Newfoundland.

Obviously there is a need to organize yourselves around this

Province to help to deliver the kind of municipal services which have been sadly

lacking in this Province for hundreds and hundreds of years. We see that

happening in this Province, and we see the Government getting more and more

involved, not without problems, but sincerely making efforts to resolve some of

the problems in rural Newfoundland which have to do with municipal services in

particular.

The response of the people in developing organizations in

this Province has been part of the work of MUN Extension Field Services, and

part of their work in that area at least has been done. But the rural

development organizations, the town councils, the people who have been helped by

MUN Extension, they, themselves, are firmly convinced that the work of MUN

Extension is not done, that there is more to do, and that there is assistance

that can be provided for individuals and groups who would like to assist in the

development of their own communities. Some of that, Mr. Speaker, may come out as

criticism against this Government, the previous Government or the next

Government; some of that is part of the reality of a democratic society.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose some of the people who came here last

week from Placentia, some of those groups and organizations were formed and

developed by help and work from MUN Extension, and that causes the Government

concern. And even if they are afraid to go out and listen to them they have to

realize they are there, that they are speaking out for things they believe in

for services for their community. And MUN Extension provided that service, Mr.

Speaker. MUN Extension is still needed, because the people have not yet been

satisfied that they are getting proper response from not only this Government

but from Governments in general, and that work has to continue. MUN Extension

should continue, and this Government should make that possible. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it is

important that other Ministers besides the Minister of Education take the

advantage and the opportunity to speak, as the hon. the Member for St. John's

East, the rural native Newfoundlander down in the corner, should hear from some

Ministers on this side their feelings towards the MUN Extension programme.

I am not surprised that the hon. the Member for St. Mary's -

The Capes, a former Minister of Education, after the little contribution he made

over the years to the education field would now be presenting petitions to the

House of Assembly stating that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

should interfere with the decision-making of Memorial University. I think that

is ludicrous. It is amazing.

I can understand that the hon. the Member for St. John's

East, a new Member in the House of Assembly, after being caught up in all of the

affairs of Ottawa and being caught up in a law practice in downtown St. John's,

knows very little about what goes on inside the Provincial Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador and what really happens outside the overpass. I mean,

he has a great deal of concern. My first question to the hon. the Member for St.

John's East would be, where is Blow Me Down? Do you know all about rural native

Newfoundland, what goes on out there, and how people survive? How phoney can one

individual be in this hon. House of Assembly? I am sure the great Socialist who

sits in a law office in St. John's counting the dollars per hour he can make is

really concerned about native Newfoundland. It is absolute nonsense for the hon.

Member to sit down there with his ideas.

But surely goodness, Mr. Speaker, being educated in law,

educated for a brief period of time in the Federal Government in Ottawa, and

educated somewhat by his colleagues around Memorial University, is he and the

former Minister of Education suggesting that there is the remotest possibility

that this Government would go over and tell Memorial University how to spend

their money on every programme they do?

If you want to see people in the galleries, if you want to

see demonstrations let us go over tomorrow and tell them to cut out the Faculty

of Social Work over there, or the Faculty of Medicine - no more medicine

programme. Let us tell them what time to clean the floors, let us tell them what

time to open the doors, let us tell them what time to cook the meals. Now come

on! Let us tell them what to teach. Now come on, you cannot have it both ways.

Keep you mind straight now and in order. The former Minister

of Education knows full well what his responsibility is - no, I should not say

that. He should have known what his responsibility was when he was Minister of

Education in this Province, that you do not tell Memorial University how to run

their affairs over there. You provide an amount of money and they have the

expertise. If they do not have the expertise, then Administration should be

removed. But that is another matter.

Now, let me tell the hon. the Member for St. John's East, for

the short term he is going to be sitting in his seat down there in the corner he

has to get used to the fact that this Government is run by this Administration,

that the hon. Members opposite are only Opposition and do not run the affairs of

this Province. Nor do they tell us how to run those affairs. Because, goodness

knows, after their seventeen years over here, if you are going to take a lead

from those people then you are going to be sadly left, you are not going to be

returning to this House of Assembly. Because they spent seventeen years turning

the whole Province inside out, total frustration, and left the majority of this

Province with no confidence in the Administration whatsoever. Absolutely none.

Now we have two former Ministers of Education sitting down

day after day telling this side of the House of Assembly to tell Memorial

University how to run its affairs, let us make all the decisions, and it is

disgusting. It is shocking. Do you want to create another body over there we

have no confidence in? We have confidence in the Administration of Memorial

University. They are making the right decisions, Mr. Speaker. That is the way

this Government operates, unlike former Tory Governments.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 3.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to say a

few words on this Bill in Committee stage and just remind my colleagues on this

side of the House in particular -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: I was just going to make the suggestion. The

rules allow us to speak for up to thirty minutes at a time and as frequently as

we wish in Committee, but we have in practice, by agreement basically, agreed to

ten or fifteen minute speeches back and forth, and if nobody gets up, well you

can get up again for fifteen minutes or whatever. It does not matter to us.

Fifteen minutes at a time is plenty. So let us say fifteen minutes at a time

with the understanding, of course, as we all know, that the rules allow for

somebody to sit down and get up again, sit down and get up again twenty times.

The best precedent reference I can refer newer Members of the

House to if they want to do some research would be Steve Neary, who used to be

the Member for Bell Island - Mount Scio, or Bell Island at least, and LaPoile.

Mr. Neary was a veteran at speaking in the Committee stage of debate, he loved

it. Of course Beauchesne provides in Paragraph 693 that the debate essentially

in Committee is on Clause 1 of the bill, until you proceed on to get to the

other clauses, and the debate on Clause 1, according to 693 (2) is normally

wide-ranging, covering all the principles and details of the bill, which makes

it very wide-ranging. If you look at the

schedule at the back of the bill, of

course, as Mr. Neary often used to do, Pages 9 and 10, the

schedule says, `The

Agricultural Products Marketing Board, the Alcohol and Drug Dependency

Commission, the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities, Canada Games Parks,

Economic Council, Economic Recovery Commission, on and on and on, so, Mr.

Chairman, it is very clear I am sure that everything goes, or anything goes

basically, to a certain extent. In terms of relevance, almost anything goes.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not want to be relevant.

