May 23,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 29

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is

to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

With rumours of significant lay-offs coming within your

department, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, I am

wondering, Mr. Speaker, can we be assured - can the people of this Province be

assured - that these lay-offs will not jeopardize the safety of our highways?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province can

be absolutely assured that any changes within the staffing of the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation will definitely not affect the services given

to the people, winter and summer, across this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Among the people to be laid off are what are called wingmen,

a second driver on these fast-moving vehicles. I am wondering, can the minister

assure us that the travelling public, the driving public, the walking public,

the children who play on the sides of the roads, can be safe, with the lay-offs

that are coming - so many - 100 wingmen supposed to be laid off in the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: I guess my answer, Mr. Speaker, could be

exactly the same as my answer to the first part of the question. Yes, we can

guarantee that public safety is number one in the operation of our maintenance

crews, summer and winter, on our highways.

In the case of the wingmen, we have ploughs, in the last

number of years, operating on the road with one operator, one driver. We have

done research in other provinces, Quebec, Ontario, and a number of other

provinces have this now, one driver per vehicle. The wingmen operator - there is

a piece of equipment going to be installed. The new trucks are modified to be

able to take care that the driver can totally operate the wing part of the

plough with the safety and the total operation of his responsibilities on our

highways.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard tell of seeing-eye dogs; now we are going to

have seeing-eye snowploughs. Mr. Speaker, any vehicle has to be steered and has

to be stopped. Mechanics and mechanic support helpers are scheduled to be laid

off in the cutbacks in this department. Can the minister assure us that with

such people being laid off - is safety going to be further jeopardized?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, if he is going

to state a question at least he should state it with some accuracy and some

common sense in the beginning of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: He made a statement.

First of all, it only takes one individual behind the

steering wheel to apply the brakes and to steer the vehicle. We don't have two

people steering and applying brakes, the hon. member made that statement in the

beginning. Secondly, we undertook some major reorganizations in the department a

year and a half ago. We started with the top, superintendents, administration -

AN HON. MEMBER: They should have started at the top and

fired you.

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

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

direct a question to the Minister of Health.

The Agnew Peckham Report indicated that all personal care

homes, nursing homes, continuing care and alzheimer units should come under a

single entry system in the St. John's area. Now I asked the minister in this

House on November 29, if the waiting list is 1500 people as indicated in the

Agnew Peckham Report? The minister said that some people appear on that waiting

list more than once, in fact some four, five and six times. He stated that: When

the new single entry system came into place or comes into place we will know

exactly what the waiting lines are. Now will the minister inform this House how

many people are on the waiting list for admission to nursing homes in the St.

John's area?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question was

raised earlier by the hon. member.

When single entry became operational February of this year,

which was two or three months ago, there was an accumulation made of all of the

names on all of the waiting lists at all of the long-term care facilities in

this area and that totalled 6,000 names. Up to that point the waiting list was

perceived to be 6,000 people waiting entrance in the nursing homes. Upon first

purge that number was whittled down to just 1,600 names. As a result of that,

letters were sent out to the 1,600 names that were left on the list. As of the

last time I spoke with the CEO of the community health board, Brenda

Fitzpatrick, which was just about a week ago

AN HON. MEMBER: Fitzgerald.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Fitzgerald, I am sorry. They had

received responses from about 400 or 500 people on that list. So we are down now

to about 400, 500, 600 people who have responded. Of those who have responded

not all indicated that they were in fact wanting entrance or wanting to remain

on a list for a nursing home admission. So the process of assessing or

reassessing all of the names of those who had responded was commenced. As we

speak, there are approximately 150 assessments completed and there is a list of

about 150 people, which we think is about the bulk of the people who are

actually waiting admission to a nursing home.

Now, of that 150, they are not all from this region, some of

them are from other parts of the Province; some have indicated that they are not

quite at a point in time when they want admission to the nursing homes. Given

the fact that we probably have between 150-or-thereabouts people on a waiting

list, and given the fact that we admit about thirty-five a month because of the

attrition that occurs in nursing homes in this area, it seems reasonable to

assume that we could probably place most of these people within a

three-to-four-month period. What we have determined is that the waiting list for

entrance into nursing homes is not at all, nothing near what the perception was

and we should have a full handle on it within the next two or three months.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On November 29, I asked him if the waiting list was 1,500.

Now, he just indicated, he identified 6,000 before duplication; after

duplication he just stated it was 1,600; I asked him if it was 1,500 on November

29, and he said it is way off; there are five or six waiting lists, he admitted

that.

Now, the minister also should admit, that on February 20, the

150 on the list who are identified are those who are in urgent need of care in

those homes, the most urgent cases, when in reality, the large numbers, people

give up waiting to get in because the waiting lists have become so long they are

waiting years to get in. Now, I ask the minister, how does he plan to address

this critical problem of nursing home beds in this Province when, in this year's

Budget he eliminated $1.1 from the operating costs of keeping those nursing beds

going?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to caution the usage of figures at this point in

time as with respect to waiting lists. The member talks about 150 and I

indicated that that's a figure that I am hearing as being the appropriate

waiting list or the total waiting list at the moment but we are still in the

process, through the single entry system of re-assessing and re-evaluating all

of the responses that we are getting in.

Bear in mind also, we get twenty or thirty new requests every

month that have to be added to that list, so it is sort of a fluid situation now

in terms of coming up with the firm number but the bottom line is this, that we

do not have 6,000 on a waiting list for homes as was once perceived; we do not

have 1,500 or 1,600 on a waiting list as was once perceived. We know that we are

down in the hundreds, and probably as few as between 100 and 200 people. What I

am saying to the hon. member is that once we determine with some reasonable

finality what the list is, once we determine how many levels ones are in nursing

homes that are more appropriately to be used for levels two and three care, once

we determine that we can forego admitting level ones into nursing homes, we will

have increased capacity on an ongoing basis. Within the next three to six

months, as I said, the indication is that there will be no undue waiting list,

but we have sufficient beds, it seems at the moment, in the system in the St.

John's area to take care of those who appropriately need long-term care, help

and admission.

I would say to the House and to the hon. member that the

situation is not as probably the Opposition would like to portray, or as the

public originally perceived. We are working very rapidly to get a handle on

exactly what the situation is, what the numbers are, and I think the member on

the other side would be pleased to know what the numbers are when we finally get

them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The 150 as of

February 20 that was mentioned does not even include patients at the Waterford

and Miller Centre who are waiting to be transferred. They are not even included

in those 150 urgent ones.

I say to the minister, with an aging population, it is

estimated that the St. John's region will need 425 more long-term care beds in

the future, in the next seven years. It is going to cost $35 million to put

those beds there. That is not counting the 740 now in the system, two-thirds of

what is there that are going to need outright replacement or substantial

renovations. I received a list of capital funding. There is no capital funding

in this year's budget to address any of these requirements. The combined capital

and operating costs for those homes is over $60,000 per bed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Question, please.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will ask the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, he is delaying me to get to

the question. I would have the question asked if the minister hadn't got to

speak. If government is not going to address any of those shortfalls -

MR. EFFORD: Put your question, boy!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Be quiet. Put the snow plow back on the

road.

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm asking the question. The minister has

to go back to grammatics, to speak to the Minister of Education and Training. If

the government is not going to address the capital concerns for nursing homes,

will it not turn those over to private enterprise to build those nursing homes

and then government subsidize their operation at a substantial savings to itself

of tens of thousands of dollars?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member prefaces his question with a lot of `ifs'. If

the waiting list was 6,000 people, as was indicated it was three or four months

ago, we would have a different circumstance. The waiting lists are down around

100 to 200 people in the St. John's area and we cannot sensibly, rationally, or

intelligently plan the redevelopment of beds that are in the system, or the

addition of new beds to the system, until we know what the need is. The single

entry system is very rapidly identifying very succinctly what the real picture

is, and what the real needs will be, and within the next three to six months we

will be able to say with some real accuracy whether or not we need new beds in

the system.

The other thing we have to realize is that the Agnew Peckham

Report was produced three or four years ago. It has not been adopted by

government as policy. The recommendations have never been totally agreed to by

government, and some of the things that are in that report are not consistent

with what we believe to be the facts of the requirements for long-term care.

Some redevelopment is needed for higher levels of care, that is true, but on the

other hand, we have some inappropriate usages of the beds we have in the system

and we have to address that before we address putting new beds into the system.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier, a question actually for

the Premier in his capacity of acting Justice Minister. It was reported in the

news media a little while ago that the RCMP Commercial Crimes Division were

reviewing the Supreme Court judgement on Trans City with a view to conducting a

full-blown criminal investigation into the Trans City scandal. Will the acting

Justice Minister tell the House whether the police are currently conducting a

review and inquiry, or investigation, into the awarding of contracts to Trans

City?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me correct the

misstatement in the Leader's comment. I, too, read the story in The Evening

Telegram and I, too, understood from a variety of other sources that the

police did indeed review the transcript and so on, but nowhere at any time did I

see any statement that they were reviewing this with a view to conducting a

full-blown criminal investigation. That part, as far as I know, is totally

incorrect and I assume is a little embellishment.

As to whether or not they are doing any kind of an inquiry

whatsoever, I have no reason to believe they are, nor do I have any reason to

believe they are not. I just do not know; nobody has ever told me. I assume that

if they were they may well have told me. I do not know.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary for

the Premier.

The Premier acknowledges that the RCMP may be investigating

the government's award of contracts to Trans City. I would like to ask the

Premier whether, in view of the controversy about a mystery Cabinet paper,

missing information and shredded documents, whether the Premier has given

explicit instructions to members of his Cabinet, present and past, his caucus,

his staff, the public servants, to co-operate in full with the police by

providing any and all information and documentation about Trans City when

requested by the police?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to answer

because there is no credibility to what the hon. Leader of the Opposition is

saying. There is no investigation that I am aware of, but if there is any

investigation, like we do with every investigation, every minister, every

member, everybody concerned, always co-operates fully with the police. The

question is so silly and stupid it is hardly worth giving it the time of day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find it very surprising that the Premier and acting Justice

Minister claims not to know whether the police are investigating the Trans City

affair.

