November

14, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 54

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings I would like to

welcome to the Speaker's gallery on behalf of all members Alexa McDonough,

national leader of the New Democratic Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Minister

of Finance. The Minister of Finance was suppose to make a ministerial statement

but he is late, so in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will ask my

questions to the acting Minister of Finance, if there is one.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They are all actors.

MS VERGE: I am afraid the Minister of Finance is not a

very good actor and the acting minister is probably a worse actor. To the acting

minister, is it not true that government really did not balance the Budget last

March? Is it not true that despite the government's best efforts at propaganda

they did not fool their auditors or fiscal agents, that the auditors and other

informed observers readily saw through the smoke and mirrors that included

taking $80 million out of the sinking fund savings account, using cash from

selling off assets and omitting $26 million in expenditures that were planned?

Is it not true that this year's Budget was never balanced?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, as the alternate Minister of

Finance it falls to me to answer it, and what I have to say is two things.

Number one, the Budget as presented in the House was truthful, complete and

accurate. Number two, Question Period is a matter of urgent matters and I would

say to the hon. lady is it not true that these questions can wait until the

Minister of Finance comes? I understand he is on his way here and he will be

able to deal with them then.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Government House Leader can assure me that we will not

lose time from our thirty minute Question Period allotment, then I will indeed

save my questions for the arrival of the Minister of Finance.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am told the Minister of

Finance is in the building and will be here shortly, if the hon. inquisitor from

Ferryland would just possess his soul in patience for a minute. Question Period

is half an hour and given the way the Opposition have been using it, it could

have been three minutes, Mr. Speaker. All I say to the hon. lady is that I have

been told the hon. minister will be here. The whip is gone to check now, so

perhaps if one or two of her colleagues has another question written we could

deal with that and then when the minister gets here we can carry on with the

charade involving the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. In his Ministerial Statement to the House

on Thursday, November 9 wherein he announced a 22 per cent cut in the Municipal

Operating Grants the minister stated that every other available option was

explored prior to the decision to slash the Municipal Operating Grants. What

were those options and why were they rejected?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the total budget for my department

which includes the new service centres that was opened this year, amounts to

approximately $180 million. Out of that $180 million, a total of $150 to $155 of

that $180 million go directly to municipalities in the way of grants, subsidies,

long-term debt payments on their behalf and so on.

In order for me to find the money in my budget to reduce or

to take I suppose, the part of the burden or the part of the share of the burden

that we have in regards to trying to balance our budget this year, I had no

other choice but to go to that $150 to $155 million allotment. The easiest thing

for me to do, Mr. Speaker, was to cut it out of the MOGs. There are several

other programs in my department that I haven't addressed yet, but at the time,

the easiest thing for me to do, was to spread the burden over the over 300

municipalities around the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. - Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, on a

supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, so the expression in the

minister's statement 'every available option was explored,' means nothing,

absolutely zero.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also stated in his announcement on

November 9th, and I quote: so that municipalities impacted would be in a

position to make the necessary changes as the elected municipal officials

prepare their 1996 budgets. What suggestions today, does the minister have for

the cash-strapped and recently governmentally-orphaned towns and communities in

this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it wasn't until the year of 1992

that this government and previous governments would announce to municipalities

what they were going to do in their budgets; it was this government that started

in 1992, to tell municipalities what to expect before Christmas, before

municipalities did their budgets. Previous governments, Mr. Speaker, would come

out the 31st of March, after the Budget was introduced and accepted in the House

of Assembly and then in the middle of the year, have to burden municipalities in

this Province with changes to MOGs and everything else, so I take exception, Mr.

Speaker, to the fact that we waited.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I did as the minister, what I had

promised municipalities in the Province I would do, that if there were going to

be changes they would have ample opportunity to make the necessary changes to

their budgets.

In answer to your second question, my hon. friend from

Waterford -Kenmount: What do they do? They do what we do as a government. They

sit down and they try to balance their budgets by making the necessary moves in

the Province like this government has to do, the federal government has to do

and now municipalities have to do. I say to the gentleman quite sincerely, I

understand. I feel the cut and the wound as much as they do. I understand what

they will have to go through in the next month in order to balance their

budgets, I do understand.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, what he has forced the

municipalities to do is do something that he himself and his government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has not recognized the hon. member yet.