MR. SIMMS: I did not say I did not want to be relevant

because I certainly do, but I would not want anybody, newer Members of the House

on the other side, to be apprehensive about standing and participating in the

debate and feeling that the Chairman is going to come out with his hands like

that and choke you and say, you had better stick to this, you had better stick

to that. I am sure Your Honour will agree that relevance is very, very difficult

to define, as Beauchesne says, and Members opposite and Members on this side

should be able to basically discuss anything as long as it touches on some

aspect of this bill, including the schedule, the title or whatever.

Mr. Chairman, having outlined that I also want to indicate to

Members opposite in particular that it is our intention to continue to speak to

this bill, to raise questions as we go through it, and to debate it in the hope

that we can encourage some Members opposite to get up and debate it. If they

want to get up and lambaste the Opposition, that is fine, too. We would just

like to see them get up and participate in debate, because we have not seen that

from this Government since they have been in power that I can recall. Just about

everything they try to do the Government House Leader gives the direction, and

what he tries to do is introduce a bill, or a measure, whatever it might be - on

Interim Supply the Minister of Finance spoke for one minute and nobody else got

up, or very rarely.

MR. GRIMES: We are giving you fellows a chance.

MR. SIMMS: We have had lots of chances. The Member for

Exploits should not be concerned about giving us a chance, the Member for

Exploits should be concerned about his own chances. That is what he should be

concerned about. I am not sure if he is still here or not, but my friend who was

in the gallery earlier is a man who has a keen eye on the Exploits District, as

the Member would know. And I suggest to the Member that he should try to make an

impression on people like that by getting up and participating in the debate

from time to time instead of sitting in his seat, not budging. And if the

visitors from the area were here in the past they would know that the Member for

Exploits, I suppose, maybe over the two years might have been up twice.

MR. WINSOR: But you noticed he spoke yesterday?

MR. SIMMS: Now you have to give him some credit because

he is a busy individual, a very busy man.

MR. WINSOR: But there is a Cabinet post to come, you see?

MS. VERGE: What is he busy at?

MR. SIMMS: NDP? No, no, no. the leader of the NDP has his

eye - what is it, a lean and hungry look? - on the district of Exploits too, I

hear. It could be NDP territory. Grand Falls could be NDP territory. It was at

one time very good NDP territory but I think it has flattened out a little bit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, that is the time I was referring to.

There was only one time that I know of, 1985, when I came within forty-one votes

of losing the seat. But you know the big mistake there, I think -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, the relevance is to this legislation, I

mean, what you are doing to the public service employees, many of whom live in

Grand Falls, many of whom are having their wages frozen as a result of this

bill, many of whom supported the NDP in 1985 when I came that close to losing my

seat. So there is the relevance, Mr. Chairman. Very easy to make the point

relevant.

On that occasion if those public servants whose wages are

being affected by this bill had been able to talk the candidate who ran in Grand

Falls into running in Windsor-Buchans for the NDP against the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture, I have a sneaky suspicion that he might very well be

in this Legislature even today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I think he could have. At that time I

think he could have and may still be able to do it. A very credible candidate.

Although I suspect now, having had a few smacks at it Federally and

Provincially, he might have had his fill of it and might be prepared to let

somebody else go, and I would not be at all surprised if the leader of the NDP

Party - assuming he remains as leader of the NDP Party, of course, but his

present position is leader of the NDP Party - might have a look at the central

area. Because there are an awful lot of public servants who are affected by this

piece of legislation who are very upset, particularly upset with this

Government.

But I will tell you. The ripest seat in the Province today

outside of St. John's - and outside of St. John's Centre, which is extremely

ripe - is the seat occupied by the Government House Leader, the Minister

responsible for this legislation, the Member for Gander, who as an individual is

a fine person, a fine individual.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do not praise him too much.

MR. SIMMS: Well, I have to praise him. I, unfortunately

or fortunately, depending on which way you look at it, I have had many occasions

over the last couple of years to deal with him as a House Leader. I used to

share cigarettes with him from time to time. We had puffs together and we are

finally trying to overcome that. But -

MS. COWAN: Is this relevant?

MR. SIMMS: Pardon me?

MS. COWAN: Is this relevant?

MR. SIMMS: Yes it is, I say to the Minister of Labour. My

comments, Mr. Chairman, on this bill are as relevant as the Minister of Labour's

comments on this bill have been thus far.

AN HON. MEMBER: Has she spoken on it?

MR. SIMMS: No, she has not spoken on it. So mine are very

relevant. So I say to the Member for Gander, one of the ripest areas for the NDP

and for the Tories, by the way, it is a ripe area for the Tories, is the Gander

seat, held by the Minister who has brought in this infamous Bill, Bill 16, and

who has attacked the public servants of the Province by - look, the big issue is

not the freezing of their wages. I mean, they are mad enough about that. That is

not the big issue. The big issue is what has happened with the introduction of

this legislation. The breaking of the very basic premise of collective

bargaining, and that basic premise is trust, as we all know. And that is what

has them upset.

Now my friend from Kilbride last night made some comments

that were carried far and wide this morning, and continue to be carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: And he made a very valid - now, the Member for

Exploits, you see - the Member for Exploits - I was thrown of track a few

moments ago because I said -

MR. NOEL: He told you to mind your own business and do a

better job in Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry, what did the hon. Member say from

Pleasantville, I did not quite hear him?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: There.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, thank you for your protection, I

appreciate it very much.

Anyway, I was saying that the Member for Exploits of course

sometimes gets thrown off track. He is a very busy man. Usually he is tied up

outside the House carrying suitcases and baggage and clothing, but here today,

because there are some visitors in the gallery from his area who he knows well,

he has got to have a few interjections and a few heckles. So we do not mind

that, he should have a right to perform.

But the Member for Gander is the individual who is

responsible primarily for this legislation, as he knows. And (inaudible) the

individual who I honestly believe is very uncomfortable these days. He feels

uncomfortable, very uncomfortable, because I do not think he really feels good

about bringing in this legislation. In fact, I think he said last night, 'none

of us like the bill,' which is a strange thing in itself, yet they are bringing

it in, so I guess somebody over there must like it and must give the direction.

