November

24, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 68

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to recognize Mrs.

Eileen Houlihan of Freshwater, Placentia who is seated in the Speaker's Gallery

and is the author of a book known as Argentia Revisited which was

published in 1993.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of hon. members, I would also like

to welcome to the public galleries twenty students from the Career Orientation

Program in Witless Bay, Ferryland, accompanied by the facilitators for the

program Ms Brenda Sparkes and Ms Dorothy Hawco.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to some questions I asked

concerning the Trans City Holdings issue, the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board said that on April 29, 1993, the government tied into an interest rate of

9.41 per cent, I think it was, to finance the three health care centres that

were constructed by Marco Construction back in the beginning of 1991, I guess.

Now that was the rate that was obtained a year-and-a-half

after the contracts were awarded to Trans City. I would like to ask the Premier

today - and I suspect he will pass it on - this question: In order to get that

rate, did you agree to an escalating payment

schedule that would have lease

payments increasing over the 30-year lease period, and wasn't that in fact a

major change in the original specs which called for a flat payment schedule?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the original deal had a clause in

there which specified that the tie in point could be at any point up to

substantial completion of the structures, and also there were two possible

avenues of tying in and two possible schedules of payment. The analysis that was

done just before tying in, leading up to the point at which government tied in,

and government kept it as late as possible simply because the interest rates

were falling at the time and falling fairly rapidly so we put it off as long as

possible which explains why we were so late in terms of tying in; it was of

tremendous advantage to the Province and we did tie in that late date and we did

choose the escalating payment option rather than the fixed payment option.

MR. SIMMS: And that was the major change in the original

specs?

MR. BAKER: There was no mention in the original specs of

any method of payment.

MR. SIMMS: Flat payment.

MR. BAKER: There was no mention that there had to be a

flat payment, no.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the comments of the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, information that we've obtained

indicates that the escalating payment

schedule in fact will cost taxpayers

additional millions of dollars, as a matter of fact, is the number we've heard.

Unfortunately most of that cost will be shouldered by our children and our

grandchildren, because what happens is that because of the escalating payment

schedule that won't kick in until twenty to thirty years from now.

I want to ask him this question: Will the minister table in

this House - so we can all make a fair judgement on this - will he table the

schedule of escalating lease payments over that thirty-year lease period, and

will he also provide to the House a

schedule of what the lease cost would have

been based on the original or the other flat rate over that same thirty-year

period? Will he do that?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the numbers are public numbers at

this point in time so I would be pleased to. I would like to point out that I

know what the hon. member is getting at. Certainly the escalating payments would

result in, over a thirty-year period, of a higher payout certainly, total

payout, simply because we are borrowing the amount of money for a longer period

of time. If the Province were to borrow itself on the market it would never ever

pay back any principle and so would be committed forever to pay interest

payments, which would be a tremendous added burden. That is the approach the

hon. members took in the years that they were in office. They continually

borrowed money and never ever paid back principle, and burdened taxpayers for

the next hundred years with an unbearable burden.

The analysis indicated that the fixed interest rate, slightly

previous to the point in time which we tied in, was more than fifty bases points

better than conventional sources. That same analysis indicated that that was the

fixed rate, that was the fixed system, was better than fifty bases points better

than we could get through conventional sources. It also pointed out that the

Department of Finance recommended the escalating lease payments because it

provided a further advantage to the Province of ten bases points.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, when the minister tables - I

think he did indicate, I hope, and he will tell me again - when he tables the

schedule of the escalating lease payments versus the flat rate payments, I think

you will find, with a careful analysis, when the inflation factor over that

thirty-year period is taken into account, the fact is that it will cost us

several millions of dollars more than if the flat rate was used, the flat

schedule was used, but I look forward to his tabling of that information because

it will help us in the analysis.

We now know through sworn evidence that the government was

told repeatedly back in 1991, by its own officials, that these three buildings,

proposed in the bid of Trans City, had completely missed the functional

requirements in the Department of Health specifications and would have to be

redesigned. We now know that, through sworn evidence, all of which would cost

the Province more. What we do not know and what I would like to ask the minister

today is this: how much did these three finished buildings cost based on the

deal made after you awarded the contracts? Secondly, how much will the

government have to pay to buy these buildings back thirty years from now? Will

he be forthright with that information as well?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon.

gentleman is getting his information but he is entirely incorrect in his

preamble. Maybe what he is referring to is that an original analysis done of the

three buildings indicated that in one of the buildings a company, which happened

to be Trans City, had missed the point of the functional plan. The reason they

missed the point of the functional plan was that they had made allowances for

forty-eight beds instead of forty beds and because they quoted on a square foot

basis, ultimately that meant that the buildings could be obtained more cheaply.

That particular building could be obtained more cheaply than was estimated in

the first place. So there was no missing of the total functional plan at all,

Mr. Speaker, there was simply an adjustment that was made to reduce the number

of beds as per the demands of government.

I indicated to the hon. member that I would table the

information in the House and I also indicated - and he states it as if this is

going to be a surprising result and that is one of his techniques -I also stated

a moment ago that it will show that the total payout with the escalating

payments would be greater than the total payout with the fixed payments and I

explained why.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Well I am simply stating the facts. It does

not confirm anything except what the facts are. The facts are also that the

escalating payments are better financially on government because the interest

rate is lower but we do ultimately end up borrowing the money for a longer

period of time. So there is an ultimate cost for that, but they are better on

the Province than any other thing we could have done. The financial analysis

indicates that it is at least fifty to sixty bases points better than we could

have gotten through conventional sources.

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

MR. SIMMS: On a supplementary, I was hoping the minister

would have answered the questions that I put to him. He avoided both of those

questions. What I asked him -

MR. BAKER: I answered the questions.

MR. SIMMS: No, you didn't. How much did the three

finished buildings cost? Tell us that.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: The hon. gentleman can't have it both ways. He

asked me to table the costs, and I said, yes, I would get the costs, the total

costs, of both the escalating and the fixed payments, and I would table them in

the House.

Now, if he is not satisfied with that answer, it is too bad.

I will table that information.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: They are two different questions. You said you

would table the schedules. That is what I asked for, the payment schedule. That

is fine. What I just asked you now is: How much did the buildings cost to

construct? Do you know the answer to that question?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I don't know the exact number, Mr. Speaker,

but I will certainly get it and -

MR. SIMMS: That is what I asked.

MR. BAKER: Well, I have said I would table the

information. That is part of the information that he asked for.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Another question I asked him, because originally we heard -

by the way, for his information, the cost of building the buildings was

somewhere around $23 million. Now, that is the question I want answered, because

I want to find out if there was any additional cost added to the cost of

constructing the buildings, totally separate from the repayment schedules.

The other question I asked him, which he avoided answering:

How much will it cost the government to buy back these buildings thirty years

from now, as per your contract, as per the Cabinet paper that I quoted from

yesterday, as per the deal that you fixed six months after the contracts were

awarded?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't mind the hon. gentleman

wasting the time of Question Period, but I will simply go back and repeat my

answer again. The hon. gentleman asked me to table that information, the payment

schedules, how much we are going to pay in what years, which would include the

final payout, and I shall provide that information - get the information and

table it.

Now, if the hon. gentleman wants to get up and keep repeating

that, and waste the rest of Question Period, that is his choice.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, one final question.

I say to the minister, I was hoping he would be more

forthright. Surely he should know what it is going to cost the government to buy

back these buildings thirty years from now, because that is part of your deal.

In the original specifications it was going to cost the

government $1. That was the original specification when the tender and bids were

put out. I am asking him now: What will this 60 per cent of fair market value

mean? How much will that cost the government and the taxpayers? That is the

question I want answered. Now he surely knows the answer to that question.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I told the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that

would be tabled. I don't know why he insists that I keep repeating the answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the minister.

MR. BAKER: Just in case he doesn't understand it I will

repeat it again. The hon. member has asked for information about the escalating

lease payments which involves a payment at the end. That will be provided. He

asked for information compared to the fixed rate lease and how much the payments

will be, and the payment at the end. Mr. Speaker, that will be provided so I

don't know why he is getting so exercised. Is he trying to create a press

incident or what? I don't know. I have already indicated to the hon. gentleman,

that will be tabled, and I answered all his questions, with the exception of the

information that I have indicated will be tabled.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health.

The Minister of Health stated in this House yesterday, and he stated outside the

House, that a decision has not been made with respect to rationalization of

acute care facilities here in the City of St. John's, and he is quoted in

today's Evening Telegram as saying, "But absolutely nothing has been

determined with any finality as to which facilities will remain or be closed, or

if indeed any will be closed."

Now, in a special edition circular, circulated at the General

Hospital on November 4, it states that the new corporation board has been given

a mandate by the Provincial Government to consolidate acute care services within

the city to two sites. Now, Mr. Minister, you have led people to believe that no

decision was made to reduce acute care facilities in this city when, in fact, a

decision was made by you and your department.

Now, will you stand in your place in the House today and tell

the truth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I will attempt to do as the member has asked me, to tell the

truth as best I know it. I stand by the answers I gave to the questions, both to

the member yesterday, who wishes he were minister, and also to the media outside

the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I can't hear the hon.

minister.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: There has been a fair bit of discussion

over the past number of years with respect to the rationalization of health care

in St. John's, with respect to how many facilities we need to deliver the best

health care services and programs with respect to where they should or should

not be located, given the current state and status of what is going on in some

of the facilities. All of these matters will be for the consideration of the new

health care board that takes over April 1 1995.