In November the Premier removed from the office of Justice

Minister the current Government House Leader, because the police were

investigating a firm in which the Government House Leader has a substantial

ownership interest. Should the Premier not now be in a position to tell people

whether the police are investigating his government with respect to their

handling of the Trans City contracts, and if the police are conducting an

investigation, should the Premier not remove himself from the Justice portfolio?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are two or three ways

in which one can answer questions like that. You can ignore it totally and treat

it for the drivel that it is, or one could pretend that it is a serious

question, and if you do that then you equally have to pretend that it is a

serious answer. I don't know how else to do it. There is no foundation to it,

there is no reason for it; it is just a pure fabrication of a circumstance that

does not exist, so the thing is not capable of being answered in any kind of a

serious or honest way because the circumstance that the leader is talking about

simply does not exist; it is fabricated for her own purposes.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier not confirm what he said earlier, that he

read the same news report as most of the rest of us, that the RCMP were looking

at the Supreme Court judgement ruling that the government - his government -

broke the law, violated the Public Tender Act, in awarding the hospital

construction contracts to Trans City. And will the Premier not check and report

back to the House on whether the police have proceeded with an inquiry or a

review, or a full-blown criminal investigation into the government's handling of

the Trans City awards?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I read the papers too,

and the Opposition are trying to fabricate something out of this where nothing

exists. They do it by asking questions for which there is no foundation, and try

to cause answers to be given to try and give the circumstance a credibility that

it does not have.

There is no reason for me to believe any investigation is

under way. I do not ask the police what they are investigating. I have not yet

asked the police what they are investigating. I have no intention of asking the

police what they are investigating.

I understand that if, as and when an investigation is being

carried out that involves government, or a minister, or anybody directly

involved in the running of the House, normally as a courtesy the police will

advise the Attorney General. Now, nobody has advised me - I think that is a

correct statement - and the Leader of the Opposition, as a former Attorney

General, would know that.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is the police have not indicated

to me that they are carrying on any kind of an investigation into anything. I

have no intention of furthering this kind of silly nonsense that the Leader of

the Opposition has been trying to foster for days by pretending to treat the

question as serious and asking the police anything.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question for the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Some time ago there were

announcements - months ago I guess - as to the Trans-Canada work being done in

the Province this year. We are told there is supposed to be some sort of a

modest provincial roads program this year. I'm wondering if the minister could

indicate the dollar value of the provincial roads program this year and whether

or not an announcement of the provincial roads program is imminent.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is a provincial roads

program. Two point seven million dollars of that program was announced earlier

this year. In fact, tenders were called in January when we called tenders for

the Roads for Rails agreement. The reasoning for that was to be able to get the

best possible price on the resurfacing and the maintaining of roads in the area

where we are spending that money. So we called tenders of $2.7 million. There

was a further $12 million to be spent, and I think it was $11.75 million, that

will be spent on the provincial roads program this year in many different areas

of the Province where the need is greatest. I haven't made any formal

announcement of it but tenders are being called as we are talking here today. In

fact, road construction is on the go. In fact this is the earliest year that

ever we've had road construction in full start-up right across this Province to

the tune of $65 million. That is what is being spent on the roads in our

Province as we are now talking.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Green

Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As one member for one

rural district I'm certainly curious as to the composition of the provincial

roads program. I wrote the minister regarding one road in my district that came

up in a brief discussion when the minister met with the joint councils of Green

Bay. After that meeting I wrote the minister and he came back to me in a letter

dated May 15 saying: As you are no doubt aware by now, government has not

allocated any capital funding for this road in 1995-1996. That road is the road

to Harry's Harbour, Jackson's Cove, in my district.

Mr. Speaker, I haven't heard anything except on the basis of

an enquiry as to whether or not there are any other roads in my district to be

done. The minister has been less than generous with my district in the six years

I've been a member of this House. Is the minister saying that out of the $12

million or so that he is talking about there is no money allocated for Green Bay

District, a rural district with many unpaved roads and old paved roads that are

falling apart, that there is no money available for Green Bay this year?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, we've about 2,400 kilometres of

unpaved or gravel roads in the Province of Newfoundland besides Labrador. We are

just talking Newfoundland. So Green Bay District is not unlike many other

districts in the Province. The answer to the last part of his question; No, we

are not spending any money in his district this year in the provincial program.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, given the minister's comments

all along I'm not surprised there is no money being spent in Green Bay this

year. In the six years this government has been in power it hasn't put one

shovelful of pavement in Green Bay so I'm not surprised.

I would ask the minister, and maybe the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs: I've had a number of complaints from small contractors.

There appears to be very little in the way of small to medium-sized water and

sewer projects on the go this year, and very little in the way of small

road-paving projects, or small road construction or reconstruction projects. Is

the minister concerned that this is going to have a very serious impact on those

people in the Province who depend for seasonal work in the construction

industry?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned about the people

all across the Province. I'm concerned about providing enough money. I was

concerned from 1985 to 1989 when I sat on the opposite side of the House and I

witnessed and watched the Tories waste multi-millions of dollars which if I had

today as Minister of Works, Services and Transportation I would be able to pave

all of the roads in Newfoundland and not borrow one penny.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: My questions are to the Minister of Education

and Training.

In the Liberal policy manual of 1989 the following statement

appears: Our future economic success depends on the improvements we make in our

educational programs than any other single factor. The Liberal governments

stated policy on literacy states: All adults in the Province, whether urban or

rural, have the right to be provided means of achieving literacy. Mr. Speaker,

can the minister now confirm that his government has abandoned the principle of

free access to adult basic education and that the Liberal Party's commitments to

develop our human resources to improvements in our educational programs have

been abandoned, especially as it relates to adult basic education?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker, no.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that in the future,

unless those in need of adult basic education are sponsored by an agency like

HRD or are wealthy enough to pay the cost of their own upgrading, they will be

denied access to the opportunity to upgrade their basic educational skills. In

other words, this government has abandoned the poor, the disadvantaged and the

functionally illiterate in our Province. That is the bottom line and I ask the

minister to abandon his proposal to balance the provincial budget by slicing

educational programs, discriminate against the poor and the disadvantaged and to

publicly announce it now.

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the statement

that the member claims to be true is not true. Now whether or not he is ill

advised or misinformed I would not dare say but he gets up and says the truth is

something but the truth is not that at all, Mr. Speaker. The reality is, there

are more people today taking advantage of adult basic education then ever before

in the history of this Province. I am proud to tell about the literacy council

which this administration put in place, Mr. Speaker. I am proud to tell about

the commitment that the public colleges are making to adult basic education. I

am proud to tell about the experiments which are taking place in distance

education, Mr. Speaker, where we are delivering adult basic education to parts

of the Province where it was never dreamed possible before. So the truth of the

statement that the hon. member gets up and tells about has no truth to it

whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. I will have to sit down with the hon. member sometime

and try to enlighten him but he never seems to make time from his

schedule to

come over and be enlightened. He is making those statements which he claims to

be true and they are not true and I cannot deal with that, Mr. Speaker, that is

his problem.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member

for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, cuts to adult basic education

goes against every principle of fairness and every principle of equality of

access. Mr. Speaker, it makes poor educational sense, it makes poor social

policy sense and it makes poor common sense. Under educated adults represent

untapped human potential. How can the minister persistently and consistently

twist his statistics with a straight face? How can he tell the hundreds of

people, who at this moment are protesting in Corner Brook and those who have

protested in Bonavista and those who have protested in St. John's, that his

government cares about your future, that what he says is the truth and that they

are all wrong?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have been

just reading Alice in Wonderland when she said: down here words mean what

you want them to mean. Mr. Speaker, all the words he just said I agree with them

but they mean something totally different over here and that is why we are

making the commitment that we are making. So go back and read Alice in

Wonderland again, I would tell the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate what I said, this administration has

a greater commitment to adult basic education than any other administration in

the history of this Province. We are using modern means. Now, Mr. Speaker, there

is a problem with a government to government purchase of seats which deals not

so much with adult basic education as it is a social program to make available

to clients of the Unemployment Insurance Commission who were given babysitters,

who were given salaries for attending school, who were given a lot of benefits,

Mr. Speaker, but with the adult basic education we have in excess of 6,000

people in the system, plus the volunteer sector, plus the distance education. We

are more committed than ever before. The hon. member cannot seem to accept that

for some reason.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: - tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following

resolution:

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. member while he is

speaking.

MR. NOEL:

Whereas I now have an opportunity to speak -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL:

WHEREAS the value of Newfoundland and

Labrador's fish resource continues to be a substantial factor in our economy;

and

WHEREAS government must do everything possible to create jobs

and raise revenues necessary to maintain valuable public services at minimum and

equitable tax levels; and

WHEREAS government has responsibility to ensure all citizens

benefit to the highest and fairest extent from resources owned in common;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador ensure that our fish resource is managed to provide the highest level

of employment through maximum local processing where practical, and, where

appropriate, through devising other means of ensuring the whole Province

benefits from value which may be derived above reasonable levels of return for

harvesters and processors.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MS. VERGE: I am wondering if the Premier has the latest

and most complete out-migration -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday last, a question was put to the hon. the Premier on

the issue of the status of government-owned fish plants, as of May 23, 1995 and

I am very pleased to table that information in the House today.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again to present another petition, I think the fifth

on the matter of the proposed changes in the electoral boundaries.

Mr. Speaker, petition sheets are still coming in from various

parts of my district and I shall continue to present the concerns of my

constituents on this matter as long as they wish to send me their points of

view.

The prayer of the petition is as follows, Mr. Speaker:

WHEREAS our communities have been in Green Bay district for

many years; and

WHEREAS a recent government proposal would see some of our

communities assigned to Baie Verte district;

THEREFORE, we the undersigned, petition the hon. House of

Assembly not to entertain or approve any proposal that would see our communities

removed from Green Bay district.

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of some concern in my district

and I am presenting these petitions on behalf of the individuals obviously who

signed them, but also on behalf of two district-wide organizations, the joint

councils of Green Bay and The Green Bay Economic Development Association, both

organizations not wishing to see the current political structure of Green Bay

disrupted to any great extent. The current boundary proposal would see the

district being split with part of the northern part of the district being

assigned to Baie Verte district, and the southern part of the district remaining

as is, but adding to it, almost all of the former Town of Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of some concern to the people

in the district. It is starting to come together out there as a unit; the joint

councils are a new body; the development association with the changing of the

development situation in the Province with the economic zones, they are very

concerned that they be maintained intact, especially during the early years of

the new economic development proposal under the new economic zone system; the

development association has as part of its constitution that its membership be

drawn from the electoral District of Green Bay, so changing significantly the

communities that make up the electoral District of Green Bay will have a very

negative effect on that organization and basically disrupt the very good work

started by the joint councils of Green Bay.