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what the minister is doing is forcing the

municipalities of this Province to do something that his government does not

want to do and is afraid to do, that is namely raise taxes. Mr. Speaker, the

minister stated that he had let this information out now. I say to the minister,

I prepared twenty-three municipal budgets and I always knew the information. He

operates on selective amnesia, I say. Mr. Speaker, the minister stated on CBC

television that the current cuts to the MOGs was the beginning of the complete

cessation of the Municipal Operating Grant program. Will the minister today

confirm that his government has made a decision to drop the Municipal Operating

Grant program completely as he has said and if so, what are the expected time

frames involved?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I hope you remember that comment

that was just made and the suggestion from the hon. - the hon. member

representing, I would imagine, the leader and all the Opposition - to raise

taxes. Mr. Speaker, we have a retail sales tax -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you doing if you are not raising

taxes now? It's coming out of the same pockets.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be a part of

a government that is forced to raise the RST from the level that the Opposition

raised before 1989 to 12 per cent. I cannot, Mr. Speaker, put that burden on the

shoulders of every man, woman and child in this Province, I don't agree with it.

Mr. Speaker, he is right when he said that I made a comment

to the media. The media didn't cover my complete comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: The comment that I made in regard to the

elimination of the MOG was basically, as a personal comment, I wouldn't be

surprised that, in years to come, the MOG may disappear in the Province.

Honestly, I can assure the hon. member and every member of this House that the

MOG is certainly not going to be eliminated as long as this government sits on

this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West to

restrain himself, please.

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the late

Minister of Finance. Will the Minister of Finance admit that accountants who

scrutinized his government's Budget saw through it immediately, that accountants

readily concluded that despite the government's claims to the contrary, the

March Budget was never -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) brought to order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS VERGE: - the March Budget was never balanced.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know if I discern a question in the hon. member's

comment or not. She said the accountants who examined the government's Budget

saw through it immediately. I know of no accountants who have made that comment.

It is certainly clear that the government made a statement in its Budget that it

was going to balance it on the basis of, in some cases, one-time revenues, and

that would be a very difficult thing to repeat, but I know of no accountants and

I would be delighted to hear the names of them.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

Finance: How could you, or any member of your government, claim to balance the

Budget when you increased the total provincial debt by $80 million, by taking

$80 million out of the sinking fund that was supposed to be used to pay down the

provincial debt by $80 million? Did you not try to blindfold the devil in the

dark but get caught?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is obviously a danger of using clichs in the House or

near it. I said `smoke and mirrors' some weeks ago with respect to the manner in

which some of the employee decisions had been made in that the bureaucracy made

cuts at the front line rather than in the bureaucracy itself. I am now pleased

to hear the hon. the Leader of the Opposition echoing the Premier's comment,

`blindfolding the devil in the dark', but I will point out to the Premier when

he gets here in the next several days not to be so glib as I was with clichs.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, the Province, as the hon. the

Member for Mount Pearl knows - I notice he has the good sense not to ask the

question his Leader does - but the whole point of a balanced budget is it is

balanced on current and capital account. All a balanced budget is, is when your

statement of revenues and expenditures match each other. At any given time the

Province has $1 billion in a sinking fund to redeem past due indebtedness. It is

a proper accounting function. All the government did in presenting a budget to

the Province and to the members of this House was point out that in the current

year its revenues would meet its expenditures - that is all that meant -

including the cost of paying back monies that have been borrowed in previous

years.

As to the source of revenues, that was fully disclosed. What

the hon. member's comment is, I really don't understand. Either she doesn't

understand the method in which a province does its financing, or else she is

misrepresenting it.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

read page 11 of his own Budget document.

In announcing that the government is putting the boots to

municipalities by reducing municipal operating grants by 22 per cent, the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs - no heart, all Art - said that

municipalities can offset the loss by raising municipal taxes. I ask the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, what happened to your commitment that

the government would meet its fiscal objectives without raising taxes? Don't you

count a municipal tax increase as a tax increase?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is often said that things are more a matter of art than

science. Perhaps in this case, what was done in municipal affairs meets that

statement.

No, the hon. minister did say, I understand, I heard him on

the media to say that the municipalities could meet their own targets by raising

taxes. They can also cut expenditures, which is what we are attempting to

achieve. There is no obligation on any entity in this Province to raise its

taxes to meet its expenditures. The other alternative is to diminish

expenditures to meet what revenues you have available. There is certainly no

obligation on the municipalities in transferring some of the cuts we've had from

various sources to them to incur an obligation that we have to raise taxes.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you.