I just left a meeting by coincidence, five minutes ago, with

Sister Elizabeth who is the chair of that new board. We had a discussion about

the questions that we had yesterday and about what we said in the media, what

she has been saying to the hospitals as she has been going about in her

pre-establishment mode, I guess, before she takes over officially on April 1. I

can tell you that final decisions on what facilities, which facilities, will

remain have not been made with any finality. There have been scenarios put

forward, there have been options discussed and considered, and these may or may

not be the final basis of the ultimate decisions with respect to what we do in

this region. Whatever we do, let the member be assured that it will be done

first and foremost in the best interest of delivering sound, safe, efficient,

professional and cost-effective health care for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. That will be the premise and the priority that we will establish and

work from in anything that we do in this regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is a pile of

utter nonsense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Ms. Davis has said jobs may be redundant,

decisions will made quickly. The mandate was told to the hospitals and told

people that there will be two facilities. The minister wants us to believe

yesterday that whatever will be done will be done by the new board when it takes

effect on April 1. Will the minister and stand in his place and confirm that the

board and Sister Elizabeth Davis are acting on detailed instructions given to

them by the department and this minister, including the decision to close down

the Janeway Children's Hospital?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My judgement on

the substantiveness of my answer is not the same as your view of it, sir. My

answer was correct. Let me tell you again that Sister Elizabeth Davis is not

under any direct or indirect or implicit instructions from the Department of

Health or this government to announce any such thing along the lines of a

closure of the Janeway Hospital.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: No, that is not what she is doing, that

is not what she is saying. If you want to put your

interpretation to that effect

upon what she may or may not be saying, then you will have to live with the

consequences of the statements and

interpretations that you are making, not the

facts that we are presenting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I tell the

minister, he will have to live with the consequences of his failure to come

clean and let the public have a say in what is happening.

There are hundreds of people in health care in the St. John's

area whose futures are in slings and many clients of the health care system who

deserve to have a right to have input into the future of the health care system.

I ask the minister again: Will he table in this House the specific instructions

he has given to Sister Elizabeth Davis and the new hospitals regarding

reorganization of acute care facilities here in this city?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the

hon. the Member for Ferryland is not hearing or whether he is just plain

stunned. Whatever the problem that he has, the answer is again that no explicit

instructions have been given to Sister Elizabeth to do as you are alluding to

that she has been given instructions to do. So -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) writing. (Inaudible) it in

writing! (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Well, I have the Telegram here,

so save your trip across the House. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that I've given

the hon. Member for Ferryland the answer that is correct, that is factual, and I

can do no more than that. Whether he chooses to believe it is really a matter

that he will have to determine in his own mind.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a

question for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this Province unaware of what

is taking place on the Burin Peninsula. Today, the people are out protesting

down there trying to prevent their jobs from being shipped away to Saint John

New Brunswick, have been served with an injunction. The place is now crawling

with armed police officers, with surveillance cameras and the whole bit down

there.

Mr. Speaker, losing the work is one thing, but not knowing

why the work is going is another, and I would ask the Premier, and I say to him,

up front that today in the galleries there are the leadership of the Marystown

union and they too, do not know why the work is leaving. I would like to ask

you, Mr. Premier, can you tell us today why it is going?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is fairly simple.

I disagree with the reason given but the reason given to me

is that, HMDC does not have confidence that the work can be completed in time at

the Marystown Shipyard to avoid causing a delay in the overall completion of the

Hibernia production platform and so causing significant adverse consequence.

Now I do not share their view; a lot of people I know do not

share their view but I do not have responsibility for the decision that they

have, therefore I am not prepared to do anything to impose my judgement which

is, that they are wrong on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin Placentia - West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier does not accept

the fact that HMDC is doing it, let me ask the Premier, can he tell me when HMDC

told him they would expect to get the work back from Marystown, completed in

Marystown and, when they have told him they will receive it back from Saint

John, New Brunswick?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: HMDC indicated to me that they thought it

would not be produced at Marystown until well into 1996. That, they said, they

couldn't take. They couldn't take that risk and they did not know that it could

be produced even in early 1996; they had a great deal of uncertainty about it.

Now I do not share their judgement in that. Nobody else that I have talked to

shares their judgement. A variety of people in Marystown Shipyard and a variety

of people otherwise do not share their judgement.

I don't know when they expect to receive it back from Saint

John Shipyard; I don't know that at the time that I was speaking with them they

had any firm date, but they did expect, that their judgement was it could be

back from Saint John, New Brunswick in time to be incorporated in the overall

work without causing any delay. I enquired as to how they could come to that

conclusion and that was their view of it. I cannot alter that, I can challenge

it, I can question it but I can't alter it.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, The hon. Member for

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I guess that is what causes all

the problems. Nobody knows when it is coming back from Saint John, New Brunswick

and I understand the management of the Shipyard told the Premier that they could

have had it done in the fall of 95. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, there is a

very strong, hidden agenda here by HMDC, who wants to scuttle the work from

Marystown and unfortunately, it is supported by the government opposite by not

preventing it from happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this. The

barge to carry the livelihood of 350 employees of Marystown Shipyard will be

arriving there on Friday. I understand from the media that there is a meeting

called there tonight to set up some sort of a blockade where people are going to

try to arrange boats and the whole bit and I want to say for the record that,

that bothers me greatly and I am very concerned about what that might mean; and

I would ask the Premier now, Mr. Speaker, if there is anything, if there is

anything he can say or do at this stage in the game to prevent that work from

leaving?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: We have been trying ever since. The answer

is up until this point in time no, there is nothing I can do; and if that idea

of a blockade bothers the hon. member so much, then I recommend strongly to him,

that he take steps to persuade people not to do that. He takes steps to persuade

people not to do that. All that that is causing is more harm to Marystown

Shipyard and Vinland Industries and diminishing the ability to get work in the

future. No company, no company is likely ever to give Marystown or Vinland

Industries another contract to do work if they have to face that kind of

interference and blockade. Now, all that action will do is cause more harm than

help. It certainly will not help. I think the hon. member agrees with that, and

I would invite him to say so to the people concerned, to persuade them not to do

that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and concerns the site selected

for the Cabot legacy project.

Mr. Speaker, the preferred site, and I think universally

agreed to be the preferred site, is a waterfront site in the City of St. John's,

the downtown area of St. John's. I want to ask the minister, since he is the man

who announced this site selection process back in June, whether or not the

government is prepared to make further efforts to obtain a site on the

waterfront in St. John's because of the increased tourism, economic and business

development potential for the downtown area of St. John's to have that building

there in a magnificent site on the waterfront of St. John's? Is the government

prepared to make further efforts to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly

appreciate the question because it is a topic that has been in the public

domain, particularly in and around the capital city region, for some time now.

It is clear, I think, to everyone who has been following this

issue, that the government was clearly in favour of the preferred site of having

this kind of a legacy structure on the waterfront so that we could contribute to

the revitalization of that waterfront area and all of the things that the hon.

member mentioned in his

preamble to the question, but having gone through a

complete exercise of negotiation and discussion with the people who actually

held title to the preferred property and properties, it was seen at the end of

the day to be inappropriate for the government to pursue the issue further,

despite the obvious advantages as pointed out by the hon. member in the

question.

We have now basically decided not to return to any

significant efforts to try to move back to a waterfront site, but have committed

ourselves to the Fort Townshend site which was announced publicly last week.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that there

are difficulties with that site as well. I know the minister and the government

- the government has been very creative when it comes to finding ways, and the

Minister of Finance has been explaining it the last couple of days in the House,

of finding ways of financing projects that they decide that they want to do in a

particular place and location, or with particular contractors. Why isn't the

government prepared to try and still, at this stage of the game, find ways of

making that project to be the desirable project that it could be, instead of not

contributing in the way that it could to the economic and tourism and small

business development in the downtown area of St. John's?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I guess, it causes some confusion from time to time

when members of the Opposition in either of the parties change their view as to

what this government is all about, because normally we would expect the question

to be the regular one saying: Why don't you go and impose your view on the

people on the waterfront, whether or not they have good reasons why they don't

want to give up the property on any volunteer basis or otherwise, and say that

would be the normal record for the... We have heard all that tirade many times

and now, because we make our normal, reasonable decision not to impose our will,

which is to take a waterfront site upon the owners of that property, just as we

will not impose our will upon people on a wide range of issues, now the hon.

member will rise and say that the government should have found another way to

force some people to do some things they didn't want to do at the waterfront,

when we went through exhaustive and extensive discussions and negotiations to

try to secure that site because it was the preferred location.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have

a question for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

Would the minister undertake to table a list of all sea

urchin processing licences that have been issued by the provincial Department of

Fisheries and, as well, table the date on which these licences were first

issued? Can he confirm that a sea urchin processing licence was issued in the

last few days to 3 T's Fisheries of Bonne Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I can confirm that I will table such information that

you have asked for. I can also confirm that a licence was not offered to 3 T's

in Bonne Bay - was not in the last few days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was there ever?

DR. HULAN: I will have to take that under advisement and

check that out.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a supplementary? Some of this may

have gotten picked up in Hansard.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I thank the minister for answering what he could and for

undertaking to table the list of licenses and the dates that they were first

issued. The minister knows why I am asking it, so does the Premier, it concerns

the situation with Sual Fisheries and Frenchman's Cove on the west coast, which

I believe is in the Premier's district. It has been an item of great concern out

in that area.

I want to ask the Premier a supplementary, is the Premier

aware that last night his parliamentary assistant, Mr. Joyce, executive

assistant for the west coast, Mr. Ed Joyce, released about sixty copies of a

confidential document, a business plan of Sual Fisheries at a public meeting;

information about wages to paid for harvesting, processing wages, cost of

packaging, shipping - about sixty copies of confidential, private information

paid for by this company, released it at a public meeting? I do not think I need

to say any more about it. When this information was provided to government it

was clearly indicated that it was to be treated as confidential information. I

want to ask the Premier is he aware of it? If he is not, would he undertake to

see, first of all, where Mr. Joyce got the information? Number two, under whose

authority he made this confidential information available to the public? Because

we all know the implications and ramifications of this, everyone now has this, a

new prospective industry in this Province that was paid for by this company and

that is now available to everyone. So I would ask the Premier would he undertake

to do that because this is a very serious matter, in my opinion?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I know nothing about the event that he is

speaking about but I will undertake to determine what in fact happened and

advise the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Order, please!

During Question Period, the hon. the Minister of Health used

the term `stunned' in one of his answers. I merely want to point out that I

checked Beauchesne, as it struck me as perhaps being unparliamentary, and there

are a variety of `s' words referred to as unparliamentary, including

`scurrilous', `sleazy', `stinker' and `stupid', but not `stunned'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: However, having said that, in my view,

`stunned' is a particularly colloquial Newfoundland expression. I infer that it

still means `stupid', so I ask the hon. member not to use it again, and ask

other members not to use the expression.

Thank you.

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome the

Ambassador of Korea to Canada, His Excellency Kee Bock Shin, who is visiting St.