Also, Mr. Speaker, as I have heard from the news media and

commentary out of Central Newfoundland, there is considerable consternation in

the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor that is currently of course, divided, in

regards electoral districts. They had been hoping, Mr. Speaker, that any new

change would show some support from the government with regard to the concept of

the amalgamation which is taking place. Obviously, the current forty-eight seat

proposal that was tabled in this House goes back to the way things were before

amalgamation with the town being split right down the middle along the same old

boundaries that government worked so hard to wipe out with the amalgamation.

Mr. Speaker, I note as well that in this weekend's paper

Professor Boswell, who writes on political matters in a weekly column, indicated

that the Premier's favourite phrase of 'fairness and balance' has gone out the

window on a number of fronts. Also, he tackled this issue with regard to

boundaries. He says: And what about fairness and balance in the setting of

electoral boundaries? Once again, the Wells government comes up short. While the

goal of reducing the number of MHAs is certainly laudable, the procedure which

was followed undermined the credibility of the exercise.

That, Mr. Speaker, is an understatement to put it slightly.

This government has fooled around with this process now a number of times and

what we essentially have here is basically the fourth proposal to see the light

of day, and we still have many members on the government side who are not happy

with this situation. I guess, the government is in a position right now, of what

do they do? They spent $500,000 in commission fees, they have tampered with the

report on a number of occasions and they are at a point now where they have to

do something.

The goal of significantly saving money by greatly reducing

the number of seats has gone out the window. Reducing the seats from fifty-two

to forty-eight is a joke in terms of overall savings. This has become a terribly

embarrassing situation for the government and one wonders if they do not wish it

would all go away. Mr. Speaker, it is not going to go away. I am not going to go

away, and the concerns of the people of Green Bay, as annunciated in their

petition, that is not going to go away either, Mr. Speaker. It is time that

government acted, and acted honourably on this matter, and stopped dragging its

feet. Take a position, bring it before the assembly and let the assembly deal

with it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: I wish to rise to a few comments in support

of my college for Green Bay. Since this entire process has started, that is the

electoral boundaries revision, we have seen a fair bit of fumbling. First of all

we had the directions that were given to Judge Mahoney in December, 1992 in

which he was instructed to start to prepare a report. In the middle of that he

came back and suggested they would have forty seats in the House. Then, of

course, there was the dialogue that occurred between the chair of that

commission and the government representatives, the famous Clarenville meeting.

There were other representations made and the commissioner went back and rewrote

some of his information. The commissioner has now presented that report which

called for forty-four seats. I made submission to the Mahoney Commission in

which I argued for a lower number of MHAs, and in particular I argued for a

forty seat House.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to do something with this

commission let us do something meaningful. We were pleased with the final report

of the commission which said they would recommend a House of forty-four members

with some exceptions for one or two districts. Then we saw the gerrymandering,

we saw the government having concern in its own caucus, and now we have a

recommendation that we go to forty-eight seats in the House, but not until there

has been further dialogue and a further commissioner appointed.

What has happened is that the whole process is suspect.

Contrary to what happened when the Progressive Conservative Party was in power

in the mid 80s, when the commissioner was appointed what the commissioner came

back with was accepted word for word, without alteration, without changes,

without input from select persons in Cabinet, and without dialogue with caucus

members. It was accepted as it was written.

Mr. Speaker, if that had happened the people of this Province

would continue today to have faith in the electoral boundary revision and the

process that would be followed by most jurisdictions. However, in Newfoundland

and Labrador we have a breakdown of faith because of the public believe, rightly

or wrongly, that there has been some tinkering with the process. They believe

that government was not being sincere when it talked about a lower House. It now

has a proposal for a forty-eight member House. I say to government get on with

the business and let us get this matter before the House before there is any

further erosion of public confidence.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, that brings us to the happy

moment when we can deal with the government business. Would you be good enough,

please, to call Motion 1, which is the Budget debate. My friend from St. John's

East Extern had given us the first thirteen minutes of his reading of page 52 of

his standard speech. He has seventeen minutes left and we will gladly hear what

he has to say, if anything.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Motion 1, the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First I would like

to thank the half-Minister of Justice for his kind remarks, typical as usual.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue speaking on the motion

of non-confidence on the Budget, put forth by the hon. Opposition House Leader.

The other day when I concluded, adjourned debate, I was just about to get into

saying a few words on the job creation program that this government has, or

actually that this government does not have. I should speak on the lack of a job

creation program. Last winter they did bring in the Emergency Employment

Program, after much pressure from the public and from this side of the House,

but most of the money - I should not say most of the money, but much of the

money - had to be returned to government, which was the plan from the beginning.

There is a job creation program already on the go by this

government, of course, and that is the job creation program for the friends of

the members of the government. This government, back in 1989, or before they

were government, when they were campaigning to be elected to government, a

major, major, platform in their campaign would be no political patronage,

especially in jobs. Well, we soon found that not to be the case. It is just

basically another example of the hypocrisy of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I have a list, basically, of jobs that were

given to the buddies of this government. Now, I have a long list. I won't go

through every one of them, but just to get my point across I am going to name a

few, probably, and maybe some of the Liberal candidates who did not make it, and

some of the former Liberal members.

Of course we had Mr. Seabright, the Chairman of the Workers'

Compensation Appeals Tribunal. The Government House Leader at this point in

time, before he was elected to the House, was Chair to the Waterford Hospital

board and a few others. We have the Member for Fogo right now, before he was

elected, or re-elected, who was appointed. We have Mr. Wood, a Liberal

candidate, Mr. Stoyles, a Liberal candidate, Mr. Whalen, a Liberal candidate,

Mr. Simmons, a Liberal candidate, and the list goes on and on and on - Mr.

Ashley, Hiscock, Best - many, many more names. Of course, the most recent was

Eric Gullage with the Workers' Compensation. The list goes on and on; it is

unreal. Most recently, of course, is the appointments of Mr. Wiseman and Mr.

King as EDGE facilitators, whatever that is going to be, a job created for those

people, and Mr. Comeau, Director of Community Affairs.

Now that is the job creation program of this government,

nothing more and nothing less, political patronage, probably the worst that has

ever been on the go since we joined Canada - by far the worst - and I can say

that, especially because I have only been elected to the House of Assembly for

two years and I really was believing what I was hearing before I was elected to

the House of Assembly about this government and no political patronage, until I

got elected and saw the real story, something that is disgraceful as far as I am

concerned.

This government is creating jobs for no one else, and have

not and are not planning on doing it, only for their buddies. This is a `don't

care' government, a `don't know' government, a `don't worry' government, and a

`don't remember' government. There is no economic plan. The Economic Recovery

Commission was put in place a number of years ago, headed up by Mr. House, and

there has been no results. It is producing no results up to this point in time.

Maybe why there is no cohesion or plan put in place at this

point in time is because of the confusion on the opposite side of the House, or

the government side. There is basically five groups of individuals over there on

the government side of the House. The first of course is the Cabinet which is

supposed to have the power, which thinks it has the power, but it really

doesn't. This was proven a short while ago by the second group, of course, which

is the caucus back benchers, when they got together and basically told the

Premier that Hydro was not going to be a done deal any more. When the back

benchers received the pressure from the people in their districts they met with

the Premier and Cabinet and told them: Listen, back off the Hydro. They also put

the - I suppose, I don't know how to put it to you - maybe put the boots to the

importation of garbage also. That is the second group. We have the Cabinet and

we have the caucus back benchers.

Of course, we have the fabulous four, people who were dropped

from Cabinet there I believe it was last fall. We have the Member for St. John's

Centre, the Member for Windsor - Buchans, the Member for Twillingate, and the

Member for Conception Bay South. These people spoke up on the Hydro deal after

they were dropped from Cabinet, but when they were in Cabinet they decided no,

that it was all well and good to support the ideas of the government, what the

Premier was putting forward. But no, they spoke up afterwards. We thought they

were doing us a great service, but only last week when the Premier put out his

press release basically saying that he has the full support of these

individuals, so basically somehow or other they've been muzzled again.

Of course, we have the `Gang of Four.' Those were the four

ministers involved in hiding the truth or hiding the information from Cabinet

when they made their decision to award the contract for Trans City. Those

individuals of course are the Ministers of Industry, Trade and Technology,

Education and Training, Finance and Treasury Board and the Member for Humber

West. Basically they approved the breaking of the public tender act in keeping

information from Cabinet.

Of course we have the fifth group that I refer to, the

`4-Ds'. We have three-dimensional, now we have the `4-D'; 3-D, `4-D.' They are:

the don't-remember, which is the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, of

course; we have the don't-know Minister of Health - every time he is asked a

question basically he gets up in the House and he doesn't really know and he

will have to check into it; we have the don't-worry Minister of Fisheries, Food

and Agriculture, because he doesn't know any better but not to worry. That is

the story on the minister. I'm tempted to say something here and not that polite

- but he is not here. If he had been here I would have said it, so I will let it

slip for another day. Of course, we have the don't-care minister. Everybody

knows who the don't-care minister is, of course. It is the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation who this year has a budget cut from $40 million in

1989 down to $15 million and doesn't seem to be that concerned, or overly

concerned. He should be.

This government has no heart and that seems to be the

problem. They are ruling with no heart. The bottom line is the major factor and

concern of this government. For example, the policy of Social Services these

days with respect to not paying arrears of the Newfoundland Power. That is

introducing a hardship on the recipients in social service. Last week is one

that particularly caught my attention, and that is the headline that said:

"Welfare cops save big bucks." Maybe they should, and they are. In certain areas

they probably are legitimately saving money. They are.

But I have a situation in my district where I received a call

last week - and just listen to this now, this is unreal. I have a lady who

called me last week, she has been widowed I believe it is fourteen years, she

told me. It is either fourteen years or seventeen years. Can you imagine now.

She is on social services and she is living alone, an elderly lady. She received

a letter from Social Services last week trying to collect $675 that Social

Services is now saying that she was overpaid when her husband was alive. She has

been a widow for fourteen to seventeen years. I find that disgusting, Mr.

Speaker, nothing less than disgusting.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I say this government has no heart. Are

they really balancing the Budget on the backs of the people of this Province,

the people who can least afford it? Well, it certainly seems to be that way.