A supplementary to the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board. Aren't you now unfairly penalizing taxpayers - whether they are municipal

taxpayers or provincial taxpayers, they are the same people, and some of them

are leaving the Province - aren't you now unfairly penalizing our citizens for

your own government's scandalous and inept handling of the Province's finances?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker. The Province is attempting to

manage its own finances in a prudent manner. I think from the comments I've

heard on the media and from municipal officials and members of the general

public who reside in communities, people realize that we can no longer afford

the type of services we've had in the past.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. DICKS: That is true at the federal level, that is

true at the provincial level, that is true at the municipal level, and, with

respect to my learned friend for St. John's East Extern, it is also true in

other provinces. We see it happening in Ontario, where his good friends the

Conservatives are in power, and in Alberta. It is not a Newfoundland problem,

Mr. Speaker, it is a problem all across Canada. It is a problem in the

municipalities as well as the Province, and it is one that the federal

government has to deal with as well. Thank you.

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

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

to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. With the appointment of the

Cabot 500 Corporation, with the board members appointed by the government, and a

senior civil servant appointed to liaison with the Corporation and the public at

large, I would like to know today when, with all these checks and balances in

place, did the government lose control of the Cabot Corporation?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would have to

confess, I listened as best I could. I didn't understand the introduction and I

don't really understand the question. Because the last I heard was some

reference that the government may have lost control of the Cabot Corporation, or

something along those lines. No such thing ever occurred.

All we did in the last week or so was announce that we are

going to put our very best efforts in the future into having a significant

celebration in 1997 to commemorate the 500th year of John Cabot's voyage to the

shores in Newfoundland, and that we are going to try our best to have a

significant celebration without having a stand alone or Crown-related

corporation to run the celebration. We will try our best on behalf of the people

of the Province to have a significant celebration using the resources of the

Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, supplemented with some additional

staff that we will probably announce in a matter of a few days.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That worries me, when

the minister says about his best efforts. Echoing what was asked here last week,

I would like to ask the minister today: When can we see the actual costs, the

minute detail, of every copper spent on the Cabot Corporation from its

conception to its death?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, in meetings

that we've been having on an ongoing basis since the announcement a week or so

ago we are doing the final analysis now and preparing to bring a proposal back

to the government through Cabinet to consider this. On Thursday of this week and

at that point, once we have decided the scope of the celebration again we are

going to commit our best efforts to, on behalf of the people of the Province,

then we will release the information with respect to the details of the spending

to date of the corporation which is in the final stages of being dissolved. We

will also spell out for the people of the Province and for the Legislature, Mr.

Speaker, what we expect the continuing costs and the continuing financial

commitment of the provincial government to be on a go forward basis. Again, it

is our intent, Mr. Speaker, as I have stated repeatedly, and I expect that the

member opposite, as the Opposition critic for Tourism, Culture and Recreation

and all members of the House, despite the line of questioning and some comments

about myself, Mr. Speaker, do wish us well on behalf of the people of the

Province in having a significant event in 1997.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I wish this Province

well.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know for sure if the minister is

going to table the cost in this Chamber, also the cost to be tabled in this

Chamber of the complete winding down on severances, on office costs, on any

contract costs that are in there? I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, the cost of

Newfoundland's most expensive funeral?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand full well that the wish of the Opposition in the

last year or so, through their line of questioning as understood here and the

questioning that is understood in the Legislature, is that they really would

have hoped that we would have done this in some other way other than have a

corporation. We don't have a corporation any more. After our meeting on Thursday

I hope to be in a position of outlining exactly what the hon. member indicated,

Mr. Speaker, that we will tell exactly what was spent in terms of the period of

time from 1992, when the corporation was established, with the support of the

Opposition and with the support of the federal government in Ottawa that was a

different political stripe at that time and our federal representative was Mr.

Crosbie in the Cabinet - that changed of course in 1993. In the whole line of

questioning, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition has always been one of the groups that

has criticized the operation and functioning of the corporation. We have now

made a decision which was announced a week or so ago that the corporation will

become defunct, that we will go forward on a different basis. We will provide

the information in detail from 1992 to now and we will also provide the details

of how we expect to go forward. I am sure that the members opposite and

everybody in the Province will be completely satisfied with the disclosure of

the information, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs who is responsible for housing. The minister, in his

announcement with regard to the development of the Southlands subdivision talked

about it being a $370 million project. I wonder if he can tell me how much has

been spent up to date with regard to - in approximate figures of course - with

regard to land acquisition costs, design and engineering costs and also the

construction costs so far?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Quite a tall order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot,

right off the top of my head, tell you exactly but I will find it for the hon.

member and submit it to him here tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I cannot even give you an approximate figure

because I don't really know. Let me tell you about the acquisition of land, if

you are talking about the acquisition of land I would have to go back almost

twelve, fifteen years because that land was purchased by the previous

government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I am not sure. I will table it tomorrow for you

or I will provide it personally to you. Mr. Speaker, I don't know at this

particular point in time.

