May 13,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI

No. 36

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

House, through you, to send congratulations to the Royal Canadian Legion dart

team from Happy Valley - Goose Bay, in recognition of the fact that for the

first time in seventeen years, they won the Provincial Senior A Dart

Championship held last week in Grand Falls - Windsor.

I would like to send special congratulations to Frank Ford,

Theodore Chiasson, Charlie Chiasson, Joe Anderson, Wayne Pike, Sean McCarthy,

Paul Hutchings, and particularly Mr. Charlie Chiasson who was the MVP for the

playoffs. I think the House should show their congratulations to this particular

team.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we on this side

agree with what has been said. Any time that people excel in sports it should be

acknowledged, and I feel quite confident that will not be their last, hopefully

not.

To all the people involved in sports out there, no matter

what it may be, be it -

AN HON. MEMBER: Flatrock didn't have a team in.

MR. PARSONS: Flatrock didn't have a team in. If they had,

perhaps they would have won, but that is beside the point.

I, too, wish to go on record, representing this side of the

House, in saying that congratulations should be sent.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before going on to Statements by Ministers,

on behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the galleries today,

thirty-one students from Holy Cross School, Ricketts Road, here in St. John's.

They are accompanied by their Vice-Principal, Mr. Ed Wade, and teachers, Miss

Lynn Dawe, Ms. Kerry Flynn, and one parent, Mrs. Mitchell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also I would like to welcome to the

Speaker's gallery, the Mayor of Stephenville, His Worship, Cecil Stein.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, last night I watched with deep concern a special

report on Here and Now concerning the provincial economy. I was particularly

saddened and startled, I guess, is probably the proper word, to hear for the

first time ever, out of the mouth of this Premier, that his government's own

admission is that he and his government are pursuing a policy of forced

resettlement and forcing people out of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask him simply at the

outset, when he spoke of a strategic plan for resettlement, how many communities

does his strategic plan target for elimination? Will he tell us that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can't imagine that the

Leader of the Opposition would be trying to deceive the people of this Province.

I can't imagine he would do that. I find it difficult to believe that the CBC

would do it, but that is possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: It is possible. But let me say, at no time

did I ever say this government is committed to resettlement or it is part of our

strategic economic plan or anything. Now, for the Leader of the Opposition to

take that or take those words or some excerpts that the CBC may have put forward

and characterize it in that way, is grossly irresponsible.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is the policies of this government and this

Premier that are grossly irresponsible, that is what I say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, he can try to use the verbal

trickery that he often uses and try to fool the people but the clear message was

there last night. Now, the Premier also talked about in the interview,

interspersed throughout that program - what he was talking about, he says, was a

voluntary resettlement, because he used quotes, and I am sure he will remember

them. Does he remember saying, after talking about what might occur, that 'if an

amount of resettlement occurs as a result of that approach, it will occur,' as

if to say, sobeit; did he say that? Does he remember saying it? Because, Mr.

Speaker, if his policy is a policy of voluntary resettlement, there is nothing

voluntary if people in rural communities in this Province are forced, and

deliberately cut off from jobs and essential services. And is he not following

that policy? Is it not clear with a vengeance, in every social and resource

policy act that this government commits?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the

Opposition is dead wrong again. Now, I haven't seen the television report - I

will get a copy of it and take a look at it, but I do remember the interview,

and what I said to the person who did the interview was simply this, this

government is honest enough to tell the people of this Province - which the

former government was not - this government is honest enough to tell the people

of this Province that no government, no matter what its political stripe, no

government can provide or ensure that they will provide economic opportunity

dispersed among 700 or 800 communities in this Province in each and every single

one of the 700 or 800 communities. Mr. Speaker, we are honest enough to cope

with that, so we said, We have to find a way of picking up and dealing with the

situation where the former government failed miserably and could see nothing but

cucumbers for years and focus their whole effort on cucumbers.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we are not prepared to do what the former

government did, decentralize from St. John's to Mount Pearl. That's what they

did, decentralize from St. John's to Mount Pearl: provide economic activity,

switch it from St. John's to Mount Pearl and the devil with the rest of the

Province. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not our objective. Our objective, and we

stated it very clearly, is to make sure that we do the very best that any

government can to cause economic activity to take place in every single region

of this Province. We can't do it in every community, we admit it, and we are

honest enough to admit it, the former government wasn't. What we want to do is

make sure that there is an acceptable level of economic activity in all regions

of the Province and not just in St. John's and Mount Pearl, so that people will

be able to live where they want to live, in the communities they live in now and

drive a reasonable distance to find economic opportunity. That, Mr. Speaker, is

exactly what was said and not the garbage you are hearing from the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of this Province remember clearly during the 1989

election campaign when this Premier promised to bring home every mother's son,

too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Does he remember saying also in the interview

when talking about the economy that if people then want to live thirty, forty,

seventy or eighty miles away from where they work and drive back and forth every

day, get there by some other means, or live where they work during the week and

go home on weekends, or whatever they want to do, does that not indicate that he

is pursuing a policy of voluntary resettlement? What could be clearer, Mr.

Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can't imagine that the hon. member would

be deliberately deceiving the House because hon. members are not supposed to do

that, so I don't know what he means when he says that I promised to bring home

every mother's son. Now they can't deal with the truth so they have to fabricate

these straw men that they are competent of knocking down. They can't deal with

persons of strength so they fabricate these weaklings that they can knock down.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it isn't going to work because the people of this Province

know the record of performance of the former government, and they know the

record of performance of this government, and we have the widespread support of

the people of this Province, and we say that with complete confidence.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have spelled out very

clearly what the government's objective is, and when the strategic economic plan

is released later this week there will be more detail on that. That approach,

Mr. Speaker, in case the hon. members opposite don't realize it, that approach

has widespread support throughout this Province. It was gathered as the Advisory

Council on the Economy travelled throughout the Province and put forward these

suggestions as to the way to deal with our economic problems. It engendered

widespread support throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members opposite want to characterize

it as resettlement because that is the only kind of weakling straw man they are

capable of dealing with. They can't deal with the reality so they have to

construct or fabricate this straw man who they are capable of knocking over.

Well, Mr. Speaker, they can flail away like Don Quixote at windmills if they

want to. This government is going to get on with the job of rebuilding the

economy of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me the selective memory

that the Premier has. He didn't remember promising university education and

university courses to Labrador West either until CBC played the tape back for

him. Then he quickly changed his mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, let me ask him this. I am sure

he must remember doing the interview, and I don't understand why he doesn't

remember some of the quotes. But there was another message that was conveyed

loud and clear last night in that story with his interview sprinkled throughout

and that is that we have too many people in this Province. The old friend of the

Premier's, Percival Coates theory, I guess it was.

I want to ask him: when he was a member of the Smallwood

administration and the Smallwood Cabinet, that clearly was the philosophy of

that particular government of which he was a member, now isn't that really his

strategy, not only to force resettlement but to force people out of this

Province altogether, to bring us down to a population of 350,000 or 400,000

people? Does he still share that philosophy of the old Smallwood government or

does he not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the first thing I am

going to do is answer the first comment the hon. member made. I am going to

stake the quality of my memory against his intellectual integrity. I will ask

him to bring to this House the statement where I said I was going to bring home

every mother's son, and if he does I will resign. If he can't, he will resign.

Now, meet the challenge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now meet the challenge! Or otherwise

display a little intellectual integrity for once!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me deal with his

other fabrication.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Far from saying there are too many people

in this Province, I have said on numerous occasions, there is nothing wrong with

the economy of this Province that another 5 million people would not resolve! We

have the land area, the resources, the capability, and a whole lot of other

things to build a sound economy with a lot of people. It is not less people we

need, it is more people, to generate more economic activity in the Province.

Now, the validity of the Opposition Leader's comments, his

total comments this afternoon, has been clearly demonstrated in that one

instance. Because not only have I never suggested any such thing, I have

suggested, always and constantly, just the opposite. It is more people we need

in this Province to generate more and greater levels of economic activity, and a

greater diversity of economic activity. Not fewer people. But again, Mr.

Speaker, it is a measure of the lack of competence of the Opposition that they

cannot deal with the real man, they have to fabricate these straw men that they

can blow at.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to put my

record about dealing with the people of this Province up against his any day.

Any day!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: And let me say this to him. I will do better

than my producing the words and the promise of the Premier to bring home every

mother's son, I will make a plea to CBC television and ask them to play the clip

when everybody in the Province can see it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, any way you want to slice it, the

Premier as I said last week has become a master of verbal illusion, verbal

trickery, and fooling the people.

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

MR. SIMMS: Any way you slice it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to get on with his

question.

MR. SIMMS: Any way you slice it, the clear message that

the Premier gave to the people of this Province last night was that his economic

plan is a plan to force resettlement and to force people out of the Province.

Any way you slice it.

Now I want to ask him this: Will he give a strong, firm

commitment to rural Newfoundland, rather than turning his back on it as he has

been doing? Will he give the rural parts of this Province an opportunity and a

chance to survive? And if he will, he is in his fourth year, when is he going to

start?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I draw the House's attention that the hon.

the Leader of the Opposition has not accepted my challenge. Instead he has

looked to the CBC. Now put his seat on the line! Let's see where his conviction

is! Let's see if he has any conviction!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Where's his conviction now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, this government's

commitment to the rural part of this Province is very clear and it is very

strong. We are not moving the highways office from St. John's to Mount Pearl. We

are not concentrating on building cucumber plants in Mount Pearl. We are

concentrating, Mr. Speaker, on providing for balanced economic development in

all parts of this Province, and we will do so, Mr. Speaker. We hope, given a

reasonable amount of time, we will achieve that rebalancing of economic activity

in the Province.

I remind hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot achieve

this overnight. Just look at one statistic, and one only, just to be convinced

of it, if you want to really assess what can be done economically in realistic

terms. If the economy of this Province performed at twice the national average

every single year without fail for twenty years we would still not have caught

up to the national average. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have told people this, but you

must start the climb by putting your foot on the first rung of the ladder first.

You can't suddenly leap to be there in one fell swoop. Mr. Speaker, we have the

honesty and the political integrity to tell the people of this Province that

that is so.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier about another

throwback to the Smallwood era, Ed Roberts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, political scientists say

constitutional convention requires that an nonelected Cabinet Minister get a

Legislature seat very quickly, within weeks not months. Now, in the case of Ed

Roberts it has been six months since the Premier announced his intention to go

outside his elected caucus and bring Mr. Roberts into his Cabinet as Minister of

Justice. It has been three months since Mr. Roberts has been in the position.