Now, another issue that certainly affects the Budget is the

out-migration of people from this Province. The Premier was asked the question

last week about out-migration. He spoke of 15,000 people leaving the Province,

in 1993 and 1994, which I was surprised to hear; and the Premier stood up and

said: the real numbers are 4,500 because when you look at the people coming into

the Province and people leaving the Province there is a difference of 4,500. I

think that was the point he was trying to make, but what the Premier didn't say

and what wasn't clarified, was the number of people who came into this Province

as transients with respect to maybe Hibernia, the Bull Arm site. How many people

do we have moving into this Province with families who are here for a very short

time to work on certain sites and are then gone? So the 4,500 figure that the

Premier used is really not an accurate figure, Mr. Speaker. He can get up and

rationalize all he wants, or anybody on that side of the House can get up and

rationalize with respect to the out-migration of people from this Province, it

doesn't make it right.

The Premier campaigned when he was running to be elected on

the promise of bringing home every mother's son. Now, he stands in his place and

says that is something he never said, but I am pretty sure I heard that with my

own ears, Mr. Speaker, and, they are big enough to hear it, let me tell you, and

he did say it. As far as I can see, all he did was campaign to bring every

mother's son home here to pack up and move their families away. There are very

few people returning to Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. Then you hear an

idea that someone may latch on to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, you never know, he comes up with a good

one every now and then.

- and that is, we have Newfoundlanders all over the world,

Mr. Speaker, we have very educated, experienced people all over this world who

are holding down various jobs in various levels of government, different boards,

different industries in private business, and are holding down very high,

important jobs in positions as presidents and vice-presidents of these companies

and boards.

Maybe the government should look at doing some kind of a

profile study of all these individuals all over the world, in Canada, the United

States, Europe wherever, and let us try to entice some of these people to come

back. Let us give them some incentives; these are the people who create the

jobs, who have the ideas. We have too many of these people leaving the Province.

Now, I will also mention, too, that of course, there is a lot of people living

here in Newfoundland at this time who have some great ideas also, Mr. Speaker,

and these people have talent that is not being tapped into.

I think we have to start importing our people back to this

Province and stop exporting. Government has been an obstacle, as far as I am

concerned, with respect to the creation of jobs and new businesses in this

Province. There is too much red tape, there has been too much red tape. But I

had some hopes that this government would have been doing something about that.

A couple of years ago, they announced that they were going to

get into one-stop shopping where, an individual will come in to start up a

business, would go to one area, one building, what have you, make his

application, meet with the proper people and get his directions and that would

be the case. I thought that was supposed to come into place in April of 1995,

but I don't know of anything yet that has actually been put in place. Mr.

Speaker, I think that is something government should get moving on.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when I say that this government has been an

obstacle to development and to the creation of business and employment in this

Province, some of the red tape would be, as an example, the payroll tax. Now,

this is a tax that really upset a lot of people in this Province, especially the

small businessmen. Before I got into government, I had a small business myself,

so I am quite well aware of the payroll tax, and I know that there are

businesses out there that when the payroll tax was $300,000, they deliberately

kept their payroll under $300,000 so they wouldn't have to pay the tax. So, what

was happening, was that companies were either laying off or not hiring,

therefore jobs would be affected that way - jobs would be lost in that

situation.

That was bad enough, because it doesn't take a lot of

salaries to get up to $300,000 in small businesses. If you have ten to fifteen

employees, it wouldn't be long getting up to $300,000. But within a year, I

believe it was - the government didn't hurt small businesses enough - they

dropped that figure to $100,000. In this Province, Mr. Speaker, a total payroll

of $100,000 is not a lot of money. The result - jobs gone. Again, people who may

have had five, six or seven employees dropped an employee, laid the person off

or if they were going to hire they would decide not to hire because it would go

over that $100,000. So the payroll tax has been a really negative, negative

impact on businesses in this Province. Also, every opportunity the Premier gets

he talks about the reduction of the corporate income tax, Mr. Speaker, down from

17 per cent to 16 per cent and then back to 15 per cent but I think the Premier

should be reminded that basically they increased it to 17 per cent in the first

place, Mr. Speaker, and they brought it back to 15 per cent, so that is no big

deal.

They talk about a balanced Budget, this government, Mr.

Speaker, and are really quite proud of the fact that it is a balanced Budget,

but I have to wonder why they say it is a balanced Budget when we know, the

people in the real world know, that it is nothing but downloading on the people

of the Province and on the municipalities of the Province. There has been some

drastic, drastic cutbacks and maybe some tough decisions had to be made, Mr.

Speaker, but you can go too far. They have gone too far and they are continuing

to go too far, Mr. Speaker, you get to the point of diminishing returns. They

have increased taxes in this Budget where they say they didn't increase taxes.

An example of that would be, of course, the liquor tax increase. After the

Budget came down the liquor taxes went up.

Of course, then we have the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation bringing in the .05 legislation which was nothing short of a

money grab, Mr. Speaker. Studies have shown that from .05 to .08 there are

revenues available to the Provincial Government of $800,000. The minister can

get up and talk all he wants about safety on the roads. Studies have also shown

that there are very few accidents caused by people within that bracket of .05 to

.08. Basically, it is a money grab and nothing else, Mr. Speaker. That

legislation will not affect or stop the driver who is habitually over that

level, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I do know, I do know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

say that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation can't take hearing

the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the Member for Harbour Grace had better be quiet or I

will have to tell a few stories especially - and he is in a good place now for

me to tell a few stories, Mr. Speaker, right alongside the hon. gentleman, the

Member for Port de Grave.

MR. SULLIVAN: They won't be modest ones either, I tell

you.

MR. WOODFORD: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the second

opportunity to have a few words on the Budget. We are speaking now on the

non-confidence motion. I was expecting the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to be up this evening but I guess he is waiting. He wants to wait

until Thursday or Friday, I would say, so he can get up and give us some good

news on the tender calls and who got them.

MR. SULLIVAN: He must have all confidence in the

government.

MR. WOODFORD: No, no, he has no confidence. The Member

for Port de Grave has no confidence in the government, I can tell you that,

especially as it pertains to some of the legislation that is on the Order Paper

now, namely, the redistribution of boundaries and so on, Mr. Speaker. He is

going to vote against it when it comes to the House, that's for sure.

Mr. Speaker, on a more serious note, we all had an

opportunity to speak for half-an-hour some time ago on the Budget, and now we

have the opportunity to speak for another thirty minutes on this non-confidence

motion, so it is a chance to get in a few comments, especially as it pertains to

your district and some other areas around the Province.

Now, seeing the minister is here, I will mention the

transportation sector. We had all kinds of examples, especially in the last year

or so, starting off with the new airports policy, the downloading by the Federal

Government onto the Province, and then, in turn, onto the municipalities. It is

going to cost the taxpayers of this Province millions and millions of dollars

and the Provincial Government said absolutely nothing about it. All of a sudden,

no matter what the feds do, it is perfect. Everything is good for the Province.

It is not hurting anyone or anything in the Province and it has no bearing

whatsoever on the provincial budgets, absolutely none.

It is a far cry from previous to the federal election of 1993

when pretty well every little thing, including a $10 million transfer fund, or a

$30 million cut to transfer funds in the Province, every minister and every

member on the other side kicked up the biggest kind of a hullabaloo about those

insignificant funds at that time, especially in comparison to what the Federal

Government is after doing since 1993, crucifying the people of the Province.

The Provincial Government, the Administration opposite, was

elected to look after the needs, the requirements, and the concerns of the

people of the Province, not the Federal Government. Not only have they abandoned

the people of the Province completely, now, as far as I am concerned, they have

become subservient to the Federal Government, their cousins in Ottawa. No matter

what they do, no matter what kind of a program they come up with, everything all

of a sudden is hunky-dory.

Now, the airport policy in this Province is not going to

work. The airport policy submitted by the Federal Government and downloaded on

the Province is not going to work. The municipalities in this Province cannot

bear the brunt. I don't profess, I say to the hon. the Minister of Social

Services, to know everything, but I know a little bit about everything,

something I can't say for the minister. I can't say that for the minister when

we have people around this Province -

MS. YOUNG: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That is right, a little bit about

everything.

I say to the minister that she had better start learning some

things about her department.

MS. YOUNG: Like what, now?

MR. WOODFORD: Like sending out bills to people who have

been dead for the last twenty years. You can't come much lower than when you

have a government in this Province who are hounding the life out of people, out

of widows in this Province, and other people. Their husbands have been dead some

eight or ten years, fifteen years, twenty-three years. One bill was twenty-three

years old for $219, and another, twenty-three years old for $605, and the bills

are in the name of the deceased, to make matters worse. That, to me, is

degrading. That to me is wrong. When I checked with the department, they said

they can't take it off the books because of the statutes of the Provincial

Government with regard to collection. There is no such thing as a statute,

really, with the Provincial Government. If you owe the Provincial Government a

bill, you owe it in perpetuity; you owe it until the day it is paid regardless

of what family member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: But something has to be done. I do not

think there is any such thing, especially when government have the will. If the

government have the will they can do something about those things. Are we saying

that someone who got a few dollars from Social Services some twenty years ago to

feed their family over a week or two-week period - and now all those years have

passed, are we saying we cannot do anything at all about it? Something has to be

done about it. If the people could afford it, and the state could afford it, yes

I would agree with it, but in a lot of cases...

One case I have, for instance, the bill is twenty-three years

old. The husband has been dead for eight years. The woman is blind; she is a

widow; she is some sixty-seven or sixty-nine years old, living on her own, and

is now asked to pay back $610 or $619. Now, those kinds of things, I am sure

that the minister, and if it was brought to the attention of other cabinet

ministers - I know that a lot of them don't have much heart, and some of them,

you probably wouldn't know where to find the proper rock if you had to have a

heart transplant, but there are a lot of people there with a bit of social

conscience, and I think that if the minister brought that to her Cabinet

colleagues, that particular problem would be addressed.

I say to the minister, and to the ministers opposite, that if

this does come up, they should treat it with some degree of concern and

sincerity, because this is no laughing matter. We have the poorest of the poor.

If some of those people could get a lawyer and take some of those cases to

court, it would probably be thrown out or, in some cases, written off by the

Provincial Government.

I have gone off track there with regard to, pardon the pun,

the transportation industry, when I was talking about airports. I don't think

there is a community in this Province, I don't think there is a local authority

in this Province, willing to take over any of the airports in this Province.