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

Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: I wonder if the minister can confirm that on

advertising alone this year NLHC has spent $250,000? Is he aware of that and can

he confirm that figure? If not that figure, what is the figure?

MR. SULLIVAN: On Southlands alone?

MR. A. SNOW: On Southlands.

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

Provincial Affairs?

MR. REID: I will certainly table it tomorrow, Mr.

Speaker. I don't know; I just don't know, I am sorry, I apologize for not having

that information but I will certainly get it for him as quickly as I can, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek, on a

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: I wonder if the minister can tell us what

the average selling price of these lots are, and how many have been sold so far,

this year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to maybe get

somebody to write down all these questions and send them to me and I will get

the answers to them?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would have had his answers and

could have done exactly what he did today, if he had asked me yesterday or last

week for these figures, knowing full-well that I can't, off the top of my head,

tell him these figures. I would have provided those for him and then he would

have had the opportunity to get up in the House and ask the same questions if he

wanted to. I will provide those figures. If the hon. member wants to give me a

list of some of the questions he has, put it on the Order Paper if you want to,

I will provide the answers gladly to you, within the next couple of days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek, on a supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I am sure he would be quite

capable of getting Hansard this afternoon or tomorrow morning and be able to get

the questions that I asked.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if he could tell this House, and

explain to the people of this Province - my understanding is that only one house

is built in that subdivision so far.

AN HON. MEMBER: Built on spec.

MR. A. SNOW: Built on speculation, I am told. One home is

being built in that subdivision so far, after the government has approved the

expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayers' dollars in that particular

subdivision. How can the minister justify this type of planning when he foisted

this property on the City of St. John's, how is that going to be cost-effective

in the operation of that subdivision with regard to municipal spending here in

this Province and more specifically, in this city?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, being a developer

himself, knows full well, that the Province of Newfoundland - his leader over

there has the Budget and if she can find any money in Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing for the cost of anything that is going in to that particular

subdivision, I would suggest that she should show him because there is nothing

there.

Mr. Speaker, I will provide the information tomorrow or the

next day, as soon as I can possibly get it to the hon. member and I will see

that I hand deliver it to you myself, personally.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek, on a final

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I would also like the minister

to justify to this House and to the people of this Province and tell them

exactly what he feels the public policy purpose or the function of this

corporation is in this particular Province today in spending these millions of

dollars of taxpayers money, when they are today out there building, Mr. Speaker,

building lots in the Southlands subdivisions while there are 4,000 building lots

for sale here in this city, there are 2,000 homes for sale in this city and yet

we have senior citizens in this Province who can't put a roof over their heads.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: How can he explain that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Maybe the hon. member would like to explain why

his is the only community in the Province that is not getting a cut in the MOG

grant this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the role of the Housing

Corporation since its inception, and I believe if I am not mistaken, it was -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you serious?

MR. REID: Yes, I am serious. Wabana and Torbay are the

only ones that are going to get an increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are two Tories.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the role of the Housing

Corporation has been in the past thirty years, to develop where possible and to

promote land development in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have

at the present time, over 10,000 units located around this Province that we

maintain through 85 per cent funding from the federal government. If we expand

into subdivisions, either in St. John's, Wabush, Labrador City or anywhere else,

it is for one reason and one reason only, and that is to make some money to put

back into social housing.

We have been doing that now and the mandate of the Housing

Corporation has been the same mandate for the last twenty-five years. If the

hon. member felt that way about Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, why didn't

he, prior to 1989, suggest to the former PC government to do away with

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing?

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Late

last Fall or early Winter we were debating changes to the Mineral Tax Act in

this Legislature in mid December. In the context of a significant rise in

exploration in the Province we had a significant jump in the fourth quarter of

claim staking, up to 18,000 claims staked in the fourth quarter and 10,000 of

those in November alone. We had that happening, Mr. Speaker, and we had the

minister describing the Voisey's Bay find, in his speech on the amendment to the

bill, as a major discovery. Given that context how can the minister justify at

that particular time revising downward the tax obligations on the mining

companies knowing full well what we had found in Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we made some very appropriate

changes last year, some changes that were approved in a Budget two years

previously and repeated in many places after that announcement. We promoted it

from coast to coast in Canada and elsewhere in this world, Newfoundland and

Labrador is a great place to come and explore for minerals. We put that message

out and we had the people come. They have come, and as of last week 285,887

claims in good standing and still continuing. Last week thirty-four applications

for exploration drilling approved, besides Voisey's Bay, and another twenty in

the chain going through the referral process.