Won't the Premier concede that he has gone way beyond the

bounds of constitutional propriety? Won't the Premier admit he has been breaking

the rules of democracy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I frankly confess to the

House that I would have preferred to see Mr. Roberts in the House before this.

Everybody knows what was expected at the time that Mr. Roberts was sworn in,

three months ago now. It was anticipated at that time that Mr. Kelland was about

to resign. That is frankly what I relied upon. However, all the people in the

Province know of a decision Mr. Kelland has made in the last little while.

Now, in the meantime, Mr. Roberts has been carrying on a

dedicated effort on behalf of this Province to deal with major constitutional

issues, and if Mr. Roberts were not there doing it, it would place a much

greater burden on me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask members to my right, please, to refrain from

interfering. If they are not happy with the question that the person has asked,

they will get another chance to ask a question.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your

intervention. You will notice that that is a normal reaction when people don't

like truth. They don't like reasonable explanation and they want to avoid it

coming out, so they will resort to that kind of thing. The hon. member's

question is not an unfair question and I am attempting to answer it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I agree that I've got to try and take steps

fairly soon to deal with the matter. It is longer than I would like to have seen

it. It is not of my doing that caused it to be that long, but I believe it is in

the best interests of the Province to have Mr. Roberts continue as Minister of

Justice until it is convenient for him to find a seat in the Legislature.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have a Constitution. It is not acceptable for

a Premier to make up the rules as he goes along because he failed to plan in the

first place or because his arrogant presumption has been foiled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, my question is: Will the Premier

take charge, comply with the Constitution, remove Mr. Roberts and put an elected

member in the Cabinet as Minister of Justice?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Government, and I as

Premier, are in full compliance with the Constitution. There is nothing that is

being done or not being done that is contrary to the Constitution. There is a

parliamentary convention that a person who is appointed to a Cabinet as a

minister, will seek a seat or will obtain a seat - not just seek it, will obtain

a seat - within a reasonable time, but there is no specific limit on what is a

reasonable time. It is reasonable in all of the circumstances. My own view of it

is that it is shorter rather than longer. I agree with that. I don't disagree

with it. But I have explained to the House the particular circumstances in which

the government found itself because of a reversal of a decision that a member

had made.

Now, when Mr. Roberts gets back from dealing with this series

of constitutional meetings for me, I will deal with that issue.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What is the Premier's constitutional authority? I challenge

the Premier's arrogant statement that he is complying with constitutional

convention. Constitutional convention requires that an nonelected Cabinet

Minister get a seat in this Legislature within weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have told hon. members time and time again, the Question

Period is not a period for debate. I ask the hon. member to ask the question,

please.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I asked the question. The

question is: What is the Premier's legal authority? Is it simply improvising,

making up rules as he goes along?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. The authority is several

hundred years of parliamentary practice, from which the convention is derived.

Now, maybe the hon. member doesn't know it, I am shocked if

she doesn't, but there is not one word in the Constitution about it, not one

word. So there is no contravention of the Constitution. When she asks what is my

constitutional authority, I ask: What is her constitutional authority for this

proposition that it has to be within weeks? It is just fabricated again. When

they have nothing to rely on, they fabricate things. That is their standard

pattern. Mr. Speaker, the authority for it is several hundred years of

parliamentary practice in British and other Commonwealth parliamentary

jurisdictions.

I readily acknowledge that the practice is to do it as soon

as possible, in the shortest term possible. I don't know what the longest has

ever been. I may explore it. Maybe this has already been the longest. I don't

know. But there is no absolute limit on the thing, and I have already told the

House what the government's intentions are and what my intentions are. We will

deal with the issue in due course.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no defence like a good offence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is it not true

that we are now in the last years of the 20th. Century and what may have been

done in medieval times no longer pertains to 1992. What is the Premier's legal

authority for having a nonelected Minister of Justice for months on end with no

prospect of his getting a seat in this House of Assembly in the year 1992? What

is the Premier's constitutional authority?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me remind hon. members that there is

no constitutional or legal authority that a minister has to be in the House at

all. There is nothing written anywhere. I remind hon. members that that is the

constitutional practice. Over the years any number of senators, not elected

members, there is not yet an elected senator in Canada, any number of senators

have been members of the Cabinet, so there is no written specific authority for

it.

This member is trying to convey the impression that there is

some written constitutional requirement or some specific constitutional

requirement. There is not. There is several hundred years of parliamentary

practice that government is responsible to the elected Legislature and will be

part of the elected Legislature. From time to time it is necessary to have

somebody who is not part of the elected Legislature for one reason or another.

The convention is, the political convention, and that is what it is, no more

than that, is that fairly quickly, as soon as it can be arranged, the person who

becomes the minister will seek a seat in the elected Legislature.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just remind hon. members of

something else. The Liberals of this Province elected me as their leader in June

1987. That government, of which that member was Minister of Justice at the time,

when the hon. Member for Windsor - Buchans resigned in June of 1987 kept the

seat vacant for six months, until December, until the law required them to call

it. Now, where was her sense of Parliamentary democracy then?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: What was she saying to the Premier of the

day as his chief legal advisor about what he should do to respect Parliamentary

practice? Such hypocrisy!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Premier was fortunate, he got

both his MHA salary and $50,000 a year besides.

My question is to the Minister of Social Services, who again

is absent. So in his absence, again, I will direct it to the Government House

Leader. The incident this weekend, and on Monday, at the Youth Remand Centre in

the St. John's area and at the other facility, I predict, is just the tip of the

iceberg. Will the minister confirm that there have been several serious

incidents during the past month in Whitbourne at the boy's home?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that in

institutions like this there are always problems and I guess there always will

be problems. As I indicated in a question previously a lot more youths have been

sent to these institutions recently, directed to them by judges, and we are

coping with this increased number, Mr. Speaker, and providing the services as

well as they can be provided.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister never

answered the question but let me ask him again, does he not consider these

incidents every bit as serious as those on the weekend and is it not a fact, Mr.

Speaker, that in Whitbourne during the past month property was damaged, staff

were placed at high risk, situations actually where the staff were injured and

some of them had to stay off work? Will the minister confirm that actually took

place?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to look into any

specific thing that the hon. member brings up to me. I hope it is a little more

accurate than his statements of a couple of days ago when he pointed out to a

decrease in funding since 1988 for the youth correction services. In actual fact

in that particular instance there was a decrease in administration costs of

about $900,000 in St. John's but the overall expenditure on youth correction

services between 1988 and 1992, this year, has increased from $8,900,000 to

$11,300,000, an increase of $2.4 million.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, because they are completing

the boy's home in Whitbourne that I started. He is talking about capital funding

but there was a decrease in the Budget, Mr. Speaker, let the minister be honest.

I ask the minister this, will he now admit that these incidents that have taken

place at these three facilities are a direct result of his government's

cutbacks, and he said 900,000 in St. John's, not only that, leaving positions

vacant, cutting the cost of overtime, eliminating training programs for staff,

the elimination of recreation programs and many other activities which are vital

to the maintaining of security and safety at such a facility? Mr. Speaker, is it

not a fact that government cut all of these things and only recently, only

recently when these crises happened, have they reinstated some of them? Let me

ask the minister as well, will he not confirm that there have been more escapes

in the boys' home in the past year than there have been in decades?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm any of that, but

what I can confirm is that that member stood up in this House a few days ago and

indicated there had been a cut of over $ 2 million in the operating expenditures

for youth correctional services in this Province between 1988 and 1992, and in

fact, there has been an increase of $2.3 million in the operating expenditures,

which include all these things the member is talking about, which means we have

increased, in all ways we have increased all of these services that the member

talks about from the time when he was Minister of Social Services, so, Mr.

Speaker, all I can do is tell this hon. House the truth.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

The Minister of Social Services, in the estimates committee

yesterday, confirmed the fact that single able-bodied persons receiving social

assistance in this Province, receive a maximum amount of $129 per month for room

and board and all the necessities of life. Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister was

unable to justify why such a low amount was available for single, able-bodied

persons, and I want to know whether the Premier thinks that that amount of $129

per month, total amount, is an acceptable amount for a single individual to

survive on in this Province these days?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the detail

before me and bearing in mind what the President of Treasury Board just had to

deal with in terms of the Member for Burin - Placentia West, and his gross

misstatement of the figures, I am hesitant to deal with it in speculative terms.

Now the minister is in Prince Edward Island at a national ministers meeting,

which is where he has been I think since yesterday, so when he comes back I will

provide the answer.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it was the minister who

confirmed that the amount for single, able-bodied persons was $129 per month and

hon. members who have dealt with individuals who are required to live on this

can confirm that, all around the Premier. Now I want the Premier to tell the

House - whether it is true or not - whether $129 per month is an acceptable

level of subsistence for a single individual adult trying to live in our

society, is that an acceptable amount?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: My recollection is that there is a fairly

small amount paid to young adults who are living at home and have accommodation

and that provided for them and do not have to pay rent and so on. I understand

that to be the case. If that is what he is talking about, then it may be a

different set of circumstances. If you are talking about an individual who has

to pay rent on an apartment, provide food and clothing and so on, that is not

enough, obviously it is not enough.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. The Premier then agrees with me

and I assume other members of the House that it is not enough for a single adult

to live on in this Province and I ask the Premier whether he is prepared, his

government is prepared - if the investigations with the Minister of Social

Services bear out what I have been saying in this House, is his government

prepared to review and increase that amount of social assistance for single,

able-bodied persons?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have told the hon. member

and I will tell him again, as I do not want to have to repeat the answer four

times instead of three, I told the hon. member I will have the concerns that he

has raised assessed and if there is realism in what he says, if they are

realistic concerns, then we will consider those concerns and the minister or I,

will bring a position to this House. We will either justify what we are doing

or, we will seek to change it. I cannot do any more than that, I do not know how

many times he wants it said.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired

Before going on to our routine business, on behalf of hon.

members I would like to welcome to the public galleries today a group of ladies

representing WISE - Women Interested in Successful Employment. They are

accompanied by Helen King, the Co-ordinator, and Sylvia Ash, Career Councillor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: This is Wednesday. We are into the Private

Member's resolution by the Member for Humber Valley, I believe.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I felt, especially

over the last number of months, I was becoming more aware. This is my seventh

year in provincial politics, and I spent ten years in municipal politics

previous to that. So a total of some seventeen years in public life. I have

never in that seventeen years, and more especially in the seven years I have

spent as an MHA, witnessed the hurt, the agony and even the loss of dignity to

people in my district and other districts around this Province.