John's from November 23rd to the 25th.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, it gives me pleasure to stand and present a petition

in this House. The petition reads: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province

of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador ask the House of Assembly to accept the

following prayer:

`We, the undersigned, do hereby request that Cabinet

immediately rescind changes in regulations which cancel mandatory vehicle

inspections. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.'

The minister is at it again. Every time this thing about

inspections is brought up, he ridicules anybody who brings it up, anybody who is

responsible, who has a feeling for people and who wants safety first on our

highways in Newfoundland.

Thirteen months ago on October 22, this Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation put in more stringent regulations for motor vehicle

inspections, but last week he threw safety out the window by saying mandatory

inspections are no longer in force. He based part of it on national statistics

by Transport Canada. He based his decision, he said, on national statistics

while those national statistics put Newfoundland's rate of unfit vehicles on the

highways higher than any other province.

He said he consulted with other provinces, but did he consult

with the Insurance Bureau, who said that insurance premiums will go up. He never

consulted the auto industry. Did he consult the police? I can see the RCMP now

with twin holsters, one holding a gun and the other, a wrench. These people who

look after their vehicles are concerned that more and more indiscriminate people

will want to get their vehicles on the road.

During this past week there have been numerous cancellations

of brake alignment to be done in garages because they don't have to be done

under mandatory inspection. These people are taking it upon themselves not to

have their cars done. The minister can say what he likes about it still being in

place but these people are taking a chance and not having it done. This

government is willing to get two shots at people now who take a chance. People

are now putting cars on the road that are unfit. They pay the government $120

and when they are caught they pay X number of dollars for their fines. There are

going to be more and more cars on the road that are unfit.

The minister talks about saving $15, fifteen loonies like

themselves. This thing was aided and abetted by the minister and fourteen other

members of Cabinet, fifteen people, fifteen loonies threw this out, threw safety

out the window. What were you thinking about, Sir, or where did it originate?

This has taken on a life of its own. I never brought politics into it, you did,

Sir, when you brought it to the forefront in Newfoundland. With all our problems

on this little Island and Labrador, you brought this to the forefront, and

people are not satisfied.

People want to be in safe vehicles on the highways. Their own

might be safe but there are going to be more and more indiscriminate drivers,

and those who postpone getting their vehicles done.

MR. EFFORD: May I have a copy of that?

MR. CAREEN: Of what?

MR. EFFORD: The petition.

MR. CAREEN: Yes Sir, you may have a copy.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) number of names.

MR. CAREEN: There were only a few people who showed up

here today; because of weather conditions outside St. John's, many people

couldn't get here. The numbers don't count. These people - there are 40,000 to

50,000 signatures that will be passed in here in a week or two to show you what

is going on.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: You will be called, Sir, the minister of nuts

and bolts and clunkers, after this is over, with what you are doing. There are

going to be more wheelchairs sold than brake cables. Sir, you are not

responsible. You are putting forward a feeling of irresponsibility. You are

irresponsible.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Insurance, I say, will rise. There will be

more and more unfit cars. The automotive industry of Canada is noting, and they

are projecting, that by 1998 73 per cent of vehicles on the roads in Canada will

be one to ten years old, and 26.6 per cent will be ten years and older. They are

projecting that by 1998, cars older than fifteen years will number 522,000 from

Vancouver to here. What average of those cars we will have, I don't know.

The minister never consulted, and quite often he is

insulting. What he did to the people of this Province was he threw safety out

the window. He tried to put it over on garage owners being indiscriminate. That

happens in isolated incidents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. CAREEN: The minister is irresponsible.

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

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

have a few words in support of the petition presented by my colleague, the

Member for Placentia.

Since the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

announced this change whereby there is no need for any vehicle operator in the

Province to have an inspection done, people around this Province at first said -

I even heard it in my district when I came into the airport last Friday evening

- they said: What a great thing! Some of the boys came to me - in fact, some of

the taxi operators who must have their inspections done twice a year, thought

they were included.

They said: Oh no. I said: Hold on now, no you are not. You

continue on as always, two inspections a year. But anybody else, no inspections.

Mr. Speaker, every day now there are more and more people

coming to realize what a catastrophe that is going to be for this Province.

Innocent people are going to be hurt. We are going to have vehicles on the

highways today that should never be on. People who could not get their vehicles

inspected before now are just taking them out. As long as they have a good set

of tires on her, good enough, way to go, and this is wrong.

I think the minister woke up one morning and he said he had a

dream. What is after happening is that dream the minister had is after becoming

a nightmare for the garage owners and the people of this Province. As the days,

weeks and months go on we will know and the minister will know the repercussions

of his decision to do away with inspections.

The insurance companies will have a field day. In four to six

months the insurance companies will have a field day. They are always looking

for an excuse, just a little excuse, anything at all, to whack up the insurance

rates. They are doing it to the young people today, especially if you are a

male; it goes way up because the report shows that more accidents are caused by

young people.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the minister, over the next

couple of months, if the Premier doesn't soon have a talk to him - first, with

respect to drinking, he reduced the acceptable alcohol level from .08 down to

.05, and the two reasons he gave last week in the House was because of drinking

drivers and safety. Then, in a complete about-face, he does away with

inspections for vehicles in the Province. Now, that is a complete U-turn, Mr.

Speaker - pardon the pun - and the minister is going to have to take

responsibility for his actions.

Mr. Speaker, the minister - you talk about inspections - I

think the minister needs an inspection, because I'm sure his ball-joints have

got to be gone! I'm sure, from what has happened in the last week or so, that he

hasn't got his bearings, and if the minister keeps on going with what I am

hearing today, I think he is after blowing a head gasket, Mr. Speaker!

AN HON. MEMBER: There are a few gaskets blown over there.

MR. WOODFORD: There are a few gaskets blown, yes, that's

right, and if the minister keeps up with what he has been doing - just in the

last few days, he has been causing more turmoil, worry and torment for the

people of this Province, innocent people.

Most people will have their cars inspected, most will make

sure that they are driving a good vehicle for the safety of their family and

whoever is in the vehicle, but there are many others who won't.

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well he is getting a

hard - he got on Open Line Show the other day and there was no way in the

world he could keep up with them. The women, everybody who called in, they had

him. They got the minister's number, and, Mr. Speaker, if he doesn't change,

some of those innocent - it is another money grab.

Mr. Speaker, look at the budget for last year, for vehicles

and drivers licenses: $12 million in one year, from $32,500,000 in 1993-1994 to

$44,500,000 this year - $12 million, Mr. Speaker, that's what is happening.

Everybody knows that this is going to be another money grab for the minister and

his officials -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: - for his department and for the insurance

companies, Mr. Speaker, in the next five to six months.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it that

there is sensationalism being made about this issue but there is one thing that

strikes me as being very interesting: for months and months, everybody, the

Opposition included, asked, `Where is Efford? We don't see or hear tell of

Efford anymore.' Now, Efford is doing something, it's: `Why doesn't Efford sit

down and not do anything?' Well, you fellows can't make up your minds. You

really can't make up your minds at all. The one thing I am glad of is that I

woke up this morning, because the hon. member - if I hadn't awakened, then there

would have been a real problem in the House of Assembly today, wouldn't there?

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of people wish you didn't.

MR. EFFORD: One interesting point I made out there today

talking to the mechanics - I will touch on some of the points. Half-way through

the debate back and forth, I asked the question: How many people here today

arguing about the policy of changing the regulation, are not mechanics or garage

owners? Raise your hand. Not one hand went up, not one hand, which means it is a

self- serving interest group.

Now, let me ask you a question. Everybody who owns a vehicle

must have a regular maintenance program to keep the engine in good running

condition. You must have a grease and oil change on a regular basis. Are we

saying that we should be told, by government, that you must go and pay a fee and

we must instruct you to do it at certain times of the year? that you must be

told to do a regular thing with your vehicle by government? In other words, you

have to be directed. I mean, we aren't children, we are responsible adults and

if the ball-joint or the gasket is blown or the tire is bald, are you going to

drive over the Trans-Canada at 100 kilometres an hour?

Another point, if your vehicle inspection comes up in

January, what happens in June, July, August, September, October, November and

all other months? If the brake lines are bad in June, you don't have to get them

inspected until January or next spring, so you are going to leave everything as

is until the inspection date comes. How silly can you get!

The other point the hon. member made was that Newfoundland is

going to have more vehicles on the highway in a dilapidated or junked condition

than any other province. Do you realize all provinces, Quebec and west of

Quebec, have the same regulations as we now have? Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba,

Quebec, B.C. - all other provinces have the same regulations we have. In other

words, the rest of Canada can manage their vehicles and keep them in safe

driving condition without being told, but Newfoundlanders are the people who

must be told? Because that's what you are saying, that the only way they are

going to keep their vehicles in repair is they have to be ordered to. You know

very well why the garages and the mechanics are saying what they are saying, and

why they are the only ones who are out protesting.

The insurance companies - if the insurance companies want to

have an inspection on a vehicle - they don't want to insure a vehicle that is a

1972 or 1982, they can require the owner of that vehicle to go have it

inspected; there is nobody stopping them, that is their choice. They cannot use

that to up the insurance rate. They have the right to ask the owner of that

vehicle to get an inspection. There is no reason in this world why that should

be done.

The final point I want to make is, there is still the law

that every person owning a vehicle must keep it in a safe driving condition. The

only regulation that is changed is that you do not have to pay for a one-time

mandatory inspection once a year. All commercial vehicles must be inspected, all

private vehicles, used vehicles, at the point of sale, must be inspected. All

taxi and passenger vehicles must be inspected. All school buses must be

inspected. The hon. members know full well that they are trying to play

politics, as my hon. friend over there, the Member for St. John's East did when

the mechanics and the garage owners were in the foyer of the Confederation

Building at lunch time.

It is merely a - they see it as a money-losing venture for

themselves. The issue is not: Should people be told, or should people have to

not keep their vehicles in safe driving condition. It is a one-time thing where

they feel that they will lose money because people will not now come in. People

will come in at their own choice, at their own will, and not be forced to once a

year, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a

petition on a matter I've raised on a number of occasions in this hon. House.

The prayer of the petition is as follows: `We, the undersigned, request that the

House of Assembly instruct government to take such steps as are necessary so

that moose antler can be obtained legally for use in the craft and souvenir

business.'