Mr. Speaker, what we have been doing has worked in the last

few years, and what we are going to have to do in the future will continue to

work. The fact that we will have to make some adjustments, because nobody

dreamed that we would discover a deposit the size and richness of Voisey's Bay,

and we are going to make some appropriate changes relative to that. It has been

said at numerous times dating back to last May 24 and we are going to stand by

that. What we are going to do is something that is appropriated after due

consideration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if we might have leave to revert to Ministerial

Statements? I did have one I intended to make today. I can wait until tomorrow

if the House prefers not to.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: In September, Cabinet directed Newfoundland

Information Service -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: - with input from the Information Technology

Management Division of Treasury Board, to co-ordinate development of an Internet

World Wide Web Site for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. This site

is now being tested and is available to Internet users worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, our goals are to improve service to the public

by increasing awareness of provincial government programs and services, business

opportunities and tourism potential, to refine standards for collecting data and

to encourage a free flow of information to the public.

This site will enable Internet users to communicate with the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and enhance our existing means of

providing information to the public.

Mr. Speaker, while there is more work to be done, and more

information to be added to the site, we are pleased with the progress to date

and encourage people both inside and outside our Province to explore the

government's home page on the Internet.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me say that we welcome this

announcement. It is time the Government of Newfoundland got on the Internet. It

is the technology of today and tomorrow. The minister hasn't given us any idea

of what the cost might be to government. I ask that simply in view of the

cutbacks we are faced with now. I am sure it is probably not significant in

light of the overall cost of this sort of thing, and the benefits of being on

the Internet are well acknowledged. Let me simply point out to the minister, it

is time government got on the Internet. Opposition has been on the Internet now

for the last six weeks as a result of the initiative of our leader, and has been

a great source of information to the public, and the Opposition has been far

more accessible to the general public and many people have taken advantage of it

to communicate to us the problems they are having with government's policies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could we deal first with Motions 5 and 6? Those are first

readings, Sir.

On motion, the following bills read a first time, ordered

read a second time on tomorrow:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act And The

Electoral Boundaries Act". (Bill No. 31)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Executive Council". (Bill No.

32)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I know members are anxious to

see the bill, although there ought not to be any surprises in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: How could I compete, Mr. Speaker, with four

women and two men?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, my trouble is, I heard it; I didn't

believe any member could be in as bad taste as the gentleman, the Member for

Bonavista South was, to be quite candid.

Your Honour, would you go on, please, and call Order No. 20,

and if we dispose of that bill then we will deal with Order 22. Then, as I

announced the other day, if we get through that, we will begin debate on Motions

1, 2 and 4, but if you would first of all call, please, Order 20, which is Bill

No. 29.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act,

1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act, The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, The

Memorial University Pensions Act,

Chapter 18 Of The Statutes Of Newfoundland,

1993 And The Pensions Contributions Reduction Act". (Bill No. 29).

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The act, notwithstanding its

long title, is fairly

straightforward. It amends several of our - in fact all of our pension acts to

permit several things. Some of them are not of a substantive nature.

One thing, the easier part of it is, subclause 5, subsection

2 of the bill amends the Memorial University Pensions Act to enable employees of

the University to work beyond the normal thirty-five year maximum and to

continue making contributions to the pension plan until they achieve their

maximum pension accrual rate of 70 per cent. There is a problem, Mr. Speaker,

with some of the age restrictions, and this would enable them to continue making

contributions past their normal thirty-five year work span for government.

The other aspect of the matter addresses the period of time

for those workers who retired in 1993 and 1994 when the government had, in

effect, a pension contribution reduction scheme. What essentially this does is

it enables them to make the contributions to the pension plan that the employer

would have, thereby enabling them to receive their full pension.

I am sure, as members recall, when the option to try to deal

with some of our deficit problems in the last several years was chosen, this

particular option allowed the government not to make the pension contribution on

behalf of employees, I believe it was in a six-month period. Employees would

then have the option to either work the additional six months until they became

eligible for retirement at full pension, or to make the contributions. What we

have at the present time is an anomaly, in that people who retired in that

1993-1994 period before we made those regulations retired without being in a

position at that time to make a contribution. My understanding of the effect of

the act is that this will enable them to make that contribution and so receive

their full pension.