When the Federal Government changed their policies, they said

at first that the Provincial Government would have the mandate, or the

opportunity to take over the airports; next to that would be the municipalities;

next to that would be the local authorities, and after that, if there were no

success, there would be an ordinary straight privatization, and I don't think

you are going to get it - I really don't - even in the Deer Lake area, where the

Deer Lake airport is one of the most successful regional airports in Canada. It

has the thirteenth highest traffic movements and thirteenth highest passenger

movements out of all the regional airports in Canada, some seventy-seven

regional airports in Canada, and I don't think you are going to get a local

authority to take over an airport such as the Deer Lake Airport.

The airport in Stephenville, the airport in Deer Lake - the

Stephenville airport had a $1.2 million or a $1.3 million deficit last year, and

the Deer Lake airport had a deficit of some $875,000. Those deficits will have

to be addressed before any municipality, any individual, or any local authority

will even look at the possibility of taking over those airports. Having said

that, that part will be addressed. The Federal Government, in its wisdom now,

will be looking after the deficits - the deficits will be looked after - making

it feasible for a community or a local authority to take it over if it is just

based strictly on the deficits that are there now. This will be wiped out over

the next five years.

Another example is the Dockyard down here. There has been a

lot of talk over the last number of weeks about the St. John's Dockyard. Now,we

all know that the writing is on the wall. Despite what people opposite say, the

writing is on the wall for the St. John's Dockyard. This didn't come up

yesterday; this came up as long as three or four years ago, when this thing was

discussed right here in this Assembly. When anybody looks at the magazine

Sailings , and the latest one, the May 15th edition, we know what is

happening. Mr. Young and his federal counterparts in Ottawa have told CN that

they are going to be privatized, have told the people of Canada that CN is going

to be privatized. They now will decide on how much of the $2.6 billion debt

should be recapitalized, Mr. Speaker, without being unfair to the CP rail

system.

I don't think their concern is for unfairness to the CP rail

system. I think their concern is for the new shareholders who are going to buy

out CN. That is where the concern is by the Federal Government, it is for the

big shareholders who will be taking part when CN is privatized. They want to

make sure that CN has a strong enough capital position where it will command a

BBB bond rating. They want to make sure that it has a good BBB bond rating so

they can borrow money on the money markets of the world. They hope that the

shares will rise between $1.5 billion and $2 billion.

The bottom line is that they were told to get rid of all the

money-losing areas in CN before it is privatized. Before they want to float any

bonds, before they want to sell any shares, they want to make sure that all the

losing propositions and the losing segments or parts or entities of CN are gone

before they start selling shares. That is the difference. They will be putting a

clause in there that the shares of CN, the privatization of CN, that any foreign

entity or foreign corporation would not own any more than 15 per cent. That is

no comfort to anybody who is working at the Dockyard today. It is no comfort to

one person working at the Dockyard today, not one.

We know what the Federal Government is up to. The Provincial

Government knows exactly what the Federal Government is up to - sell off all the

losing parts of CN before they start selling shares. They have some fairly good

companies involved in the - they've selected ScotiaMcLeod Incorporated, Nesbitt

Burns Corporation, and Goldman Sachs & Co. to be the global co-ordinators of the

sale of the CN shares. Those are three of the biggest -

AN HON. MEMBER: Liberals.

MR. WOODFORD: Oh yes, they are all Liberals.

- the biggest companies involved in this work, Mr. Speaker.

Pretty well, if not in the world, definitely in North America. Some of those are

the biggest names involved when it comes to doing up a prospectus on the

privatization of any business in this country.

But it doesn't stop there. It doesn't stop with the airports,

it doesn't stop with the dockyards. The Provincial Government just took over the

South Coast ferry. It was given a block funding of some $55 million to $65

million so they could balance the Budget this year and then go crying to the

provincial coffers next year or the year after to try to get money to run the

South Coast ferry.

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister didn't even know what

happened to the money.

MR. WOODFORD: The minister knows.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, it was in a special fund. The worst

thing about it all, now we are talking about privatizing CN Marine. We had

former ministers in this House - one, namely, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell

Island, who just a couple of short years ago was going to sue the Federal

Government.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what?

MR. WOODFORD: For increasing the fee on the CN ferry from

Port aux Basques to North Sydney, from North Sydney to Port aux Basques. Yes, he

was going to sue the Federal Government at the time when he was provincial

Minister of Tourism because the fee went up slightly on CN ferries from North

Sydney to Port aux Basques. Your hon. colleague now just gave me in the

blueprint, in the famous 1989, I would say, Liberal manual. He said a Liberal

government will consider ferry transportation to islands off our coast to be an

extension of the road system. Now that is exactly what the former minister

brought up. This is why he was going to go after the federal government at the

time because it was - as far as he was concerned and rightly so at the time -

that it was an extension of the road system, the Trans-Canada system and it

should, under our Constitution and under the Terms of Union, 1949, it should be

treated as just that, an extension of the Trans Canada Highway.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a good thing we have it now.

MR. WOODFORD: We would not have anything to drive on

within the Province let alone to get on outside the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker,

what is this administration going to do and what has it been saying? There is

not a word from the minister, there is not a word from government and there are

no meetings being held in Ottawa with regards to the privatization of the CN

system. What will happen to the tourism industry in this Province? What will

happen to the food industry in this Province? What will happen to all exports

that are trucked out of this Province? Mr. Speaker, the effect it will have on

the consumers of this Province, if there was a study done - and while I am on

that subject, the Province in its wisdom should have something done now to see

what the effects would be, the repercussions would be for the consumers in this

Province. They are doing absolutely nothing. The federal government is doing it,

they are talking with their people.

Mr. Burgess from CN Marine said awhile ago they may cut off

the ferry run to Argentia in 1997. Now he is not saying that, he is not trying

to float that. How naive is he to think that we figured he is just floating that

around? That suggestion has come from CN Marine to the federal government and

they are saying: Now float that for a few months. Put that out around for a few

months to see how the people receive it and see how receptive they are to that

particular idea. That idea, Mr. Speaker, is not going to float in this Province.

The idea of privatizing CN Marine to crucify the people of this Province, Mr.

Speaker, is not going to be receptive to the people of this Province.

What will people do when they come to North Sydney and they

look at a 10 per cent, 20 per cent or a 30 per cent increase in the fare from

North Sydney to Port aux Basques? Where are they going? They are going to stay

in Nova Scotia, go back to New Brunswick, go back to PEI or some other point

west. They will not be coming over to this Province to look at our scenery for

the price of another 30 per cent or 40 per cent on to their fare on the CN

ferry. To add to that, the effect it is going to have on food products and any

other product that is shipped into this Province, for sale in this Province, Mr.

Speaker, is going to be astronomical. We are the ones, the people of this

Province - and if we don't speak up now, if the government does not speak up on

behalf of the people what is the good of me or anyone else? They are the only

voices that will be heard in Ottawa. We have federal members who have said

absolutely nothing. They are up there and we don't know they are there unless -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: They were paying, some of the ones, yes and

even carried the name Payne. This Province today, Mr. Speaker, is at the worst

time in its history. Right now nobody is standing up for them, absolutely,

nobody. We have nobody federally and we have nobody provincially now standing up

for the people of this Province. It is evident in some of the things that I

outlined today, especially as it pertains to the transportation sector. Like I

said and I will say again, start with the airports, downgrade them; start with

the South coast ferry service, downgrade; start with the CN Marine, now going to

be privatized; start with the dockyards and CN itself, CP is going to be

privatized and all on the backs of the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker, and

absolutely nothing done or said about it. All of this is going to come back to

haunt this Province.

We saw an example of the roads for rails agreement. That has

been maligned and torn apart by members opposite over the years. Mr. Speaker, if

we never, ever had that agreement in place today the construction industry in

this Province would be at a stalemate, finished, closed down. There is no

capital funding for Municipal Affairs this year. The minister hasn't announced

it, only what has been carried over last year from the infrastructure program

and by the way, only for that we would have pretty well absolutely nothing;

nothing, and the transportation sector would have nothing because provincially

this year, there is nothing bar about $14 million.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. WOODFORD: The minister knows, he needs that much for

his own district; he needs $10 million of it for Port de Grave guaranteed, and

not only that, the minister is doing alright out of the federal money the last

couple of years that is coming down there, Mr. Speaker. Now, I would not say it

too loudly because the Premier might be somewhere up in his office listening and

he would probably send Danny out to check it out to see what is going on out

there.

AN HON. MEMBER: He knows the need is there.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, and that is what he knows, he knows

the need. I guess he does know the need and I tell you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, the hon. member just told me this

morning, he said: Boy, he said, I can come in in an hour and fifteen minutes

this morning. I am some thankful for the Member for Port de Grave, he is living

alongside of me. He said: I made some time this morning coming in. The RNC and

RCMP were not on the road, only for that, they would have had him this morning

but, Mr. Speaker, only for the money that is being spent on the Trans-Canada

Highway this year, the construction industry in the Province today would be

closed down.

You talk to all the companies around, talk to the

construction companies, heavy-equipment companies, heavy-equipment operators and

so on, only for the little bit of work that is being carried out under the Roads

for Rails Agreement; and what irony, Mr. Speaker; here we have members opposite

now, talking about the Trans-Labrador Highway. We should take off the ferries

for Labrador and we should build a road in Labrador. Yes, a good idea, but what

irony in the fact that members opposite stand and criticize the Roads for Rails

Agreement.

Now whatever chance the trains had to operate in this

Province, had it under the former administration. Under this one, according to

some of the cuts that are taking place now, there would be absolutely nothing,

it wouldn't last a month. Now, I am looking forward to seeing the type of

agreement that will be struck between the federal government and the present

provincial government as it pertains to the ferries that are operating in the

Labrador region. It would be very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to see what kind of

an agreement will be put in place to do that road across Labrador; see if it

will be in comparison to the Roads for Rails Agreement that was put in place

some seven or eight years ago. We will see what kind of a deal now this present

provincial administration will put in place. So just on the transportation

sector alone, Mr. Speaker, there is a full half-hour or an hour or I suppose two

or three really, you could speak with regards to the problems and the

repercussions that that is going to have on the people of this Province.