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

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

Transportation needn't get upset about this one, Mr. Speaker. It is not a

subject matter he is responsible for - thank heaven for small blessings!

There are a couple of points I want to make today. As I said,

I've raised this on a number of occasions. Ordinarily, I could probably have

raised these points and brought them to the minister's attention in Question

Period, but of late, speaking as one member of the Opposition, we find it very

difficult to get all the various issues on in Question Period in any given day

or any given week. There is such a tremendous number of scandals afflicting this

government right now that we have a tremendous backlog of pieces of subject

matter that we are trying to bring forward. So, Mr. Speaker, I will have to

raise this during Petitions.

The hon. Minister responsible for Wildlife indicated some

time ago that he was looking at the idea of changing regulations so that people

involved in the souvenir and craft industry could legally and legitimately buy

the raw materials necessary for them to pursue their craft and pursue their

industry. I have had discussions with my constituent, who is basically shut down

now waiting for some word from this government as to what exactly can be done.

My constituent has had a large number of discussions as well over the last few

days with various people, various principals, various stakeholders involved in

the craft and souvenir industry who make use of moose and caribou antler.

They are pleased that the minister appears to be willing to

take their concerns seriously and to go about changing the law and/or

regulations so that they can establish their businesses on a sound, commercial

basis, and they are pleased that the minister has indicated that he is willing

to act sooner rather than later on this. In the case of my particular

constituent, Mr. Speaker, I do hope the minister acts before that particular

business goes out of business.

One thing the stakeholders in the craft and souvenir business

would like, Mr. Speaker, is to have some input into the final draft of

regulations being prepared by the minister, so that the regulations not only

establish a sound, commercial basis for their industry, but have the benefit of

their experience, usually several years of experience of acquiring, often buying

antler to produce their souvenirs.

They know the ins and outs of this particular business, Mr.

Speaker, and I think it is only fair and just and proper that the department

concerned consult with these people before a final draft of the regulations is

put in place. And I would ask the minister, if he wishes to respond to this

petition, to rise in his place and indicate just where we are with regard to the

drafting of new regulations and what his views are on the possibility of

involving the stakeholders in the industry, in having a say in the final draft

of the regulations themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this is the third day we have

had this petition. The minister answered yesterday. I move that the Orders of

the Day be now read.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the Orders of the Day be

now read. All those in favour, `aye'.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Government House

Leader has the right to do what he has done here today, and I remember him doing

it on occasion back during the heat of the Hydro debate or something extremely

controversial, but I ask the minister if he could explain, a little more

thoroughly to the members of the House and to the general public, the people in

the Province, who have concerns they wish to have expressed by way of petitions,

why - the Member for St. John's East has one; I know the Member for St. Mary's -

The Capes has one and so on, Mr. Speaker, so I don't quite understand what the

urgency is to move on to Orders of the Day, when members have every legitimate

right to present petitions.

In the case of the one from Green Bay, the Government House

Leader makes a point that it was similar to a petition he presented the last

couple of days, but, so what! So what, I say to the Government House Leader, so

what! It is an important issue; they are a different petitions, different names

and a very important situation, so I raise it on a point of order only because I

don't think there has been a satisfactory explanation provided.

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

MR. ROBERTS: If I may speak to the point of order, Mr.

Speaker. Three points: first of all, this is the third time we have had

precisely the same petition raised by my friend, the Member for Green Bay. He

has every right to raise it, I made no objection to that. Secondly, one must

attempt to draw a balance, and my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, I think

will concur; he has sat on this side of the House, he may some day sit here

again, but he will concur, there has to be a balance. Thirdly, I said yesterday

- he probably wasn't here when we adjourned at 5:00 or 4:30 whenever. I said: I

must also advise the House, Sir, that after two petitions have been heard, I

shall be attempting to gain the Chair's eye to move the Orders of the Day be

read.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me also say it is up to hon. members

Opposite which petitions they choose to bring on. If they choose to bring on the

same one for the third day, then I am going to stand, Mr. Speaker, and having

been recognized as I was, move that Orders of the Day be now read, we will call

government business; there is a deliberate filibuster on by the other side, the

shilly-shally, the gentleman from Green Bay is doing it. Mr. Speaker, there is

no point of order. I would ask Your Honour, if you believe it in order, to put

the motion I made.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I still don't

understand. The minister hasn't explained why - my question to him was, why. He

went on, rambled on about, he gave notice yesterday, but he didn't know today,

that the Member for Green Bay had a petition on the issue that he raised. I

mean, he didn't know that.

MR. ROBERTS: He had two petitions (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I mean, what you said yesterday had nothing to

do with the Member for Green Bay.

MR. ROBERTS: He had two petitions.

MR. SIMMS: What you are saying, what you said yesterday,

is from now on, in your usual dictatorial fashion, you are not going to allow

members in this House of Assembly to present any more than two petitions on any

given day. Is that what he is saying? May I ask him to explain that?

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

Capes, to the point of order.

MR. MANNING: (Inaudible) point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member speaking to the point of

order?

MR. MANNING: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking to the

point of order put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

I had a petition here, Mr. Speaker, from thirty-three people

in the community of Point Lance, concerned about the employment generation

program this year that the government hasn't brought forward yet, and I felt

that being an elected member of the House of Assembly, the people's House, we

will call it, that I should have the opportunity to bring this forward.

There was nobody who stood in support of my colleague, the

Member for Green Bay, in support of his petition. I was only bringing forward a

petition - as far as I am concerned, there is a gag order here again. We are

experiencing the same thing we experienced last year with regard to Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: If I bring it forward today, or bring it

forward some other day, the voice of the people of Point Lance will be heard in

this House, I promise you that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition, the Chair recognizes individuals when they stand, in the order in

which they stand. The Chair has no idea, when a member stands, what topic he is

going to raise or what point he is going to raise; however, the hon. the

Government House Leader did place a motion which is perfectly in order, and the

Chair has no choice but to put that motion.

All those in favour that the Orders of the Day be now read,

please say `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough,

please, to call Order 13, Bill No. 20? I believe we are in the third day of

debate now on a very minor, technical bill. When we talk about filibusters, this

is what we are going to see. We are going to have to deal with it. There is

important legislation in addition to this important legislation that we are

going to ask the House to deal with, so Order 13, Bill 20.

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

Capes, Bill No. 20.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As long as we are operating under the Roberts Rules of Order

here, I am pleased to stand and say a few words on Bill 20, just to say that I

was pleased to hear the Minister of Finance last week announce some positive

news in relation to this year's current account, but I also bring forward to the

House today that to many people across this Island, and especially in my

district, it doesn't mean a heck of a lot when people are in a desperate

situation.

I would like to relay a couple of stories I have received

over the past couple of days in relation to my district, and I am sure they can

be applied to any district in this Province, including the districts that are

within the boundaries of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker there are people out there, over the past couple

of months now, who have been looking forward to this Fall coming, and government

announcing something in relation to an employment generation program, and for

some reason or other the Province has been dragging its heels on that. I am

pleased today to see that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has

made it a point to travel to Ottawa to attempt to have what I hope to be

fruitful discussions in Ottawa in relation to some type of cost-shared program

with the Federal Government so the people of the Province can have a

part in

some type of employment generation program.

In the meantime, apart from the considerations of a program

that will be shared by the Provincial Government and the Federal Government, I

say that the Provincial Government has an onus on themselves to provide

something to the people of this Province.

It is easy to say that they don't want to be part of the game

where people are being, we will call it `stamped up' in order to qualify for UI,

but the problem is that we are in a very difficult time now in this Province,

and we are very fortunate, I should say, to enjoy the TAGS program, which has

played a major role in the economy of especially rural parts of this Province

over the past couple of years. But there is a fair number of people, I have to

say, who really were indirectly employed because of the fishing industry in this

Province. I relate to the babysitters, to the people who worked in the stores,

to the taxi-drivers, to the carpenters. You could go on and on in relation to

these people who found work indirectly because of the fishery in many parts of

our Province, and these people have been left out in the cold.

Just the other day, Mr. Speaker, I had a gentleman call me

from my district who sat outside the social services in his car for two hours

trying to determine whether or not he was going to go in, and for the first

time, Mr. Speaker, a gentleman of forty-eight years. He has three children in

school, home in the community, and for the first time he had to look at the

possibility of obtaining social assistance for his family.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a level of dignity that we

have to recognize. These people were proud working people in their environments.

They may not have had jobs that some others have, but they had jobs they were

proud of. Everybody cannot be politicians, lawyers, or whatever the case may be,

because there has to be a fair number of people who make up the whole complete

system, Mr. Speaker. These people are hurting and for the first time in their

lives many have had to turn to social assistance.

I say, Mr. Speaker, I was totally appalled today when

standing here a few minutes ago trying to present a petition on behalf of a

small community in my district, the community of Point Lance, a petition of

thirty odd names of people who have reached the point where they are desperate

for jobs, are looking for work, to have to stand here today as the people of

that community along with other people in St. Mary's - The Capes who have

elected me, and be denied my right as a member of this House. As far as I was

concerned I was denied my right as an elected member of this House to present a

concern of the people of my district.

We can talk about Bill 20, Mr. Speaker. We can talk about all

the bills here, and talk about the good financial situation this government is

in, but how can the government smile and at the same time think about the hurt

that is going on in this Province at this time. People are hurting more than

ever before, and they are ordinary people, Mr. Speaker.

We talk about training programs, and we talk about all the

incentives that are there, but most of the incentives, as I am sure most members

will agree, most incentives that both the provincial government and the federal

government come down with now in relation to training programs are only a

one-way ticket away from this Island. You size up everything, in relation to

TAGS program training, in relation to any training that HRD does, or whatever,

most of this training is basically a one-way ticket to move off this Island.

As I travel around my district I have people who have built

their own homes, have made their lives in the community, have raised their

families in the community, and now we look at a situation where many, for the

first time in their lives, have to turn to social assistance. I think it is

wrong that we are denied a right here to present petitions. I have enough

petitions here to keep us going until Christmas and I will try my best to

present them every day in this House, if I can, in relation to unemployment

generation and other issues, whatever the issues or concerns are.