But the Member for Gander may one of these days realize that what he has done as

a former socialist himself, as a former Member of the NDP who will stand up

quite frequently in defence of the collective bargaining process, has now hung

himself, I am afraid. Particularly with his friends in the public service out in

Gander, and I think he knows he is in some difficulty out in Gander.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The President of Treasury Board says he is in

good shape out in Gander. Well, time will tell, I guess. Time will tell. If he

is in good shape now then I do not know if it can get any worse.

MR. BAKER: I did a little bit better than 41 votes.

MR. SIMMS: Did you? Yes, well you did a little worse than

that the time before when you got defeated. So 41 votes winning is better than

losing altogether I suspect.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, having had those few preliminary

remarks let me just indicate as well that we intend to propose some amendments

to the legislation, to various clauses. I will not say what they are now until

we get to them, but at the appropriate time we will be moving some amendments. I

understand from the Government - and I would hope that the Government House

Leader might take the opportunity to get up in the debate and indicate to us

what amendments he proposes - because he has said he is going to propose some

and perhaps we can have copies. It would be very much appreciated if we could

have copies. In fact, I would be happy to exchange copies of the amendments that

we intend to propose for the amendments that he intends to propose. Then we

would both know exactly what we can look forward to when the time comes.

Mr. Chairman, there are twenty public service groups, I

think, affected by this legislation. I think it is twenty.

MR. BAKER: More.

MR. SIMMS: More than the Government House Leader says.

Well he can correct me and he can answer my question when he stands. The list I

have includes the Aquarena employees represented by CUPE, the Cabot Institute

support staff represented by NAPE, Central Laundry represented by NAPE,

Enterprise Newfoundland employees represented by CUPE, General Service

represented by NAPE, Group Homes - NAPE, Hospital Support - CUPE, Hospital

Support - NAPE, Lab and X-Ray -NAPE, Maintenance or MOS -NAPE, Marine Institute,

Marine Services, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, Newfoundland Liquor

Corporation, Nurses, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Student Assistants -

NAPE, Waterford Hospital support staff, Workers Compensation, how many is that?

Eighteen. He thinks there are more affected by this? Of course, the NTA group, I

do not think I read them out. I did not read out the NTA. Of course they would

be affected by the freeze.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. So maybe I have overlooked another one.

In fact I got this list from the Minister's staff. I asked for a copy of the

negotiated and arbitrated wage increases, the public servants wage increases for

1991-92. That is the list they gave me, but I now realize the NTA is not on this

list.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay. So maybe the Minister will stand when he

talks about the clauses and amendments to maybe tell me as well if there are any

other groups aside from the NTA that are omitted from this list of (inaudible)

agreements.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is one public service group that did not

have their agreement in place so they would not be on this list. Perhaps he

could tell if there are others as well. I would appreciate that if the Minister

stands in debate.

I would also like him to address, if he would, this question:

in addition to the wage rollback - the wage freeze the Government calls it, wage

rollback we call it - the negotiated increases for other monetary benefits, in

particular the Labrador benefits package, can the Minister tell the House what

exactly will be eliminated for the year 1991-92 for public service employees

working in Labrador? What will they lose in 1991-92 in addition to their wages

being frozen or rolled back? What monetary benefits will they receive?

AN HON. MEMBER: What they always received.

MR. SIMMS: Well, not what they always received because

they just got a new package, I understand, in the last year or so, remember that

big two year independent study? So I would like him to be a bit more specific

and maybe give us examples of what monetary benefits they will lose, and then

tell me also if they will get those benefits back, the wages they can get back a

year or two from now when their contract runs out, if they want to extend their

contract by a year, does that apply as well to the monetary benefits? So, if an

employee in Labrador loses 18 per cent for isolation allowance which they were

due to get in 1991-92 will they also be able to get that in 1993 or 1994,

whenever their contract?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: So, it also applies to the monetary wages?

Okay, well having confirmed that all I need to know from him is what kinds of

monetary benefits will the employees in Labrador lose, and indeed what kind of

monetary benefits other public servants will lose as a result of this

legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to take a couple of minutes of time. First of

all, the questions asked by the Opposition House Leader: I do not have all the

details at my fingertips but I will certainly get them later on this afternoon

and give them to the hon. gentleman. Essentially, what happens with this

legislation is that any increase that was due to come into effect from April l,

1991 to 31 March, 1992 will now come into effect one year later, if the unions

so choose. It is really a postponing for a year of increases. I would like to

point out that what we are talking about here are the increases on the grid. It

does not include step increases and things like that, that people ordinarily go

through, or normal reclassifications. There is an allowance made in the salary

for normal reclassifications and these things, so there will be some movement

within the public service during that year.

There are a couple of amendments that I intend to make, and I

could send a copy over to the Opposition House Leader. The first has to do with

Paragraph 2(

c) Section 9. We want to eliminate that and simply substitute

another wording which is much simpler. It is just clarifying that the bill

applies to employees to whom the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act

applies. The second amendment is more significant. This is the amendment that

ensures that the Pay Equity Agreement, once it is reached, will not be treated

as an increase in wages. In other words we can bring in, during that freeze

year, the first step of the implementation of the pay equity, if agreement is

reached with any of the groups during the coming year. So, the commitment to

bringing in pay equity as soon as agreement is reached is there, and is now made

clear in the legislation. Mr. Chairman, we will be moving these two amendments.

I understand that Members opposite have a lot of amendments but, at this point

in time, these are the only two that we will be moving.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up a lot of time right

now because there will be plenty of opportunity to speak in the next three or

four days, or week, or whatever the case may be, except I would like to confirm

the fact that we do not enjoy bringing in this bill, it is not something we have

looked forward to. It is not something we want to do, it is something that has

to be done. This bill represents to us in this current year, to Government -

nothing to me personally - about $75 million. I said this bill means to the

Government of the Province $75 million in this freeze year.

We could equate that with jobs if we wanted to. When we first

realized we were that much short this is the way the discussion went with the

unions: Look, we have this shortfall and we have choices. Our choices at this

point in time are: more layoffs, 2,000, 3,000, 3,500 more layoffs, in that

range, that many layoffs; or we are going to have to freeze wages and remove the

retroactivity from the pay equity. These are the choices we are faced with. And

we made our choice. Our choice is Bill 16.