Now I will say from the outset that I cannot point the finger

today and say it is all the responsibility or the cause of this particular

administration. It is a number of things and a number of factors - provincially,

nationally, internationally and so on. But I will say this. When I ran in the

election of 1985 and again in 1989 I was never one to make promises, never. I

went into every community in my district and I made absolutely, categorically,

none. Except for one promise, and that was to work hard on behalf of my

constituents.

Now in the election of 1989 a lot of promises were made. Some

of them can be debatable, I realise that too. But I have a campaign manual here

from 1989. I may quote some of it as I go along. I have right on the first page

of that campaign manual used by members opposite, in talking about jobs and

about the hurt and the disparity of people and communities in this Province, and

I just quote one: these things can only be achieved by a government that is

sensitive to the needs of our people.

Sensitive. A very important word. When this administration

was finally elected in 1989 it was incumbent on them to do something for the

people of this Province who they were supposed to represent, after forming a

government answerable to everybody in this Province, not only thirty-one or

thirty-two districts. The whole fifty-two.

Granted, it was a little harder as they moved along. But

whatever happens nationally or internationally, we have to come right back here

to our own government and ask: what are you doing? What are you doing, even to

show something positive? Even to show some optimism? Can members opposite answer

that? No? I can quote from Throne Speeches of 1989, 1990 and 1991. Three Throne

Speeches took three years and still did not identify we had a problem. All of a

sudden, in May or June of last year we started to run into a recession. In the

fall it finally came down to a real recession, and everybody both federally and

provincially admitted there was a recession last fall - the fall of 1991. That

was after three Throne Speeches - three.

So I ask the Premier and his ministers today to try. I saw a

button the other day 'Buy Something'. How in the name of God can anybody in this

Province buy anything? We are back to the barter system. Buying is out. There is

nothing to buy with. I saw one yesterday 'Try Something'. It might be very

fitting to members opposite to try something.

Now I do not intend to speak here this evening and just cast

blame and aspersions and so on. I intend, at the end of the day, to try to make

some recommendations; to try to give them an alternative. Granted, after I make

those recommendations and alternatives there is going to be debate on what I

have to say. I say to the government and the administration here today to

listen. We were elected to represent everybody. We were elected to do good for

all the people in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Take some of the

ideas; not because they come from over here; not because they might come from

someone that we meet out on the street, they are all good ideas - something that

you can take and run with.

The Premier alluded to the report just submitted on the

Strategic Economic Plan. He said that it would probably be out the week, the

government's Strategic Economic Plan. What did they say in that? What did people

say in that particular report? I do not know if members opposite read it, but I

am telling you they said, first and foremost, for the government to do

something, whether short-term or long-term. They agree with the Premier that we

should work for the good on the long-term, but something should be put in place

today to try to address the short-term problems that we have.

Whatever chance we had for capital projects, for private

entrepreneurs and businessmen in this Province to try to stimulate the economy,

we have nothing coming from the other side with regard to stimulation; with

regard to optimism or something positive. I will tell you what we do have

coming, and I will mention a few of them. In the last few years we have a

government that has increased income tax some 6 percentage points. We have a

government that has introduced a payroll tax, and put it up again this year. We

have a government that has changed the MOG grant system for municipalities, and

in doing that strangling municipalities in this Province; and also changed the

repayment on capital debt, the ceiling on capital debt which is crucifying

municipalities in this Province. Not only that, but it stops business people and

municipalities from taking advantage of some of the monies that are allocated

and thereby creating new jobs for people in the Province.

Instead of the Triple E Senate we talked about, I think we

have a Triple D administration. We have today an administration which is

downsizing, downgrading, and downloading on municipalities in this Province. Now

how can we have a stimulated economy when we have policies such as this -

payroll tax, income taxes, and changes in the grant system to municipalities

that they cannot take advantage of? Another one that I will mention is

compensation. Compensation that is putting a real stranglehold on business

people in this Province. I will give you one example, and members opposite know

exactly what I am talking about because they are confronted with it every day of

the week. I will give an example of a construction company which did work, for

instance, last year in this Province. Naturally there is always a 10 per cent

holdback in case in the fall of the year the job is not finished and what have

you.

I had an individual come to me the other day who went to get

his money from the Department of Transportation. He couldn't get it. Why?

Because it was held back by the Department of Finance for monies that would be

incurred in 1992 - his payment on compensation. Now everybody knows that

compensation is done in an estimate, your estimated payroll, then they charge

you and you have to pay by April. He couldn't even get last years $7,000 until

this years $10,000 estimate on compensation was paid. He didn't even have a

contract. There wasn't even a tender in the paper. He hadn't even sharpened his

pencil to apply for a contract this year, and he had to take $10,000 right out

of his pocket and plank it on the table right away, that was to get the $7,000

he was owed from the previous year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you talk about stimulation. You talk about

companies hurting. That is strangulation, Mr. Speaker, and suffocation. It is

the little things out there that are going to determine whether we let a private

entrepreneur - that is what it is going to come down to. I agree that it is not

going to be all government. It is going to be the private sector, Mr. Speaker,

that is going to kick-start this economy with some stimulation from government

and some support.

The example that I quoted here this evening, Mr. Speaker, is

certainly not an example of stimulation. Those are the things that have to be

addressed. What I am saying is not fabrication. Anywhere from 25 to 30 per cent

unemployment in this Province is certainly not fabrication. Like I said from the

outset, it is a combination of both the federal and provincial governments being

intertwined in this.

If we took out the ACOA funding, Mr. Speaker, that has been

put into this Province today and we took out the FAP funding that is put into

this Province today under the Fisheries Alternative Program, I don't know if we

would have a project going. We wouldn't because from the start there was no

early tendering for municipal affairs capital works programs. There was no early

tendering for the transportation sector for the capital works program.

I just got municipalities this week submitting to the

minister letters requesting the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

to give them the right to call tenders. By the time they get that out it will be

another three weeks or a month. By the time the tender is called there will be

another three weeks or a month. We are up to the end of July or the first week

in August before ever there is a tender let for municipalities in this Province.

Now that is referring to the municipalities that can accept the capital funding.

Now we should be doing it. The Premier knows quite well what

I'm talking about because he mentioned it at the First Ministers Conference

which he attended this year on the Constitution. Early tendering is a must.

Early tendering is becoming more important than ever it was, and I say to the

ministers opposite who are responsible that they had better notice and make sure

that they get those particular things out.

Mr. Speaker, I referred to the grants system. I just talked

about compensation that could help the construction industry in this Province

and help the small entrepreneur. Have a look at it. Even if they have to pay the

same fee, but have it after in the fall of the year so that they will know

exactly what their estimate is and know exactly what contracts they had and what

payroll they had, not before. They need that operating. There is nothing in

place to give them those few dollars. Enterprise Newfoundland can't give them

operating. The banks today have absolutely no social conscience. The only chance

they have is to go in with a contract in their pocket, and they may take that

provided the cheques are made out to the contractor and the bank. They have

absolutely no flexibility, I say to the Minister responsible for Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. I know also, Mr. Speaker, that he agrees with me, I am sure,

and his colleagues are after coming to him and trying to make recommendations to

him to change that particular formula they have for repayment on capital debt.

Even if they moved it up another couple of years, municipalities today will be

able to take advantage of the monies that they have been allocated and they will

be able to call contracts and get something stimulated with regard to the

construction sector in this Province.

Now, the Premier mentioned decentralization. Where is the

decentralization the last three years from St. John's anywhere else in this

Province? Where is it? Name something that is after taking place. Where is it

gone? It is not only St. John's and Mount Pearl the Premier referred to earlier.

It is not taking place anywhere else. People are hurting, they are hurting more

than they ever hurt before, and I can tell you now that if we don't - and when I

say 'we', I mean the administration opposite. We have to put something in place

today, not in September, October, and November. We have to put something in

place today.

We have another crisis facing us pretty soon. Out my way, in

the White Bay area of the district - and I guess other members opposite - the

ice is lying right along the coast. It might be a help in the next few days if

we keep the southwest wind, that'll go off. But still, fishermen can't get out.

Their time will soon be up for UI and where are they going then? They are

heading for the lines of Social Services, and that is going to cost the

government extra money.

You might as well face the facts, something is going to have

to be done now, sooner rather than later, now moreso than ever. We used to

always hear before, fishermen - all members have this problem in their

districts. Fishermen in, I think, mid-May, automatically come off UI and they go

fishing, then they go to UI in the fall of the year. But now I am hearing, more

than ever, from construction workers, carpenters, plumbers, electricians,

teachers, loggers, it is coming from everybody: 'What about us?'

I didn't hear much of that before. Only every now and again I

used to get it, and I can understand why, because there was work, plenty of work

- if not plenty, say, six, eight, ten, twelve months, at least there were

fifteen or twenty weeks. A lot of those people are used to working seasonally,

twenty, twenty-five or thirty weeks. But now they are coming and asking: 'What

about us?'

So we have a problem in the fishery. We can say: Well, that's

the feds. The feds have a responsibility there, and rightly so. They should look

after it and they should put money in there. But what do we do about everybody

else? I know money is tight. I know that. But we have to do something to

stimulate the economy. And there are all kinds of things we can do. There are

all kinds of things the government can do, to try to stimulate the economy.

The Premier might be interested to note one of the comments

made in that plan that was submitted to him the other day concerning payroll

tax. Those people went around the Province and gathered some 1,300 or 1,400

submissions. One of the biggest concerns of small business in the Province was

the payroll tax. That is right in there.

They even suggested combining it with another tax. Everybody

knew cuts had to be made. But making cuts overnight and making everybody hurt so

badly - if it were spread out a bit, like you did with the MOG and with the

repayment of capital debt to Municipal Affairs. At least it was spread out three

years. If you gave that an extra couple of years, another $20 million or $25

million worth of work could be done on the same funding you have allocated. I

can guarantee you today, and I can guarantee the Premier, that come next March,

you are going to be writing in your estimates that there will be $20 million or

$25 million not spent, on the municipal capital works program alone. I venture

to bet that's what is going to happen.

I think, if you check your records now, you will find $15

million or $20 million this year that is not spent. This is money that is

allocated. I mean, it is not new money you would have to get, but money that

municipalities cannot take advantage of because of that repayment - even if it

were spread out, put ahead another year or something, to give them a chance to

try to take advantage of the construction season. I know you have some in your

district, as well, and if they had an extra year, or six months even, they could

probably take advantage of a $500,000 contract or a $300,000 contract, do the

job this year and create, probably, thirty-five or forty jobs on each one. That

is not new money, it is money that's already there, and it will be coming back

if we don't do something to help those municipalities.