For the hon. member to stand up in this House today, the

former Minister of Justice, I should say, and use his power as House Leader to

deny me my right to stand up and present my petition, I say definitely appals

me. As we look throughout this Province people are hurting and people need help

from government, and I think government has to play a role in that. We just

cannot sit by, Mr. Speaker, and watch their dignity just rolled into the ground

because of government's inaction.

I can remember back in 1989 when the Premier of the day

travelled around this Province and he was going to bring every mother's son

home. I am sure we all remember the famous quote. When I am elected jobs will be

created in this Province and I will bring every mother's son home. I have to

say, Mr. Speaker, from my experience in my district that many a mother's son has

left this Province since 1989 and the way things are going now maybe mothers and

all will have to leave.

I think it is a sad, sad, commentary on this government and

what fiscal plans they put forward. For them to stand up and gloat because they

have had a little profit this year, and be happy with that while so many people

are hurting in this Province, is totally, totally unfair. I say there are other

things going on in my district in relation to the finances of people. We talked

about the councils, and I am sorry that the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation is not here, in relation to his proposed plan regarding snow

clearing in our community. Most people understand now in rural parts of

Newfoundland, and especially in my district, that there are many councils which

depended on the tax base of the fish plant in their communities or on the tax

base of the fishermen in their communities to collect taxes for their councils.

Many councils are hurting. Over the past couple of years with the fishery shut

down, really, the possibility of collecting taxes is becoming more difficult.

I spent a couple of terms on council myself, Mr. Speaker, and

even in the good times, we will call them, if we can call them that, it was

difficult to collect taxes. Now more than ever it is more difficult, but still

it seems like the long arm of government is coming down on some of these

councils very hard. I will just touch on the snow clearing because today we are

experiencing one of our first... what you call minor or major, whatever way you

want to put it, whatever part of the Province you are in, I guess, it could

change. We are receiving our first snow fall. It will come to light now that

this will be a concern for many small communities in relation to the snow

clearing budget.

Back in June I brought up, along with another colleague of

mine, the concern about the snow clearing and what government's plans were for

the snow clearing in rural communities, and we were more or less told to look

out the window, it was June. The problem is that we brought it up at that time

because I knew it was going to be a concern. It is a concern of many communities

in my district. I think that government really has a role to play in assisting

those communities now as we all try to get through it together. None of us are

at this on our own, government is not at it on its own or any of the

communities. We have to try to get through this period in our history as best we

can.

I think that for government now to come in and lay out the

long arm of the law in relation to snow clearing or anything to do with councils

in that matter of fact I think is wrong. Now is the time we need some type of

compassion, and really I don't think we are going to get it from this

government, but still the people need it.

I have to say that I have met with several councils in my

district over the past month or so, and not only this concern was brought up.

Several concerns have been brought up in relation to the long arm of government

I will call it, with snow clearing and everything else. It is a concern of the

people in my district and it is a cost factor that many councils in my district

didn't really take the time to consider back when they were doing their budgets

last year. I hope that the government will reconsider or will assist those

people in whatever way they can to get through this.

Another concern of mine, and it certainly is a concern that

has been brought forward over the past number of weeks when I had some meetings

in my district, is the possibility of what we want to call regional council for

the eastern Avalon. A fair amount of my District of St. Mary's - The Capes, is

part of the plan for this eastern regional council. I say it is definitely a

concern in my district when we talk about this regional council, for the simple

reason that a fair number of my communities are either one or the other, are not

incorporated or are really not considered for council or even local service

districts.

I guess time will tell, but I really would like to know what

government's plan is in relation to this eastern regional council that it is

talking about. Because a fair number of smaller communities in my district are

very concerned about that. Is it a plan of the government to really go out among

the outlying parts of St. John's and Mount Pearl and go out and bring in a

property tax to all of those people that would be paid into a regional council?

If I thought that the services that will come under a regional council would be

improved or would be of any more benefit to the people in my district, I'm sure

along with myself that all the councils and indeed all the people in my district

would want to be a part of it. Looking at it from the first glance - and we will

have to wait I guess to see what really comes out in the long run -this regional

council concept for the eastern Avalon will really not benefit my district very

much. It is a concern that has been brought forward by many communities in my

district.

I would like to bring another concern forward. Down in the

community of Gaskiers today we had some problems with a lower road situation

there, that the council brought forward in relation to safety. Schoolchildren on

a school bus down there, and they needed some emergency funding. I say thank you

to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs for his swift action in

taking care of a portion. When it is time to thank somebody I have no problem

with that. I thank the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs for his

swift action in providing part of the funding needed to repair the road down in

Gaskiers. It is a very important -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, I know. I said to the mayor this

morning, I said, we should have asked for the $10,000. I said to the mayor, we

should have asked the minister for $10,000. We asked for $5,000, we got $5,000

but hopefully, Mr. Speaker, this will keep the road safe. I am sure the minister

is concerned with the safety of the children who travel on this school bus every

morning and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Peter Miller on CBC (inaudible) 15 per

cent of that $5,000 paid for (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Like I said, desperate times bring desperate

measures and as the minister is fully aware, the council in Gaskiers has been

trying to obtain money for that road now for many months, as a matter of fact,

well over a year. When they had no other choice they contacted CBC radio and

brought the issue to a highlight. I am very pleased to say, like I said before,

Mr. Speaker, that the minister did see in his wisdom to provide $5,000 for that

community.

I talked to the mayor, as a matter of fact, just before I

came into the House today and he is very pleased. His only problem is that he

wished he had asked for more but I mean that is the same with everybody, Mr.

Speaker, you do not very often get what you ask for. We are used to that but I

must say that the minister did act swiftly. I must commend the community council

in Gaskiers, headed by Mayor Clyde Kieley, I must commend them on bringing this

issue forward. In a non-political sort of way, Mr. Speaker, he brought it

forward based on what many people have been preaching in this House over the

past couple of weeks, the safety. He brought it forward because he was concerned

and his council was concerned about the safety of the students in his district.

I would like to congratulate the council on a job well done.

Getting back, Mr. Speaker, to what I guess is very pressing

in my district, is the situation with jobs or I should say, the lack thereof

because people are in a desperate situation. I have been receiving calls, Mr.

Speaker, as a matter of fact, I have several petitions here that people have

forwarded me from different communities around the district asking me to bring

forward those petitions to the House of Assembly on their behalf, to try to

encourage the government to come up with some type of a job creation program. I

am sure there are members on the other side of the House who are receiving

calls, Mr. Speaker, because we are not the only members receiving calls. I am

sure there are members on the other side of the House receiving calls because

people are seeking work in some shape or form.

Mr. Speaker, over the past number of years those job creation

projects, job creation programs or whatever you like to call them, have

received, in some cases, a negative outlook. Mr. Speaker, I think that is unfair

for the simple reason that it is not the programs themselves but maybe, as I

touched on earlier, it is the delivery of those programs.

When I drive around my community, as I am sure many members

in this hon. House drive around their communities, they can see a fair amount of

good finished product, shall we say, in relation to those programs. As I drive

around I can look at fire halls, Mr. Speaker, and community centres that are

being utilized. I cannot look at the water lines but I know of water lines that

have been done through those programs, Mr. Speaker, very important concerns for

the smaller communities. It helps, like I said before, where they do not have a

major tax base and revenue, those programs help them establish some

infrastructure in their communities that is very, very needed. Those programs

have helped, Mr. Speaker. So the negativity that surrounds some of them in

relation to people, whether they come from Ottawa to tell us or whether they

tell us from here in the provincial government, is that the negativity

surrounding those programs, Mr. Speaker, is not necessarily in every case. I

have no problem in saying that there is a fair amount of very well run projects

that have created very positive results for the communities, especially in rural

Newfoundland.

I plead today, Mr. Speaker, I hope that when the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations returns from Ottawa that he has some positive

news that we can pass on to the people in our district in relation to those

programs. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the positive news that the Minister of

Finance passed along last week in relation to the current account is that we can

take a few of those dollars or that this government will come up with the

dollars somewhere to create this much needed employment because, Mr. Speaker,

like I said, you are not going to come up with enough money to find a job for

everybody in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, but I have to say that I hope that the

government comes up with something in particular.

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the finances of the Province, we

are looking forward now, somewhere in the next few months, when the Province

comes down with some expenditures for their capital roads program next year. I

look over at the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and I say that

there are a fair number of places in my district that need some road work done.

I just relay a couple.

The road from St. Bride's into Patrick's Cove from my

district was paved, it must be going on well over fifteen or sixteen years now,

and there are some major problems with that. It definitely needs a recapping job

if possible.

There are other parts of my district, such as the road down

from Riverhead, from St. Mary's back up to the turn-off to St. Joseph's in my

district that is in desperate need of some work also. As a matter of fact, I had

some problems there with the road myself last week. When I was going down to a

meeting, I struck a hole in the pavement and ended up on the side of the road.

There is one road in my district, the road down to the

community of Mall Bay, which starts with a bridge in Riverhead. The area

surrounding the bridge is in desperate need of work, and I know that the

minister's department has been notified because some of his people have been

down in that area looking at that bridge. There is a possibility that if

something is not done fairly soon this bridge could be washed out and therefore

create a need for much more money to fix the problem, so maybe a stich in time

will save nine.

I hope that somebody in their wisdom within the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation will be able to provide some money, since the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has said there are a few dollars kicking

around that he has found and saved, and I hope they will find some money for

this much needed work.

Mr. Speaker, as we sit here today there are people in this

Province who are really struggling trying to find some work. We talk about the

Marystown situation, which is in everybody's mind - when we talk about big

numbers like 350 people and 450 people, it is no sweat to get headline news.

When we talk about the St. John's Shipyard, we are talking about 800 jobs; it is

headline news again. My concern is for the lonely guy or the lonely woman who is

out in the district, who really has nobody to speak for them only their member,

and really the only way they can ask is through the form of a petition. Those

people are now numbering, I would say, in the thousands across this Province who

are looking for work.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government, in their wisdom,

comes up with some money so that these people can enjoy some happiness, I should

say, to put it point blank, Christmas, because we are less than a month now away

from Christmas, and I think it is very important that the government come up

with something.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks in hoping that what I

touched on before, that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has a

fruitful trip to Ottawa, and that when he comes back he will have something

positive to announce, and I am sure the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

would be happy to hear that also.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise and speak on

this matter. I did not intend to do so, but the Government House Leader has

indicated that we on this side of the House were going to engage in some kind of

a filibuster because we wanted to speak on this very important matter. That is

not the case at all. This is an opportunity for all hon. members to get up and

talk about what is happening in their districts, and how people are responding

to the government's initiatives, or lack of initiatives, and certainly in this

particular session of the House we have had some cause for concern.