When we talk about the transportation sector, we are talking

about tourism, we are talking about prices and the food products; we are talking

about exports, we are talking about pretty well everything. Once you talk

transportation, you are talking big bucks. Any business today in this Province

that has to move anything whether it is interprovincial or otherwise, they are

talking big dollars and the kind of money that is going to be detrimental to a

lot of businesses operating in this Province today. We just saw another example

of the Atlantic Freight Assistance Subsidy gone; another 8.6 per cent taken off

all truckers in Atlantic Canada, gone. Who do you think, Mr. Speaker, is going

to absorb the brunt and the loss of the 8.6 per cent Atlantic Freight Assistance

Program? The consumers in this Province are the ones who will have to pay.

We see how the federal government say in their budget: no tax

increase; the provincial government says: no tax increase. If we took out all

the indirect taxation on transportation, on health care, on municipal affairs

the downloading there, the downloading in every other sector, Mr. Speaker, I

would venture to bet that the people of this Province - taxes alone over the

last three years, just three years, have gone up around 13 per cent. My

calculations tell me that it is somewhere around 13 per cent over the last three

years, if you take into consideration all the downloading from the federal

government and provincial government on to the taxpayers of this Province, and

yet there is no increase in personal (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That is since 1989.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is on top of it, yes.

MR. WOODFORD: On top of it. Make no wonder - and when we

see the Budgets the last number of years, we see Budgets read out, very few

things highlighted in it with regard to tax increases and so on, and then every

week or every month you always see something - there is something new - there

are ten laid off here, there is a program cut there, there is a hospital bed

closed there. There is something always done after the Budget is read that we do

not see in the Budget.

It is smart politics, no question, but the numbers are there

for anybody to see. The thing about it, people are finally realizing what is

happening. They can see, when they walk into hospital today. All anybody has to

do today is take one visit, visit some of the homes down around this city alone,

and walk in and see the kind of care and the kind of services that are there now

for our senior citizens. Walk into some of those homes and see how many staff -

count the staff that are there - one nurse and two nursing assistants looking

after thirty-three to forty-four people in some of those homes. Pretty well

every one of them have to be looked after, have to be fed, have to be cleaned,

personal care twenty-four hours a day, and the staff is not there to do it. The

staff is just not there.

The will is there on the part of the staff. They are doing

what they can to try to care, and they are doing a wonderful job under the

circumstances, but they cannot; it just cannot be done. It is not humanly

possible. It is not humanly possible, and I say to the minister responsible, the

Minister of Health, if he took one trip and went down to some of those homes,

and took a stroll through some of those Alzheimer wards down here, he would come

back and have some recommendations to make to his colleagues in Cabinet, I can

assure you. If he made one visit to some of those homes down here, and walked in

on some of the wards, and saw the capabilities, and saw how some of those

patients - three people, one nurse and two nursing assistants looking after

thirty-three to forty-four people who are completely incapacitated -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking about the nursing homes?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, in this case.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) I have been in every one of

them.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, boy, if you have been in every one -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) about two months ago.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, then, I hope they took you through

all the wards, because if they did I do not have to tell you anything; you know

exactly what I am talking about, and it is sad, I will tell you that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Oh, yes, it is all across the Province - I

realize that - but I know a lot of us take things for granted. We all take

things for granted, and I did the same thing until I became involved with

visiting those homes over the last few months. I will tell you, when you are

going down there every day of the week, it is no trouble for you to see the

shortcomings, and see the shortcomings.

They have the will. As I said, the staff has the will; they

just do not have the bodies to look after them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: At the nursing homes that I was just

talking to the hon. minister about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WOODFORD: I will take just a couple of minutes, Mr.

Speaker, just to clue up.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well I have to say to the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, I was fairly amazed really today, because I

stayed on transportation for a nice while; I thought to get some response -

MR. EFFORD: You are only trying to get a bit of road

paved.

MR. WOODFORD: Everybody is trying to get a bit of road

paved.

Anyway, I notice -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I say to the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation, now, I would say the Member for Harbour Grace has a good

chance to get his road paved, and I will tell you why, because with these

boundary changes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Oh, he is keen. If these boundary changes

go through he is going to have the former member out campaigning for him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Oh, yes, you will get it this year, no

question. Put in your request, because I will tell you, you will be looked after

this year, not next - yes, probably next. There might be a little bit in next

year's budget, too, because you don't know when the election is going to be

called.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are other concerns but we will all

have an opportunity for debate over the next couple of weeks. In regards to

forestry you will have an opportunity to say a few things on forestry, on

municipal affairs, on social services, recreation. There are all kinds of

opportunities to have another few words on those particular problems. Other than

that I think I will take my place now and give some other member a chance to

have a few words before the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation kicks

in. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn't know I was

supposed to get up. One thing about it they can always depend on me to get up

and say a few words.

The Government House Leader is not in a very good mood today.

I understand he was not very successful in his fishing venture the weekend. It

is my understanding his $9 rod didn't work very well. His $9 rod wasn't very

successful.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) fifty-cent worms didn't do it.

MR. TOBIN: That is what they call it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you all about

it, any time at all.

The Minister of Education and Training is a good one to talk

about demonstrations. He had them on the street here last week, in this

building, out there last week he had demonstrations, and he didn't have the

courage to come up and speak to them. But at least we had the courage when we

met them on the bus to get out and speak to them. This minister lacked the

courage to come up and speak to the group from the ABE. They were down in

Bonavista last Friday demonstrating again, and they are out in Corner Brook

today demonstrating again, and where is this minister? He is taking the elevator

or the back stairs to avoid them. That is what is going on. He is at all times -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that is right, we know all about the

meeting you had in St. Lawrence. He flew in on a helicopter, landed on the back

of the hospital or whatever it was, went in through the back door, and was gone

before anyone in St. Lawrence knew he was there. In a helicopter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Left her running.

MR. TOBIN: Left her running, Mr. Speaker. The minister

boasts about leaving her running and how he figures that he duped the people of

St. Lawrence. But all that this minister has done is give a cause for people to

demonstrate. He cut the guts out of the health care system when he was minister.

He never left anything in that, nothing sacred in the health care system. We've

seen our colleague for Waterford - Kenmount today up asking questions about the

ABE program.

MR. SULLIVAN: The literacy rate has gone up since he

became minister.

MR. TOBIN: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: The literacy rate has skyrocketed since he

became minister.

MR. TOBIN: I guess the department's did, that is for

sure, when he came in. Because he brought a certain amount of illiteracy to that

himself.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues I want to address

today, I want to speak on. One is the deal with the mineral tax act that was

brought into this House and the way the Minister of Natural Resources handled

that. There is a lot of people in this Province today wondering if we are not

about to be into a Churchill Falls situation again. All I can say is that I

sincerely hope - and I believe, by the way - that government will do what is

necessary to ensure that does not happen. Because we are in a very peculiar,

very perplexed situation as it relates to that piece of legislation.

Some people today I heard when I was driving in were

questioning as to whether or not the minister knew that Voisey Bay was a find -

there was some suspicion. The minister didn't tell us anything, because I

personally was briefed by the minister on that piece of legislation as were

other people. I had no reason then, nor do I now really, to question whether or

not the minister had anything but the best interest of trying to attract

credible people to invest in the mining industry in this Province. But if that

was the case, and the minister was honest, and assuming that he was, now we know

there is a different situation in this Province. We hear people talk about the

largest mine discovery in this century. We heard it referred to as the largest

find in the world.

Now, if that is the case, we are not talking about someone

going to St. Lawrence where at best they are breaking even. We are not talking

about someone finding a small mine on the Baie Verte Peninsula and at best

breaking even. What we are talking about here is a mine that the minister, I

believe, has attributed to it being one of the greatest mines of all time. That

is good and we are all happy to know that at least in the last few years

something positive has happened in this Province. I say to the Minister of

Natural Resources, if that find is what he says it is -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) nobody listening.

MR. TOBIN: You are listening to me `John'. You are

talking to me now. At least I know `John' is listening to me, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Natural Resources doesn't listen very well

anyway. He is not known to listen. I saw him today laughing at some sort of

ignorant statement that was made by the - that word is not parliamentary so I

won't use it, but some sort of statement by the Minister of Education, that he

found funny. I see the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is about to

leave, but I understand he is now in the final stages of a capital works program

to be announced probably next week. I will have more to say on that as I get

into it this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I say that the Minister of Natural Resources

should be very concerned. I am not saying anything about the minister, what I am

saying is that he should take this find and this tax exemption - Now, if the

Minister of Natural Resources was not honest with this House when he brought in

that piece of legislation, if he misled this House, what we have to determine is

whether the Minister of Natural Resources and this government knew about that

massive find in Voisey Bay and then brought in this piece of legislation. If he

misled this House and robbed the taxpayers of billions of dollars, if that

legislation is allowed to stand, then he should do the honourable thing and get

out of politics, get out fast; if he didn't, then we will accept it, but I hope

he will correct that piece of legislation.

If it was done for the reasons he gave us then we will accept

it, but if the Minister of Natural Resources brought that piece of legislation

into the House for the development of Voisey Bay then there is something amiss.

MR. SULLIVAN: He might get a job as a geologist when he

retires.

MR. TOBIN: My understanding is that he was fairly good as

a geologist. I understand he was very good at his job. But I hope that he did

not mislead this House and that this was not a deal cooked up by some of these

people from Vancouver, because we have to be careful of that diamond field mine.

We know their track record and why they are leaving the States. We know about

that so the minister has to get on his guard. He has to set up the proper

environmental laws and structure so that we are not left hanging like happened

down in one of the States.

MR. SULLIVAN: In Colorado, wasn't it?

MR. TOBIN: In Colorado, yes.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) Environmental Assessment Act.

MR. TOBIN: All I am saying to the Government House Leader

is that we have to ensure that this company does not do anything, or get away

with anything, that any other company is not allowed to get away with in this

Province.

MR. ROBERTS: We have an Environmental Assessment Act.

MR. TOBIN: I am aware of that.

MR. SULLIVAN: We are talking about the tax breaks now.

MR. TOBIN: No, I am talking about the environment, too.

MR. ROBERTS: The Member for Ferryland should listen

(inaudible) the Member for Grand Bank talking about environmental act. What I'm

asking (inaudible) whether the Environmental Assessment Act is adequate

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What I'm saying, I say to the Government House

Leader, and I don't even know if it is true, but there is - I can't say a fact,

but there is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, it is not rumours either. Word out there,

it has been covered on the media and everything else, that this group came away

from Colorado, I believe it was, and left an awful environmental mess down

there. I would say to the Government House Leader -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) a man named Freidlander, and

whether it is true or not I don't know. But the issue is whether - the concern

obviously is real and the hon. gentleman and I will share it. The issue - the

Pages will pay attention once in a while. Could one of the Pages get my friend

water and fuel him? The issue is whether the present Environmental Assessment

Act - it is the governing legislation for environmental purposes - whether it is

adequate or not. It sets out a procedure.