The minister said the other day that he had some back from

municipalities who couldn't take advantage of the capital program, but I submit

that he is going to have a lot more over the next week to ten days.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: How much?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Back? Well that is funny. I know of three

municipalities that combined comes to $800,000 or $850,000 alone.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have not notified us.

MR. WOODFORD: They have not notified you? Well -

One thing I say, whatever is back, whether it is $500,000 or

$5 million, I say to the minister and the Premier that they should reallocate

that funding to districts that cannot take advantage of it, and make sure that

money is spent, especially in this construction season.

All the Premier has to do is look in the estimates and see

what money - there was $42 million spent last year on capital funding through

Municipal Affairs, and there was an allocation of $59 million. So there is $15

million or $16 million left over from last year that could have created hundreds

of jobs in this Province and put people to work.

Out there today - I tell you, this is only the tip of the

iceberg now. Members opposite are hearing it. The Member for St. George's is

hearing it out his way. He is hearing it from Stephenville Crossing and other

municipalities, as well as from his constituents and from other members. They

are hurting, they are in need, and I think it is time for the Province to kick

in some funding under those capital projects and make sure that there is

something there for municipalities, for people in this Province, to give them at

least fifteen or twenty weeks work for this year to try to get over the hump.

I realize my time is up, Mr. Speaker, and I will speak later

on to close off the resolution.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to support the

motion. Frankly, I think all members on this side of the House are ready to vote

on it pretty well now. We don't need any further discussion, really. We could go

ahead with the vote on it. There is nothing in the motion that needs any

substantial elaboration.

I just need to take a few minutes to correct some of the

misstatements made by the hon. member during his speech. He didn't correctly

characterize certain situations, and I think it is necessary to correct that.

He started talking about recognizing the recession. The

government, he said, didn't recognize the recession until this latest Throne

Speech, didn't recognize it in the first three.

AN HON. MEMBER: 'Ninety-one.

PREMIER WELLS: In 'ninety-one we recognized it. Well,

that is not quite correct. Now, it may be the first time it appeared in a Throne

Speech, that is true, but don't forget, we recognized it long before that, and I

made speeches in numerous places condemning the federal government for failing

and refusing to recognize it. We were perhaps the first government in Canada to

recognize it and call it for what it was.

I remember going about this country - not just the Province -

making speeches about the failure of the federal government, or their fear of

using the 'r' word. I remember making the speeches, and that was just about two

years ago. It is not that we didn't recognize it. We started to deal with it

from the beginning, and it was because we started to deal with it from the

beginning that we were able to deal with it more effectively than most other

provinces in the country.

In fact, the problems that we have do not arise solely from

the recession. They arise from two or three other factors combining at the same

time, one of which is the federal government finally coming to grips with its

massive debt problem. Here I say again, I do not condemn the federal government.

It is important that they do it, and people have heard me say this in the House

before. It is important that they get their deficit under control or the whole

country is going to be bankrupt, and that is not going to serve Newfoundland

well.

So, quite apart from our concern as Canadian citizens, we

have to be concerned about the ability of the federal government to address

regional economic disparity in the future, and provide for equalization and

other transfers. They have recognized this problem, and they started to cut

back.

I have made speeches on a number of occasions, both outside

and inside this House, drawing members' attention to the fact that federal

transfers have, in fact, been cut, not just reduction in the growth, but

reduction in actual dollars paid for operating expenses.

I draw members' attention to the Budget for 1992, tabled in

this House, and to Exhibit 3 in the back of the Budget. The current revenues -

and if members will look they will see that in 1989-1990, the federal government

provided $1,359,626,000 by way of transfers for current expenditures to this

Province. In 1990-1991, not only did they reduce the growth, not only did this

not simply grow by a reduced amount, it didn't grow at all. It shrank by $40

million and was reduced to $1,318,997 - $40 million less than in 1989-1990. Now,

Mr. Speaker, look again at 1991-1992, not only did it not grow, it was still

less than it was in 1989-1990, it was $1,328,496. Now, Mr. Speaker, the

1990-1991 is not just our revised estimates, they were the audited figures, so

there was a $40 million reduction in actual amount transferred on audited

figures. Our revision for last year indicates that it will still be less than it

was in 1989-1990. We hope it will increase this year. We have budgeted for an

increase. We don't know yet, it may turn out to be less if they cut it back some

more. Now, that is a factor, Mr. Speaker. I don't have the figures in front of

me right now, but my recollection is that the total of the reductions - the hon.

the Member for Menihek is looking for it and he will find it on Exhibit 3 in the

back of the Budget Speech. You will find the operating expenditures, the capital

revenues, and the total current and capital. If you look at the current

expenditures you will find that on operating expenditures in those two years we

were paid less than the previous years. You will find this on Page lX in the

back of the book if you want to look at the figures.

Mr. Speaker, not only did we have to cope with that, which,

if my memory serves me correctly - and here I caution hon. members, I am going

from memory - resulted in an actual loss of about $500 million from what it

would otherwise have been, from the rate of growth that was enjoyed in

expenditures by the former government when they were there. Because of changes

totally beyond our control, there was a reduction in that period of time of some

$500 million. Now, I can tell hon. members that we could have done a lot with

$500 million in terms of all the items that the hon. member mentioned, but where

are we going to get the money? He has admitted our taxes are too high and I

agree with him. Our taxes are too high. We want to reduce the taxes but we can't

do it irresponsibly. We have to keep this Province solvent. We have tried to

correct some of the unfairness that was in it over the screams, urgings, and

against the urgings of the hon. members opposite. We corrected the unfairness of

the school tax. They fought and struggled to try to keep that burden imposed on

our people, but we resisted.

AN HON. MEMBER: They want it back.

PREMIER WELLS: They want it back. We have provided for

fair and equal payment to all schools, the rural schools. We have demonstrated

our commitment to rural Newfoundland. (Inaudible) they want us to protect urban

Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, all of those problems had to

be addressed in that time. We had to address, as well, the incredible debt

situation of this Province, the God-awful mess that the former government left

in terms of pension liability. We had to address the God-awful mess they left in

terms of workers' compensation and caused it to be hidden by failing to disclose

the unfunded liability. Mr. Speaker, we have had to deal with these problems. We

have to put this Province back on the straight and narrow, and we are in the

process of doing just that.

That, Mr. Speaker, then, was coupled with the impact of the

reduction in the fishery resources that cost us probably somewhere between 8,000

and 10,000 jobs in this Province during the last three or four years. Nothing

that we had to do caused it. They were management decisions by the federal

government, some of them mismanagement, some of them decisions too late, some of

them good decisions but taken two, three, four or five years too late. All of

these things had to be dealt with, Mr. Speaker. In the meantime, we have got to

try and do our best to provide economic opportunity for our people, to find

jobs. Contrary to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said today - and

they just fabricate things, they pull them out of thin air. The Member for

Humber East does the same thing. Many members opposite, with some exceptions, do

the same thing.

Let me quote from a speech delivered to the Federation of

Municipalities in October, 1989. It acknowledges that all Canadians are equal

wherever they live in this country. It is a misfortune for Newfoundland that

perhaps we don't have 5 million people spread around all the area that we have

earning revenue and carrying on economic activity and having a burgeoning

economy. But the simple fact is, we don't. Our people are spread around

maintaining the sovereignty of this land for Canada. Don't forget that. The

small communities of Pincent's Arm and Norman Bay on the Coast of Labrador, the

community of Fogo on the Island, the community of Lawn on the Burin Peninsula,

those small communities, without the public services that Montreal, Toronto,

Winnipeg, St. John's and Corner Brook take for granted, are there carrying on

economic activity, catching fish, cutting wood to harvest for our pulp mills or

mining or whatever else, contributing to the economic well-being of Canada. If

they weren't there, Canada would not be proclaiming to the world its

sovereignty. Canada would have no basis for proclaiming that the fish in 200

miles of ocean around our shores is ours. It is because the people of

Newfoundland are there and they fish as Canadians.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is totally contrary to what the Leader

of the Opposition said, and demonstrates clearly that they will say anything to

promote their political ends. Reality and the real interests of the people of

this Province, the good of the people of this Province, doesn't mean anything to

them. It is of no consequence as long as they can try and find some means, they

hope, of embarrassing the government or painting the government in a bad light

without regard to what the real truth is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we promoted advancing

capital spending that would otherwise be spent and we are doing some of it

ourselves in highways and municipal works. The federal government failed to

participate with us.

MR. TOBIN: What a lie!

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, that is parliamentary language!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to withdraw the remark

I just heard.

MR. TOBIN: I apologize. I withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, let's look at the

unemployment statistics. It so happened they came out just in the last little

while. Mr. Speaker, they are terrible! We shouldn't have unemployment figures

like that. But, Mr. Speaker, this government is honest enough to acknowledge

that we cannot shield the people of this Province from the consequences of

unemployment that no other government in Canada can shield its people from, nor

If you look at the labour force flash sheet, the most recent

one, our numbers are unacceptably high. They are 19 per cent in April. This says

they went down from 20.3 per cent in March. These are samples, and I don't rely

on that. I don't think that there was any major improvement in that month, but

perhaps it wasn't as bad as 20.3 per cent in March anyway. I don't know what the

figures are. I just remind hon. members that you can't look at any single month

and come to absolute conclusions. So I don't do great handstands and say, `Oh,

great, we improved it by 1.3 per cent.' On paper it shows but I don't think

that, in fact, occurred. So I ask people to look at it on a broader basis and

look at the situation, say, over the last year. According to this, if it is

right, Newfoundland is the only province in Canada having a lower unemployment

rate in April 1992 than we had in April 1991. The only province in Canada in

that situation. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is nothing to do handstands about because

our labour force has also reduced in numbers. The people looking for work have

been reduced. But those are the figures. When members speak about the issue,

don't think that Newfoundland exists in isolation from the other nine provinces

and two territories of this country. We are part of this country and affected by

it as all other parts are.

In Canada the unemployment rate in April 1992 was 11 per

cent. There were only three provinces in Canada on the adjusted figures that

weren't double digit. Great Ontario with double digit unemployment numbers -

unheard of - because of the impact of the recession. But who in their right mind

would believe that the economically weak and financially weak government of

Newfoundland can shield this Province and its economy from the effects of a

national and world wide economic recession, when Ontario can't do it, and BC

can't do it? Nova Scotia and New Brunswick can't do it. Quebec can't do it. Who

would be so dishonest as to suggest to the people of this Province that the

government here can somehow by some sort of magic do it, that if it isn't

achieved that it is somehow a failure of the government. That is why I am so

pleased to endorse immediately and prepared to vote on right away the hon.

member's resolution. We must do all within our power to deal with this very

difficult and unacceptable situation. But the limitation is - within our power.