Last August we had the Premier on the radio and television,

and in the print media, talking about the heavy legislative agenda that was

going to come forward in this session of the House, talking about educational

reform, and how that was going to be such a priority, but as we got nearer to

the autumn session, the legislative agenda got smaller and smaller and smaller,

until today we find ourselves here into our ninth day and we have had two pieces

of legislation from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. He has

frustrated the garage owners and others by his new policy on motor vehicle

inspections and I do not believe the government has had one single, positive,

new story other than the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board saying that we

are not as bad off as we thought we were and certainly, that is good news.

But when today, the Government House Leader curtailed,

stifled, put his thumb down on petitions from the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, we have cause for concern, because this is the people's House, this is

where the people, the ordinary people who have elected their members can have a

voice and we have had, on this side, a petition arriving almost every day, in

some cases we have four and five petitions arriving in any one day. Mr. Speaker,

one of the concerns that people have, my colleague, the Member for St. Mary's -

The Capes, has just talked about them, what is happening in his district, he

talked about the lack of an emergency employment program.

Now, Mr. Speaker, nobody wants to be without a job, and

certainly, when we see all the fuss that was created on the other side of the

House when five people lost their jobs earlier this year, when only five people

lost their jobs and all of the fuss it created, then certainly we have to ask

ourselves the question: why would we not expect an equal amount of fuss for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador where there are thousands and thousands of

people losing their jobs. In Marystown we have 350 people who have lost their

jobs or about to lose them in the next few days so, Mr. Speaker, people are

concerned about jobs.

I remember when the present government was campaigning, they

said that the real issue in Newfoundland was job creation. They said that, that

was a priority and they said that in 1989 and they said it in 1993 and we agree

with them. Job creation, economic security for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

that is what the government's initiatives are supposed to be. I am only saying

back to the government exactly what their campaign literature said, I am saying

back to them what they said in 1989, I am saying back to them what they said in

1993 and, it is the major part of the federal government Liberal Party's Red

Paper, which of course, got them elected a year ago.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation in Marystown that is

causing so much concern. What the people of Marystown want is assurance from the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that they are going to stand up for

Newfoundland, going to stand up for jobs, going to preserve, protect, sustain,

encourage, promote all the jobs we can create in this Province, and what the

people of Marystown are saying is that they are not convinced the outcome of the

negotiation between the Premier's office and HMDC could not have been different.

I find it appalling that the Premier will go down to

Marystown and say to the people who are members of the union there, that if you

will give us the concessions, we may be able to keep the jobs, and, Mr. Speaker,

I can only say to you, that if the Premier did not have the guarantee in his

pocket, that if he had that concession, that, that facility would continue to be

able to build the infrastructure needed, then, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the

Premier should have had that guarantee from Hibernia Management and Development

Corporation.

If he had it and then the Hibernia people backed out

afterwards, then I find that appalling. I would find it appalling that the

Premier would not have had the guarantee or, if he had it and then the Hibernia

people backed down on it, I find that incredible.

Of course, the Premier has not said whether he did have it or

didn't have it, so we will have to leave it to his good judgement.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen in this year the effects of

tremendous increases in tuition fees at the university level. The students

across this country are very concerned. We have had demonstrations in Ottawa. We

have had demonstrations in every major university in this country on what the

effects of increased tuition fees is going to be.

Mr. Speaker, the greatest fear of parents in this country is

that we are going to have a university system that is going to cater to the

wealthy, cater to the elite, and that either students are going to come out of

university with huge loans that have to be paid back over ten, fifteen or twenty

years, or we are going to have many people who are going to make the judgement

call and say they can't go to university.

Now many of us who sit in this House today know what it is

like to go to university on a shoestring. A few of us in this House know what it

is like to be able to go to university and not be on a shoestring. Most of us

know what it is like for our parents to work hard to keep us in university at

great expense.

Mr. Speaker, we deserve to give our young people no less of

an opportunity than we ourselves had, so therefore I am saying to the

government, if we are going to get better balanced budgets, or we are going to

achieve a greater degree of balance in the budget, then we have to make sure

that we make provision for our post-secondary students, and we have to be aware

of the fact that we can't be looking forward to the future that includes a

condition that will have students end up having mortgages on their education for

half of their adult living time. That is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to speak about an issue concerning

child poverty. A study done by the Department of Social Services, the Department

of Education and Training, and the Department of Health is now four years old.

It says that 30 to 40 per cent of all children in this Province go to school

every day hungry. What an astonishing indictment of the educational system and

our society. This is not a study that was done by some advocacy group. It was

done by the Department of Education and Training and the Department of Social

Services. It says that 35,000 students go to school every day in Newfoundland

without adequate nutrition.

Mr. Speaker, before we get up and start talking about how

significantly we have been able to balance our budget, we have to ask ourselves,

at whose expense? When we talk about increasing the level of achievement in

schools, we have to look at the conditions under which some children go to

school every day. While all of us have not seen the real face of poverty,

everybody in this House, at some time or another, has seen and witnessed and

know families that really have a great difficulty putting bread and butter on

their table, and knowing that their children go to school without having to ask

teachers or the school, or some agency within the community, for some food

because they didn't have any breakfast.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about our social needs, we can't

ignore the people who can do the least to help themselves, and that is our young

people. When we have nearly 40,000 students going to school every day without

adequate food, we have to express great concern.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak as well for a few moments

about the conditions of some municipalities in the Province.

I understand the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

has left the Chamber. The other day in the House the minister talked about the

infrastructure program and how that over 100 communities haven't been able to

pay their commitments to the infrastructure program. How can they? How can we

expect the citizens in rural Newfoundland, where we have such high rates of

unemployment, to be able to pay the money that will represent their proportion

of their capital loans? That is unrealistic. It is not unrealistic to expect the

larger municipalities to pay their fair share, but it is unrealistic to expect

the smaller municipalities who need water and sewer, who need to have good

roads, who need to have a minimum level and an acceptable level of municipal

services.

Certainly I want to say to you that I find it very

disconcerting to hear the minister say in this House that 108 of 114

municipalities have not been able to live up to their financial commitments. He

showed no compassion whatsoever. He didn't say: We will look at it again. He

simply said that if they don't pay up they won't get any consideration in phase

two, and tough luck. Is that the way we show a commitment to rural Newfoundland?

I say no. When we have a situation where we have all those municipalities who

can't pay - and the question you have to ask is: Why can't they pay? They can't

pay because the people there who are living in these municipalities can't afford

to pay their taxes.

We know there are people in some municipalities who can

afford to pay and they don't pay. I certainly don't condone that kind of thing.

But when we have unemployment levels in some municipalities at 70 per cent,

sometimes higher than that, how can we expect these people, whose children go to

school hungry, who have to depend on social agencies for clothing, who are

living at the very minimum standard of living, how can we expect them to reach

up to the top of the fridge and take down their municipal council's bill? They

don't. What they do is they pay their light, they pay their telephone, they pay

their heating bill, they often have to pay a mortgage, they try to keep body and

soul together. It is not any astonishing thing to me to learn that they don't

pay their municipal taxes.

We say those who can pay should pay; those who can't pay,

then this government has to be a little more compassionate. It has to say to

these municipalities: We will give you longer terms, give you a greater level of

forgiveness of your loans. Certainly we can't go out and say to these people:

Because you can't pay we are going to be cutting off your water, cutting off

your electricity, we are going to be cutting down your level of services, and

that is all we are going to do about it.

We have the situation mentioned in the House today about the

hospitals in the St. John's region. Many people are expressing great concern.

The Minister of Health today would not give any precise information. We happen

to know that the Minister of Health has set up a new governance procedure for

the St. John's region. We know that it is his intention to have two acute care

facilities in the St. John's region. He has communicated that to the people who

are entrusted with developing the new model. There is nothing to be gained by

the minister denying that is the intent. That is well known in the region. Why

the minister would say that there have been no final decisions made - the

minister previous to him basically said that thing a year ago, that that would

be the strategy.

To say to the people of this Province, who have put in

millions of dollars, that there would be no longer a Janeway Childrens Hospital

facility, a paediatric hospital, a hospital given to Newfoundland and Labrador

by the American government when Fort Pepperrell was closed, to say that we are

simply going to close that facility, and we are going to terminate its use, is

an offence not just to the people of the St. John's region, but an offence to

all Newfoundland and Labrador.

Every single year there is the Janeway telephone and

donations flood in from Nain, St. Lawrence, St. Mary's, Port au Choix, all

around the Province, every community. One only has to listen to the commentaries

during that telethon to know that this is not a hospital for the St. John's

region only. This is a Newfoundland and Labrador hospital and we have to say to

the minister that any attempt by him to downgrade, to change that particular

hospital will raise questions, not only from the people of the St. John's region

but throughout this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister will have an opportunity

to rise in a few moments. We would love for him to rise and tell us what his

strategy is, tell us where the two acute care facilities are located. We know

they are the Health Sciences Centre and St. Clare's Mercy Hospital. We would

like for him to tell us what is going to happen to the Grace Hospital because

this is a very big issue. Every single day in the last few days we have been

getting questions on it, asking us if we know what is going on, asking us to

raise questions.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the new administrator is already

targeting who is going to be laid off, targeting strategies to downsize the

administration. Certainly if the new administrator is going to take office by

April 1, you know and I know, that a lot of the groundwork is now being done. I

say to the Minister of Health to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

tell the people of St. John's, Mount Pearl, and the Avalon North region, exactly

what he intends to do with hospital care in this Province, and to particularly

address the issue of the Janeway. We are not saying to the minister that there

will not be a provision made for the care of young children. We are not saying

that, but if he would tell us exactly what he plans to do, then of course the

anxieties that people have will be somewhat reduced.

