Volume XL Monday ' • ~ Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Third Session VERBATIM REPORT (Hansard) Speaker: Honourable Patrick McNicholas Nunier 25) fi April' 1:987:

The House met at 3:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! At this point I wish to rule on a point of order raised by the bon. member for Mount Scio - Bell Island (Mr. Barry) on March 31. I also wish to thank both sides for their relevant comments on this interesting point. The bon. member's point of order relates to remarks made by the hon. the Minister of Justice (Ms. Verge) in reply to a question posed by the bon. member for st. Barbe (Mr. Furey) respecting certain public statements of a Provincial Court Judge. Before ruling, I think it is necessary to put the bon.

M~nister's comments in the context in which they were spoken. The Minister was asked the question "Does she agree with the Provincial Court Judge making public commentaries?" The Minister replied, "Mr. Speaker, no, I do not. I do not agree with the Provincial Court judges making comments on public policy," etc. Again, in reply to the member for Mount Scio - Bell Island's point of order, the Minister said, "I did not express criticism of a particular judge.

In answer to a question posed, I said that as a .general rule I do not agree with judges commenting publicly on public . policy." Honourable members when speaking to the point of order quoted Beauchesne, paragraph 321 (1) on page 114 which says: "All references to judges and courts of justice of the nature of personal attack and censure have always been considered unparliamentary." That reference goes on ''members have been interrupted .... when they have Ll291 April 6, 1987 Vol XL cast an imputation upon a judicial proceeding." In this case, it is my understanding that the bon.

Minister of Justice did not censure in a personal way the activities of a judge or judges of the Provincial Court. She did not cast an imputation upon a judicial proceeding. Therefore, there is no point of order. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a matter which might be a matter of privilege. ! .intended to speak to the Government House Leader (Mr. Ottenheimer) before but I was a bit late getting here. I think he may be interested in what I have in mind. Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Finance (Dr.

Collins) did us an important courtesy, indeed, more than a courtesy. He had come to me on a Thursday to suggest that Interim Supply needed to get through expeditiously and I basically said to him, 'Leave it with me, I hear what you are saying and I will get back to you. ' In the same conversation I put to him the idea of having an Opposition Party group - let me say it differently, the representation of all parliamentary groups in this House at the Budget briefing. He undertook to raise it ~ith his people and he would get back to me. First of all, there was no deal as such.

He had put the suggestion to me on its merits and we came back the next day to say that we had no difficulty with the Interim Supply going through. No. 25 R1291

Also on its merits I put to him an idea about the Budget briefing. And the Premier the following Monday -members will remember that the Premier and I stood near his desk on the Monday -told me at that time that they had agreed to the principle of the representation and the details would be worked out with the Minister of Finance. And I thank the Premier for that. I did then and I thank him publicly and the minister for St. John's South.

In our conversation, as the minister would attest if he were in the House, I carefully said that, of course, if you intend to include the third parliamentary group in the House -and I would have no objections, I want you to know that -then I would suggest that there be one from the third group and two from the Official Opposition. It was on that basis that the two people had been designated, the gentleman for Terra Nova (Mr. Greening) and the gentleman from Gander (Mr. Baker). MR. LUSH: Bonavista North (Mr. Lush). MR. SIMMONS: Bonavista North, I am sorry about that.

The gentleman from Bonavista North and the gentleman from Gander. Now, Mr. Speaker, my purpose, and I am just about through in rising -now, is first of all to express to the Government House Leader and to the Premier my deep regret that an agreement made in good faith, I believe with the best interest of all concerned at heart, that is to say the people we represent here, came unstuck because a member of this Chamber, the gentleman for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) , and I suppose in cahoots with him the L1292 April 6, 1987 Vol XL gentleman for St. John's East (Mr. Long), decided to kick a tantrum. Now, Mr.

Speaker, had the members concerned done their homework, instead of, I assume, being more interested in a public circus, the process would have been a lot better served. Had they, as we had done in the Official Opposition, gone to the g1entleman to for St. John's South, I am sure they would have gotten the same response .

Indeed , I had understood -as an aside., it is not my responsibility to look out for the interests of the third party but, at the same time, fair is fair -and my statement. to the minister, behind the curtain, was that I fully expected, that the same privilege would be 1extended to the other group. And I had no difficulty with that, that .i.s fair. The point I wish to make, Mr.

Speaker, is, first of all, that I find it regrettable that a member of this House put the important process of members of this Chamber having adequate information to give informed comment ·on an important issue, the budget. of the Province, put that issue second to the public circus that he engaged in on last Thursday.

My purpose in rising is to say to the Premier and the Government House Leader I would hope that they will adjudicate what happened last week on its merits, and I hope when budget comes around again they will not hold against the Official Opposition, if you lik·e, the incident of last week, because I submit to them that we behaved correctly in the matter, WE! did it in good faith. I belie!ve, up until the time the agreement was made with the government, t.hat the government had acted in good faith. Now, whether or not the privilege No. 25 Rl292

-- ... was withdrawn from the NDP because of the television issue I do not know, that is not for me to say. I can only say to the Government House Leader that is what is on the public record, that is the allegation on the public record, and he might want to deal with that. But from my dealings with the Minister of Finance and the Premier on this, I believe they were acting in good faith. I want to say so publicly and, first, express the hope that another time round this unfortunate incident will not damage our ability to make suitable arrangements for the operation of the House. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, I find it offensive - and there has to be an answer to this - that men and woman of good will cannot seem to get our act together on a matter that affects the people of Newfoundland. There seems to be an absence of good will here that would cause that childish, absolutely childish, despicable incident last week, that is not becoming of a group of people who have the confidence of the men and women who sent us here. So I would hope that we could find a better way to solve our differences than the botched attempt that we saw played out in the corridors of the Fourth Floor last week. As I said, Mr.

Speaker, I am not sure if it is a point of privilege but I think it is an important point that needs to be addressed if we are going to operate as people of good faith here. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: To that point of whatever it was, Ll293 April 6, 1987 Vol XL it is nice to hear the sweetheart Opposition there making some pious comments about the whole affair now. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that the privilege that was extended to the Liberal Opposition was asked for by us a full twenty-four hours before this event occurred. MR.

TULK: Who did you ask? MR. FENWICK: We asked the Office of the Minister of Finance, we asked Newfoundland - MR. TULK: The Office? MR. FENWICK: Well, it so happened that the minister was not available at the time. Mr. Speaker, in almost all other jurisdictions it is normal courtesy to allow research officers, or members of the Opposition, to be in the lock-up when the budget is being . briefed for people in there.

The fact is in this case a deal was struck between the Liberal Opposition and the government in which they deliberately excluded us after we asked on three separate occasions to be specifically included in it. The last occasion was Thursday morning, a good three hours before the briefing was to occur. I had a conversation with the member for St.

John's South, the Finance Minister, in which I repeatedly requested it. - He finally said that the only reason, the final reason for not allowing us in was because we had exercised our privileges by not allowing cameras in the House on special occasions like this unless they were here for the rest of the time. No. 25 R1293

On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I think we deserve the same consideration as the Official Opposition did in terms of being briefed on it. All we did was say, "If you are briefing them at noon, we wish to be there." We went there when the briefing was to occur, then the Minister of Finance decided not to do the briefing. Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I think we acted well within our rights and I think I would be within my rights to rise now on a question of privilege of whether the government is giving privileges to the Official Opposition it is not extending to other recognized caucuses in the House.

And from that basis, Mr. Speaker, I refuse to apologize for any of the actions that I have followed, and in my opinion the government is the one that is culpable for setting up the situation in the first place. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader. the Government House MR. OTT .ENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, just on behalf of the government, to give a perspective to this, number one, approximately a week before Budget Day the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister of Finance whether he would consider having Opposition representatives present for the pre-budget briefing.

It was evident, I think to everybody, that in Newfoundland - I am not talking about on the Mainland, the han. gentleman is obviously interested in customs on the Mainland - but in Newfoundland that has not been the custom - for good, for bad, whatever. That is just a fact. It has not been the custom. Ll294 April 6, 1987 Vol XL The Minister of Finance said something to ·the effect, well, I will have to consider this, it will be a matter of government policy, and inform you what government policy is. Government policy would include more than the Minister of Finance.

Then he informed the Leader of the Opposition, and I think there was some discussion with respect to conditions, like confidentiality and that type of thing, and it was agreed. Now, the han. gentleman said nothing to the Minister of Finance, and he is not here today, before Thursday, Budget Day, about three hours before the budget was brought down. He talks about talking to the office. I think he phoned the office the day before. But the office is made up of furniture and the office cannot give a reply.

It was three hours before Budget time, the Leader of the Opposition did it a week before, so there is no question of anybody discriminating against the hon. gentleman. The Leader of the Opposition's representation was with respect to the Official Opposition and the Minister of Finance's reply on behalf of the government was with respect to the Official Opposition. The han. member for Menihek, threE! hours before Budget time, got in touch with the Minister of Finance and said something to the effect that I would like to send my executive assistant.

Now, the process for the Official Opposition was not for executive assistants but for members of the House, and it came down to be two members of the House. I think the hon. gentleman said something then, well, it does not have to be executive assistant, my colleague or I could go. The point is that this was three hours before the budget was No. 25 Rl294

to be delivered, and there was no time for the appropriate consideration of it and for the appropriate agreement to be made. The bon. gentleman thinks it is because of his position on television, but that has nothing to do with it whatsoever. The next time the bon. gentleman wishes something to be - considered he shall have to do people, including himself, the courtesy of entering into the discussion earlier than the last minute, so that is basically what it comes down to. It is a bit of a crybaby attitude, I think. It was at the very last minute, three hours before, that he approached the Minister of Finance.

The first approach was with respect to an executive assistant and then with respect to a member, and there just was not time for government consideration. Because these are matters upon which a minister wishes to consult with other ministers, on a collective opinion rather than a a one-man, individual opinion on something of this nature. So that is basically what it is. The only reason I bring this forward is the Minister of Finance is not here to do it. I do not think there is anything further that I can say on the matter. MR. BARRY: If I could, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do not think this is the time to have a debate or a · discussion. I do not know to what point this was brought up, whether it was a point of privilege or order. It does not seem to be either. I think it was just a matter of some misunderstanding. A member for each party in the House has now L1295 April 6, 1987 Vol XL spoken. I think we should get on to the routine business. So I would say that now is not the time to deal further with this matter. MR. BARRY: On another point Speaker, related matter. MR. SPEAKER: of order, Mr. to the same The bon. the member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, on a point of order. MR.

BARRY: As I understand what occurred on that occasion - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I have aiready ruled. MR. BARRY: It is on another point of order, Your Honour. MR. SPEAKER: Another point? MR. BARRY: Yes.