We cannot guarantee an absolute correction. The difference is, Mr. Speaker, we

have the political honesty to tell the people what the situation is.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just wind up by saying you deal with

these problems on a longer term basis and also on a short-term. You meet the

short-term needs. You have to have special responses to try and deal with

short-term situations. In that respect I agree with the hon. member, but you

still must do it within the limits of your financial capability. We can't

bankrupt the Province or put it in an unacceptable financial situation, and in

the process of trying to save it, destroy it. We can't do that. We have to find

the right balance. But the real objective has to be to solve the problem on a

longer term basis so that we won't be caught in this way in the future. Yes, we

will be affected ten, twenty, or thirty years from now by a recession, as

inevitably one will come at that time. Yes, we will be affected in a manner

similar to which we are affected today, but hopefully not to that extent,

because we will have worked toward rebuilding the economy in the meantime. That

is why we are bringing out the Strategic Economic Plan, the objective of it to

be to provide for long-term balanced economic development throughout the

Province. That is the objective of the government, Mr. Speaker. I have spelled

it out numerous times. To ensure that we provide an acceptable level of economic

activity in all regions of the Province. We say to the people of this Province,

no government can commit to you that they will provide economic opportunity in

every single one of 700 or 800 communities in this Province. It is just not

possible to do it. But let's try and make sure that we provide it. Let's just

try to make sure that we provide it within reasonable distance of every

community in the Province so that people can continue to live in those

communities if that is what they want to do. Let's not try to pressure or induce

people to leave the communities that they grew up in and that they enjoy, if

that is what they want to do. We have an obligation to try and make sure that we

have economic opportunities as reasonably available as we can, but we also have

an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to be honest, to be politically honest, and to put

the interest of the people of the Province ahead of our own narrow-minded

political interest.

We have the obligation to work together, to try and find the

right solutions, it is difficult enough to run this Province as it is without

having, in the process of trying to bring us into the 21st century, without

having to drag a screaming, resisting opposition on our backs along with it. It

is difficult enough to achieve as it is and for heaven's sake, if you could not

solve the problem and you cannot contribute anything to us resolving it, then do

not put impediments in our way. Do not try and drag the government down and

prevent it from achieving this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: I know the opposition has to oppose in a

proper way, but there is a proper way to do it, and there is a time to put the

economic and social interests of the people of this Province ahead of narrow

political interest, and such a time is now, and I plead with the opposition.

Sure, tear a little bit of hell out of the government, tear a few strips off us

every day, that is what you are there for, I understand that, but do not do

anything to impede our objective of trying to improve the economic situation in

this Province. Join with us and help us and we will give you credit for it and

the first credit we will give you is by agreeing to vote now without any further

debate on this resolution. We are quite happy to endorse it. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have listened to the Premier and to the Member for Humber

Valley talk about this resolution and the importance of it to our people, and no

one could agree more that it is a resolution that all of us should readily agree

to pass right away without debate, if we had the confidence that this government

was prepared to take action that would result in a change to the basic way in

which we in this Province are forced to have to rely on incidental, come what

may, willy-nilly responses that we have now, emergency responses for the

fisheries, ACOA funding, political patronage as often as not under the guise of

economic development, and the kind of criticisms that we hear in this House by

the Liberal Government upon the previous government, by the previous PC

Government on the current government about mismanagement.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have a crisis of management, sure some

money can be saved by more efficient management. Maybe the government that is in

store now is slightly more efficient than the last one, they do not seem to be

able to point it very much other than to make much hay about Sprung and while we

all agree Sprung was a total failure, an absolute waste of money, it was not

Sprung that caused the economic problems that the Province faces right now-

AN HON. MEMBER: What is it?

MR. HARRIS: - $26 million was wasted but that is not a

true measure of the economic problems that this Province faces, and I do not

have the kind of resources that the government has or the government caucus even

has or the opposition caucus has in terms of research, to come parading a bunch

of statistics before this House as to what is going on. I accept what the

Premier said in Question Period today, that if we double our rate of growth over

the next twenty years, we will still be in a position of trying to catch up with

the rest of Canada as far as economic development indicators go.

I suspect he may be engaging in a little bit of hyperbole

which he tends to do from time to time to exaggerate the position that he is in.

What I see, Mr. Speaker, is a failure, though not of management, because I don't

think any government is efficient. The nature of government is not to be

efficient, and I think that it is proper to be so. There have been certain

governments which tried to be efficient, and in fact that is the only thing you

hear about them. Everyone has heard it said, even the Member for St. John's

South, in praise of Mussolini, that he managed to get the trains to run on time.

He ran an efficient government. The same has been said of Hitler. That he ran an

efficient government.

That is not what government is all about. Government is not

all about necessarily being efficient and doing things in the most efficient

way. What governments are about, in my view and the view of my Party, is that it

responds to and meets the real needs of people, based on a model of democracy

that should be giving people control over their own destiny, over their own

lives, whether in a personal capacity by having the very means with which to

live, or having control over their community's destiny through being able to

exercise control over the economy of their town, their community, their region,

and their Province.

What has happened as a result of the approach to economics

and economic development that we have seen predominate in Canada, and in this

Province, particularly over the last number of years, leads to the very result

from which we are suffering. That is, being on the periphery of the economic

engine, the manufacturing sector of the country. Being on the edge of the

population density that you see in central Canada in larger cities. Economic

development is not going to be spread evenly across this country under a

capitalist, free enterprise system without control over development, and without

democratic decision making throughout this country and indeed throughout this

Province.

We do not see the kind of fundamental rethinking, the whole

nature of our economy that is called for, that cries out from the bare and cold

statistics that we see in the labour force flash sheets that the Premier

referred to and which all hon. members have received. What we see is a Canadian

unemployment rate, a national unemployment rate, of 11 per cent, and in

Newfoundland nearly 22 per cent. Double the national average. You don't need

these flash sheets every month to tell you that. I can tell you that if you go

back over the last five, ten years you will see you do not even need to do an

unemployment rate in Newfoundland most of the time, all you have to do is take

the Canadian unemployment rate and multiply by two.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Eleven point five per cent. Perhaps the hon.

minister would like to get up and read out the exact figures. Eleven point five

per cent for Canada and 21.8 per cent for Newfoundland, approximately double,

11.5 times 2 is 23, 21.8 is almost double, Mr. Speaker, the difference is not

worth fighting over. If the minister wants to quibble then he can quibble about

that and the Premier can quibble about whether or not the single able-bodied

person get $129 or $127, but nevertheless we have a situation in this Province

that must be recognized as being totally unacceptable.

As long as members of this House and as long as members of

complaisant enough to try and place their faith in an economic system, in the

free market system to resolve these problems, the kind of policies that the

Premier espouses, free trade, market forces, let the market decide how these

things are going to operate, as long as that is the basic tenet of this

government's economic approach I have no faith, Mr. Speaker, that government

will respond to this resolution. I will vote in favour of it and like fools we

will all get up and vote in favour of it and the government will carry on doing

exactly what they are doing, ignoring the fact -

AN HON. MEMBER: Doing the best job that can be done.

MR. HARRIS: See what I mean, Mr. Speaker: doing the best

job that can be done. Complacency in the face of adversity, complacency in the

face of desperation, complacency about the economic circumstances of this

Province. Mr. Speaker, if that is their best, the report card that will come in

the next time around when they go to the polls, is: your best is not good

enough. Until there comes a time when real co-operation, real economic planning,

and real co-ordination in terms of decision making about expenditure, about

economic development, and allocation of resources takes place, we will continue

to suffer as the forgotten edges of an North American economy.

Some of the things the government proposes I can accept. We

need to have a strategic economic plan. We need to have co-operation between

various sectors of the economy but above and beyond that we need to have, not

only in this Province but across this country, an acceptance of the fact that

things are not going to change in this Province until, and unless, we have a

the level of Canadian national standards, not just in health care, which I think

we all agree on, not just in education, which I think we all agree on, but we

must advance to the Canadian national standards in terms of economic indicators

with respect to income per capita, with respect to gross provincial product,

with respect to the distribution of economic opportunities, and if that requires

a massive capital infusion for the period of time that is required then that

should be done. But it should be done on the basis of a plan.

If you look at all of the funds and money that is being spent

through various agencies, ACOA is a very good example. All kinds of money is

being spent, coming in, dependent upon the vagaries of their application forms,

the level of lobbying support that the individuals or corporations might have

with the Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa, the Conservative government, the

Conservative lobbying efforts. That plays a role, but we do not see the

community economic development corporations playing a role. We do not see

dependence being placed looking to them for answers for their communities. We do

not see them having control, or even a strong measure of say in how these kind

of development resources are allocated within their own communities.

There has to be a totally different approach, based first of

all upon the recognition, not only the recognition of the needs of this

Province, but an indefatigable fight by all members of this House of Assembly

and by all Newfoundlanders to insist on the national level that there must be a

reorganization of our economy based on a national economic plan that must

include, as part of it, a guarantee that areas such as Newfoundland, such as

Northern Ontario, Northern Quebec, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and other

provinces in areas which suffer from the nature of the economy that we have, are

in fact given an opportunity with the resources that this great nation has, to

participate fully in the economic prospects and opportunities that this wealthy

nation provides to us. When that happens there will be no need for a resolution

such as this. We can all support it now, but will it make any difference while

the government goes on complacently telling the people that it is doing the best

it can? No, it will not make any difference.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: I would like to participate in this debate

this evening on the resolution that was introduced into the House of Assembly by

my colleague, the Member for Humber Valley. It was a very significant

resolution. The 'WHEREAS' I thoroughly agree with, and the 'BE IT RESOLVED' I

think says it all. It says: 'BE IT RESOLVED THAT the provincial government take

immediate action to help the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who

are finding themselves caught in the worst financial and social crisis to hit

them in recent memory.' Now that says it all.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT this

government do something for the people who are affected by the worst financial

and social crisis to hit them in recent memory.

My colleague from Humber Valley pointed out that it has never

been so bad before in our history. I, like him, have been around for seventeen

years as well, and the reverse, seven years municipally and ten years on the

provincial scene. In all of my days I have never seen it so bad.