I want to just go back again to the issue of an emergency

employment program. We are delighted that the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations has saw fit to go off to Ottawa. Now, yesterday we saw in the House

here the federal minister. As we know, and all of us in politics know, there is

not too much that is going to happen with his journey to Ottawa without the

consultation of the federal minister from Newfoundland, so therefore I trust

that yesterday opportunities were provided for the Newfoundland government to

make representations to the federal minister, the hon. Brian Tobin, when he was

in Newfoundland, to try to address this issue with his federal counterpart.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did.

MR. HODDER: He did. That would be an assumption that I

would make and I assume that today all parties, with the federal minister, Lloyd

Axworthy, and with the Newfoundland representative, will all meet together and

say to the federal government that Newfoundland has a very special need and that

we cannot go and make the complete transition from one system to a new system

without an interim measure. That is what people want to hear.

We know there are going to be changes in the UI system. We

know there are going to be changes to the social programs of this nation. And I

say to the Minister of Finance, that would happen regardless of whether there is

a Liberal Administration in Ottawa or Conservative Administration. We recognize

the realities of this country. But in this Province, where we have had a

traditional, seasonal nature to our employment, we are saying to the government,

do something to -

MR. BAKER: We got along well with the Tories in Ottawa.

MR. HODDER: You certainly did. We just want - the

Minister of Finance said, you got along well with the Tories in Ottawa. I say

that we are expecting the same clout in Ottawa out of Brian Tobin that your

government got out of John Crosbie. We are just kind of waiting and wondering if

Mr. Tobin is going to measure up to the impact that Mr. Crosbie had in Ottawa.

We are waiting to see. We hope he does. Brian Tobin is an hon. gentleman, I am

sure he is trying to do the best he can, but it is not easy when you come from a

small Province, going to Ottawa and saying to Ottawa, Newfoundland has a special

case. It is hard to argue it, and what we are saying to the government, pleading

to the government is, do all you can to try to make sure, as we change from one

system of social services to another, that we do something in the interim.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Same bureaucrats - so we have a

`bureautocracy' in Ottawa and government - a bureaucracy is, as we know, part of

the difficulty that you have. And certainly, I know that the Minister of Finance

knows the issue, he is familiar with it, he is getting representation from his

constituents, too, probably not as many as you get from more rural districts - I

don't get as many as do my colleagues from more rural districts. But we have to

look at the total picture in this Province. We have to try to say to all hon.

members, let's target all the forces we can, let's try to change the minds of

the bureaucrats in Ottawa who cannot stand to have deviations from their plan.

We are saying, Newfoundland needs a modification, it needs an

interim measure. So, therefore, we are saying to the government that they should

be doing all they can to pressure our federal representative and our six other

Liberal MPs, to pull all the strings they can, because in Newfoundland and

Labrador this is going to be a very long, difficult, hungry winter for a lot of

people. People who are - like the gentleman who called me a few days ago, age

52, an engineer - never, ever on UI before, he finds himself now, in another

week, having to file for UI.

I have tried in the past little while to find jobs for people

who have university degrees. In fact, I was successful in finding a job for a

person with a Doctorate of Philosophy, PhD, just a few days ago - not in the

area of his expertise but certainly he couldn't at this stage say: I will take a

job only in my area of expertise. Certainly, I am saying to you, it is a case

where we certainly want to encourage the minister to do all he can for the

unemployed in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would want me to just pause

here for a second and recognize that in the gallery we have, just arrived, Mayor

Jerome Walsh from the Town of Marystown and, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all of

us would want to welcome Mayor Walsh. He is carrying out an honourable plea for

his community. He is doing the very best he can to focus attention to the plight

of the workers in Marystown. I mentioned earlier in my address about the fact

that there are 350 people going to be unemployed there. The barges are leaving

St. John's as I am speaking here. They are on their way to Marystown to take

away the livelihoods of a sizeable proportion of the Marystown shipyard people.

I want to say, with Mayor Walsh present, that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned, and I will just say the same thing I

said a few minutes ago, when you have so much fuss created in government benches

when five people lost their jobs a little while ago; they were saying to them:

Why can't we have some of that kind of energy and that kind of - I suppose you

could call it, plea, anxiety, whatever - all over the fact that there are 350

jobs being lost in Newfoundland's southernmost shipbuilding centre at Marystown.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to repeat: What the people of

Marystown are asking for is fair treatment. They are asking for answers. They

are asking, `Why did this happen?' Certainly, what the mayor and his colleagues

and the people of Marystown are asking is: Would you please tell us the absolute

details. This is too important to play political strategies or games with. We

have a situation where we have 350 people who are going to be on the

unemployment roll. We are not convinced, the Premier said he is not convinced,

that that work could not be done in Marystown, on time, with equal quality.

Now, I know the Premier has said that he has been obliged to

accept the word of HMDC.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not true to their word.

MR. HODDER: The Premier said that he is obliged to accept

the integrity of their word, but he disagrees with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: No, he disagrees with the decision.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you are wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't do anything about it.

MR. HODDER: But he said he can't do a thing about it.

We are saying, on this side of the House, we are not

convinced that the Premier has done all he could do, or should do, to prevent

those jobs from being lost.

The lesson we are learning from Marystown today is that in

the future we have to show greater commitment, greater determination. We can

never, ever, ever, let this kind of thing, this travesty that is happening,

ever, ever occur again, so we are saying to the government: Learn the lessons of

Marystown. Make sure that we do not let this kind of occurrence ever, ever slip

through our fingers again, because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want

the Premier of this Province to be aggressive. They want him to be committed to

jobs. They want him to go out there and say to HMDC, they are not willing to

accept -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) like yourself, who knows the

difference and knows the limitations of what anybody can or can't do, and to get

up there and make that speech with no good reason is (inaudible). You should be

ashamed of yourself.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member who is

interrupting on the other side, go to Marystown and listen to the people down

there. Go to Marystown and hear the plea of the people who are going to lose

their jobs.

MR. GRIMES: I understand the plea; everyone understand

the plea. (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HODDER: The Cabinet, of which you are a member, must

be supporting this particular lack of initiative by your Premier.

MR. GRIMES: It is not a lack of initiative, and you know

the difference.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation is interrupting on a consistent basis and certainly, I say to the

minister, we want action from the government, not talk. They have been doing a

lot of talking, not enough action. Change it to action.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) won't say it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the

Member for Waterford - Kenmount has been recognized by the Chair, not the

Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am sure, if he wishes to speak to this

particular piece of legislation, the Chair will recognize him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I just say to all

members of the House that the people of Marystown aren't asking for anything

that any other community in this Province wouldn't ask for. They are not asking

for anything extra. They are simply saying that there has been a travesty of

justice. Whether or not that travesty of justice could have been prevented, we

will leave that to the judgement of the people of Marystown and to the judgement

of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, all we are saying is: regardless of whether or

not HMDC has been fair with the people of this Province, that is something that

the Premier of this Province should address to HMDC in a very forceful way and I

am sure that he has been doing that in the last while - maybe he has been doing

it for a long time. But certainly, we have to make sure that as many jobs as we

can secure for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out of the offshore, stay here -

stay here. We want `stay in Newfoundland' jobs; Hibernia is our resource, the

resource of Newfoundland and Labrador. We don't want Hibernia developed for the

creation of jobs in other provinces.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in the debate on this financial

legislation that raises for consideration, a lot of financial matters concerning

this Province. We are constantly being told by the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board, by the Premier, by their colleagues in Ottawa and by their big

business friends at least, not their small business friends but the big business

friends, I don't think they have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just before the hon. member gets into his address, I have the

questions for the Late Show so I can probably do it now if I have the consent of

the House although it is only two minutes to four.

The first question is: `I am dissatisfied with the answer

provided by the Minister of Health, re my question on the closure of the acute

care hospitals' and that is by the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

`I am not satisfied with the answer provided by the Premier

to my question on the Marystown contract', the hon. the Member for Burin

-Placentia West.

The third question is, `I am dissatisfied with the answer

provided by the Premier re my question on the Newfoundland Dockyard', and that

is by the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issues that are being discussed this afternoon relating

to the financial condition of the Province and the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board's views on these matters, constantly telling the people of this

Province that we can't spend any more money, that we don't have enough money for

the things that we need, and then being told a few weeks ago, or a few days ago

really, that we are better off than he said we were going to be six months ago.

Now, this minister has a habit of being incorrect when he

makes predictions about the financial state of the Province. He has been the

Minister of Finance and before that the President of Treasury Board for a number

of years now, and I suspect if we looked at the minister's track record, he is

probably backing zero in terms of his ability to forecast -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, if we start talking about his track record, we would have a lot

of problems dealing with the track record of that minister. If I were the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I would be making tracks,

because there is a big crowd of people in this Province chasing after you, after

the kinds of things you are doing with your department even in the last week

alone.

But I want to get back to the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board and his track record in predicting the financial situation in

this Province. He hasn't had a very good record. He has been wrong more often

than he is right. But we do have to consider the seriousness or otherwise of the

dire predictions that we are getting from upalong, that are being echoed here in

this Province by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and by the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

Before too long, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a

situation where the Government of this Province is going to be saying what the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation said a few years ago. He said:

`We can't do nut'ing, 'cause we haven't got nut'ing to do nut'ing with.' Only

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation could say it in that way.

That is pretty well the statement of this government.

MR. EFFORD: I didn't hear you.

MR. HARRIS: I was quoting the Minister of Work, Services

and Transportation. He will remember the quote. This is when he was the Minister

of Social Services and he was asked to do something about serious problems

affecting the people of this Province. He said: We can't do nut'ing 'cause we

haven't got nut'ing to do nut'ing with.' And that pretty well sums up the kind

of state we are going to be in, in this Province, if the attitude of this

government keeps up.

We saw the picture of the Premier in The Evening Telegram

several days ago. It was a caricature of the Premier. His caricature was saying:

`Well, I didn't do anything for the fishermen, I didn't do anything for the

unemployed, and now when I don't do anything for the Marystown workers, people

get upset. What do they expect from me? Do they expect anything else?'

I think, Mr. Speaker, that unfortunately sums up the attitude

of this government. They are buying into an attitude about the future that

offers no hope for the people of this Province. They are listening to the

Toronto Globe & Mail , Toronto-centred view of the world, which basically

says that there shouldn't be a Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, or if

there is, there should only be a handful of people living in it. And that is the

attitude that the national media constantly and consistently portrays about this

Province. If there is going to be a response to that, it is going to have to

come from this Province and from the government of this Province. We have to

insist at every turn that the kind of province we want to have is one that fully

participates in the wealth and in the benefits and in the opportunities of this

Canadian confederation.