MR. TOBIN: The Environmental Assessment Act that we have,

if that is detailed and strong enough to protect the environment from a group

that has a reputation or from investors that have a reputation of not being

overly generous towards the environment, then I'm satisfied with that, I say to

Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I mean, that is the issue, whether the

act as it stands is strong enough, or whether we need new (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend thinks it is strong enough? or

yes, that is the issue?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Government House

Leader, if government feels that act is strong enough to protect it, familiarize

themselves with what the charges are that are being made about this group, and

as the people who have been invested with the authority to govern by the people

of this Province, if they feel and believe that is it, then I guess we can have

a difference of opinion or whatever the case may be, or we may be satisfied with

that.

But I think that we have placed our trust - and I can say one

thing, that with this Minister of Environment, I know he is going to do what he

believes is in the best interest of the Province. Hopefully, he will get the

same support from his Cabinet colleagues. I really believe that. I know there

have been a few minister of environment in the past couple of years that I

wouldn't have the same faith in, I say to the Government House Leader, but I do

have it in this minister.

The other thing - while I have the Government House Leader's

attention, that concerns me - and I said it, is with respect to this mineral tax

act of last December. The Minister of Natural Resources came into this House,

and I was personally briefed by him, as were other members. At that time it

looked like it was being done for all the right reasons. It was marginal mine

companies he talked about, like St. Lawrence, and there were people trying to

start small mines in the Baie Verte Peninsula. And, Mr. Speaker, you have to be

supportive, you know? If that is what it takes to get mining developed and small

mines, marginal mines operating, then that is fair ball. But what we are seeing

right now with this Voisey Bay is it is being described as the largest in the

world, one of the best finds of this century.

If that is the case, and if that is a fact - and I have no

reason to doubt that it is, and I'm really happy that it is, because there would

be some jobs for the people who are growing up in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador - and hopefully we will get back some significant taxes. I was just

asked by the media did I think it was another Upper Churchill. I don't know. I

don't really know what is (inaudible). We have to be careful that it is not, I

say to the Government House Leader. So I won't argue why the minister brought

that in. I will accept his word that he did it for all the right reasons that he

gave us back in December. I will accept that. But now we know that is a major

find and I believe that the necessary framework has to be put in place, the

safeguards, to ensure that we do get a substantial amount of taxes from that

development, and that is not there now in this piece of legislation.

MR. ROBERTS: The other issue to be looked at in addition

to that is the question of escalation in value. That is where the Upper

Churchill deal got in trouble, because it projected forward and didn't take into

account the fact that - not that the costs would rise, but the cost of alternate

energy sources would rise, not the value of the energy.

MR. TOBIN: That was a contract signed for sixty years or

however long - ninety -

MR. ROBERTS: The fact remains that nobody saw it at the

time, nobody.

MR. TOBIN: The only thing, I would say to the Government

House Leader, and while I'm not about to question the Minister of Natural

Resources, I will take his word for it when he brought in that piece of

legislation, is that there are people in this Province - and I heard it this

morning when I was driving in - who are somewhat suspicious as to whether or not

government knew in December that this was a major find. Because the -

MR. SULLIVAN: Archean knew a year ago, it said, Archean

Resources.

MR. ROBERTS: I don't know what Archean knew. I have no

idea what Archean knew. The governments -

MR. SULLIVAN: They said it publicly.

MR. ROBERTS: So they might have. I don't know what they

knew or did not know but the changes which were approved by the House

(inaudible) the Strategic Economic Plan a couple of years ago. Try action item,

I think it is thirty-seven.

MR. TOBIN: It is not for me to stand up and say the

minister knew and misled the House, that is not for me to say. I accepted his

word then, Mr. Speaker, I was briefed by him, he in no time got into the details

of this major find, I accepted his word then and until someone tells me

otherwise or proves to me otherwise then I will continue to accept his word but

I would certainly hope that he did not intentionally mislead this House.

MR. ROBERTS: Archean may have known whenever but I saw in

a story the other day, this man Chislett said they discovered it in the summer

of '94. I don't know what they told people.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is almost a year ago.

MR. ROBERTS: Well the first we heard of it, it was well

into November when they came in with the first finds which they announced

publicly. That is what we heard.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) hunch last week.

MR. ROBERTS: Well they may have had a hunch. Gee, there

are guys going all around Labrador with hunches now. A fellow in Corner Brook

won the lottery on the weekend.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I know but this is no hunch now and

(inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: There is no hunch with Voisey Bay

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I will tell you something, I read it in the

paper.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is a reality and he indicated he knew

almost a year ago.

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend from Ferryland is simply

telling us what we all know. Yes, Voisey Bay is a reality.

MR. SULLIVAN: But you said you did not know.

MR. ROBERTS: I said I did not know whether Archean knew.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, they stated publicly, don't you believe

them?

MR. ROBERTS: I don't know what Archean knew. Come on Glen

MR. TOBIN: Ed, you missed your calling. Look at the mike

turned on for you. Oh, they just turned it off.

Mr. Speaker, like I said to the minister, is that government

now has to deal with that piece of legislation, they have to change it and put

in place a safeguard so that we don't repeat a situation that happened years

ago.

MR. ROBERTS: The burden rests with us to address the

issue and bring it here to the House.

MR. TOBIN: That is right and that is all I say. Now, Mr.

Speaker -

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman should be worried because

we are agreeing. One of us needs to be worried, we are both agreeing.

MR. SULLIVAN: So the minister said that is being done?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to

agree with the minister on many occasions. I say to the Minister of Education

and Training, I served with the Government House Leader on the Public Accounts

Committee when he was chairman for a couple of years.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) committee.

MR. TOBIN: Yes we did and we worked rather well together

as a committee. As a committee we worked rather well together. There was no -

MR. SULLIVAN: That is a first.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You are not getting the Government House

Leader, forget it. You are not getting a government appointment.

MR. ROBERTS: I don't know, after we give my friend from

Grand Bank one we have one left for the fellow from Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Grand

Bank, that if I wanted a government appointment I would feel fairly sure that

the Government House Leader or the Premier would make sure I would get it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Double-dipping.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, now the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs just came back, it is my feeling that the minister is about

to announce a capital works program.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, tomorrow morning.

MR. TOBIN: Probably it is tomorrow morning but I will let

the minister speak for his department. I have more confidence in the minister

speaking for his department than I have with you speaking for yours according to

the answer you gave this evening.

So I don't know if that is the case or not or if the minister

can tell us how much money -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is the only way that you are going to

get to see the minister is if he gets off the track.

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs is about to, I understand, announce some provincial funding over and

above the infrastructure program.

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

MR. TOBIN: Some additional funding.

MR. SULLIVAN: That will be a miracle.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, some millions of dollars I have been told

and I don't know if the minister can confirm that today or whether he cannot.

The minister is at his crossword puzzles again, Mr. Speaker,

the minister is not paying attention again. He is at his crossword puzzles. I

heard about it on Open Line , I read about it in the paper and today he is

at it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs over doing his crossword puzzles again. Assisted by the way, by the

Member for Trinity North.

AN HON. MEMBER: The way I look at it, it is better to be

in here doing crosswords then not being in here at all.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, that is debatable.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is the wrong attitude. No, it is

better to be in here doing crosswords then out there doing crosswords.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister said it is

better to be in here doing crosswords then not be in here at all. Now I would

say that he does miss the Member for St. John's South, the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations because I only seen him here a couple of times

this year. I think he is probably talking about him.

Can the minister tell us whether or not there is going to be

capital funding for Municipal and Provincial Affairs announced over and above

the infrastructure program and what it will be?

MR. REID: Twenty-five million.

MR. TOBIN: Twenty-five million, and will that be

announced within the next two weeks? Would that be a fair assessment? Before the

middle of June anyway, before the middle of June?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a good guess (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Okay. Mr. Speaker, that is not a lot of money

I would say to the minister but it is better than nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It was supposed to be thirty, he is going

to announce twenty-five; he kept a little five for himself.

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope I am included in the

twenty-five and the five because there are municipalities out there today that

are crying and I can say that in my own constituency, in my own district for

example, Fox Cove - Mortier I would say to the minister, one year they put in

place and spent a half-million dollars I think it was; they brought water from

the pond to the road and put in one fire hydrant and never connected up a house.

MR. EFFORD: Where?

MR. TOBIN: Down in Fox Cove - Mortier. Then Mr. Speaker -

the minister is at those crossword puzzles again - and I am trying to speak on

behalf of my constituents. See, over at the crossword puzzles again, Mr.

Speaker, and the right people are in the gallery too, looking down over his

shoulders.

Mr. Speaker, they spent half-a-million dollars to bring the

water

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. TOBIN: That was down Jackson -

Mr. Speaker, they spent half-a-million dollars to bring the

water -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is right, on

behalf of my constituents, for me to be in this House, trying to express their

cause to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and he is over there

doing crossword puzzles. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you something else, that I

intend to make that known publicly this evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: I intend, Mr. Speaker, to make that public

this evening, that while I was standing in this Legislature, trying to express

concerns of the people of Fox Cove - Mortier, the minister totally ignored the

comments and the views that I expressed on them, sat with the Member for Trinity

North and continued to do crossword puzzles.

MR. GRIMES: That is not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: If it is, you won't make any decisions next

year.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said they are putting in twelve

million this year.

MR. TOBIN: Yes. If it is he won't make any decisions on

water and sewer next year, if there is a Question Period or two left after the

announcement is made, I can tell him that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, will there be another minister?

MR. TOBIN: Another minister gone.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, if he would ignore the

crossword puzzle for a few minutes and let me tell you about Fox Cove - Mortier;

we have dealt with it before but they spent half-a-million dollars -

MR. EFFORD: Not a cent are you going to get.

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not a cent are you going to get.

AN HON. MEMBER: Praise him up a bit.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is nothing to praise him up about.

MR. TOBIN: You have to praise the minister to get

something for your district?

MR. SULLIVAN: Isn't that what the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation is saying?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is a job to praise the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreations, I can tell you that, the old

weeping willow.