I am sure members have read it. The acts that are amended,

the provisions doing that, basically echo each other, and I would be pleased to

answer any questions on that aspect of it.

The final item is dealing with the teachers' pension plan.

Although this was negotiated with the teachers, I believe the act was not

amended, and it was necessary to do so in order to provide for reduction in

contributions for the 1995-1996 fiscal year. I should say that this is not a new

measure that would in any way herald what government intends to do in the

current fiscal year. This is addressing the arrangement that was made last

spring in order to bring our Budget forward at that time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister points out, this is a

long title and it

appears to be a very complex bill, but, in effect, it is not really all that

complex. It does have some implications, however.

First of all, the first

section of the bill deals with

replacing contribution reductions. Let us simply remind the House that what we

are talking about here is the way in which government sought to balance its

Budget, or at least to reduce its deficit a couple of years ago, by reducing the

amount of contribution that was made on behalf of its employees. This was

discussed with the unions at the time and thought to be the course of least

resistance, I suppose, the least painful of the remedies available for the

difficulties being faced at the time. I am just wondering, is this not one of

the options that are being looked at for this year, in trying to find the $60

million problem the minister has told us he has for the balance of this fiscal

year, and a much larger problem that he is going to be faced with, no doubt, for

next year. Are we looking at reducing pension contributions once again?

It is simply another way of reduction in the amount of

salaries and benefits paid to employees, by any other form. It is simply a

reduction of benefits, whether you take it from salaries or you take it from

pensions. Of the various options that are available. Some have greater benefits,

some greater problems than others. What we are doing here is simply making it

possible for those persons who were affected by that to replace that loss so

that their pension doesn't suffer, and they are paying for it themselves rather

than government paying for it.

In effect, it is a reduction in salary but it is not; you are

transferring - if they lost $1,000 in pension benefits they take it out of their

salary after taxes and pay it back. It wouldn't even be after taxes, because it

would be considered as a pension contribution so it would be a non-taxable

benefit - a tax deduction at income tax time. It is simply a way of masquerading

a cut in salary or a cut in benefits by any other name. So that

section simply

puts that in place for teachers, as the minister said. It is straightforward; it

has been negotiated and provides the reduction for the 1995-'96 fiscal year for

teachers.

Clause 5(2) deals with the University. I am a little curious

as to why we are so anxious to have persons in the University allowed to stay

there beyond thirty-five years. It would seem to me that most of them want to

go. In fact, teachers in this Province fought long and hard to get the `thirty

and out' rule and now the government is trying to defer that a little bit so

that they don't go on pensions so quickly. They are trying to up that -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They're not doing that in here, are

they?

MR. WINDSOR: That is not in here, it is for Memorial

University. So that university professors and instructors can work beyond

thirty-five years. Well, you would think that this minister, in trying to create

some employment in the Province and reduce costs at the same time, social costs,

would be perhaps proposing an early retirement scheme. I am wondering, has the

minister looked at that as one of the options to deal with the financial

problems at the moment? That transfers bodies from the government payroll to the

pension plan which has its own long-term problems; nevertheless, it is a way of

a short-term solution to financial problems for the minister, providing he

doesn't replace these employees, of course. We, in fact, put such a proposal in

place a number of years ago to deal with financial problems, and a number of

public servants took advantage of it at the time and retired early. They took

advantage of the package that was presented. It was a reasonable package, deemed

to be reasonable at the time, both by government and by the employees. It was a

way of reducing the number of permanent employees on the payroll, reducing the

costs of the overall government operation and allowing those persons to move

into other areas of endeavour, in the private sector or whatever or simply just

to retire a little early.

I have no doubt there are probably hundreds of persons in the

public service now, Mr. Speaker, who, if such an offer were made to them, might

well avail of it. It may be a way of eliminating some of the pain that the

minister is probably considering. In fact, I have no doubt he is considering

massive lay-offs in the public sector at the moment, persons who are probably at

the bottom end of the scale and probably don't have enough pension built up, not

eligible for pension and have maybe very few options of employment available to

them as well. So the minister might like to consider that as a very real option,

far less painful than simply eliminating people. Now, the benefits come a little

more slowly because there are certain benefits that have to be paid immediately

and so forth, but certainly, that would be a solution for the next years budget.

He may not be able to implement it quickly enough to receive real benefits this

year. In fact, it may even cost him a dollar in this fiscal year, but the

benefits will be very real and very much realized in 1996-'97. So it is an

option to eliminating jobs entirely and leaving persons without any source of

income and support for their families. Mr. Speaker, an early retirement program

might be one that the minister would like to consider.