When we see the kinds of things going on day after day that

are beleaguering our people, and we see a government basically saying: Well, we

understand the issues. Or the Premier, in the case of Marystown: Well, we don't

really understand, but we accept being jerked around, essentially, by the

operators of this particular project. As someone pointed out a little earlier,

the same Premier who was prepared to hold up all of Canada on a principle that

he believed in, gets up in this House and says: On this matter there is nothing

I can do, there is nothing that this government is prepared to do, to try to

insist that the work at Marystown stay here for our people.

We are in a serious crisis upon which depends the survival of

this Province. Throughout Newfoundland and Labrador there are people who want to

work. They want to contribute to their families' well-being, they want to

contribute to their communities' well-being and welfare, they want to make

productive use of their talents and skills and abilities, and they look to this

government to help them find a way.

I won't say that this government has done absolutely nothing

to try to help. They have done a few things: the completion of the Cow Head

facility - it wasn't their idea, it wasn't their project, but they completed

that project.

They did have a hand in trying to make the project a success

with the Kvaerner interests. They made a mess of the first round, made a mess of

the first bidding process. Some say they made a mess of the second bidding

process by under bidding, and they have made a mess of the operation of the

contract.

If, indeed, the contract was behind schedule, who is to blame

for that? It is a provincial institution, a provincially-owned corporation,

operated by this government, and if the project was so far behind

schedule that

HMDC felt they had to take it away, then I have to ask the ministry responsible,

and the government responsible, why did they let that happen?

We know there were some delays caused by HMDC. They delayed

the details of the contract, but that was looked after. There was a month delay

in making the project documentation available, and there were a number of

changes. They made up for that at the other end. The real delay was in not

properly organizing the training opportunities to make sure that a proper and

sufficient number of people were available to do the job and do it properly.

Mr. Speaker, this government did not do enough to insist and

ensure that these jobs stayed here in Newfoundland, but it is not something that

you do just one day of the week. I hear the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board say: What do you do now? What do you do with Marystown? What do we do now?

They have already given up, Mr. Speaker. They have already

said, We are not going to do anything. They have already said, There is nothing

that we are intending to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: What would you do? How many Cabinet

meetings and caucus meetings did you have over that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him what you would have done.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, we would have insisted that that

work stay in Marystown.

AN HON. MEMBER: Okay, so they go to move it. Then what

would you do?

MR. HARRIS: We would have insisted that work stay in

Marystown.

AN HON. MEMBER: How would you insist? Explain it. You're

a lawyer.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board, and the Premier are very busy talking about legal reasons why

this and why that and why something else. We are talking about political action

here now. We are not talking about legalities, we are talking about political

realities, and what the minister is saying is that the Government of

Newfoundland has no influence, no political influence, no say, no opportunities,

to do anything, to have any influence whatsoever on a project of this magnitude

operating within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That's what the

minister is saying, that we are hopeless and helpless, that there is nothing

whatsoever in the political armament of this government to have any influence

whatsoever on what is going on, and what is going on in Marystown.

Mr. Speaker, this is a government that, when the horse is out

of the barn, throw up their arms and say: Well, we can't really catch the horse

- like the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations rushing off to Moncton to

have a meeting after the Board of Directors of Marine Atlantic have put an end

to the possibilities of the Newfoundland Dockyard doing work outside of Canada -

doing any international work.

Here we are, Mr. Speaker, sitting on the doorstep of all the

North Atlantic shipping lanes, hundreds of ships passing by every week, perhaps

every day, and we are listening to Marine Atlantic say: The Newfoundland

Dockyard is not going to do international work, that we are only going to do

domestic work? This is the same organization that ran the railroad into the

ground. This is the same organization that downgraded the operations of the

railway to the point that nobody went on the trains, that nobody used them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) same thing with the buses

too.

MR. HARRIS: They are doing the same thing with the buses

right now, Mr. Speaker. They are doing exactly the same thing with buses. They

are not going to run the buses seven days a week any more. They are going to cut

back to six days a week. They are going to cut back the number of drivers. They

are masters at doing it. They've practised it for years. These are the people

who are running the Newfoundland Dockyard in St. John's. They don't seem to have

any more interest in Newfoundland and Labrador than they've had in running a

passenger train service across this country. None.

At every step of the way they are placing obstacles in the

path of success of the Newfoundland Dockyard. Every time they get a contract

they tell the union that they are not going to bid on it. Every time there is an

opportunity to get a contract: We are not going to bid on this contract unless

you agree to do this and this and this and this. The owners and managers of that

company have treated the operation of that Dockyard in a shameful way, but do we

hear anything from the Newfoundland government about it?

After there is a big announcement like this, after they are

threatening to dismantle the whole thing - that is their latest threat! The

latest threat by the wonderful, great, highly efficient, business-like managers

of Marine Atlantic, of the Dockyard, is that: We are going to dismantle the

entire thing and sell off all the assets if the union doesn't agree to make some

major undefined concessions. I guess they probably want them to work for next to

nothing. Get rid of any rights that they have and agree to some sort of - I

don't know, maybe it is some kind of Maquiladora, they are trying to set up down

there, the Maquiladora of St. John's South. Perhaps that is what they want.

They are saying: We are about to dismantle the whole thing

and sell off all the assets. Do we hear any noise from the government? No. The

Premier was asked about it in the House. He hardly even knows it exists. He

hardly even knows that there is such a thing as the Newfoundland Dockyard, and

then after three or four more questions from the Member for Kilbride suddenly

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology wakes up and advises that he

wrote a letter a couple of weeks ago saying he wasn't very happy. But do we hear

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations finally realized that if he didn't go to Moncton the people of St.

John's South would toss him out on his ear. If he didn't go to Moncton after the

barn door had been closed and try and make some noise, the same way he went off

to Halifax to talk to Mr. Demoine, I believe his name was, National Sea, after

the plant was closed down, after they failed to meet the obligations to invest

further in the plant, after they walked away from that plant, the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations went off to Halifax to talk to Mr. Demoine. So

he could come back to Newfoundland and say that he tried.

That was after the fact, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about a

government that is supposed to have a Strategic Economic Plan in place that is

going to change the face of Newfoundland. What we had the other day - one of the

great benefits of the Strategic Economic Plan was presented to the people of

Newfoundland the other day. It came from the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. Do you know that he actually tried to justify the changes in the

regulations to permit more unsafe vehicles on the highways on the basis of the

Strategic Economic Plan. Can you believe it?

It is all written all through his big press release, how the

Strategic Economic Plan, this was all in conformity with the Strategic Economic

Plan and he was removing regulations as part of the Strategic Economic Plan. He

was going to put $3.5 million into the hands of consumers in Newfoundland; $3.5

million, Mr. Speaker, into the hands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That

is what he was going to do, to save the people of Newfoundland, he was going to

do that as part of the Strategic Economic Plan to save Newfoundland.

We are going to save fifteen dollars on an annual inspection

fee. This is for a license now that costs $120 to license your vehicle every

year and this is a rate that was raised by the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board, if we are talking about taxes. It was raised by the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board from $80 or $60 to $120; $40 he raised it, almost 80 per cent

and now the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation says this fifteen

dollars annual inspection is such a burden on the consumers of Newfoundland who

have to pay $120 to register their vehicles, that this fifteen dollars

inspection is such a burden on the people of Newfoundland that as part of our

Strategic Economic Plan, we must remove it, and that is $3.5 million that

somehow or other is going to save the people of this Province as part of the

Strategic Economic Plan, but, Mr. Speaker, what is going to be the result of it?

We are going to have more unsafe vehicles on the highway.

There were 6,000 vehicles turned down last year by the inspectors, by the people

who are giving out inspection slips, 6,000 vehicles turned down last year. How

many of them are going to be re-registered now, how many? Maybe the minister

will probably be able to tell us in three or four months how many of those 6,000

that used to be on the road are now back on the road again, at $120 a shot to

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board for his coffers.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right, a lot of money.

MR. HARRIS: A lot of money, and the minister is grinning

from ear to ear over it. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is grinning

from ear to ear over there, let that be on the record about all the money he is

going to get from these cars being re-registered. He has a grin from ear to ear

about how much money he is going to collect on that, but what is the consequence

going to be, Mr. Speaker?

The consequence is going to be is that there are going to be

more road accidents, there are going to be more unsafe vehicles on the highway,

and sadly and unfortunately there are going to be more fatalities. In 1991, of

the sixty-one accident deaths in Newfoundland from motor vehicles, seven of them

were caused by motor vehicle defects that would have been picked up in an annual

inspection; defective brakes, defective lights, matters of that nature that

would be picked up in an annual inspection if they were done and done properly.

Ten per cent of the fatal accidents resulted from that kind of defect in the

vehicles.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand in 1993 it has improved, but

it was not 10 per cent of the fatal accidents in Newfoundland in 1993 but seven

deaths in 1991 were caused by defective vehicles. Now, Mr. Speaker, does the

minister want us to go back to 1991 statistics, when 10 per cent of seven people

in this Province were killed in motor vehicle accidents as a result of defective

equipment, defective automobiles, automobiles that would not have passed

inspection?

Now I know the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

likes to make a lot of political back chat about this and throw insults back and

forth across the House; he likes to do that, he likes to engage in trading

insults and making partisan political remarks but this is a very serious issue.

The fact that the small businessmen who operate garages are complaining about it

permits the minister to totally discount them. He turned his back on them out

there in the lobby this afternoon and said that they were only interested in

their own self-interest.

Mr. Speaker, are you going to turn your back on the fishermen

of Newfoundland and Labrador because they are interested in their self-interest?

Are you going to turn your back on social assistance recipients who might be

complaining about the rules and regulations because they have an interest in it?

Are you going to turn your back on the businessmen and businesswomen of

Newfoundland and Labrador because they obviously have an interest in the

policies they are putting forth? Is the Minister of Natural Resources going to

turn his back on the mining industry and on the outfitting industry because they

have an interest in the policies they are putting forth?

Is that the attitude this government has towards the people

it is suppose to represent? I cannot believe it, Mr. Speaker