It is previous point, said. related to Your Honour, the as I What occurred was that following the arrangement, and it was an arrangement made in this House between members of this House, Your Honour, and it has some relevance, the member for Menihek became aware that the Official Opposition was to have two members in the lock-up, and unless the government informed the press now maybe I am doing the member for Menihek a disservice, and if so I am sure the government House Leader can correct me - the media to be there to be ready to televise and record his tantrum and his theatrics - No. 25 Rl295

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I do not think this is the time to debate this issue. I have already stated that a spokesman for each side has already stated his view. There is a time to comment further, but I do not think that this is the time. MR. BARRY: If I could - MR. SPEAKER: I am going to call Statements By Ministers now. MR. BARRY: Your Honour, on a point of order, if I could have the opportunity. MR. SPEAKER: A- point of member for Island. MR.

BARRY: order, Mount the bon. the Scio - Bell My point of order is: I would ask Your Honour to consider whether it is appropriate for any individual member, for the purpose of theatrics, to disrupt the orderly process which was involved in this arrangement, which was to give the Official Opposition a briefing of the Budget, a very important document relating to this Province and to this House, in order to give the Opposition a prior briefing to ensure more orderly debate, more informed debate, and a more informed response.

My point of order is I would submit it is not appropriate for a member of this House, . and in this case it was the member for Menihek, for the purpose of engaging in theatrics to call upon the press to be present when he participated in a process designed to disrupt an arrangement made between government and the Official L1296 April 6, 1987 Vol XL Opposition.

In other words, he called the press to be there knowing that he would not go into the lock-up, he did not want to go into the lock-up, but wanted to engage in theatrics in order to disrupt the process that had been agreed between the government and the Official Opposition. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the bon . Government House Leader. MR.

OTTENHEIMER: On that point of order, although I agree with much of what the · hon. gentleman says, I think, when Your Honour does research on it, Your Honor will probably find that it may not hold up as a point of order . But certainly the government did not inform the press to be present for the theatrical performance of the Leader of the Socialist Pa.rty. I can only assume that the Leader of the Socialists Party (Mr.

Fenwick) himself, in concert with his colleague, decided to have a crybaby attitude, and to display theatrics and to disrupt the orderly process through this theatrical and, some might say, immature display. But I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that when Your Honour researchs Beauchesne you will find that theatrics can be ruled out of order. So although theatrical and immature, it is probably not technically out of order. MR. FENWICK: To that point of orde1r, Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the han. No. 25 R1296

the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: It is almost astounding that this would even come to the floor, but considering that we have had collusion between the government and the Official Opposition to try and dump on us this day, I think it is pretty obvious to all and sundry that the government is not at all frightened of the Liberal Opposition. It is willing to give it total briefings on the Budget in order to be well prepared for it, but has insisted that we be totally denied any access to it whatsoever. The only other comment I have to make, Mr.

Speaker, is that we did ask the Premier, later on that morning, if he would uphold the Minister of Finance's statement. He was in a Cabinet meeting, he could have gotten the consultation he wanted on it, but it is obviously government policy to try and keep us as much as possible in the dark and to keep this unenlightened Opposition as much as they can in the know, because they need all the help can possibly get to give any kind of decent opposition to the bunch opposite. MR. OTTENHEIMER: If I may just add one other point. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader. the Government House MR.

OTTENHEIMER: It is not government's position to be at the beck and call of the honourable Socialist Party if YOI;l can not get your act together. SOME HON . MEMBERS: Hear, hear! L1297 April 6, 1987 Vol XL MR. OTTENHEIMER: If the hon. gentleman thinks that a couple of hours before the budget debate, when the Cabinet is meeting, the Premier and everybody else is going to disperse, drop everything, because, Oh, the honourable Socialist Party is all upset! They forgot a week ago to ask if they could be in the budget lock-up.

They found out that the Official Opposition has out-maneuvered them, they are going to be there, and the hon. the Socialists just thought of it. Now, has the Premier to cancel Cabinet and everything has to be at the beck and call of the hon. Socialist Party? It does not work that way. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: One final point, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SIMMONS: Now if my good friend from Menihek wants to let it all hang out, let us have it all hang out very, very quickly. Point number one, I submit to this House, Mr.

Speaker, he would not have yet called the Minister of Finance if I had not begged him to do so on the phone 9:30 Thursday morning, after he called me. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS: I, the official Opposition representative, advising the NDP how to look after its own affairs, number one, advise them 9:30a.m., and then I called the Government House Leader to inform him, as he No. 25 Rl297

will be .aware. Number two, if he wants to let it all hang out, he can live in a dream world all he wants but I tell him that even in dreams you need your homework done. Number three, let me say that, yes, I respect the rights of people, and that is why I said carefully to the gentleman from St. John's South, the Minister of Finance, that we would have no objections if the third parliamentary group is included, because that is fairness. I have no difficulty with that, none whatsoever. I said that a week before he even called the Minister of Finance. I said it on his behalf, in effect.

So I say to him that, yes, I will defend - to take Voltaire in hand - to the death his rights and his right to have rights, but he should understand that he cannot in one mouthful go around piously talking about his rights being trampled on when in the process, as he did last Thursday, he trampled on the rights of this official group, who had already made arrangements, having done its homework. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! HR. FENWICK: To the point of order, finally. HR. SPEAKER: I will hear the bon. member very briefly and then I think we should clue this up. HR.

FENWICK: With regard to the amount of notice, Mr. Speaker, it was a private deal between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Finance. We did not learn about it until the day before the budget Ll298 April 6, 1987 Vol XL came down. We only learned about it because we talked to one of the members of the press who said, 'There are two Liberals going to the lock-up. Are you guys not going in as well?' That was the first opportunity we had, Mr. Speaker, to know of it.

So if he had done his job and been courteous enough to tell us that this was going on, we could have given all the notice that you could possibly want. HR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I am prepared to rule em that point of order. I think it revolves around the alleged theatrics of the hon. member for Menihek. I do not think that is a matter for me to decide one way or the other. Whether, in fact, they were or not does not affect the rules of procedure in th is han. House. There is no point of order.

Before calling for StatemEmts by Ministers, I would like to welcome a number of people t.o the gallery: Joseph Loder, the Mayor of Summerside, Bay of Islands. I would like to welcome Mayor Brian Walsh, Deputy Mayor Gerald Riggs, and counsellor Wayne Noonan from the town council of Bay de Verde. I would like to welcome Mayor Robert Elliot and members of the fire brigade, Wilfred Mercer and Thomas Saunders , from Point Leamington. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Statements by Kiniste1:-s No. 25 Rl298

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Career Development and Advanced Studies. MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence for a moment. It may be a Ministerial Statement, or you can classify it as a point of privilege, if you like.

I know how difficult it is to win awards these days, but on Saturday, ·in The Evening Telegram, the Leader of the NDP Party, the member for Menihek, was gracious enough to give me a Wining and Dining Award, because my Purchased Services went from $6,000 to $21,000, and · the member obviously presumed that all of that was in entertainment and purchased, I guess , through restaurants and other kinds of services. The truth is, Mr.

Speaker, that over $10,622 of that amount was spent on a delegation that I led to Japan and Korea, $6,000 of it being sent directly to the Canadian Embassy for Purchased Services such as interpreters, drivers, meeting places and that type of thing. There was another $734 for Newfoundland souvenirs on that trip itself, for a total of $11,356. Mr. Speaker, it was not entertainment. There were official meetings, meeting space for interpreters, meeting rooms, taxi drivers and that type of thing. I want to say, Mr.

Speaker, that I would be glad to give a Whining and Groaning Award to the Leader of the New Democratic Party for not doing his homework. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! L1299 April 6, 1987 Vol XL MR. FENWICK: To the Ministerial Statement, if it is a Ministerial Statement, I will be responding to it. MR. SPEAKER: We are on Ministerial Statements at the present time. The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: I am glad to hear that the hon. member for Ferryland (Mr. Power) has clarified that. In almost every other instance in doing the budgets we have found that Purchased Services has been only for entertainment.

We would be glad to take back the award. Unfortunately, you have not been economical enough, as have the Minister of Justice (Ms. Verge) and others, so we cannot give you the teetotaler award. One of the questions I do have is why was the delegation going to Orient charged to your particular department? Why was it not the Minister responsible for Development (Mr. Barrett), or some other one, which would have been much · more appropriate I would understand. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Speaker, I did not object to the sequence here because I understood the minister to say that perhaps it was not a Ministerial Statement. But I would hope that the long- standing tradition of this House is observed, that the official Opposition gets an opportunity to respond to a Ministerial Statement in advance of people from third No. 25 Rl299

parliamentary groups. To the substance of the statement, the minister again re-enforces the point that we made earlier in the first few minutes of this House and that is that one should do one's homework. And he is correct in saying that the term "Purchased Supplies", was that the term? MR. POWER: Purchased Services. MR. SIMMONS: Purchased Services, of itself does not translate as entertainment, entertainment, etertainment, liquor, liquor, liquor, as much as you might want it to. And the first approach for an Opposition person is to go behind and find out what the phrase means.

But I say to the minister, and this is my real point here, that he will now be aware, and his colleagues in Cabinet will be aware, that that term "Purchased Services" does not really say what the umbrellas covers. And I say to him, and through him to his colleagues, that when they come before estimates committees, or before Committee of the Whole, they ought in particular to give a breakdown of that particular issue, or it is going to continue to cause the kind of confusion . that was created by a combination of the member for Mehinek' s uniformed eagerness and the minister's eagerness to · be uninformed. MR.

MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, as Minister Ll300 April 6, 1987 Vol XL responsible for Parks it is my pleasure to announce job creation initiatives being undertaken by the government in the area of Provincial Park improvements. These initiatives are part of the comprehensive package outlined in the Speech from the Throne and detailed in the budget.

One thrust of this package consists of funded activities designed to add significant long-term value to the community in general and to provide workers with job experience that could lead to long-term employment prospe1!ts. As a further indication of our government's commitment to these initiatives, I a pleased to be able to announce today that the Parks Division of my department will be spending a total of $903,626 - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MATTHEWS: - to create 200 jobs this Spring and Summer.

These jobs, in addition to the regular complement of Provincial Parks staff, will contribute to substantial improvements to 30 of our Provincial Parks throughout the Island and Labrador. An amount of $28,089 will be spent on supplies and labour in each of the following Provincial Parks: Beothuck, Jack' s Porid, Freshwater Pond, Backside Pond, Stag Lake, Mummichog, Duley Lake and Squires Memorial. Seven jobs will be created in each of these parks, Mr. Speaker. In Catamaran expenditures create eight expenditures No. 25 and Jonathan' s of $31,848 jobs . each, of $42,072 Pond, will and will R1300

create eight jobs in Square Pond and Notre Dame. An expenditure of $33,848 will create eight jobs in La Manche. Both Lockston Path and Piccadilly Head Provincial Parks will have seven jobs result from expenditures of $38,313, seven jobs will be created in Fitzgerald's Pond, Frenchman's Cove and Sandbanks through expenditures of $29,089, $32,089 and $28,313, respectively.

Five jobs will be created in Dildo Run, Bellevue Beach and Blue Ponds, through expenditures of $30,979, $20,271, and $22,795, respectively, and both Crabbes River and Pistolet Bay Provincial Parks will have five jobs result from expenditures of $19,979. Northern Bay Sands and Gooseberry Cove will both have six jobs created from expenditures of $34,554, and Marine Drive will have six jobs created from an expenditure of $32,554. Finally, Mr.