But it was not a willing choice. It was a choice that was

weighed against another 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in the public service. We felt that

this was the least painful option for the whole Province. It is unfortunate that

it had to be done but, Mr. Chairman, it had to be done. We could not go out and

borrow more money. We are borrowing $53 million now. We are planning to borrow

on current account $53 million. We cannot go out and borrow any more on current

account. Absolutely impossible.

Members opposite kind of make fun of the situation with

regards to the credit rating, they make fun of that. Yes, several speakers

opposite have made fun of that. They said there is really no problem, that other

Provinces have the same credit rating. That we are worrying unnecessarily about

that credit rating. The implication being that we can go out and borrow our fool

heads off.

Now, I want to make it very clear that we maintain an A-

rating with one and only one rating agency, Standard and Poor, A-. With Moody's,

we are B. With the Canadian rating agencies we are B. We retain, with one rating

agency only, an A rating. That allows us to be perceived as having A rated

bonds. We are hanging on by our fingernails. If that drops one more level we no

longer have any rating agency rating us at an A level.

Some Members opposite know what that would mean. It would

mean that a huge

section of the money market would no longer be available to us,

the huge

section that demands only A rated bonds. A huge

section of the money

market would be unavailable to us. We probably could still raise some money - we

would have to pay higher rates - but not nearly as much at any one time, and

certainly not enough to cover our capital needs and the needs to replace past

borrowings, certainly not enough for that. Which would mean further, massive,

monumental cuts, huge cuts in the public service of this Province.

So it is extremely important that we do not slip any more. It

is crucial that we do not slip any more. Members opposite let it slip in 1985.

And they make fun of that too as if, well, that is something, there is nothing

to that, sure, the credit rating slipped. In 1985 the credit rating dropped,

dropped in a lot of provinces, did not have to in some provinces, but the credit

rating dropped in Newfoundland. And fortunately for Members opposite they could

afford to let it drop one level. I really wish that we had that luxury, the

luxury that you people had in 1985 of allowing your credit rating to drop a

level. I really wish that we had that luxury, because then perhaps we could have

gotten away with fewer layoffs. Perhaps then we could have provided a few more

services. Perhaps then Bill 16 may not have been necessary.

AN HON. MEMBER: It will be upgraded next year.

MR. BAKER: But, Mr. Chairman, we did not have the luxury,

we did not. Our credit has been used up, totally used up. We had no choice but

to proceed with this bill, which as I indicated, we are not happy with. We do

not jump up and down for joy when we bring it in. But at the same time we have

to say to Members opposite the Province has to be governed, it has to be

governed in a responsible manner and we intend to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a few other comments and questions I want to put to the

Minister. On his last point with respect to the downgrading of the credit

ratings: My colleague for Labrador West, the economist, -

MR. A. SNOW: No, no, no!

MR. SIMMS: Well the amateur economist. Well the

interested individual who represents Menihek District, who has made some

inquiries over the last twenty-four hours -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) capitalists on Water Street.

MR. SIMMS: -who has made some inquiries, and has done

some research over the last twenty-four hours, including communicating with New

York and other provinces. I am not sure he called the same people Eugene Hiscock

called when he was down in New York representing the Liberals a few years ago,

remember Eugene Hiscock, the former Member for Eagle River, was down in New York

one time to check with the rating agencies. The hon. Member does not recall that

does he?

AN HON. MEMBER: Was that when we were in Opposition?

MR. SIMMS: When you were in Opposition? Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I do not know.

MR. SIMMS: You do not know. Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: He would not know, of course.

MR. SIMMS: Let me ask - so my friend for Menihek was

going to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I do not know what it was, when he was asked

by the press, he said he was down in New York checking with the credit rating

agencies on behalf of the Opposition, which I thought was rather interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: He may have been.

MR. SIMMS: He may have been, yes.

Anyway my friend for Menihek is going to make some comments

and blow to pieces the argument that the Government House Leader is putting

forth, or at least I hope he is - he said he was, unless he is backing off now.

I wonder if the Minister would answer a few other questions

for me. In his comments he mentioned there were $75 million dollars saved as a

result of Bill 16. So presumably that included the retroactive monies for pay

equity, $24 million, around fifty, fifty-one was salaries, salary savings. That

is equivalent, I suppose, to one week unpaid leave for every public servant in

the Province. Is that what I remember the Minister saying one time?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SIMMS: No? He did some work on that I understand. I

think he indicated that there was some discussion about it, who put it forth and

everything. I think the Minister says he put it forth, and that is fine. Perhaps

he could tell me what he put forth and if it was one week unpaid or two weeks

unpaid or whatever it was. What did that equate to? Did that equate to about the

same amount of money, $50 million or $75 million or whatever? Perhaps he can

comment on it, I would like to hear it.

Secondly, in the Budget Estimates under Department of Health,

I do not know if there is another item somewhere for pay equity other than under

Health, but he last year had in his Budget $6.3 million for pay equity.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Last year's Budget - $6.3 million for pay

equity under Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Last year: was that meant to incorporate the

previous two years retroactive pay equity payment, or was it just estimated for

last year's.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, that is why I am asking, because this

year, of course, as he knows, you have $3.5 million in there, which is half or

little more than half of what they had in there last year and which you did not

spend at all. So, I am wondering if the $6.3 last year was really an estimate of

what they thought pay equity would cost them last year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: - okay, so it should have been - he is saying

now, I think he estimates it would have cost $24 million, so that would be for

four years, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991, four years, so $6 million a year, so last

year instead of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: - no? Well in any event, last year $6.3

million to pay equity, obviously it was a gross underestimate using his

evaluation today and it probably should have been last year $18 million or $15

million or something, is that what he is trying to say, maybe he can explain it

that way to us, we would appreciate it if he could. Then, on what grounds is the

$3.5 seen to be an accurate estimate, $3.5 that he has in this year's estimates,

how confident does he feel that that is the estimate for this year, right, how

firm is that? So if he can answer that question, I would appreciate it.

I also want to take issue with the Minister of Education, if

I may, during this debate, talking about public servants, loss of income as a

result of the wage roll back, but I want to touch on the issue that I have

raised in Question Period, in the last two or three days, and that is the

difference in the job losses in the education sector - particularly, I have been

arguing the last couple days, the post-secondary education sector.