The real objective of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is to legitimize

what was done and what was agreed a couple of years ago, which was to allow

persons who voluntarily took the cuts in the pension contributions - to them,

the least painful alternative open to them at the time - to allow them to

contribute government's share to their pension plan so that, in fact, their

pensions didn't suffer and they didn't suffer comparatively or respectively for

the rest of their lives once they actually retired and went on pension, Mr.

Speaker.

So with that, I will leave that for now and maybe the

minister will address these questions when he speaks in closing the debate a

little later today.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak for a few minutes on Bill 25 - the minister

will have his chance to stand up and close debate on it - but before I do, Mr.

Speaker, it would be hard for me not to acknowledge the financial situation that

many people in this Province find themselves in today and the financial

situation that is going to be placed upon them by the Federal Government. And

while this may have nothing to do with the bill at the moment, I say to the

minister, I will come back to that in a few moments because on a finance bill I

understand that I can basically speak about anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 29 (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Sorry, just give me a moment.

Mr. Speaker, the reality that many Newfoundlanders find

themselves in today will be quite different from the reality that many

Newfoundlanders will find themselves in in the future, the very near future. The

down-loading that is occurring in transfer payments, the reduction of transfer

payments in this Province, the significant impact that is going to have, we are

seeing it right now in the reduction of municipal operating grants; many

councils in this Province will not be able to operate. It is my prediction that

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will, in fact, be de facto

mayor of thirty or forty municipalities by this time next year, because they

will, in effect, be bankrupt. Many municipalities, towns in rural Newfoundland,

will not be able to find individuals to run for council office. These are the

harsh realities that this government has placed upon the towns, and thus, the

citizens of the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to say on your left hand

that you will not be raising taxes and it is another thing to put municipalities

into a situation whereby their only means of survival would be to raise taxes.

The reality is, taxes are raised, and the consumer and the taxpayer are exactly

the same person. That is the reality of it. What led the government to do what

they are doing? Financial restraint, not enough revenues coming into the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, revenues have been down, Special Warrants

written after the Budget was passed last year.

Mr. Speaker, again, reality. Revenues are down in this

Province because this government has failed to deliver an election promise of

1989, it has failed to deliver what it got elected on. It has failed to create

the type of economy that is attractive to business in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It has failed to create or maintain the jobs that existed in this Province. In

this city alone over the last two years, some 2,500 to 3,000 jobs have

disappeared directly, related to government, and we are about to see many, many

more in the next two to three months, maybe even as early as next week.

Sooner or later, we have to realize that the people we are

laying off, the lack of attention we are paying to business, the lack of

attention we are paying to the economy in creating a feeling of energy and

creating a feeling of hope, as opposed to a feeling of hopelessness, the impact

that is having on the Province is significant, and, Mr. Speaker, that is only

dealing with transfer payments. Two years ago the Federal Government announced

changes to the UI Act, basically eliminating $260 million per year coming in to

the people of this Province, net incomes, basic incomes keeping people alive,

taxpayers paying taxes, people buying groceries, etc., $260 million a year, and

at the same time they announced the TAGS program, but the exact amount of money

that was coming in, left it, $260 million a year taken out of the UI fund and

hauled out of this Province.

What have we seen this year in rollbacks in transfer

payments? About $111 million, I say to my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl.

That is $371 million in the last eighteen months to two years that the Federal

Government have snatched away from the taxpayers and from the people of this

Province. What will we see next year? We will see another $150 million taken out

of the economy by loss of transfer payments. What will we see when Minister

Axworthy stands in his place in the House of Commons and announces reforms to

the UI fund? We will see an additional $250 to $300 million taken out of the

back pockets of the people who can least afford it, the average Newfoundlander

and Labradorian.

And this government stands by and the Premier's only response

is: If and when I become Prime Minister, only then will I be able to direct the

situation in a different manner. Can you imagine? Then he has the gall to stand

up and say he is not taking a detached academic approach to the situation? My

God, the situation, Mr. Speaker, dealing just with the UI fund alone is that the

UI fund in Canada this year, is operating on a surplus. It operated on a surplus

last year and yet, people in this Province, through no fault of their own, who

are seasonally employed whether in construction and the industries related to

construction, whether that be in mining, forestry, aquaculture, the fishery,

those are the people who will be penalized for going out, taking an aggressive

approach to finding a job, finding a job, paying taxes and due to circumstances

beyond their control, there is no work throughout the whole yearlong, for

climate more than anything else, there is no work.