Speaker, both Flatwater Pond and Black Bank will see three jobs created from expenditures of $12,435 and $11,277, respectively, and ten jobs will be created in Butter Pot and Barachois Pond Provincial Parks, from expenditures of $50,366 and $41,366, respectively. These expenditures, Mr. Speaker, in addition to creating much needed jobs, will make significant improvements to our award-winning Provincial Parks system. Our camping, day-use and natural scenic attraction parks have become an integral part of our Newfoundland way of life and an invaluable asset for tourists visiting our Province.

L1301 Ap~il 6, 1987 Vol XL The jobs created by these projects, moreover, are in addition to the approximately 200 seasonal reoccurring parks staff and some 100 students hired each year. So this year, Mr. Speaker, we will have 500 people employed in our Provincial Parks system. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MATTHEWS: Another important aspect of this job creation program is that 40 per cent of the jobs will be assigned to youth, those aged twenty-four years and under, in order to help them gain experience in their search for permanent employment.

These initiatives will create jobs throughout the Province, benefit our young people, and further enhance our Provincial Parks system. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for St. Barbe. MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this statement on behalf of the hon. member for Stephenville (Mr. K. Aylward), our youth critic, who is in his district on business today. Mr. Speaker, I do not know why people on the other side of the House are getting so excited about this particular statement. We see an expenditure of just under $1 million to create 200 jobs, Mr.

Speaker, with 40 per cent of these 200 jobs be targeted No. 25 R1301

to young people. So they have created 80 jobs, and they pound their benches over there, while 17,920 more young people under the age of twenty-four are looking for work. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FUREY: Now, Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about in real terms is 44.5 per cent of all young persons out there, between the ages of sixteen and twenty-four, cannot find work. Just imagine, Mr.

Speaker, had they taken the $3 million they are going to use to build a Motor Vehicle Registration building and applied it against this formula, they could multiply 200 times three and we would have 600 more jobs for young people between the ages of sixteen and twenty-four. But did they chose to do that, Mr. Speaker? Did they chose to do what is right? Or do they take a twisted priority, for purely pork barrelling and patronage purposes to look after the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Windsor)? They take 600 young people and relegate them to the back burner to save his political rear end, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FUREY: That is where their priorities are. What a shame! What a despicable disgrace. And how can you sit there, hold your heads falsely in a high manner, and pound your benches? You all ought to resign. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! L1302 April 6, 1987 Vol XL MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for St. John's East. MR. LONG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the minister for a copy of the statement in advance.

We would welcome the statement in as much as it begins to help us all look toward the Su~ner and some of the plans that his department will have for S~er recreation. The issue of making improvements to the conditions in our provincial parks is something that will certainly be on a lot of people's minds as the S~er weather comes. I would like to register a concern about the kinds of improvements that are being made in the number of parks that do not have any electrical hookups for overnight camping, and I am sure that is a concern that the minister is aware of.

So ~te would have some questions about what kind of improvements these jobs are going to be put in place for. Secondly, we would have a c:oncern, especially, for the young people that will be hired, that these are only short-term jobs. For people who are being asked to ~~Fork on park improvements for a ben week stint, is not a very exciting proposition for young people coming out of university trying to get enough employment during the Summer to pay for tuition costs and their eligibility crite,ria for student aid in the Fall.

So a ten week project for students to work outdoors in the parks ma:V' be a rewarding kind of experience, but there is a real problem of the lack of dollars being put into people's hands. Those concerns we would like to No. 25 R1302

put on the record, but look forward to more from the minister in terms of what plans there will be for the coming Summer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Oral Questions MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Finance. My question to the Premier, Mr.

Speaker, is in view of the wide support among consumers, business groups and economists in the Province of Newfoundland urging and requesting government to reduce the Province's excessively high and regressive Retail Sales Tax, can the Premier explain why he and his government did not exceed to this practically unanimous request to reduce the 12 per cent Retail Sales Tax as a means to kick-start the economy? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, all the analysis that we have shows that we would be money out at the end of the year if we did reduce the Retail Sales Tax. · There is nothing a government wants to do more than reduce taxes, but it would have been a worse deficit, going from approximately $45 mil,lion to $172 million, and it would have even L1303 April 6, 1987 Vol XL gone higher on current account if we had reduced the Retail Sales Tax. The way we want to kick-start the economy is through involving the private sector, having the kind of things happen as happened today with the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth's (Mr.

Matthews) announcement, and two or three weeks ago the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands (Mr. Simms) announced another couple of hundred jobs, kick-starting the economy by giving a three year tax holiday to new corporations that are starting in the Province, by starting a Youth Entrepreneurial programme to get them into business, the Venture Capital programme and Business Assistance programmes, this is the way to go. All of the independent, legitimate analysis that has been done on reducing our taxes has indicated to us that we would have been money out and therefore the deficit would have been higher.

We did not think that that was an acceptable way to go, but rather to try to keep the taxes at the present level, not reduce any taxes on the consumer substantially, except in liquor which is a item which they have discretionary authority over individually, to put some more taxes on some of the corporations, as we have done through the insurance premiums tax, and to try to kick-start the economy that way. To reduce taxes, like the Retail Sales Tax, would only see us accumulate less revenue and therefore increase our deficit. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Bonavista North. No. 25 R1303

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, it seems as though the Premier and the Minister of Finance are the only ones in this Province that agree with that particular argument. Now I ask the Premier this: Is he aware that the Conference Board of Canada just recently, in a report to the federal government, stated that the decline in the Canadian economy was the result of the oppressive tax measures recently introduced by the federal government, that is, in the two past fiscal years, 1985 and 1986? Now the increase in these tax measures resulted in a decrease in the growth of the economy.

I ask the Premier this: If that is so for the Canadian economy in general, Mr. Speaker, why would that not be so for this Province, particularly with respect to our Retail Sales Tax which is the highest in Canada? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: It is one thing for the han. member to say that over the last couple of years the Conference Board has analyzed the economy and therefore with federal government tax increases there has been less consumer spending, and that is so, but it is another thing to say that we can sufficiently stimulate our economy by reducing our sales tax.

That is · apples and oranges and not apples and apples. If the bon. member wants our deficit, which has now quadrupled, to even go further out of line, then that is the choice we had. We did not increase beyond what our base is now, which is still too high at 12 per cent, but we have not done what the federal government has done over the last two years and L1304 April 6, 1987 Vol XL increased these taxes. It is the federal government that has increased over what their previous base was, but we have not, and ours has been there now for three or four years. What we have to do, Mr.

Speaker, is try to do it another way. We cannot afford to reduce the retail sales ta.x, lose revenue, have less to sp1end and increase our deficit beyond where it is today, so we are stabilizing our tax rates on the consumer and going co-operatively to the private sector, through venture capital, through our loans programme, through our young entrepreneural programme and through our own measures of job creation, to try to generate more revenue to the provincial economy. If you go to the Conference Board, Mr.

Speaker, or any han. member go to any legitimate economics group around and they will tell you it sounds good to the people but it is a myth to think that you can in Newfoundland's economy, reduce taxes and so stimulate so much that you are going to get more back by reduction. It does not work and all of our analysis shows that. We are taking another course, Mr. Speaker, to try to accomplish the same thing. MR. LUSH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. MR. LUSH: Mr.

Speaker, I would say the Premier's argument sounds good as well, but it only sounds good to the uninformed in this matte1r. Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the Premier is this: Is the Premier aware that by the predictions of his own Finance No. 25 R1304

Minister that revenues from the Retail Sales Tax has dropped in terms of percentage increases .year over year since 1984, from 8 per cent in 1984 to 5 per cent this fiscal year, indicating, Mr. Speaker, that the Retail Sales Tax has reached the law of diminishing returns? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, in his own statement, has just contradicted himself. There are still increases being generated through the Retail Sales Tax at 12 per cent. It is 5 per cent now where it used to be 8 per cent. MR. LUSH: It is dropping.

PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, but there is still an increase. That is · the point. We are still able to generate more revenues through ·the Retail Sales Tax. That is the way it should be. We are getting close to the law of diminishing returns. That is why we have not increased it. MR. LUSH: You are there. PREMIER PECI<FORD: No, we are not there, because there is a 5 per cent increase. Every year we have gotten more money out of Retail Sales Tax than we got the year before. But we are close to the law of diminishing returns. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

L1305 April 6, 1987 Vol XL PREMIER PECI<FORD: Mr. Speaker, I said nothing when the bon. member asked the question. MR. CALLAN: You are still saying nothing. PREMIER PECKFORD: Well, the hon. member for Bellevue never did say anything, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, in economics it is a myth what the hon. member for Bonavista North is saying. It is a complete economic myth . He is living in a dream world, and we do not intend to live in a dream world. We intend to live in the real world.

We are going to try to keep taxes where they are, reduce them over time as we stimulate the economy through the new measures we have in the budget. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Windsor - Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, Finance has the Minister of stated that last year's provincial $40.9 million. Does stand by that figure? figure that the prepared to stand by? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: For last year? MR. FLIGHT: Yes. No. 25 deficit was the Premier Is that the Premier is R1305

PREMIER PECKFORD: We made an estimate last year of what the deficit would .be and now we have indicated to the House and to the people of Newfoundland what the actual deficit was. Things that changed in the estimates again for this budget this year are: How much retail sales tax we will take in; how much tobacco tax we will take in; how much gas tax. That has to be an estimate based upon the last previous few years. Number two, our deficit is largely influenced by the predictions made by the federal government in transfer payments, will they be up or will they be down.

Every month they adjust them back and forth, $10 million, $15 million, $20 million. MR. FLIGHT: What is the correct figure? PREMIER PECKFORD: Well, it has been in the budget. I do not know· if the han. member for Windsor -Buchans MR. OTTENHEIMER: It is an estimated figure. That is a revised figure. It is about a month before all the bills come in. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes. It will be a month before all the bills are in. But we will be somewhere where the Minister of Finance will be within less than 1 per cent out. We will be less than 1 per cent out on $2.4 or $2.5 billion. We will be out very little.

We might be out $1 million or $2 million, based on $2.5 billion. If anybody, in their own household budget, or in their own business, can budget better than we are L1306 April 6, 1987 Vol XL doing as a percentage of the total, then I would like to see where they are. We have done as good as any government in Canada and as good as any busines!:: can do based upon the variables that are built into that system. MR. FLIGHT: It was a short question, Mr. Speaker. PREMIER PECKFORD: So whatever the Minisl:er of Finance said is that final number for 1986-87, we will not be very far off, Mr. Speaker. MR.

FLIGHT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the han. the member for Windsor-Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, in scrutinizing the Forestry estimates this morning, the Minister of Forest RE!Sources and Lands confessed that he had spent at least $152,000 more in. his 1986/87, last year's, budget, that he had actually shown in the estimates. His revised estimates was $88,000 when in fact he spent $240,000, he therefore spent $152,000 more than was shown in the budget. Now I would ask the Premier, is that $152,000 reflected in the provincial deficit?