The Minister has said, and the point I am trying to make is,

the day after the Budget, he talked about 200 in the post- secondary sector and

at the time, he said: now not all of those will be laid off -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. SIMMS: Oh yes, he did. Oh yes, he did. He said these

will be job losses but not all of those will be laid off -

AN HON. MEMBER: I do not recall it.

MR. SIMMS: Oh well, he might not recall it, but I can

assure him we have it on the record.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, it is not only Hansard, you had a press

conference, you will recall as well the day afterwards, and some of the press

might be able to even play your mouthing the words, in case there is any dispute

or difference, but he clearly said -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but - wait now, stick to one argument at

a time. The argument that he was trying to give me in Question Period today and

on Friday, after the fact, was that - what he really meant to say was that there

were going to be 200 layoffs, that is what he is trying to put out there now in

the way of an argument -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, but my point is, my point is - no, Mr.

Chairman, my point is, if you add up the totals as articulated in press releases

by every institution, the total comes to 362 job losses, job losses.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh well, maybe not all due to restraint he

says.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well that is not what most of the press

releases say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: But wait now, you are getting over to teachers

here and we are not talking about that now, I am trying to pin him down on the

post-secondary sector, he said there would be 200 job losses. Now that is what

he said and I am saying today that there really are 362, all you have to do is

add up every press release that has been made by all the post-secondary

institutions, you add them up, 362, I just gave the list to the press, they have

it there to look at. There is only one that may be in dispute and that is one of

the institutions say twenty-six, but yet in the release they mentioned another

twenty contractual employees, which are, for all intents and purposes,

equivalent to full-time positions, but there are 362, and my point was, that the

Minister said there would be 200. Now job losses can be layoffs, job losses can

be freezing of vacant positions, we all understand that, positions that were not

filled -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) vacant for a long time.

MR. SIMMS: - no they are not all vacant for a long time

though. No, Mr. Chairman, if he checks, some of them and quite a few of them

were positions that became vacant in the last six months for example, and they

did not fill them because of what was coming down the tube, everybody

understood, so, it is a job loss.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is okay, go ahead.

DR. WARREN: (Inaudible). redeploying quite a number. I

will give you the final figures, but we are redeploying to other jobs also -

MR. SIMMS: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, why the Minister

does not just directly confirm what has been in all the newspapers and what is

in all the releases and if you add them up, 362 job losses -

DR. WARREN: No, they are not 360 layoffs; they are not

360 layoffs, they are not.

MR. SIMMS: He just said to me, he just nodded -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I gave it to the press, actually, you might

have it there, someone might have it there. He just nodded when I said there are

360 positions, he said yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Job losses.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, now he is really wasting his time if he is

going to try to argue that. The point is, it is the same equivalent, they are

the same words that he used three weeks ago. I say to the Minister, they are the

same words he used three weeks ago when he spoke to the press at a press

conference, he said: I estimate there will be 200 job losses. Not all of them

will be layoffs. He said that. So we are talking about apples and apples.

And my point is this: That there are 362, not 200 - 81 per

cent more job losses than he estimated three weeks ago. That is my point and all

I want him to do is to confirm it, admit it, confess to it. The other night he

said: I admit we underestimated, it might be a hundred more. Well now, maybe it

is 160 more.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, well. I will get the numbers for him. Has

he not taken the press releases from all these institutes and just written them

down and added them up? And he just committed - he just said a moment ago, yes,

it is 362 job losses. If a position is frozen and not filled that has been

vacant, that is a job loss.

AN HON. MEMBER: No it is not.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, it is not a job loss? Oh, that is not a

job loss!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: There are lots of people who retire and the

positions are filled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: So it is not a job loss in their opinion,

if you cut it by attrition then it is a job loss.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: They were frozen positions. But most of these

positions now became vacant - most of them, the ones that he is going to

categorize as vacant - came vacant in the last six months or so since the

Government last August or September put out the threat and institutions started

holding off on filling the positions. But they would have filled them under

normal conditions, under normal circumstances. The Minister would concede that.

So we are talking about a job loss. Now it might not have

affected an individual at the moment but it is a job loss, one less job, one

less position available to somebody who was looking for a job. But the point is

the Minister estimated there would be 200 job losses three weeks ago, there are

now going to be 362, 81 per cent more. Now, that is the argument.

DR. WARREN: Let me just, if we might, Mr. Chairperson, is

that possible?

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Minister sure, please go ahead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Education on a

point of clarification.

DR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I did make a mistake in

underestimating the number of positions affected, and I will provide the hon.

Member with all the details later on. I will give him - once we get it all from

the colleges - all the details.

But let me admit one other thing. I made a mistake also in

saying there would be 133 job losses as a result of fiscal restraint in the

kindergarten to twelve. That is wrong. Most of the job losses in the elementary

and secondary system, Chairperson, is declining enrollments. So I perhaps made

another mistake. Now that is two mistakes, and they happen to cancel out the

figures, but I probably made a mistake and I should have stated it more clearly.

I am learning that with the hon. Member for Grand Falls, he has a way with words

and I have to be much more precise. He has some charm too, and all of these

other things, but he has a way with words and I have got to be much more precise

in the future.

Perhaps in a week or so I will give him all the facts on the

number of positions affected, the number of layoffs, the number of people who

would have gone anyhow, the number of positions affected as a result of fiscal

restraint. That is what we are talking about - and the cutbacks. And that is a

different figure from the total number, Chairperson. but I will give him the

figures, and I will smile doing it like he is smiling right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, it is not the Member for Grand

Falls who he needs to be precise with, he needs to be precise with the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, right? That is who he needs to be precise with. There

is no need to play little games and try to twist and talk around. Let him

confess, as he now has done I believe, he has confirmed there will be 362 job

losses -

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SIMMS: - in the education sector as a result of the

Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SIMMS: Well, we will check Hansard. I will tell you

what we will do, Mr. Chairman. I will tell you what we will do. We will watch

the television news tonight or tomorrow night and see if the press carry the

Minister's comments at his press conference a few weeks back, where he may have

said, I understand, there will be 200 job losses as a result of the Budget in

the education sector, post-secondary.' Job losses. Job losses! And he may also

have said, `now not all of those job losses are layoffs.'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No. So `job losses' are the words he used and

they are the words I am using. We are talking about the same thing, we are

talking about apples and apples, he misjudged, miscalculated, underestimated by

81 per cent, and he is nodding.