The Premier got up and made reference today in the Budget to

the decreases in the amount of money that is coming from Ottawa. I submit that

the Premier, and I do not suggest that he intentionally misled the House, but

the Premier of this Province misled the House today, because as the Budget

document 1992 clearly points out, revenue from the federal government in the

1992-93 estimates is $1,413,957,000. Last year from the federal government they

received $1,328,496,000. That clearly demonstrates that this government received

more funding and the President of Treasury Board, the Government House Leader

and the Premier can get up in this House and condemn the federal government all

they like, Mr. Speaker, but the fact remains that there is more money coming

into this Province this year from the federal government than in previous years.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, in his address and in his few

comments, read from a speech that he made to the Federation of Municipalities

where he talked about Lawn on the Burin Peninsula and he talked about parts of

Labrador. He talked about the contribution that this Province is making to the

national perspective, and he is right, Mr. Speaker, we do. The Premier talked

about it in terms of the mining industry. I ask the Premier: What mining

industry? Which mining industry is the Premier talking about, Mr. Speaker? Since

this government came to power every single mine on the Island portion of the

Province has been closed. The only mine, Mr. Speaker, that is operating right

now is Hope Brook gold mine and that is operating because Mr. Crosbie and the

federal government put an additional $6 million into the Hope Brook gold mine.

That is in addition to the $14 million that they had already put up. Do you know

what this government put up to reopen the Hope Brook gold mine? A clinic. That

was their contribution to the Hope Brook gold mine, a clinic. It is the federal

government that caused that to be opened and it is the only mine in the

Province.

He talked about the fishery, Mr. Speaker, the contribution

the fishery is making. Since this government came to power, Mr. Speaker, there

has been absolutely nothing done in the fishing industry. He talked, Mr.

Speaker, about the cutting of wood. Yesterday we saw the cutting of wood when

people had to come in from central Newfoundland and demonstrate, Mr. Speaker.

He talked about the unemployment statistics. The fact of the

matter is that there were 7,000 less people working in this Province last month

than were working this time last year. Those are the statistics, Mr. Speaker.

The caseload in the Department of Social Services was 19,000 when they came to

power. Today, Mr. Speaker, that caseload is over 28,000. That is the economic

stimulation they are creating for this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say today that this government

has done absolutely nothing for our resources. They haven't done a thing, Mr.

Speaker, for our resources. Nothing! Absolutely nothing!

I just said what has happened to the mining industry. The

forestry industry, Mr. Speaker: We saw people demonstrating here yesterday. They

had to come in from central Newfoundland to demonstrate against the inaction of

this government in promoting our forestry, indeed laying off people, Mr.

Speaker, who are helping our forestry industry.

Agriculture is basically forgotten about by this government.

This minister has basically forgotten about agriculture. I have a community that

is involved in agriculture in my own district and I know exactly how they have

been forgotten about. I know how Winterland, Mr. Speaker, is very seldom

mentioned in terms of an agricultural community in this Province.

Tourism, Mr. Speaker: Support for the tourism industry in

this Province is about as scarce as the Minister of Tourism in this House. That

is the contribution they are making to tourism.

The shipbuilding industry, Mr. Speaker, in particular in my

own district, is dead.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that if the

Minister of Transportation and the Member for Carbonear want to have an argument

that they go outside and have it.

MR. REID: You won't get $3.5 million (inaudible).

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

AN HON. MEMBER: We will get $4.5 million.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would suspect that the Member

for Carbonear won't be in a position to decide on who gets what. He will be

still over in the backbenches. There may be new Cabinet ministers but they could

be brought in off the street and you will be still in the backbenches.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the shipbuilding

industry in this Province, and there is no shipbuilding industry left. This

government has all but closed their yard. The owners of the Marystown Shipyard

have all but closed their yard, Mr. Speaker. There are less than seventy

unionized people working in the Marystown Shipyard today. They have used

Kaeverner, and very successfully, as a diversionary tactic, to take the

responsibility and move it some place else. That is what they have done, Mr.

Speaker. They have not accepted responsibility. They have caused people to be

moved from this Province to the mainland, particularly to New Brunswick, from

the Marystown area. There is another group now in Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, but

it is all because this government has not supported and does not believe in

supporting the Marystown Shipyard.

I want to mention, Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry in this

Province. The most important industry in this Province, Mr. Speaker, I want to

touch on today. On how this government has forgotten about it. How this

government has not supported the fishing industry. I say that, Mr. Speaker, with

all the sincerity I can muster. This Premier has turned his back on rural

Newfoundland, and he has turned his back on the fishing industry.

I am extremely concerned about the comments the Premier made

last week in this Legislature as it relates to the deep sea fishery. As he

talked about the deep sea fishery and the inshore fishery, he says, and I quote:

'That is as it should be, to protect the inshore fishery which must, I believe,

be the priority, because the offshore, Canadian and otherwise, is a relatively

recent innovation. Now we have to protect that, and if that means putting a

moratorium on the directed deep sea fishery for a year, two years, three years,

five years, whatever is necessary to rebuild its stocks, then we must do that

because we must protect our basic fishery in this Province.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, after what the Premier said last night on

that documentary I have every reason not only to be concerned about my

constituents in rural Newfoundland, I have reason, Mr. Speaker, to cringe at the

thought of what is going to happen if this Premier has his way with the deep sea

fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, that statement has caused me to be extremely

concerned. What will happen if the Premier of this Province is successful in

having a moratorium placed on the deep sea fishery? Mr. Speaker, I am concerned

about what will happen if he is successful. I am concerned about what will

happen in Newfoundland.

I see my colleague from Grand Bank, Mr. Speaker. Well I can

say to this House that over the last few days the member and I have sat down and

basically agonized over what is going to happen to the men and women in our

constituency who make a living from the deep sea fishery. What will happen? We

saw pictures last night when the Premier was talking about resettlement, of

houses, Mr. Speaker, being floated across Placentia Bay back to what happened

when the Premier and Mr. Roberts were in government before. But I am concerned,

Mr. Speaker, as to what is going to happen to my constituents in particular, and

to the constituents who depend on deep sea plants in general.

Mr. Speaker, what will happen to the men and women who depend

on the deep sea fishery in Burgeo, in Ramea? What has the Member for Burgeo -

Bay D'Espoir said to the Premier as regards the Premier's statement to close

down the deep sea fishery for up to five years. Mr. Speaker, the men and women

who work in the fish plants in Harbour Breton, I ask what has the member for

that area said to the Premier regarding his statement of closing down the deep

sea fishery for up to five years? What is going to happen to Fortune?

Grand Bank has just been saved, no thanks to this government,

but Grand Bank has been saved thanks to the federal government, to the member

for the area, my colleague for Grand Bank, and to Clearwater, Mr. Speaker. That

is what has happened to Grand Bank. But we are concerned about Fortune, Mr.

Speaker, and the member is extremely concerned about Fortune and has stated it

publicly as to what will happen to the men and women who depend on that area.

In my own District of Burin - Placentia West, the Town of

Burin has gone through this already once before. If there is no deep sea

fishery, there will be no secondary processing, there will be no refit centre

because the trawlers will be tied up. The men and women, Mr. Speaker, who depend

on that plant, what will happen to them if the Premier gets his way causes me

concern.

The Member for Bellevue, Mr. Speaker, what advice has he

given to the Premier as it relates to his statement to close down the deep-sea

fishery in this Province? Arnold's Cove has depended on the deep-sea fishery and

it is time that the members stand and tell the Premier how they feel. We can

look today, at the thousand men and women who have been thrown on the

unemployment roll for some months now in the Catalina fish plant - in the Port

Union fish plant, probably I should say. Where has the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation been? Where has the Member for Trinity North been?

They were elected by their constituents, who gave them a vote of confidence to

do what was in the best interest for them, and the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation and the Member for Trinity North, whose constituents depend

on that fish plant, that deep-sea plant for employment, have not heard one sound

from either member with respect to keeping their fish plant open.

The people of these communities that I have just listed have

sent all of us here with a vote of confidence to do what is right, to stand up

and defend their interests, and when the Premier of this Province calls for a

moratorium for one to five years on the deep-sea fishery, it is going to affect

rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, it is going to affect the men and women who

work in the deep-sea fishing industry.

What plans do they have for the people of Marystown, Burin,

Fortune and Burgeo, Ramea and Harbour Breton, Catalina and Arnold's Cove? What

plans do this government have for these people in view of the Premier's attitude

towards the deep-sea fishery? What plans do they have and what will they put in

place to assist the people?

I suspect and I regret, Mr. Speaker, if it happens, but I am

very suspicious that the Premier is trying to downsize this Province and if he

gets his way in closing down the deep-sea fishery, men and women from all over

Newfoundland will have to face the stark reality of boarding up their homes, of

nailing up their windows, of turning off their lights and saying goodbye to

their homes, saying goodbye to the communities where they were born and raised,

saying goodbye to the work and the pride that they have put into the developing

what is theirs, their homes. This Premier has not, I suspect, publicly, I don't

know whether or not privately - that any of these members who represent

communities affected by the deep-sea fishery, have gone to the Premier and said:

Mr. Premier, I disagree with you, it is wrong. You, Sir, should not be out

promoting the shutdown of the deep-sea fishery in this Province for one to five

years; you, Mr. Premier, are basically attacking the men and women who sent me

to this Legislature to represent them; you, Mr. Premier, have a responsibility

to ensure that they have a right to work in their own Province; you, Mr.

Premier, have no business getting up publicly and saying that this is how it

should be, because the offshore Canadian and otherwise is a relatively recent

innovation. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. For hundred of years, the fishermen

from the Burin Peninsula have tolled the Grand Banks. Whether it be in deep-sea

trawlers or in banking schooners, they were there, and this Premier has no right

to stand up and deny them their right to continue to be there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) deep-sea trawlers but that

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, we have been at it longer than that.

There were deep-sea trawlers in Burin in the 1940s. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned,

I am nervous, I am frightened and I am very upset, and, as I said, my colleague

from Grand Bank and I have agonized, spent hours, Mr. Speaker, in the past week,

frightened, to see what could happen to our constituents if the doors are nailed

in Marystown, Burin and Fortune.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not one of them got up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, not one member, including the

Member for St. John's South, who has the NatSea plant has stood in this

Legislature and said: Mr. Premier, it is not an innovation, it has been around

for decades, and our men and women in the fish plants and on the trawlers have a

right to continue to fish and work. Not one member has stood and defended the

inshore fishery and their constituents against the attack on their livelihood by

the Premier of this Province.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

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

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, on a point of

order.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, at some later date I will bring

Hansard to the House to prove the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West is

totally incorrect.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: He gets up without any reservation and tells

stories that are not fact, Mr. Speaker, not fact.