Department spending is understate!d by $152,000: Is the prc1vincial deficit understated by $150,000? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: There are positives and ne:gatives in the budget, and some positives offset the negatives, keeping the No. 25 R1306

budget at about what was predicted because of those variables that are in there. And I will say to the bon. member, when it comes under the Department of Forest Resources and Lands, we cannot predict forest fires. The Minister of Forest Resources and Lands, for all his great competence, cannot predict forest fires or predict other things that might happen which will take more money than had been estimated. You do it as a normal year but sometimes there is an abnormal year . But everything is reflected in the budget.

All of the shortfalls of all the departments are reflected, all the positives and negatives come out, and then you will get your bottom line of $40.9 million. So there are positives and negatives. There might have been another

part in the minister's department where he saved money, and then that was transferred and balanced off where he lost money based upon the estimate that he had in the budget. MR. OTTENHEIMER: The books do not close for another month. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary . MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a fixed figure of $152,000 spent more than the minister had indicated was spent in the revised estimates.

So I would say to the Premier, there is no wonder the Finance Minister cannot get his deficits correct when he cannot count on his ministers to get their departmental budgets Ll307 April 6, 1987 Vol XL correct. I would ask the Premier were there any more? It is too bad the Minister of Finance is not here. Were there any more of those considerations, differences in the amounts spent as shown in the budget, from departmental budgets, and how many? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Of course there is, Mr. Speaker. We make estimates and then the final tallies came in.

In some cases we have estimated more that we needed, which is then transferred to cover another subhead where more was spent because of some variable within their department, whether it be forest fires or whether it be something happen in a provincial park which was not foreseen, or whether there was a flood and water and sewer people had to come up with more money to cover that. These are unlikely, but sometimes- --­ events that occur make for that to happen.

And you will find, throughout all of the departmental estimates, some subheads they are right on target, or they might be a bit better than on target and save some money, and others they will lose some. But when it is all balanced off we are in a better position, as the Minister of Finance predicts it now, coming out of last year than we predicted. We predicted a $49 million deficit and we are coming in less than $49 million. So overall we have done better.

In sQme places we have done worse, in some places we have done better, but we have done better in more places than we have done worse, and that is why our deficit, coming out of last year, is better than we predicted last year. No. 25 Rl307

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for St. Barbe. MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier a question. I do not know how the Premier can ask Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to accept restraint and hidden taxes when his Cabinet ministers have spent nearly $250,000 on Purchased Services in the past fiscal year. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, easily.

In the same way as if the han. member has to go and do things on behalf of his constituents in his own travel or the Opposition's own travel and so on, Ministers of the Crown have to go to federal/provincial meetings. The Minister of Development (Mr. Barrett) or the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) - MR. FUREY: Yes, but that is under Transportation. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, and look at the Purchased Services we saw today, Mr.

Speaker, that came under Purchased Services, where if a minister goes overseas we have to pay the Canadian Embassy for the interpreters that we get or the taxi drivers that we get. You know, if we are just going to L1308 April 6, 1987 Vol XL close shop and get insular and not go out and try to sell ourselves to the rest of Canada and l:he rest of the world, well, then I think I think we are going to be in serious trouble. The Minister of Fisheries is in negotiations with the Chinese to try and sell male caplin so we just do not throw away the male cap lin: Is that a worthwhile opportunity?

Should we do that or should we just say no, no, we will just keep l:hrowing away the male caplin and we will not try to find a market for them? So it is throughout all of the departments. The government does not just close down, nor does the Opposition. You have to continue to try and do your work, and the government has to try to continue to do its work. I think the majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would be very positively disposed to the government which is going out advertising around the world, to get more tourist in. Do you know, Mr.

Speaker, last year we had-the highest increase in tourists coming to our Province, second only to British Columbia, which had Expo. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: We were the next provinc:e, and that is because of Purchased Services. So, Mr. Speaker, we are very, very delighted to be able to expose ourselves to the w<orld to get more products, to ge!t more fish markets, to get more of whatever it happens to be. That is the way governments operate, and we are proud of the job that we are doing on that. MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementar::~'. No. 25 R1308

MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for St. Barbe. MR. FUREY: Taxis and travel come under the subhead of Transportation, not Purchased Services. Again I would ask the Premier how can his government expect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to restrain themselves and to accept these hidden taxes when eight of his twenty-two Cabinet Minister have hired press secretaries at a cost of $250,000 to the Treasury when we have a global press secretary called Newfoundland Information Services? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier . MR. TOBIN: Does Brian Tobin have a press secretary? PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, the Opposition over there are always demanding more researchers and more people to do work for them. Is it right for· the government and the various departments to have press secretaries to get out what that department is doing? Do the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who want to know what this department or that department is doing? Mr. Speaker, I think so. In the same way that there can be a legitimate argument made from the Opposition over and over again to increase their budget to do some research and that. Should we cut back the Opposition's research too?

Should we cut back what we are now providing to the New Democratic Party, to the Socialists, provide them with nothing? No, Mr. Speaker. Life goes on and we must get our message out and we must do the kinds of things that other Ll309 April 6. 1987 Vol XL governments are doing. So, we have to provide those kinds of monies if we are going to get our message out. MR. FUREY: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the bon . the member for st. Barbe. MR. FUREY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask: How can the Premier ask Newfoundlanders and Labr-adorians to accept restraint and hidden taxes when his ministers and their deputy ministers spent $2.5 million last year on travel alone? Do you want to talk about travel, $2.5 million on travel alone? Now, can the Premier tell us how many jobs these ministers brought back from Scandinavian countries, from Asia, from Germany, from the United States, from China? Two and a half million dollars! Now, how many jobs were created for Newfoundlanders, particularly young Newfoundlanders, on . that expenditure? MR.

SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I would like to know where the hon. member gets his premise to ask his questions. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: Just one second. Mr. Speaker, they are going crazy over there. I am talking about that I would No. 25 R1309

like to know the way the hon. member phrased the background to his question in talking about restraint. Where is there restraint when we have increased the Education budget by $58 million this year, when we have increased the Health budget by $34 million? Mr. Speaker, do you know? I am talking about restraint. This is restraint! An 8 per cent increase to the Department of Health. Mr. Speaker, do you know that this year the increase in the Health budget over last year is more than the total Health budget was in 1967 - 1968?

Just the increase last year to this year is more than the total Department of Health budget of 1967-68. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: So the premise, Mr. Speaker - MR. FLIGHT: What about travel? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I know I am grating them the wrong way. I listen to the question, and I say nothing. I try to answer the question and because I am giving some facts and figures it is grating them. I would like to have silence, Mr. Speaker. So the premise on which the han. member's question is based is false.

Because we have gone from a $45 million deficit to $172 million deficit, how does he claim that we are into a period of restraint? L1310 April 6, 1987 Vol XL MR. FLIGHT: What about travel of $2.5 million. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Mount Scio - Bell Island. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, let us start with another premise. Will the Premier agree - MR. BAIRD: That is a fellow with some travelling to do in the n1ext two months. MR. BARRY: That is all arranged. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

BARRY: Will the Premier agree that a more correct premise is, as he has stated, that there is no re1straint in the present administration? And will the Premier agree that because there is no restraint is the reason why we have had that deficit increased from $40 million last year to $172.9 million this year? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, what we have tried to do is to provide more day care for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, ~rhat we have tried to do is increase social assistance rates as we have done over the last few years.

Mr. Speaker, we have tried to increase No. 25 R1310

the amount of health care that is available to our people. We started with a clinic in Labrador, we started with a new hospital in Port aux Basques. Does somebody want us to say that the new hospital was not necessary in Port aux Basques? Does somebody want to tell us that the redevelopment of the Central Newfoundland Hospital is not necessary? Does somebody want to tell us that on the Eastern side of the Island there was not a new hospital necessary in Clarenville? And even with all of those and in Burin, on the Burin Peninsula, that you did not need a redevelopment of the hospital?

Will some of the members opposite tell me that we do not need to do what we are doing? Twenty-nine million dollars to create 12,000 jobs for people who were unemployed, able-bodied relief last year where we took them off the welfare rolls. When the han. member can show me where in all those spheres we could --have suddenly not done those kinds of things , then I might try to entertain his question. MR. BARRY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Mount Scio - Bell Island. MR. BARRY: Will the Premier admit, will the Premier agree, Mr.

Speaker, that had it not been for that $48.7 million which came from the sale of FPI, that in effect the deficit on capital account would have been $252 million this year instead of $203 million? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! L1311 April 6, 1987 Vol XL MR. BARRY: If I could, I am almost finished.

The member for Menihek showed that he confuses current account and capital account, has not done his homework on this point, and also did not check the budget to see that it is taken into the budget this year and not last year, but would the Premier agree that that $48. 7 million would have been another $48.7 million that the Province would have been in the hole on capital account had that money not been received from FPI this year? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the han. the member for Mount Scio - Bell Island is exactly right and the member for · Menihek is exactly wrong, and that just goes to show how good we were in doing our restructuring agreement. and putting a sound new corporation in place with which we can see some return on our investment. Hallelujah! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. MR. BARRY: The Premier mentioned some of the areas in which he is spending money, for example, on health care.

Now, I ask the Premier if he has checked the report of the Newfoundland Medical Care No. 25 Rl311

Commission for this year and compared it with last year? And would he explain, if he is doing such great things for health, why is it that the Province has lost thirty-two doctors, from communities around this Province outside of St. John's, and fourteen doctors from inside St. John's if it is not the abysmal policies of his administration with respect to health care? MR. SPEAKER: The han the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, the han. member has turned it around. He started off his question with saying there is no restraint.

The han. member for Mount Scio -Bell Island tried to turn it around from the han. member's earlier question and said there is no restraint in the government, and now, even thought there is no restraint, according to him, in government we cannot keep the doctors in tne-Province. Now, which way does the han. member for Mount Scio -Bell Island want it? Does he want that there is no restaint, and because there is no restraint at all we cannot keep any doc tors, or there is some restraint and we cannot keep any doctors? The hon. memer for Mount Scio -Bell Island now wants it both ways.

We lose doctors and we gain doctors. We have done a new

schedule for specialists, and I think we have quite a few new specialists in the Province this year. We have increased the fee schedules for them to try to attract more specialists, and we will do the best we can on that as we have on other things. But to try and say that we are not doing anything for health care when I can tell the member for Mount Scio -Bell Island that the $34 million L1312 April 6, 1987 Vol XL increase this year in health care was the total budget of the Department of Health in 1966 and 196 7, we must be doing something right. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The han. the member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) . How can the ~!inister of Transportation, Mr. Speaker, justify spending $3 million this year on an $8. 8 million building in Mount Pearl for Motor Registration when we have such atrocious conditions on our highways throughout the Province, when Municipal Affairs is way down, and, of course, the widows in this Province and the need for day care, how can the Minister of Transportation justify spending $3 million in this year's budget on that foolish building? MR.