My next question then is to the Minister of Finance. If the

Minister of Education has now confirmed that he miscalculated and underestimated

by 81 per cent the number of job losses, can the Minister of Finance tell the

House whether or not his numbers in his Budget of 2,100 public service positions

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I think it is 2,100 in the Budget. The

Minister should know better than I. He is the one who wrote the Budget, I

presume.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. WINSOR: Are the fifteen minutes up, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: The Minister just sat down, did he not?

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Minister was up in the meantime.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but he was up on a point of

clarification.

MR. SIMMS: No, he stood up in debate. I sat down and he

stood in debate. I have just a few more minutes, I think.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no problem with the Chair if there

is consent of the House.

MR. SIMMS: I sat down and the Minister of Education stood

up in debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thought he was getting up on a point of

information.

MR. SIMMS: It is all points of information, I guess.

MR. FUREY: There is no point of information - a point of

order, or a point of privilege.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but he yielded for the -

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, it does not really matter. I have a

few more minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of

Finance maybe could get up in the debate. I thought, from recollection, that he

announced in the Budget there would be 2,100.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two thousand.

MR. SIMMS: Two thousand. Okay. That is fine if that is

correct. Now, then, considering the fact that the Minister of Education has

admitted that he has underestimated the number of job losses in the education

sector because of the Budget, does that affect his announced number of positions

of 2,000? He understands what I am asking and what I am saying here, does he?

The Minister of Finance knows what I am asking, so I would like him to stand and

tell us whether he thinks that will affect his estimate. That is what we would

like to know, obviously. Before he stands though, there are just a couple of

others.

Mr. Chairman, there are so many questions here to ask. Does

the Minister of Education now know? Did he happen to make a phone call to his

Deputy Minister and say, `Look, I promised the answer to a question to Mr. Simms

from Grand Falls yesterday on the assets of Harlow campus. Can you phone Art May

and tell him to look it up in his books?' It takes two minutes probably, and

maybe the Minister has the answer by now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: He still does not have it? He will have it

later. That will be interesting to know. I do not know what it is. I have no

idea. I know the operating cost was $300,000 a year because I read that in the

paper, and the breakdown was $180,000 from the Government and $120 from private

sources, or whatever.

By the way, I have visited Harlow campus and I was in no way

reflecting on Harlow campus or -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No. No. Well, I will make it clear now.

Mr. Chairman, I have had a number of students from my

district attend Harlow, and, in fact, I, myself, visited Harlow one time many

years ago. It is a beautiful location, a beautiful campus. It is a wonderful job

it does, and the opportunity it provides for young Newfoundlanders to get some

teaching -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I do not know. I have no problem with that.

The point of my questioning was this, and I say it in all sincerity to the

Minister of Education, as good it is and as wonderful a program as it is, in

terms of priorities -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I hope they do. I hope so.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well I did not say anything the other day. The

Minister tried to put words in my mouth, that is all that is wrong with the

Minister. But, Mr. Chairman, as worthy as it is, my question was whether or not

he personally as Minister of Education in terms of priorities considered the

expenditure on Harlow Campus a higher priority than MUN Extension. I was asking

him his opinion as Minister of Education. That is all it was. And that is a

reasonable question, is it not? That is not outlandish. Is that an outlandish

question? Maybe I should be barred from the House for asking it. But I thought

it was a sensible question and to tie in with it, what are the total assets

there?

AN HON. MEMBER: If you asked the question (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, you would think you would. I say to the

Member for St. John's, I agree with him. If you ask a question you think you

would get the answer. But you do not get it from this Minister because he keeps

twisting things. But maybe he will stand and address the issue once again, and

maybe he will give us his opinion in terms of priorities. Maybe the Member for

St. John's South will give us his candid opinion. In terms of a priority and if

he was in the position, what would he see as the priority, the expenditure on

Harlow campus or the expenditure for MUN Extension which services rural

Newfoundland? That is all I ask.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Both are. Exactly.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Now the Member for St. John's South is hitting

the nail right on the head. So I am asking which would be his priority?

MR. MURPHY: My priority?

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. MURPHY: I would have to sit down and look at it.

MR. SIMMS: He will have to sit down now and look at the

issues.

MR. MATTHEWS: He has not had enough time.

MR. SIMMS: The Member for St. John's South is becoming

more and more like a Cabinet Minister every day. When you put a question

pointedly to him he says, I will have to sit down and look at the issues. I

suspect if the Premier sees him in action like that today he will have him in

the front benches any moment. The Member for St. John's South, he just gave a

perfect answer to a pointed question I asked him. I asked him if he was in a

position to determine a priority, the Harlow Campus expenditure versus the MUN

Extension expenditure, what would his priority be? He said, I would have to sit

down and look at the issues. I mean, that was his answer. A very convenient

answer. So I suspect he will be moved to the front benches in due course.

Mr. Chairman, my time must obviously be up now.

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, in more ways than one.

MR. SIMMS: In more ways than one. Now, I say to the

Minister of Finance, if there is one individual in this House whose days may be

numbered it is not the Member for Grand Falls, I can assure you. But it might

very well be the Member for St. John's Centre. All he has to do is look at the

Members behind him, look at his Members in the backbenches, look at the NDP.

They are down there every day, day in and day out. Behind our candidate of

course, but they are down there every day and the Member for St. John's Centre

is the individual, I think, who is going to have to be very concerned.

AN HON. MEMBER: After you lose the leadership.

MR. SIMMS: Well I do not know. The hon. Member knows

something I do not know. I do not recall saying I was running for the leadership

of the party. So you might have to wait and see what happens in that area, in

that regard.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there is one other question I wanted to

ask the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on this segment before I sit

down, but the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is not here.

MS. VERGE: Yes, she is.

MR. SIMMS: She is here, I am sorry. She is up in the back

row. I say to the Minister seriously, on a couple of occasions the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations was asked a question. I asked her one time -

MS. COWAN: Be charming now, be charming!