Mr. Speaker, they brought the water to the road and they put

in one fire hydrant and it was two years, three years in a row not another cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Not one, not one. They brought the water from

the pond to the road and put in one fire hydrant and never connected up a house.

The minister knows that's the truth and then the council -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what do all the dogs do? What an

answer. I have to have that recorded in Hansard in case there is money for him

this year, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the Minister of

Social Services, what do all the dogs do? Mr. Speaker, I have that in Hansard

now. Came to the main highway, crossed the road, put in one fire hydrant, three

years, not a cent, not a nickel.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, Fox Cove - Mortier is a fairly large

community.

Then, Mr. Speaker, the council resigned - they got frustrated

and resigned - so last year they sent, I forget his title, Mr. Warren from

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, who went down and met with the council three

or four times at public meetings. I went to some of them as well.

MR. SULLIVAN: Keith Warren, regional director.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good man.

MR. TOBIN: Regional director; he is a good fellow, yes, a

good man, from Burin, actually. Then, the minister -

Mr. Speaker, will someone take that paper from the minister

and let him listen to what I have to say instead of doing the crossword puzzles?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I am serious. I say to the minister, I am

very serious about this. I want to express the concerns of the people of Fox

Cove - Mortier, and I think it is more important for you to listen to them than

it is to do crossword puzzles.

Then you sent out -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, we have discussed it. I have been in your

office discussing it, and seeing you about it.

MR. REID: You were never in my office in your life, never

come in (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I tell the minister now that he

is getting on with that, I was in his office but you cannot get in his office

all the time because he is usually on a trip down to Florida. He is usually down

in Florida. Now, if he wants me to pursue it further, I will ask him some

questions about how he got to Florida and where he stayed, if he wants to get on

with that stuff; I will tell you what I said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Don't you make fun of the people of Fox Cove -

Mortier either, and don't say that I wasn't in your office when I have been

there with councils from my district.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, do you know what he is accusing me

of doing? I never said anything about the people of Fox Cove - Mortier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to get on with the debate.

MR. TOBIN: Then the minister sent down his assistant

deputy minister, Mr. Colbourne, to meet with the people of Fox Cove - Mortier

who were concerned about the water problems and everything else. I ask the

minister, will he do something in his capital budget this year for that

community based on what has been brought back by his regional director and by

his assistant deputy minister?

I say to the minister: As a result of the efforts of these

two gentlemen, there was a council formed down there, and it is a council that

is very aggressive, and out doing the things that need to be done. There are

other councils in my district, Port au Bras, that need continuation of funding,

Lewin's Cove, Burin, Winterland, Marystown, Parkers Cove, Rushoon, Baine

Harbour, Red Harbour, the list goes on. All the districts are entitled to money.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What is wrong with that? Are they not just

as much entitled to it as anybody else? You haven't been giving any to us; you

might as well give it -

MR. REID: If I didn't have to give Len Simms $6 million

for Grand Falls -

MR. SULLIVAN: You didn't give it to Len.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You didn't give it to him; you gave it to

the people of the Province, the people who pay your taxes.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs if he would give serious consideration to

the communities that I mentioned, and others in my district.

MR. REID: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Okay, Mr. Speaker; there are other issues.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that, Chuck?

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is fair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I do have to say that I find it somewhat

irritating when you stand up in the House to express the concerns of your

constituents and the minister ignores you and continues to do crossword puzzles.

I have to say that; it has to be on the public record. People up in the gallery

know; they can look down and see what he is doing. What are you doing? Crossword

puzzles, reading his horoscope.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would rather he left than

stay in the House and do crossword puzzles. I would much rather he left than

stay in the House and do crossword puzzles. But I hope he is here tomorrow for

Question Period.

There are other issues. Like Works, Services -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) sit down and give somebody

else a chance.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is nobody yanking him down.

MR. TOBIN: They all left, Art. Mr. Speaker, Works,

Services and Transportation. We had questions today in this Legislature about

the lay-offs, the condition that has been brought upon the people of this

Province by -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry? Did the minister make a comment

before he left?

MR. SULLIVAN: He said he had a million and a half ready

and he just took it away.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Give it to me. Thank you.

MR. TOBIN: Tom Harris must have the contract down there,

has he?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Tom is not down there at all

(inaudible).

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand

what is going on here. A pretty heated debate between the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs and the Member for Burin - Placentia West, a pretty

heated exchange. Quite obviously the Member for Burin - Placentia West doesn't

feel that his district is being treated properly by the minister. Of course we

are talking about lack of confidence again, this is what this debate is all

about, lack of confidence, non-confidence in the government. That is what the

debate is about.

Before I really get started I want to follow up where the

Member for Burin - Placentia West was talking to the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation wants two

names now to put to work somewhere on the roads. He is asking if he wants two

names.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two Liberals.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Two Liberals, two Liberal names. He is

saying to the minister's buddies: Get me two names so I can put them to work on

the roads. That is why, Mr. Speaker, there is no confidence in this minister and

in this government.

MR. EFFORD: You don't expect me to ask for two Tories, do

you?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I certainly do.

MR. EFFORD: Do you think I am sick or something?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm not going to answer that, I say to

the minister, whether I think you are sick. That wouldn't be nice for me now for

the public record, to put into the public record what I really think of the

minister, whether he is sick or not. I have to say to the minister, don't get

upset now if I tell you what I think of you because you asked the question.

Unlike the minister, when someone asks me a question I answer it. I answer the

question.

I would answer the question the minister asked me: What do

you think, I'm sick or something?

MR. TOBIN: He was never well.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm not going to say that. He was well

once but it wasn't for long. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

was well once but it didn't last long enough.

The Member for Placentia raised some very serious questions

today in Question Period about the lay-offs in the minister's Department of

Works, Services and Transportation and the implications for the people of this

Province, I say to the minister. He can try to slough that off all he likes with

his short answers and sitting in his seat. That is a reason why the people of

this Province have lost confidence in the government, Mr. Speaker. Because what

this minister has done in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation

has been nothing short of criminal. Nothing short of criminal, the actions that

this minister has taken in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

First of all, by doing away with the mandatory inspections, I

say to him, by doing away with the motor vehicle inspections.

MR. EFFORD: What should I do?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You should have left it as it was, I say

to the minister. What he is doing now, Mr. Speaker, with the lay-offs in his

department, particularly with snow plough operations, where you are going to

have one operator on some of that snow clearing equipment -

MR. EFFORD: Not on some of them, on all of them.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm telling you something, you are

asking for big trouble, I say to the minister. I just hope, I say to the

minister in all sincerity, that come next winter the minister doesn't have to be

raked over the coals like he had to be this past winter. If he takes the actions

that he is proposing to take with the operations of snow clearing equipment in

this Province, this minister is going to have a lot to answer for this winter.

He got all out of sorts with the Member for Mount Pearl last

winter but I tell you something, if this minister doesn't

MR. EFFORD: It's no good talking about what happened in

Mount Pearl.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am just telling you what happened this

winter, and I predict for the minister what is going to happen this coming

winter if you proceed with your actions in your department, of one operator on

some of those snow clearing machines, I say to the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Tell us about your weekend.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I will tell you about that later on.

If you put one operator on those flyers, particular the

flyer, the fast moving snow clearing machine, if you take off the wing operator,

the minister is asking for big trouble. Now, he can joke about it all he likes,

and I hope ministers and members over there realize how serious an action this

minister is taking.

DR. HULAN: They knocked down one of my fence posts.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It doesn't matter about taking your

fence post because the minister will replace that, I say to the Minister of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. If they knock down the post of your fence they

can replace it, but if you knock down one person in this Province you can't

replace him. And that's what is going to happen this winter.

MR. EFFORD: No.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I tell the minister, I know more about

that than he does. These people are out in blinding snowstorms, can't see ten

feet in front of them, and you are going to have one operator on that machine

this winter, where you have always had two, and you tell me there is going to be

no problem. What do you know about it, I ask him? Get your head out of the sand

for god sake.

MR. EFFORD: There is no sand, just snow.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the minister it should be in

the snow, and I tell you, if something happens on those highways this winter

because of your actions, your head is going to be in the snow because I am going

to put it there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now, you can take that how you like.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, if you were listening, the hon.

member opposite issued a threat to an hon. member on this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order. I don't believe the tone and the

manner in which the hon. the Member for Grand Bank made the statement was in any

form of threat. There is no point of order.

MR. EFFORD: What!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister just a minute before said that his head wasn't

in the sand, it was in the snow. Now, that is what he said. He said that, and I

said that if anything happens to anybody on the highways of this Province this

winter because of his actions his head would be in the snow this winter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: That is not what you said.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Hansard will show what I said.

The thing is it is very serious, I say to the minister. What

he is doing is very serious. Now, there were nine or ten deaths on our highways

this past winter.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) not killed.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, there were, the former Minister of

Justice knows that, the part Minister of Justice, the acting Minister of

Justice.

MR. SULLIVAN: The fugitive from Justice.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, not the fugitive from Justice, that

is unparliamentary.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Control yourself, boy.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am controlling myself, I say to the

Member for Eagle River a little better than he can control himself. It is

serious. Do you know the problem? The problem, I say to the hon. the Member for

Eagle River, is that you people don't recognize a problem when you see one.

Those machines cannot operate with one operator. You can operate them but you

are taking an awful chance. You have a safety concern for the motoring public,

you have a safety concern for pedestrians, and you have a safety concern for the

operators themselves, I say to the minister, out on that road by themselves.

There are three safety concerns.

Now, if anything happens, because of the minister's actions,

to either one of those groups of people, he is going to have to answer, that is

my point. The minister will be accountable. The minister will be called to task

in this House. That is what I am telling the minister. In a round about way it

is what I told him a minute or so ago, but I hope he understood.

MR. EFFORD: That wasn't very round about, that was right

direct.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, you lost control.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Member for Eagle River, I

do lose control occasionally, not continuously like the Member for Eagle River,

out of control all of the time.

We are talking about non-confidence in the government. We

look at the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. That is when the

people of this Province lost confidence in this government. That is when the

first crack in the armour of this government really came, with that botched

attempt to privatize Hydro. Up until that time they really had hoodwinked the

people, but that was the first crack, and oh, how the crack has widened, I say

to the members opposite, how it has widened. It has gone on from there.

We can go back to amalgamation, the Workers' Compensation

scandal -

MS. VERGE: You mean the Gordon (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Workers' Compensation scandal -

MS. VERGE:

Part II.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, Parts I and