SPEAKER: The han. the Ministt~r of Transportation. MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker, the NDP are not the only ones who do not do their homework. As has been indicated on a number of occasions, the argument was used in relationship to what is now the West Block of 'confederation Building, as it relates to the overall cost savings to government by building its own buildings rathe:l:" than renting in the long term, a.re very evident and have been evident from studies that have been clone by this administration. The case with regard to the Motor Registration Building whic:h will No. 25 R1312

be built in Mount Pearl, those assessments were done and all the indications, Mr. Speaker, by anybody's analysis indicates that by going that way we are saving money not only in the long, long run, but certainly in the very short term as well. MR. CALLAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Bellevue. MR. EFFORD: You are losing $3 million this year by going that way. MR. FLIGHT: Three million dollars in new votes. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. CALLAN: Mr.

Speaker, let me ask the Minister of Transportation, will this new building that the minister is building in Mount Pearl, this political building that the minister is putting in Mount Pearl, will this new building, Mr. Speaker, mean there will be a reduction in the cost of a driver's licence, the fees for motor registration, and will it result in a more prompt and efficient service from the Motor Registration Division? Would the minister answer that? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation. MR. DAWE: Mr.

Speaker, there is every indication that it will be a lot more efficient when that particular facility gets into operation. The obvious Ll313 April 6, 1987 Vol XL overcrowding and the circumstances that are in the presently rented building, not only as it relates to the ongoing day to day public access to that building but more particularly as it relates to the ongoing process of driver testing and evaluation, Mr. Speaker, the facility that is being built is programme specific, it is designed as a Motor Registration facility.

We will have in place the kinds of things that will make that particular facility very efficient, much more efficient, and it will be a model, as a number of other things are that we have done with regard to Motor Registration with our new computerized on-line system, the efficient way in which we have gone away from the annual renewal system and into monthly renewal systems. It has streamlined the system. This new building will add to that streamlining and also will add to the efficiency because it will be a purpose built facility. Mr.

Speaker, what it will mean in the long run, because it is a cost saving measure in the long terms, obviously the impact upon driver licences and fees and taxes will be minimized because we are going into this kind of a cost efficient method of providing facilities for government buildings. MR. W. CARTER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the bon. member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: the A supplementary to the Minister of Health, (Dr. Twomey), Mr. Speaker. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Health explain to the senior citizens and No. 25 Rl313

the chronically ill in Twillingate district how it is that their needs are now secondary to the building of a building for Motor Registration in Mount Pearl at an estimated cost of $8.8 million? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Health. DR. TWOMEY: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is my duty to act as an arbitrator between one department and the other. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Justice (Ms Verge).

It has to do with the fact that we are introducing a point system for drivers in which individuals can lose their licenses if they · get a number of tickets and with the credibility of the police force in enforcing it. We have been told that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, as part of their evaluation on an ongoing basis, are evaluated partially by the number of tickets and the number of violations that they have prosecuted.

My question to the Minister of Justice is this: Is it correct that the evaluation process for Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officers includes assessing the number of tickets that they have sent out for moving violations and other crimes in which they have participated in stopping? Ll314 April 6, 1987 Vol XL MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Justice. MS VERGE: Mr.

Speaker, it stands to reason that members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary are evaluated on the basis of their job performance, on their length of service and the variE~ty and type of functions the~y are involved in in the course of their duties. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The time for Oral Questions has elapsed. Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Public Works. MR. YOUNG: I would like to table the annual report of the Pippy Park Commission. MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Labour. MR.

BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like t.o table the annual report of the ~rorkers' Compensation Commission for 1986. Petitions MR. GILBERT: No. 25 Rl314

Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition here from 178 residents of the Community of Grey River. It reads: "We, the undersigned residents of Grey River, demand the present ferry service between Grey River, Ramea, and Burgee remain as is. The ferry has served as a lifesaver for us over the years, and we see no reason why we should lose a day of service. If anything, we feel the service should be increased. For example, arrangements could be made to have fish shipped out of here twice weekly.

This would cut down on the expense and improve the quality of the fish. "We ·understand the ferry is expensive to operate to Grey River due to its low population, but when compared to the Trans-Canada Highway running· through communities the same size as ours, service should be improved. "With regard to CN service, we are given an adequate service that is prepared by them rather than what the cost requires. It is our understanding that the provincial government was to improve on local ferry service rather than degrade it.

"Surely government understands the price people have paid for resettlement and must support improved isolated communities that exist, through no fault of their own. "Therefore, we call on the powers L1315 Apdl 6, 1987 Vol XL that be to practice what preach and improve rather downgrade outport life ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! they than I think we had a ruling some days ago on the presentation of petitions. I was trying to listen carefully to what the han. member was saying. I think on two points this petition must be ruled out. Number one, I think the hon. member started saying his statement was a demand.

A petition is not a demand. Secondly, there is no petition to this hon. House. I would like to have a look at that petition. It does not seem to be in order. MR. GILBERT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the han. the member for Burgee - Bay d'Espoir. MR. GILBERT: I would like to submit to you, Sir, that it is a legitimate petition. Now, maybe the people in Grey River, when they were writing it up, did not have the expertise to properly phrase it so that it would be satisfactory.

In actual fact, this is a petition that is valid and there are 178 people there that have signed the petition. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I must rule that petition out of order. What I would suggest to hon. members is that they refer to · the Hansard of some days ago when there was a fairly detailed account of just how a petition should be presented. No. 25 R1315

MR. BARRY: We may as well cut out petitions altogether. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Is this to the point of order? MR. SIMMONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SIMMONS: I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, that before you made a final determination on the petition you would hear argument. I understand what Mr. Speaker is attempting to do. He came down very clearly on the side of petitions that are properly addressed. I respect that and I have no difficulty with that. I say to you, Sir, that Grey River is a fairly long way a way.

In order for the member to have it in his hand, as of the third of April, it means the petition was generated long before Mr. Speaker made his particular ruling. I submit to you while the wording is not precisely what you would determine it ought to be, and that I respect, I think the spirit is there in that they want to have a grievance addressed. I would hope that you would see it in that light and give us as members of the House an opportunity to send out to our constituents the signal that as of the time of your ruling or as of now, we are going to be very demanding about the wording.

We will take it as our responsibility to get the proper wording to L1316 April 6, 1987 Vol XL them. I submit to you that people in Grey River did not set out to flaunt the rules of the House, they set out to have a grievance addressed. I would hope that even with the leave of the House it might be addressed today or Mr. Speaker might want to take it under advisement. My point is that the spirit of this matter ought to be taken into acc~ount in terms of the time frames that are involved. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. BARRY: If I could just briefly to this point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

I have heard enough on matter. The han. member can his head as much he wants. this shake In response to what the han. the Leader of the Opposition said, I can quite understand the point he has made that there was no time for the members in this par·ticular area to have gotten this particular recommendation or whatever you would like to call it. In view of that, if it is the wish of the House, by leave, I am quite prepared to accept this petition, if that is the wish of all members. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. Leader. the Goverrunent House MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr.

Speaker, yes, on behalf of the No. 25 Rl316

government we will certainly give leave and just before sitting down, speak briefly on the matter. The whole question of petitions has been in this session and other sessions too, frequently a cause of, perhaps, unnecessary conflict. I think there are two very arguable cases, (1) the rules do have to be observed; and ( 2) people do have the right to petition the House. In so doing, they have the obligation to do it in the way the rules require. MR. BARRY: It is more the spirit if not the rules. MR. OTTENHEIMER: I agree with the bon. gentleman. We are giving leave.

I am not debating that but sometimes there are situations where, it is not right and wrong, there can be, in a sense, two rights. I do not think anybody will dispute that things have to be done according to the rules. I do not think that anybody can dispute that citizens have the right to petition the House, and obviously there is a modification to that, they are suppose to do it in the form the House requires. I think our rules are · very straight forward. The first suggestion of mine was going to be that the rules might need to be looked at, but I am not sure that they do. .

I think that the Standing Orders on petitions, 90 up to 97, are pretty clear. Perhaps a possibility, and I just put this out, would be for the Officers of the Table, under the guidance of the Speaker, to do up it would not have to be very lengthy - a statement of policy which all sides of the House would agree with and then every member L1317 April 6. 1987 Vol XL would be responsible for seeing that any petition he or she presented corresponded to that. Nobody, constituents or citizens, would then be embarrassed.

If anybody were to be embarrassed, it would be, in a sense, the member and that is his job or her job, they are getting_ paid for it, but it would be the responsibility then of any member to make sure that any petition presented was in the appropriate form. If they got a petition which was not in the appropriate form, it is usually just the case of getting a first page, 'We, the undersigned' - because that is what has to be there - 'We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to consider such and such' and three names on the first page.

So it is, to a large extent, a thing which can be done without any great problem but we certainly give leave. I would suggest that it might be a matter which a quite brief document, which would be in line with the policy of the House. I think all sides would have to agree with the · policy paper and then every member would be bound by it. Perhaps every member then should undertake not to present a petition which is not in that form. As I say, it is usually only a matter of day, if there is a problem of form, in getting an appropriate first page.

All those signatures do not have to be gotten all over again, but I just put that out. Certainly we give leave for this petition now to be presented. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Burgee - Bay d'Espoir. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! No. 25 R1317

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Government House Leader (Mr. Ottenheimer) for giving leave in this particular case but the people of Grey River were really not too concerned about the way that this was presented or the format on the front of it. The prayer of this petition says, here they are, once again, rural Newfoundland is getting kicked in the face by this government.

You have a situation where the only way the people of Grey River have to be connected to the rest of Newfoundland is by boat, either the CN ferry which goes there, or the Department of Transportation ferry which was put in some years ago. As they pointed out in the prayer of their petition, when the Department of Transportation went in there, it meant that they were going to get better service not worse.

Here we are in the twentieth century and we have a situation that a community is going to be forced to resettle, with all the inherent problems that are going to be involved in that, if the Department of Transportation is going to continue with the action that they have initiated.

The other thing I might point out in regard to the urgency of this petition was that the only thing that happened was one resident of Grey River received a letter from the Minister of Transportation telling them, because of the fact that his department felt that it was not an economic viability that this service be provided on two days a week, it was going to be cancelled. As a matter of fact, they were even told that the ferry was going to make its last run Ll318 April 6, 1987 Vol XL tomorrow. I found out by talking to someone today that th1~ ferry service to Grey River has been suspended as of last Tuesday.

So the ferry is not going into Grey River tomorrow. It was eut off arbitrarily without any room for discussion or negotiation "'irith the people of ~rey River. I do not know if the minis:ter and the Department of Transportation are aware of what they can do with it. It is very fine to sit here in St. John' s, or to send a Transportation official do1om from Deer Lake and-, with the scratch of a pen, say, "We are going to cut out the ferry service to Grey River on Tuesday.

There are not enough people using it." What this actually means, when they make that slash with a pen across the schedule, it means that you are cutting the people of Grey River off from contact with the rest of Newfoundland, unless there is a lot more expense t:han at present.