MR. SIMMS: I will try to be charming - and my colleague

for Grand Bank asked her one time. It was a serious question but, of course, she

took high offence to it and tried to chastise us and yell at us and bawl at us

and criticize us instead of answering the question.

We asked her sincerely as Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations - maybe she can stand in debate - is she not concerned really and

truly with the negative fallout as a result of legislation like Bill 16? As the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is not concerned about that, and

does she not think that that may jeopardize, hurt the efforts of her Department

in terms of negotiating with the Public Sector unions and groups in the future?

Now that is a sensible question, a simple question, and it did not warrant the

kind of response the Minister gave on two occasions in Question Period. Surely

she must have some concern about it. We would just like to see her admit it

rather than try to skate around it, and say what she is going to try to do to

overcome what obviously is going to be negative fallout as a result of Bill 16.

I hope the Minister of Labour will be able to comment on that question,

particularly as it applies to Bill 16 when she stands in the debate, I hope the

Minister of Education stands and answers my questions, I hope the President of

Treasury Board stands and answers the questions I asked at the beginning, and I

hope the Minister of Finance will get up and answer in a sensible way the

questions I asked him.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words

to correct a few points which have been made. During the course of debate, and I

cannot remember when it was, someone raised the question about redundancy

pensions and how we were not able to identify how much they would cost the

pension fund. First let me say this. Redundancy pensions are not part of the

budgetary process, not directly at least, because redundancy pensions are paid

out of the pension fund rather than out of current revenue. Eventually it will

effect current revenue, because we will have to be putting money into the

pension fund if the payouts for redundancy pensions are too great. We cannot

give you an exact figure on the amount of the redundancy pensions because each

person, as he or she is identified for redundancy, the pension has to be

calculated - alright? - somebody has so many years at 2 per cent of a certain

salary. But we have a fairly good notion. It looks like there maybe 400 or 500

redundancy pensions. People now are working on getting the exact figures

compiled, and when these figures are quite firm we will let you know just how

much the pension fund will be affected by that. I would like to make one more

point concerning the numbers that are being flashed around. Members of the

Opposition used to be using the phrase 2100. The figure that we used in the

Budget was 2000 and some management. Let me just refresh Member's -

AN HON. MEMBER: What page?

DR. KITCHEN: On Page 16. We were saying here that

the lay off of permanent employees will number 1300 - it is expected, we said,

and in addition there will be a reduction of 350 part-time employees, and we

will be hiring about 350 fewer seasonal employees. Now that totals 2000. The

reduction in permanent part-time and seasonal employees will be spread

throughout the public service, including 650 in Government Departments, 900 in

health care, 350 in education, and 100 others, again totalling 2000.

Furthermore, up to 500 vacant positions will be eliminated, mostly in Government

Departments. Executive and management positions will be reduced by 10 per cent.

We have already explained that there may be a few extra people not in the 2000,

in management, because we had not come to the top management positions at that

point. But there were very few of those; I think there was a very small number

in addition to the 2000.

Now, that was what we expected because you cannot be

absolutely certain of what the various boards and institutions are going to do

when what they have been given is a budgetary amount which has to be translated

into how they are going to operate it. So gradually these figures are being

refined by the various components, and in some cases the estimates may have been

a bit low and in some cases they undoubtedly will have been a bit high. It may

very well even out, it may be overall a bit higher or a bit lower. But at the

time, it was the best estimate that could be made. We will see how it goes as

time goes on, but there is no point in mentioning figures of 3500, or 5000 or

6000 and stuff like that, it just misleads it. The figure we made was an honest

estimate and hopefully it will not be any more than that; it may be less than

that or it may be somewhat more.

Now the other point I want to make has to do with the - I do

not like to use the word `hypocrisy' with respect to the labour movement, but

some of us have been involved in the labour movement for a great many years in

various capacities and when I hear the hollow phrases coming from the

Opposition, you would think the ghost of Joe Hill was over there, this legendary

hero of the labour movement. I expect the Leader of the Opposition to break into

a chorus of Joe Hill any minute, but he has not done so. `You dreamt you saw Joe

Hill last night as alive as you and I.' Remember that? Mr. Chairman, it is

amazing how things happen, how things change when the positions change. You

would not know but they were all against the IWA strike. I suppose I am the only

Member in the House who fought against the Government in fighting for the IWA.

It is amazing how things go back in history, how things happen. I do not want to

belabour that point, but I do want to say this though, that from my point of

view and from other Members', my associates, it is a very difficult thing to

bring in this bill to deny signed contracts. It is a very harsh thing - a very

harsh thing - to do, but the alternative would have been even worse. The

alternative according to the Member for St. John's East was not to do it. He

said it is either do it or not do it. That is not the alternative. That maybe

the logic, A or not A, but it is not the common sense approach. If we did not do

that we would have had to scrape $50 million up some other way, perhaps by

firing another 2000 people, laying off another 2000, or perhaps we would have

had to try to borrow another $50 million. And if we had done that we might have

very well have lost our A-minus, and then we would have had to lay off more

perhaps, because we would not be able to borrow the money we needed to operate

at the present time.

What we really have to do, in my view - this is not something

we wanted to do, but something I think we had to do. I cannot think of anything

else we could have done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) next year.

DR. KITCHEN: But that does not solve this year's

budgetary problem, when you do something next year. There is a problem next year

we may have to face, but hopefully the revenues during the next year will

increase. Hopefully they will. You have to live in hope. It could be less, you

never know, but we will face that problem when we come to it. But at the present

time I see no solution other than to go ahead with our proposals in the Budget.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. SIMMS: I just want to make a very brief comment

because some of my other colleagues wish to participate in the debate. I do want

to make one point in response to the Minister of Finance's defence or argument

over the use of job numbers and how they sometimes can become confusing. You say

2000 we say 3000, somebody else says 4000, or whatever. I agree with him, they

can tend to be confusing. All we can do in Opposition is try to extract from the

Government answers to our questions, such as the questions we put to the

Minister of Education in which I have shown clearly, and he has admitted

publicly now, that he underestimated the job losses in the education sector as a

result of the Budget. He admitted publicly on television the other night that he

underestimated it.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Now, now. Let me send over to the Minister a

nicorette or a piece of Dentyne. Just relax a bit now. Just relax.