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

I ask the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations to withdraw that remark.

MR. GRIMES: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, if I said

anything that was out of line, I withdraw. But, certainly, I find it difficult

under the rules of this House when you are convinced that someone is telling

something other than what is true, what else can you say about them?

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

MR. GRIMES: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: Withdraw! Withdraw! (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

The Chair would like to rule on a point of order raised by

the hon. the Member for St. John's South. Certainly, there was no point of

order. It was a point of clarification, if anything. But I ask the hon. the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to withdraw his remark without

qualification.

MR. GRIMES: I withdraw.

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

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

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

a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, when speaking in the House a moment ago, was

not speaking in his place in the House. Now, I understand that when he made the

unparliamentary remark he was not sitting in his place either. But when he spoke

to make his half-hearted withdrawal, and then later make his proper withdrawal,

he was recognised by the Chair standing in some other hon. member's place and

speaking. I wonder if the Chair could rule whether or not speaking in such a

manner is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members are all aware, of course, that

an hon. member cannot speak in the House, except from his seat. He made the

comment that the Chair considered unparliamentary from that position and the

Chair had asked him to withdraw. But it certainly is not acceptable to speak

from another's seat.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I want to

say to the Member for St. John's South that yes, I have heard him speak in the

House defending them, but he has always been attacking the federal government.

The point I was making is that they have not stood in this Legislature -

probably he will - and taken on the Premier for asking to close down, the

moratorium, for one to five years. Now he is going to speak later this afternoon

and I hope that he will muster the courage to do it.

As it relates to the Minister of Employment, there is nobody

concerned about his arrogance towards the deep-sea fishery in this Province. He

does not know it, he does not understand it, it means nothing to him. He has

just demonstrated. But I want to say that it does concern me -

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

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. In

conclusion, just let me say simply, I beg, I sincerely beg, all hon. members in

this Legislature to plead with the Premier to change his mind and not place the

moratorium on the deep-sea fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to

rise today and speak in this debate. I was sitting here just taking in what was

happening and what the Opposition had proposed today. A number of things came to

mind and forced me to get up today and to make known what the record is and what

the ideas are that are coming from the members opposite.

I can't help but notice the glaring absence on the hon.

member's resolution, of: "BE IT RESOLVED that the Provincial Government take

immediate action to help the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who

are finding themselves caught in the worst financial and social crisis to hit

them in recent memory."

Now, as the Premier of this Province got up and said earlier

today, and as other members on this side of the House got up and said today, we

have no problem accepting our responsibility in this Province, and we said we'd

stood up every day. And we call the question now, if you want to get up and tell

us that we are doing our job, we accept our responsibility. But the kind of

hypocrisy that is coming across from that side of the House, where is the

federal government? Why are they keeping John Crosbie in the closet? Why are

they hiding the Tories behind the curtains? Why are they singing that song down

here in Newfoundland and Labrador?

I couldn't help saying, when the Member for Burin - Placentia

West said he was agonizing with his colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, on

where the thousands of Newfoundlanders will go, particularly with the deep-sea

fishery, Mr. Speaker, 'Where will they go? Well, I can say, I would like to end

your agony.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Go up to your hon. colleague, the hon.

John Crosbie and say to him: What are you going to do with the 47,298 metric

tons of fish that are directly adjacent to our shores that he is giving to Nova

Scotia companies -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DUMARESQUE: - and closing down Newfoundland and

Labrador plants, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of hypocrisy I am talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not be

prepared to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chair hasn't recognized

the hon. member yet.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member

is totally misquoting what I said. That is not allowed in this legislature. What

I said - Mr. Speaker, his Premier should be concerned about adjacency. What I

said in this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I was blatantly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Can I speak on a point of order? I said it was

this Premier that called for a moratorium for up to five years, not Mr. Crosbie,

and you should do something about it. That is what I said, Mr. Speaker. He

misquoted me. I will read again what I said. The Premier said that because the

offshore, Canadian and otherwise, is a relatively recent innovation we have to

protect that, and if that means put a moratorium on the direct deep-sea cod

fishery for a year, two years, three years, or five years, whatever is necessary

to rebuild the stocks, then we must do it. Mr. Speaker, that is not Mr. Crosbie.

That is what I said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) Mr. Crosbie.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. the Member for Eagle

River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, obviously there is no point

of order. What we have here again, Mr. Speaker, is the Opposition who are

agonizing because once again they have been told the truth for a change about

what is happening in this Province, and they have been exposed again today for

what they have been practising since 1984, that is, to be down here singing the

song, being the front for the federal Tories, Mr. Speaker, down here because

they know they have an abysmal record. As I said, Where are the ideas? Where are

the ideas that are coming forward from that member opposite, Mr. Speaker, when

we have National Sea Products of this country, when we have Seafreez of this

country. National Sea said they are going to close down and make Arnold's Cove a

seasonal operation. You know, the same time they are saying to us that they are

going to take Arnold's Cove and make it a seasonal operation, and Seafreez is

taking it from Burgeo, that is 10,000 tons, 20 million pounds of red fish from

2J, 3Kl in the northern waters of our shores right back to Nova Scotia and into

the United States and all these jobs in Nova Scotia! And you are standing up and

asking: 'What can we do?' I can tell you that is what you can do!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what you can do. That's what you

can do!

MR. DUMARESQUE: That's what you can do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come clean!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: It is about time that the Opposition over

there stood up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is about time

they got up there behind the back of John Crosbie and started pushing him to

stand up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. One hundred million

pounds, Mr. Speaker, one hundred million pounds of Newfoundland and Labrador

fish is being taken out of our waters every day. Five thousand jobs are being

taken from this Province, Mr. Speaker, by a federal minister who is making the

allocations on a political basis, not on a fisheries management basis to the

Seafreez's of the world, to the mercies of Sea Foods of the world, to the

Clearwater's of the world, the MV Osprey of the world. Mr. Speaker, they are

what's happening in this Province today. I can only appreciate how much they are

agonizing, of course, Mr. Speaker. What agony it must be to see this Province in

the financial shape it is in, to take the leadership it is taking, to put the

money it is putting into the fishery, when it was known two years ago where we

had the fishery problems with the deep-sea plants, Mr. Speaker, when we had the

problems with the Southside, and the hon Member for St. John's South was

standing up and asking Mr. Crosbie to put some money where his mouth was. He was

there on the front line.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), that is where the money came

from.

MR. DUMARESQUE: He was there on the front line, Mr.

Speaker, and where did the money come from? Where was the initiative? Where was

the conscience? Where was the responsibility? It was with us, $15 million of our

money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

The hon. member cannot be allowed to go on as he is going. He

must tell the truth in this House, Mr. Speaker. We all know what happened to the

Southside NatSea plant and who agreed to close it down, and who would not help

it until after the Grand Bank people came in the gallery. The other thing the

member should point out, Mr. Speaker, is that the Member for St. John's South

was in the air on his way from St. John's to Halifax while the President of

NatSea was announcing -

AN HON. MEMBER: Plans had changed.

MR. MATTHEWS: Plans had changed. How can anyone take

credit for that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

There is no point of order, just a difference of opinion

between two hon. members.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I guess the message will go out loud and

clear again today that as the heat gets on the hon. members, as their blue

tartan gets tarnished, as their political flag gets scorched, Mr. Speaker, they

stand up and try to defend the indefensible. That is what is happening here

today and this is what we see from those hon. members. They talk about where we

are going to put our responsibilities and they talk about the fishery. Two years

ago when they said the fishery was going to be in the crisis it is in today they

looked to the people in this Province with leadership roles for exactly what the

ideas were and what the commitments would be. They appointed the Stein Task

Force on which our deputy minister served as a member from this Province. That

task force did tremendous work. It did tremendous research. It put together a

comprehensive package of income support and fishery support, and this government

was prepared to put $100 million of scarce resources into that kind of package,

Mr. Speaker. If that is not commitment I do not know what is, when we are

dealing with a resource that is under total federal jurisdiction.

When it was the potato farmers in PEI or the wheat farmers in

the West, Mr. Speaker, they were not told you have to put up 50 per cent, they

were not told you have to put up 30 per cent, they were given 100 per cent by

the federal government. I can understand how it must be agonizing over there to

know you are going to have to go into the next election and have to carry that

torch of Mr. Crosbie's and stand side by side with him and say: I was proud to

be there with you Mr. Crosbie when you dealt blow after blow to the Newfoundland

and Labrador economy, when you refused to have Seafreeze give the people of

Burgeo their rightful allocation of fish.

Now they are playing politics again with the people on the

south coast when they are talking about opening up Trepassey - underutilized

species, Mr. Speaker, when we have 50 million pounds of underutilized species

passing directly across our door every other month going to Nova Scotia. That is

where the jobs are and it is not to be lost on the record that the person who is

doing that, that the person who is crossing those t's and dotting those i's is

none other than the great Newfoundlander himself, the hon. John Crosbie who

these hon. gentlemen are over there propping up every day in every which way

possible. Mr. Speaker, that record has got to be made clear.

When it came to responding again to areas of the unemployed

in this Province last year. Last year there was a fisheries response program and

many people in this Province said quite legitimately that there are more people

than the fisherpersons in this Province without work. They said there were

people around who would not quality for these projects and they said they must

be helped. Did this government say no we are not going to help them because we

do not have the jurisdiction? Did we say no we are not going to give them one

cent of money even though we are virtually bankrupt by the situation the hon.

members left us in? No, we put $15 million, again of scarce resources, into

employment projects to be able to assist people who were outside the fishery,

people that could not get employment from the service industry or from any other

part of the economy that they ordinarily would have expected. We saw some very

meaningful recreation projects done. We saw some very meaningful environmental

things done to clean up our environment, and that was done with scarce, very

scarce, provincial dollars.

But it seems that the hon. crowd opposite are convinced. They

are on a premeditated course to see that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

have to pay through the nose, have to go bankrupt trying to service an area of

complete federal jurisdiction, and that is the thousands of people involved in

the fishing industry. I cannot believe it. The more and more I see of it I am

shocked that the responsible members of this House would stand up here and say

that is the way it has to be done. That is the most blatant example that I have

ever seen of an opposition that is doing nothing more than playing politics.

They are not paying any attention to the affairs of the day and acting

responsibly to try to help this government to be able to meet the financial

needs of the Province without driving the people into bankruptcy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they with us on joint management?