What happened on Tuesday was that people who wanted to go out to see the doctor, the dentist, 1l:he eye specialist, this sort of thing, they could go out on a Tuesday, go to Ramea, if they got their work finished up in the aft:ernoon, fine, or if they had to go to Burgeo to shop or whate~·er the case might be, it meant most of them made friends. Those communities on the South Coast are tight knit communities and most of them had friends where they could stay overnight without any great expense and come back on the ferry on Thursday.

Now what you have done, by cutting out this ferry trip on Tuesday, it means that the people of Grey River get an hour and a half a week to go to Burg eo. In other No. 25 Rl318

words, they can go from Grey River to Ramea; back to Burg eo and then they are given an hour and a half before they have to get back on board that ferry again and go back to Ramea, back to Grey River that night, arriving at seven or eight o'clock. This to me does not seem to be making much sense. I just heard the Premier talk about the people of Newfoundland must be the real world. I do not really think that that is the real world that the people of Grey River should expect at this point in time. The people of Grey River have a viable community. It has a reason for existence. There is a fishing community there.

They have suggested in their letters to the minister that maybe they could improve the viability of this ferry by changing the ferry so that it could handle fish and take the fish to the plant in Ramea a couple of times a week, rather than leave it on the wharf to be shipped the way it is now. That is one of the suggestions that they make. They are not being unreasonable. All they are asking is that they be given certain rights as if they were living in a place in Newfoundland where there was a highway that goes through.

The Department of Transportation is cutting back their ferry service on the South Coast where these communities, particularly Grey River, Francois, Ramea and McCallum are serviced by CN Marine and then, of course, Grey River, Francois and Burgee by the Department of Transportation..

We have heard here today that maybe it is not a restraint budget, maybe it is a budget that we are going to spend more, maybe it is just a freeze budget, but whatever L1319 April 6, 1987 Vol XL they are doing, the Department of Transportation are taking the opportunity to cut back the service that they have provided on the South Coast of Newfoundland for the last eighteen years. I would like to ask the minister if he has looked at the viability of the ferry that runs between St. Patrick's and Long Island in Green Bay, in the Premier's district. Is that a viable operation?

I have not heard of any other ferry service being cut back but this one to Grey River. As far as I am concerned, if there is going to be a cutback in the Department of Transportation, I do not think it should be arbitrarily placed on the backs of the people of Grey River without those people being given any chance whatsoever to provide the minister with reasons why it should be there. The minister should not have to be provided with the reasons. It is there as a basic fact of life. If this community is to exist, there must be a ferry service twice a week the same as it was before.

If the minister is going to take it out, he should go down and do a very indepth study as to what is going to be a viable operation. The people of Grey River say it should not be cut out. I agree with them. I tell the minister that if there is going to be any cutbacks in the Department of Transportation, maybe the minister should consider it in his office where the budget has increased 91 per cent over the last three years. According to this budget, that would possibly be the right place to do some cuts that are not at the expense of the people of Grey River. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. 25 Rl319

Hee~;r, hear! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. Opposition. MR. SIMMONS: the Leader of the Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise and support this petition. The people of Grey River had the good fortune to be my constituents or, more properly, I had the good fortune to be their representative both federally and provincially over the number of years spanning 1973 until 1984. I learned to respect those people for their approach to life and for their hard-working nature.

I used to criticize them, in their presence at times, for not making more demands on government services for i terns that they were fully entitled to receive. The people of Grey River have to be among the most neglected people, insofar as government services are concerned, in this Province. They pay into the public treasury both federally and provincially a lot more in actual dollars than they get out. I am not suggesting that that alone is the criterion for assigning public revenues but it certainly ought to be taken into account when we are distributing the largesse of government. Mr.

Speaker, insofar as this issue is concerned, the people of Grey River just do not deserve what is being done to them in terms of the very few demands they place on government and in terms of the need that exists. Now, where is Grey River, Mr. Ll320 April 6, 1987 Vol XL Speaker, and how many ways can they get into that place? They can do it basically one way only and that is by going to Rarnea and/or Burgee on that ferry.

There are other alternatives, to get aboard a coastal boat and travel down to Hermitage1 which does not have the same community of interest with Grey River which Grey River has with Burgee or Ramea. That is where their hospital services are; that is where their high school youngsters go to school in Ramea and Burg eo; that is where they do a fair amount of their shopping; that is where many of them work on the trawlers out of Rarnea and work in the fish plant out of Ramea as well, so the community of interest is in that area. Mr.

Speaker, the proposal is that the ferry services be cut back from two days a week to one and that is, first of all, extremely unfair. I will come back t~o that, but it is also being done without any consultation.

I remember, and I am sure the minister will remember, that some years ago when the effort was ongoing to take over ferry services that had been formerly the responsibility of the federal government, one of the arguments made by the provincial government was that the prc1vincial government was a little closer to home and it could engage in local dialogue with the people served before any arbitrary decisions were made, especially affecting cutbacks in ferry services. Now we have a case where there is already a fait accompli without any consultation with the people concerned whatsoever. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, and finally, on this issue the matter of fairness and equity. What can be fair in this, Mr. Speaker, when No. 25 Rl320

you compare this situation, where they are cutting back from two days a week to one, to the situation that goes on down in Green Bay, which happens to be the district of the Premier, where the people from Long Island, Lush's Bight and the three Beaumonts, South, Cen~re and North, when they several times a day, Mr. Speaker, not twice a week or something, several times a day can get on a boat and make a ferry ride into St. Patrick's in Halls' Bay and get onto the highway system of the Province? How, can you say then, Mr. Speaker, that this is fair?

I am not suggesting that the frequency insofar as Grey River is concerned ought to be identical to the one in Green bay. but there is no fairness, Mr. Speaker. Given that both services are subsidized by the public treasury, there is no fairness where, in one case, a group of people can have a ferry service several times a day and in another case. they are being told that two days a week is too much: Mr. Speaker, this has to stop at some point.

Here we have a ferry service being further eroded at a time when people up in Bonne Bay, for example, have just gone through a cutback wiping out their ferry service in the past year or so. Those farmers, for example, who depended on that ferry service, what are they being asked to do by the government this year? The gentleman from Humber Valley (Mr. Woodford) knows. He knows too well, because he, himself, is a farmer and a very good one.

He knows that his colleagues out there, including people up in Bonne Bay.. for example, are being asked to put up another two dollars a' bag on lime to help give the government some more money so Ll321 Apru 6. 1987 Vol XL they can pay for that core of press secretaries. Why, Mr. Speaker, in a Province as small as this • do you need eight people, not to do research, as the Premier implied, but just to put out the press statements? Eight people, Mr. Speaker, in addition to a Newfoundland Information Service,. and in addition. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from St. John's North (Mr. J.

Carter) who is a walking press service in himself? Why would any government, Mr. Speaker, need anything more than the gentleman from St. John's North to spread the good word of this government? In the supermarkets of this country, as he puts his savoury upon the shelves, he can speak to the people there and tell them the good things this government is doing. Mr. Speaker, I support the prayer of the petition. Thank you, Sir. MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation. MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the fact that the petition was allowed to be presented. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, that petition has been in my possession now since late last week, or the first thing this morning, and it was dealt with on a priority basis as soon as I received it. I enquired about the status of that particular service and what the reasons behind the rescheduling were and so on. Members are right. The numbers using the service are not great. No. 25 R1321

But, then again, the number of residents in Grey River is not great. There is a question of equity and fairness involved in this process. I would just like to inform the House that the

schedule will not change, as it relates to the present time, up until September 15. I have set that as a target date to try and reassess the situation. Again, on numbers, once the Labour Day weekend is completed, the people travelling certainly do not indicate that there is an ongoing requirement, perhaps, through the Winter months, as it relates to that service, primarily because, Mr. Speaker, there are two ferry services already there, one, of course, operated by the provincial government and the other operated by Marine Atlantic. We will be looking at that.

I have had meetings in the past with the people from Grey River and I welcome their initiative in bringing forward their concerns, in the form of a petition to the department, and latterly, in the form of a petition to this Legislature, presented by our friend from Burgeo -Bay d'Espoir. The request, as outlined in the petition, has been addressed, Kr. Speaker, and I think it speaks well that this sort of format does get results when it gets to the right ears.

I think the people of Grey River are deserving of that service, and, as we all know, deserving of an improved transportation service, not only in and around the community, but as it relates to their connection with the rest of the Province. L1322 April 6, 1987 Vol XL So the situation, as proposed, will not go forward.

In fact, the present circumstances of two trips a week will remain in place pending a review process, but certainly remain in place until at least September 15, and ho,pefully the total transportation picture, with regard to Grey River and other communities on the coast, can be reassessed at that: time, along with a re-evaluation of the whole marine coastal servlce and the interconnection between the federal service and the pro,vincial service. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the petition be1cause I have already taken actlon to correct the items outlined in the petition. Orders of the Day MR.

OTTENHEIMER: Committee of Supply, Order 2. MR. SPEAKER: Order 2, Committee of Supply. On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker le1ft the Chair. Committee of the Whole on Supply MR. CHAIRMAN (Greening): Order, please! MR. OTTENHEIKER: The heading of expenditure, Consolidated Fund Services. MR. CHAIRMAN: The han. the President 1Df the Council. No. 25 Rl322

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, I am doing this on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins), so I may not do it with the clarity and thoroughness and precision of thought and expression that hon. members have grown to associate · with the dauntless Minister of Finance, but I shall endeavour to do it in any case.

If we look at that Consolidated Fund Services, page 5 in the Estimates 1987, page 5 -I am just trying to clarify it for all concerned - there are five sorts of headings, Interest - Statutory, you turn over to page 6 Rental Purchase - Statutory, then over on page 7 Loan Guarantees Statutory, further down on page 7 Debt Management Expenses Statutory, and then on page 8 Pensions and Gratuities Statutory.

There are really five subi terns within that, and what I would propose to do, instead of doing them all and then sitting down and waiting for any questions, or debate, or this or that, is perhaps do them one at a time, because they are fairly complex matters of a financial nature . There are only five headings and I will do them one at a time. I will not take a great deal of time in doing it, but I think that would be better, and when we finish with one we can go on to the other. The first ones are with respect to Interest. They are the headings beginning on page 5 and they go down a little bit on page 6.

The first one there is called Temporary Borrowings and this represents the interest cost to the Province related to demand loans which comes into play to cover cash shortfalls; sometimes the Province would have a L1323 April 6, 1987 Vol XL shortfall of cash.

The practice of using this temporary borrowing in the form of bank overdraft? - that is really what it is and why the amount, in general, is not huge, it is $150,000 estimated, and revised last year $160,000 - to cover cash shortfalls is part of the Department of Finance's overall management procedure and is used on the occasion that the Province may deliberately revert to an overdraft in its net cash position in an effort to invest at higher rates than those charged at the overdraft.