Notice how calm I am? I do not get offended at all with

people questioning or asking questions. The Premier is extremely interested in

what I have to say, I see him there listening intently. My point is, does the

Minister of Health have any confessions to make? For example, has he

underestimated the number of job losses in the health care sector? That is a

logical question that needs to be asked, and so on and so on. But I will make

this one point -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: They may have, but we do not know. It has been

over a month since the Budget came down, so surely there should be some

indication from the Government as to what they expect the fallout to be? Now I

say to the Minister of Finance and to the Premier and to the President of

Treasury Board, this is the reason why we have been steadfastly holding out for

the Departmental Salary Estimates documents. If we had those documents available

to us, then maybe we could see more clearly, maybe the press could see more

clearly, maybe the public could see more clearly whether or not what the

Government is saying is accurate. Because do not forget, I say to the Minister,

that last year up until May he was defending a $10 million surplus in his

Budget, and in September it was whatever it was - a $120 million deficit within

four months. So as an Opposition we have every right, I think, to ask these

kinds of questions and to demand that proper documents be provided to Members of

the House so they can scrutinize the estimates more properly.

PREMIER WELLS: You know they are not being withheld. You

know they are not available to us, either.

MR. SIMMS: I know what the President of Treasury Board

told me, and I have no reason to doubt the President of Treasury Board. I work

with him in a co-operative way as much as I can, given the restraints under

which we work as House Leaders. Only he and I really understand that, nobody

else. Quite frankly I do not think even the Premier would understand the kinds

of constraints I am referring to. But it is a fact that the President of

Treasury Board has told me that he does not have the documents or does not have

the information available yet. I have said to him, as he can tell you, that I

somehow find that hard to believe. But I take him at his word,

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: But I am absolutely delighted to hear that.

The only thing I am surprised at is that he has not produced some kind of a

document for the Premier just to get him off his back. Anyway, that is the

reason why we would like to have that information, because it would help to make

our jobs a little easier and maybe it will help make the Government's job a

little more easy in terms of trying to defend what has happened.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, that is all I will have to say, as

there are others who wish to participate.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak to a

couple of issues in relation to the bill now before the Committee. The speakers

have had something to say about the presence or lack of presence of members of

the labour movement in the House during the debate last night and during the

debate today. I know the Member for Kilbride has expressed some consternation

and some discouragement in the fact that members of the labour movement have not

filled the House to take this Government to task for what it has done. But I

suppose, Mr. Chairman, there is a number of possible reasons for that. I would

suggest that what this Government has done has discouraged members of the labour

movement, in particular the public service labour movement, from having any real

interest in what this Government is going to do next; they do not think this

Government is going to change its mind; they do not think this Government

listens to them; they do not think, despite what this Government says about its

respect for labour relations, that this Government really means it at all.

We have heard the Minister of Finance talk about the hollow

phrases he has heard from the official Opposition. Well, Mr. Chairman, perhaps

they are hollow phrases from the official Opposition, as they were not any great

respecters of the labour movement when they were in office, but the hollow

phrases I hear coming from the Government side of the House, from the Premier

and from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, which say they have

some respect for the collective bargaining process, all that has been thrown to

the wind because this Government cannot say on the one hand that it has respect

for the collective bargaining process and then go through a period of

negotiations six, eight, ten months after it recognized the financial difficulty

it was in and continue to say certain things publicly about the financial state

of the Province which, in the ordinary course, public sector unions consider

part of the bargaining process.

All employers poor mouth their situation, all employers poor

mouth their bottom line and poor mouth their profitability in the private

sector. It is part of the negotiating process. And I see the Member for St.

John's South nodding, because he is a practical man of some experience and he

knows what goes on in ordinary life and negotiations. And that is exactly the

way public sector unions see the Government acting in the midst of some pretty

intense negotiating situations over the last twelve months, that the Government

in making these public pronouncements continued to sit down at the bargaining

table, continued to say yes, we will agree with you on that but we want you to

give up something else, the quid pro quo of collective bargaining that goes on,

on a daily basis and quite often late into the night.

They asked public sector bargaining agents to give up certain

things to get certain other things, and that process went on. You start off,

each side with a list of demands, and you negotiate certain things away; the

employer gives up some things, the union gives up some things and eventually as

a result of the bargaining process, the strike if necessary, and arbitration in

certain cases, a decision is reached as to what is appropriate and reasonable,

or if not even agreed upon, both sides accept that concessions have to be made.

Well, Mr. Chairman, while the Government was engaged in that

process it was telling the people of Newfoundland that there were serious

financial difficulties, and we accept that. But they did not suspend collective

bargaining, they did not suspend negotiations. They did not say we are sorry, we

have a serious problem here and we are not going to enter into any more

collective agreements until we can resolve our financial difficulties. They did

not do that.

If they had respect for the collective bargaining process

they could have and should have said, we are sorry, we cannot even sit down and

talk to you because we have nothing to give you. We cannot insist that you take

certain things from the table in return for things we are going to give you,

because we have nothing to give. They did not say that. They sat down and they

negotiated and they said Well, if we give you this will you take away that? They

made those agreements, and they did that allegedly in good faith, and now they

turn around in the end and say, we are going to take it away.

Now the Minister of Finance says I am trying to be simplistic

about this, saying, Well, we had an alternative, you just could not have done

it; it is either you do it or you do not do it. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister

of Finance would have us believe that there was only one alternative, that there

was only one choice, that there is only one way of doing things. But that is not

the case at all - that is not the case at all.

They said they were telling the unions as early as October,

let us present alternatives. But, Mr. Chairman, the only alternative presented

to the unions was either take it or leave it - you take the wage cuts and you

take the layoffs and there are no other alternatives.

We know, Mr. Chairman, that at least one was discussed and

presented by some of the public sector unions, and that was instead of

destroying the contracts in their entirety and reversing the gains that had been

made and agreed upon, what Government could perhaps do was have all public

servants covered by the agreements take an additional two weeks holiday without

pay, add that to the agreement and that would have the effect of saving the

Government money all across the board, perhaps an equivalent amount of money.

That was one alternative that was, i