MR. DUMARESQUE: When it comes to joint management of the

fishery, where are they? Where are they on joint management of the fishery?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) for a couple of days,

remember?

MR. DUMARESQUE: They had to make a call, and he was not

in. He was probably in Mexico or Paraguay, or over in Cuba, down with the big

Cuban cigars. He was probably down having a dialogue with Fidel, so they could

not get him. They were about three days before they could make up their mind.

Are we for joint management or not? No, well we will have to check.

After a series of phone calls and faxes that were delivered

to the hon. members opposite, they finally came out and said weakly: well we are

not in agreement with this particular policy, and I hope there is no microphone

around because if it is John is going to hear it and the wrath is going to come

down on us again, as he did in the previous twelve months when they made some

complaints about some other federal programs.

I know that it is not easy living over there with the wrath

of John Crosbie. I have had to live with a little bit of that myself, but never

to be brought down to the point where I would be humiliating myself; never

brought down to the point where I would be selling out exactly for the reason

why I am here; never to be brought down to the point where I would be blatantly,

parochially, following a party line to see that my political buddies were

propped up at the behest, at the hurt, at the detriment of the people who are

out there now, the fish plant workers and the fishermen! There are thousands of

people in this Province who need that help from the federal treasury that they

are obligated by the constitution of this country to deliver to them!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Never will I have to go back and say that

I served my time in here trying to prop up another political buddy, forsaking

the people I was sent here to represent. That is what I guess would rile me most

today, to see this kind of a display in this hon. House.

If you want to come in here and tell us that we are not doing

our job, fair game. Our leader today and our Premier today stood up and said: we

accept that. We accept constructive criticism. We accept the fact that we do not

do everything right. We accept the fact that you have different ideas. We accept

the fact that if you were over here you would do things differently. We have

been responsible in accepting that criticism and saying, yes, we are willing to

endorse that we are not getting the action. We are not getting the kind of

impact on the economy that we would like. We are willing to do that.

Our Premier stood up today and was willing to pass this

resolution 'tout de suite', no problem. Give us our constructive criticism, and

we duly take note of that particular concern. But what was so blatantly absent

from the resolution today was a total avoidance of the public treasury in Ottawa

that can assist us. Are we forgetting that Ottawa is delivering 44 or 45 per

cent of the revenue for this Province to operate under? Are we forgetting that

the people of this Province depend upon that? Why would you just ignore that

half of our Budget, the other partner in all of this? Why would you ignore, not

even giving them a flick on the wrist, not an honourable mention? Not one iota

of constructive criticism, let alone the damning criticism that they deserve -

not even a request for assistance. The fishery crisis is on us now. Where is the

call from the Leader of the Opposition? I was up in Ottawa when the Leader of

the Opposition and the Government House Leader met with the Standing Committee

on Fisheries and Forestry on April 2. I was there and listened to them for

forty-five minutes and throughout the 375 odd words in his presentation, and

throughout the other hour and a half of the words that the two hon. members had

to say to that committee, not one mention was made of income support for

fishermen and asking the federal government to open up the treasury, to fulfil

their rightful constitutional obligation, and help out the fishermen of this

Province. Not one word.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame, shame!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Those are the facts. So I find it very

hard to sit here and take this kind of blatant political grandstanding on the

part of the members opposite. I think that it is going to come back to haunt

them. I think as they go about the next campaign in two months or so or six

months, whenever our leader gives us the direction to go out there, Mr. Speaker,

I think it is going to come back to haunt them.

Because I look forward to campaigning in Labrador and having

the hon. John Crosbie stand side by side with the Members for Menihek and

Torngat Mountains and say: I am glad I extended the unemployment insurance

benefits for you this year, I am glad that I delivered on the northern cod

access for Labrador, I am glad that I changed the Saltfish Corporation for you,

the people of Labrador, I am glad, he says, that I have really been sensitive to

the people of Labrador.

I am looking forward to campaigning in the next election and

having them account for how they have propped up Mr. Crosbie and their Tory

buddies for the sake of that cheap political partisan grandstanding. I believe

the people of this Province, as they have said poll after poll, open line show

after open line show, letter after letter, call after call, the people of this

Province, from Newfoundland and Labrador, from one end to the other, have

recognised that when they elected this government in 1989 they elected a

government of real change. They elected a government that was committed to

fiscal responsibility, and social and economic equality for all of our citizens.

They realise now, through all of those means of trying to

ascertain public opinion, that we have lived up to their expectations. We have

done it in spades, given the financial situation that we have had handed to us

by our friends in Ottawa. I am confident that as we go to the next election

campaign, as we go out there and say to the people: give us four more years to

try and do what has to be done, they will look to us and say: yes, you have

handled yourselves in a very constructive, credible fashion. You have been

responsible in managing our fiscal policy. You have not driven us out of the

door through the taxation policies of the previous government. They will say:

yes, thanks for a job well done, and keep it going.

I am sure that all hon. members will find that feeling as we

campaign the next time around. I would hope, while they have a few months left

over there, that they will change their course. That they will change this

course so that they can go out of this hon. House and hold their heads high and

say: I came here and I delivered on the basic undertaking that you do make to

your constituents when you get elected. That is, that you will come here and

work hard, honestly, diligently and constructively to see that their problems

are dealt with in that manner and fashion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is too bad that

the hon. Member for Eagle River did not stay in the House and listen to the

Premier speak when he spoke on this resolution. Because undoubtedly -

MR. DUMARESQUE: I was here.

MR. A. SNOW: Oh! He undoubtedly could not have heard what

the Premier talked about. How the Premier suggested that he is aware of the

fiscal restraint that is placed on the federal government and the dilemma that

this federal government has. What the Premier said was the dilemma that this

federal government has with its debt problem, Mr. Speaker.

He continued to outline what he perceived the problem was and

how he felt we should be debating this, and he was ready to accept the

resolution as it was put forward, and spoke in favour of it, that it was not

even necessary to have any debate. And then we find the hon. the Member for

Eagle River standing in his place, and I guess it is because he didn't hear the

Premier speaking, that is why he proposed rather than speak to the resolution to

offer solutions, he proposed to attack another level of government, who, by the

way, I believe, doesn't go without blame for the economic woes this Province is

facing today.

They are as much to blame, I suspect, as this group. They

have a larger problem in the sense of a larger government, a larger deficit than

this government has but, Mr. Speaker, it still does not absolve them of any

responsibility, and the people on the other side of the House - this government

feels that they are absolved of any responsibility for what has occurred. When

my hon. friend for - where is Rick from?

MR. WINSOR: Humber Valley.

MR. A. SNOW: When my hon. friend from Humber Valley

introduced the resolution, he did it with the idea of attempting to be

constructive, to offer to this government solutions that could help the people

of this Province get rid of this age of despair that has come upon them over the

last several months, and to try and paint the responsibility of what this

government has to the people of this Province, which they don't recognize.

The people on the government side of this House do not

recognize the responsibility that they have to the people of this Province. They

don't know that a government's key responsibility is to promote the kind of

economic growth that our society and our people need, to foster a healthier

economy and to be able to supply services to our people, and that means, Mr.

Speaker, having fewer taxes, less borrowing than what we presently have in this

Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Less borrowing?

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, less.

AN HON. MEMBER: But your buddies are saying more.

MR. A. SNOW: What you have to do is provide an

infrastructure to provide more economic activity. You have a bookkeeping

mentality of operating a government and that is where you are making a mistake,

you are making the mistake of simple bookkeeping mentality. When you lay off a

policeman or you lay off a nurse at the Janeway, you don't just necessarily save

$40,000 worth of 'so-called expenditures, that is very simple to look at, that

you have saved $80,000 for the sake of two earners making $40,000 each.

Those two people, apart from providing the extremely

important public service that they do provide in our social network, if you

will, in our community, they also provide a very important factor in our

economy. They do not take that money and spend it down in New York, that money

goes around in the economy here in St. John's or in Labrador City or in Port aux

Basques, wherever it happens to be, but yet the hon. the President of the

Treasury Board suggests that everybody knows that and yet, when this government

laid off 2,500 to 3,000 people in 1981, they said -

MR. WINSOR: 1991.

MR. A. SNOW: - or in 1991, he didn't know it then but he

knows now, because he knows he made a mistake, that is why, he knows he made a

mistake. Economists are saying the same thing today. The economist from Memorial

University suggested it back then, our leader suggested then that it was wrong.

I suggested it was wrong, the hon. Member for St. John's East suggested it was

wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: Funny money (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well, you may think it is funny -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: - but, Mr. Speaker,

MR. WINSOR: The President of Treasury Board is becoming

sensitive.

MR. A. SNOW: - when the President of Treasury Board says

he understands how the economy works and he understands that nurses and

policemen who are laid off cannot spend as much money when they are laid off.

Now he understands it, but he didn't last year, when he laid off 2,500 of them.

You did not understand it then but now you understand it so you should correct

it, because there is a responsibility for government to not only provide

services but to provide an economic framework so the economy can flourish and

develop.

You also don't do it by increasing taxes, which has been the

hallmark of this government: cut services, and increase taxes. The Premier

talked today about how they had a tremendous reform and he talked about the

school tax.

Mr. Speaker, in my area, the average person working in the

mines in Labrador City is going to be paying $300 more in school tax - $300

more! For years, when I was on a town council, I argued without my council and

suggested to my council that we should be doing things in our town to encourage

senior citizens to stay in Labrador City. One of the things I always felt proud

of was the fact that I was able to convince council - I was the one who proposed

the idea that we would give a 90 per cent property tax rebate to senior citizens

who stayed and lived in Labrador City.

It wasn't just to help them financially, now. I have to admit

that I brought it in because I felt that the senior citizens added a lot to a

community, not just the financial contribution that they make. Because of the

age of our community, we didn't have any older people, and I think that in order

to have a well-rounded community, we should encourage those people to stay in

our community, because they can provide a lot of the thing called experience,

Mr. Speaker, knowledge.

Our council adopted that. They would get a 90 per cent tax

rebate, and people did stay. More people are staying to retire in Labrador City.

This government would not believe in that philosophy. What did they do? They

come in and say we are going to tax senior citizens in Labrador City. You are

going to put on a school tax. They are going to have to pay $200 in taxes now,

school taxes, after contributing so much over the last fifty or sixty years of

working.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that you can't increase the wealth

by increasing taxes. You might increase for a short period of time. You may

increase some revenues to the government for a short period, but you stifle the

economy. When you put 2.5 per cent income tax on the end of it you stifle the

economy. That is exactly why this government argued against