So, it may well be that at times there will be a decision made, 'Let us overdraft, because the interest on the overdraft will be less than using an alternate financing.' It is not a big item, but that is what it entails. All of these procedures, including the first one, are covered by the Financial Administration Act. The next i tern, 1. 1. 02, Treasury Bills: This, too,· is part of the Department of Finance's overall management programme. The Province currently issues $10 million worth of 91 day Treasury Bills through an auction which is held every Wednesday.

This process is somewhat different than the other, but it provides short-term funds at very competitive rates. A revised cost for 1986-87 reflects lower than expected interest rates throughout the year. That is why one will see 1986-87 down from $12.4 million, budgeted, to $11.7 million. That is because of falling interests. It is anticipated that $12.5 million will be the amount this year. That is the ninety-one day Treasury Bills, which are used for short-term financing. One benefit of this is that the rates here are No. 25 Rl323

very favourable and the Province would get either the same rate as the federal government, or, if it differs, it would differ only by one or two one hundredth per cent, one hundredth of a point. So, for all practical purposes, negligible. Tha~ covers that area. The next one, 1.1. 03, Debentures: There, of course, we have a very large amount, $360 million. This is covered under the Loan Act. This is the debt expense which flows from or is ~:elated to se~:vicing the di~:ect public debt of the P~:ovince.

It ~:epresents the inte~:est payments for this yea~: to the Province's bondholders and ~:elates to both the Canadian dollar borrowings and any fo~:eign borrowings as well. It ~eflects anticipated bo~:~:owings fo~: 1987-88 and is forecast to increase f~:om $334.3 million, the revised 1986-87 estimate, to $360 million the 1987-88 estimate. So, this is essentially covered by the Loan Act and is inte~:est on the long-term debt of the Province. The next one , 1 . 1 . 04 , Canada Pension Plan, $73.4 million: This is seY:Vicing of the money which this Province borrows f~:om the Canada Pension Investment Fund.

That is what is charged to this head. Since 1966, there has been a system whereby provinces borrow from the Canada Pension Plan. This is particularly beneficial, I think, because the interest ~:ates fo~: all the Provinces are the same and the~:e is a certain amount - this is not open-ended - which the Province is entitled to bo~:row under that and that is ~:elated, obviously, to the contributions from the Province to the Canada Pension Plan and is worked out on some per capita formula.

But that is how the amount is a~:rived at and it is quite beneficial L1324 April 6, 1987 Vol XL bo~:~:owing: there is one ~:ate fo~: all p~:ovinces and each province has an entitlement under a specific formula. The next one 1.1.05, Government of Canada, Debt Expenses: Now this subhead, $6.6 million, really represents the servicing of debt incurred under special federal/provincial projects funded, in some cases, years ago but still being paid off, some of them the old Wintet" Works p~:ogrammes, some of them the old DREE programmes.

It is not anticipated that new loans in this category will be added during the forecast year. But that is what that is, a servicing of the debt incurred under certain federal/provincial projects which have yet to be paid off. The next one, 1.1.06, Temporary Investments: This is ~:eally a ~:evenue, but I suppose I may as well explain it for hon. members' benefit. This reflects estimated interest income from the Province's p~:ogramme of investing available cash in the money markets by way of short-term investments and is another cash management tool of the Province. So that is essentially what that is.

As I say, it is a revenue, so really it is not necessary to say a great deal on that. The next one, 1.1.07, on Loans and Advances: Recoveries This also is revenue. Everything in parenthesis is revenue. This account represents interest collections on the Province's loans to various groups. In some cases commercial entities, municipal bodies, school boards, and Crown corporations. So that is revenue coming from that source. No. 25 Rl324

On the next page, 1.1.08, Crown Building Corporations Sinking Funds: That also is a revenue. If I can find my note on it, I will tell you what it is about. This account represents a refund of the earnings on the sinking fund assets of several Crown building corporations. It will be recalled, and again these started some years ago, that when certain things were built there was a building corporation used ·as as means of financing them, for example, the Bell Island Hospital Building Corporation, and also a building corporation with respect to the College of Trades and Technology.

These are the revenues which accrue there. Essentially, those are that the first expenditures under general heading of Statutory. I will before going on general heading. MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Interest stop there to the next The hon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. getting down to want to thank Chairman. Before the specifics, I the bon. the Government House Leader for his analysis of the first heading. I want to say, Mr.

Chairman, first of all, before getting into the substance of this heading, that we on this side deplore the procedure that is now being followed. in the House, namely, that we should be debating the budget. We should now be debating the principle of the bill rather than getting into the specifics. In just about every jurisdiction that I know of, immediately following the budget L1325 April 6, 1987 Vol XL there is a debate on the budget so that we can debate the principle.

But this idea of bringing in the Consolidated Revenue Fund shows that the government is just trying to get this over with, trying to push it out of the way. It sort of fragmentizes the attack, if you will, the debate on the entire matter. Because Opposition members would like to be able to debate the principle of the budget first, rather than getting into the specifics of Consolidated Fund Services or any other department. I certainly hope that the Government House Leader will take this under advisement and that we will get back to the budget.

When we finish the debate on the budget sufficiently, then we can come back to these specific departments. That is · the procedure that is used in most every other jurisdiction, that immediately after the budget you then debate the budget, the principle of the budget, and then get into the particular departments, and this is the way we would like to see it done. We believe it is a disregard and a disrespect for the procedure of the House to do it in any other form. Now, Mr. Chairman, with respect to this particular head, Consolidated Fund Services, there are a number of questions to be asked.

In dealing with this particular head we are talking about servicing of the public debt. Now, that we know the financial situation of the Province in as far as it is documented by the budget and the estimates, we now have to ask which statement was correct out of the two statements made by the Premier just recently, and I am sure everybody in the House knows to which statements I refer. No. 25 Rl325

Back some three or four weeks ago the Premier indicated that unless we got some tremendous assistance, some substantial aid from Ottawa this Province would be in a financial position similar to that of the 1930s, similar to that when we lost of Representative Government. Then very shortly after that, maybe the next day, the Premier backtracked, made a retraction and said that that was not exactly the true picture, that he had merely used hyperboles and exaggeration to try and get the attention of Ottawa. Now, that is what the Premier said.

Now we wonder, based on that statement, what credence, what credibility we can put on this budget. Is the situation that is being illustrated, is the situation that is being painted so terribly now being done for the sake of hyperbole and for the sake of exaggeration to get the attention of Ottawa? Is this why we have this terrible budget that we have today? Are the government levelling with this particular document today? Because it is hardly a budget, Mr. Chairman, it is more· of a political statement. It is the most unusual budget that was ever presented in this House of Assembly.

In -any event, let us take it at its face value and assume that whatever is in this budget is the accurate picture of the financial mess that this Province is in today. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, if there is one universal concern about the budget in ·this Province today, if there is one common concern going right throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador it is the horrendous deficit, particularly the deficit on current account, $172 million, quadrupled from last year's L1326 Apdl 6, 1987 Vol XL deficit million. of approximately $40 Now the question has to be asked, how come?

Why is it that we have such an explosion in this year's deficit, $172 million, which quadrupled last year's deficit? That question, Mr. Chairman, must be addressed. As I have said before, if there is one universal concern, one common concern from one end of the Province to the other it is this travesty, this huge and outrageous deficit on current account. Mr. Chairman, there is no question about it, this is a baLd news budget. When we combine the current account deficit with the capital account deficit, 1~e have something to the tune of $376 million. Mr.

Chairman, the minister can try to disguise the language in any way he likes, he can try to make the language colourful, he can do what he likes to try and distort the picture, he can use all sorts of convoluted logic. and gobbledygook, but the point of the matter is that this is the worst budget that has ever been presented in this House of Assembly, the most devaLstating budget ever presented in this House of Assembly. We have a combined deficit in capital and current account of $376 million; borrowing, Mr.

Chairman, up to $638.5 million compared to $381.3 millio'n last year, not quite but almost double the borrowing of last ye,ar. I quote again, the borrowing this year is $638.5 million compared to $381 million of a year ago. Mr. Chairman, that represents extravagance and waste almost unheard of in this Provinc1e. The No. 25 R1326

question answered, Mr. to say, combination that is caused the needs to be Chairman, I hasten how come? What of circumstances · explosion in quadrupling the deficit of this year, and, again, in almost doubling the amount of monies that the Province has to borrow to take care of the day-to-day routine activities of the Province? The second question that needs to be asked is is this going to affect the credit rating of this Province? I remember reading an

article last year by some financial experts - it was an

article done for the whole of Canada, referring to the federal government and the provincial governments - and these financial experts were saying that if there was not some determined effort by governments to reduce the deficit by cutting expenditures - not by raising taxes but by cutting expenditures ·- right throughout Canada that the credit rating was going to go down, the credit rating was going to be lowered.

Now, if these were the combination of circumstances last year, when the financial agencies and experts were concerned with reducing the deficit because the credit rating right across Canada, every province, was going to go down, how much truer is that today for Newfoundland when we have quadrupled the deficit? Now Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be a prophet of gloom and doom, but it stands to reason if our deficit has quadrupled that the question must be asked is that going to affect the credit rating of this Province? And if that is not going to affect the credit rating of this Province, then what is?

What will affect the credit rating of this Province? If at $172 million our credit rating Ll327 April 6, 1987 Vol XL remains the same, well, then, I do not think it matters. And the other question that must be asked, and the observation that I make, is that from this huge deficit and from the combination of the deficit on current account and capital account amounting to $376 million, and by the increased borrowing, almost twice that of last year, Mr. Chairman, to what extent does this government have control of the fiscal affairs of this Province? I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that they have absolutely no control but that they are slaves to the bond markets throughout Canada and the United States. Now, Mr. Chairman, if the huge deficit and the huge borrowings this Province has to go through this year is not affecting the credit rating, if this does not mean that this government are hostages to the bond market, then it would not appear to matter what happens with respect to fiscal management anywhere.

If we can see the neglect, the squandering. and the mismanagement that has gone on in this Province without any affect on the credit rating, if the combination of circumstances in this budget is not causing the financial agencies, the money institutions that provide us with the dollars to sit up and look and caution this government as to where they are going, then Mr. Chairman, there is no hope for this Province. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. the member's time is up. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman. No. 25 R1327

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, first, on the initial comments of the bon. gentleman from Bonavista North, I would point out that our procedures this year are no different than they were other years. Indeed, one of the Committees on the estimates met this morning and a

schedule has been arranged. Also, I was speaking with the Opposition House Leader (Mr. Tulk) this morning, and I believe on Thursday I said that this week we will be starting out with the estimates in the House and then with the Budget Speech. So there is nothing unusual there. Indeed, I informed his House Leader this morning that we planned to do the Consolidated Fund Services this afternoon and get into the budget debate tomorrow, and there was no dismay, you know, the hon. the gentleman from Fogo (Mr. Tulk) did not cry or leap up and down, he seemed to be quite satisfied.

But I inform the bon. gentleman that tomorrow we will be calling the budget debate. I know that the bon. gentleman from Bonavista North (Mr. Lush), the outstanding Finance critic of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, will be, I would assume, waxing extremely eloquently tomorrow and all hon. members are looking forward to it. As a matter of fact, we can hardly wait for tomorrow to come. If only we could put the clock ahead! We shall have to hold off on that pleasure until tomorrow, but all good things come to those who wait.

Now, about debt L1328 the the close hon. debt. to gentleman spoke Of course, the quadrupled in the Apdl 6, 1987 Vol XL amount of $172 million deficit on current account. I am sure no Minister of Finance likes to have a deficit on current account and certainly does not like to have a huge increase in deficit on current account, as we have had this year. Really, I think one has to ask oneself some quite, quite basic questions. I suppose the ideal is not to have any deficit on current account. Then the expenditures which would have to be cut. And whE~re are they cut?

The biggest spending departments are in the social areas. Would the bon. gentleman have us spend less on education? If so, I am sure when he at tended the Committee meeting of the estimates on Education he w·ould be saying, 'But there is not enough there on education. There is not enough. It has been cut by this and cut by that. ' I have no doubt some of his colleagues will still be saying that there is not enough for education. How much more should there be in education? Another $10 million?

Then,. we would have a $182 million deficit and the bon. gentleman wc>uld be getting up and saying, 'How can we have a $182 million deficit? This is financially irresponsible1!' Then some of his colleagues, when they are doing the estimates of the hon. Minister of Health, will be saying to the Minister of Health, 'There should be an extra $10 million in there for hospitals and health services. There has to be!

This is terrible!' Then, if we did that, we would have a $192 million deficit on current account and the bon. gentleman would pick it up and say, 'It was terrible at $172 million, it was worse at $182 million, and now it is $192 million. It is absolutely disgraceful ! • No. 25 R1328

Then, I have no doubt, one of the bon. gentleman • s co !leagues would say, • We need more on Social Services: We need more for senior citizens, we need more for day care services, we need more for alcohol and drug abuse foundations, we need more in all of these areas • , and lo and behold! we would be up to a $220 million deficit on current account.

We would have taken the advice of the bon. gentleman's colleagues, saying you have to spend more on this and more on that and more on that and more on that, and then his position, of course, would be, 'This is disgraceful, it is $220 million!' So, really what we had to do was do everything possible to keep the deficit on current account under control but not sell · our people short in terms of the future. We cannot accept the position whereby the young men and women of Newfoundland should have pejorative affects on their education.

The bon. gentleman from Bona vista North, previously an educator of illustrious fame throughout the Province and indeed beyond - not only in the Province but beyond - I recall quite some years ago I was invited by the bon. gentleman to speak at some conference - that was before the bon. gentleman was in public life - and I was supposed to be the guest speaker. They introduced one chap - he was from the mainland I believe - to get up and say a few words, he talked for about an hour and I never did get a chance to say anything.

However, that being the case, we cannot allow our young men and young women to come out of schools and out of post-secondary institutions without being properly equipped for the L1329 April 6, 1987 Vol XL challenges of the future. So we have to spend large amounts there. The same thing with respect to health. We cannot allow too much of a discrepancy, because Newfoundlanders as Newfoundland Canadians have the right to expect certain important levels in the delivery of health care and health services.

So, if you are going to balance the budget, or cut it from a $172 million deficit to, let us say, a $50 million deficit, that is $122 million worth of services that would have to be cut. Now, how many tens of millions would be cut in education? How many tens of millions would be cut in health? How many tens of millions would be cut in social services, in all of these areas? because that is what it would come down to. There are only two ways of altering that deficit. One is to spend less, which means cutting programmes, and the other is to take in more by increasing taxes.

The bon. gentlemen are certainly not in favour of increasing taxes, . nor is the Minister of Finance in favour of increasing taxes, nor is the member for Bellevue (Mr. Callan) in favour of increasing taxes. MR. CALLAN: There is a third option. MR. OTTENHEIMER: There is a third option, the bon. member for Bellevue says, and that might be to manufacture your own money. But you either spend less, and you spend less by cutting down on programmes, or you have more to spend, and the only way you have more to spend is through increasing revenues, and the basic way the Province increases No. 25 Rl329

revenues is through taxation. Certainly nobody likes to see such a high deficit on current account, so the Minister of Finance and the government made a conscious decision that we would take that risk. With all government, everything you do is a calculated risk. Certainly in the a~ea of politics and government, there are calculated risks. Nobody has a crystal ball and knows exactly what is going to happen. So, through a calculated risk we have therefore assured that our basic services will not deteriorate but will continue to meet the expectations of the people of Newfoundland.

Also, a very important initiative has been taken by the government with respect to endeavouring, and this can only be done in co-operation with the federal government, to restructure the economic base of the Province, in terms of the fishery resources, in terms of all of our basic resources, in terms as well of these transfer payments like equalization. Obviously, while population is an important factor, that should not be the sole determining factor with respect to a province's entitlement on equalization. There has to be some question of need as well.

The historic circumstances of Newfoundland, which came into Confederation in 1949, are also important considerations. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. OTTENHEIMER: With respect to the matters in the Budget, are many, I will save next intervention reference to those. L1330 April 6, 1987 positive and there it for my to make Vol XL MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The bon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While on the generalities of this head, let me make a fE~w more comments to the minister. The bon. the House Leader (Mr.

Ottenheimer) was talking about the ways we could cut do1o1111 the def lei t. I noticed that he quite deliberately avoided looking at a third way. Now, the hon. member mentioned cutting expenditures, which is always the most acceptable way, the way most advocated by financial experts and economists. I agree with the minister, that is not always the easiest way. But I can assure the minister that there are ways of cutting expenditures in this Province today without cutting back on services. I can assure the minister that there are ways to do that and I will. go to it in a moment.

The second way would be to raise taxes, which of course is the most undesirable way particularly in this Province where we have the highest rate of taxation in Canada. The strangest thing is, Mr. Chairman, that nobody on the other side, nobody from that bon. crowd apparently understands the principle of taxation that is held by every economist and every financial expert that is worth his salt. That is that the taxation to the level that we have in this Province today is resulting in diminishing returns, the point that I tried to make to the Premier today. No. 25 Rl330

I will remind hon. members again of the Conference Board of Canada, which were great advisors to the Conservative Government of Canada when they were in the Opposition. Now that they are government, they do not seem to pay too much attention to them. But I can remember the present Finance Minister, when he was a critic on finance, using time and time again material from the Conference Board of Canada to condemn the fiscal policies of the federal Liberals. Today he dismisses the advice given by the Conference Board of Canada.

I say again, just recently in a presentation to the federal government, they stated emphatically that the reason for the decline in the economic growth of Canada was the result of tax measures from the two recent federal budgets of 1985 and 1986. The culminate effect of the tax measures in both of these budgets was to cause a decline in the economic growth of Canada because these taxes meant that the consumer had less and less disposable money. I put it to. the Premier, if that is true of Canada, how much more accurate, how much truer is that of Newfoundland?

If that is the situation in Canada, how much more accurate is that of the economic scene in Newfoundland? The hon. the Government House Leader (Mr. Ottenheimer) mentioned that we arrived at this deficit because the government did not want to cut services and they did not want to raise taxes. What the hon. member did not address was the extravagance and the squander and the waste that has been employed by this government with respect to the fiscal management of this Province. He did not address that L1331 Apl"il 6, 1987 Vol XL issue.

He did not talk about the money that was wasted with respect to political patronage. I forget which paper it was this weekend, I did not read it very carefully, but there was a paper this weekend that gave a total, I believe, of all of the monies that this government have wasted with respect to political patronage. MR. WINDSOR: It was not very objective either. MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, objective! MR. CALLAN: It was factua.1. MR. LUSH: I just gave a very quick perusal of it and I saw names mentioned which were not fictitious.

I know the characters and they have definitely been given jobs because of their affiliation with the government party. They were not fictitious names. So, Mr. Chairman, in this fiscal year we have been presented with two cases. MR. BAIRD: Would you say that outside the House, that they were given jobs because of their political affiliation? MR. LUSH: Anything I say in this House, I say outside, Mr. Chairman, because I am always very diplomatic, very moderate and very modest in the kind of statements that I make. So, Mr.

Chairman, in this fiscal year we have seen an example of the cost of political patronage with respect to the appointment of the juvenile review board, the Young Offenders Review Board. We have not got the full cost of that board yet, Mr. Chairman. We know No. 25 R1331

some salaries. Then there was the case of early retirement of a couple of people in Workers' Compensation that we have not got the figures on. , These are just two examples in this current year, or the year just past, I should say, the fiscal year just past. These are two examples. I do not know but I expect they are within this current year. I expect the cost of these will be incurred in this $172 million deficit that we are talking about. Mr.

Chairman, so there has been tremendous waste and extravagance by this government with respect to political patronage and pork barrelling and not assigning the proper priorities to their spending. Let me demonstrate: I have given the hon. member two sets of specific cases if he wants to listen, Mr . Chairman, two specific, solid, practical cases. With respect to spending money on a priority based on need, Mr. Chairman, we have seen it time and time again throughout this Province in the last eight and ten years where water and sewer systems were put into conununities not based on need.

When I suggest need, of course, everybody needs water and sewer, but there were conununities with industry like a fish plant, for example, and goodness knows we need fish plants. We have put water and sewer in places where there were no fish plants and leaving the area with a fish plant unserviced. Mr. Chairman, what economic sense does that make? It is the same thing with the paving of roads.

I remember it was a policy of this government at one time, because of the tremendous restraints that were on this Province, that we only L1332 April 6. 1987 Vol XL upgraded and paved t'oads to those areas where there were resources and where there was an industry. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is anything but true. If they had been abiding by that policy, I would suggest that they would not be in the financial mess they are in today. I have been fortunate in that I had served two districts and in both districts the areas have had fish plants, for example.

Goodness knows a fish plant needs a good road so that the fish can be taken to and from in good condit~on. It is very important that we ship a good fish product and when they have to E>O over gravel roads, this does not happen. I have served in two districts with fish plants. Did they pave the roads, Mr. Chairman? Not likely, they did not pa.ve the t'oads but they paved them in other areas where there was no industry. Now, again I know hon. members can say that eve1:-y area needs a road paved. Sure it does, there is not a conununi ty in Newfoundland that does not want or deserve to have their roads paved.

But when we are in a tight money situation, then it behooves the government, Mr. Chairman, to spend that money wisely and prudently making sure that we get the greatest value for our dollar and that has not been happening. MR. CHAIRMAN ~Mitchell2: The hon. member's time is up. MR. LUSH: Too bad, Mr. Chairman. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Forest No. 25 R1332

Resources and Lands. MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to respond briefly in the absence of my colleague, the Government House Leader (Mr. Ottenheimer), to the latest comments from the member for Bonavista North (Mr. Lush). First of all, I know the bon. the member for Bonavista North is fully qualified to be the Finance critic for the Opposition. He knows how difficult it is to raise revenue. He knows how difficult it is to increase funds or raise funds for a particular need. He knows full well know difficult that is because, in fact, Mr. Chairman, I heard the member for Bonavista North early this morning on radio indicating clearly