For example, Mr. Speaker, in the construction industry for

the most part between the months of November and April, climate conditions in

this Province, in northern Canada in which we live, do not permit it but yet,

Mr. Speaker, what we will see will be an attack on the average worker in this

Province, the likes of which have never been seen in this Province before, and

yet we hear silence.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has met with

Minister Axworthy many times. He has indicated to the House of Assembly here

that he has put the Province's case before Minister Axworthy, that he feels that

the minister understands, all I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, put your case before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and let

them know what you are doing, because you are not doing anything at the moment

and neither is the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, we are facing a situation in this Province when

the way and type of life that we have lived, and the quality of life that we

have lived is not going to increase, it is not even going to be maintained; that

all of us as a result of federal government policies, dictated by extreme,

extreme right-wing agenda in the country, will have very serious consequences on

this Province, and while there may not be a resettlement program, or while it

may not be any of our members, any of the fifty-two members intentions in this

House to see resettlement occur, the reality is, that it will.

When we reduce services, when we put municipal councils in a

position where they can't provide services, where taxes can't be raised because

75 per cent to 80 per cent of people in communities are unemployed, and you

cannot get blood from a turnip, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible. It is impossible.

When we see jobs disappear before our eyes, thousands of them, then the reality

is we have to look at what type of life and what type of province will be left

to manage, and that is what we, as legislators here, and that is what we as

people in the Province have to come to grips with, and come to grips with it

very, very fast.

Has this government stood up for the people of the Province?

That's the question that must be asked, have they? Not to the extent which they

should have, is my response; not to the extent which they should have. It is a

serious, serious situation that is developing, more serious than anybody cares

to imagine and more serious than anybody on that side of the House, in

particular the Cabinet is willing to articulate to the people of this Province,

and there will come a time, Mr. Speaker, in the very near future, when the

electorate will have their say on the last four years or three years and they

will speak loud and clear. But the reality is that many of the members sitting

on the front bench there right now will not be around. Many of the members who

are in Cabinet will not be around to hear that because they will be gone, their

jobs done, pensions in their back pockets and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't count on that.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

says: don't count on that. I, as a new member of this House don't count that but

I can assure the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board that some of his

colleagues are counting on it, I can guarantee you that and he will not make any

moves dealing with the pensions or reform of pensions as it affects members of

this House until, Mr. Speaker, some on the front bench and some of the members

in Cabinet are able to resign at their own leisurely time with their pensions

intact.

With that I will sit down.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like a few

words on this pension's bill, which is essentially a bill to give effect to

certain changes already brought about as a result of previous budget

constraints.

The Opposition Leader today, in Question Period, indicated

that the Budget that was brought down last spring, the Budget that we are

currently under, was not a balanced Budget even though it was described so by

Mr. Baker, the outgoing Member for Gander, the former Minister of Finance.

I remember sitting in this Chamber when the minister

delivered his Budget statement. It was very short on specifics, but there were a

number of grandiose statements in it, among which was the famous statement that

we have achieved, this year, on current account, a balanced Budget.

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Liberal Party thumped their

desks in absolutely joyous applause at the concept of a balanced Budget, the

first time we have ever seen it. Members of the Opposition, at the time,

indicated that we did not believe the Budget was actually balanced, that the

government had taken advantage of certain one-time windfalls of money, the sale

of certain assets, et cetera, to bring the books into balance, but I don't think

there was any doubt among members of this House, and certainly members of the

financial community who view the financial records of this government, who give

this government its credit rating, there was no doubt among those people that

while the books may have been balanced, the finances of this particular

government were not balanced at all, and we see, of late, the new Minister of

Finance coming in and indicating to this House and to the people of the Province

that our so-called balanced Budget is out by some $60 million.

Now we are getting into a situation where we have to come up

with $60 million or so to take care of the problem for the remainder of this

fiscal year. The last third or quarter of this fiscal year we have to come up

with $60 million, and presumably numbers of a similar or larger amount on an

ongoing basic into the new fiscal year, 1996-'97. This is what you get when you

manage the government by the seat of your pants, when you manage it without

planning, when you manage it running from crisis to crisis.

What we are having to do now is put a broad axe to the

various budget subheads in the government, including this Assembly, I would say,

instead of having earlier on, when we realized we were in some significant

trouble, using a scalpel, making cuts where cuts made sense, making cuts to

government itself and not making cuts in services to people and cuts in

personnel who serve people. We have seen a prime example of that in the health

care system where the top echelons of the bureaucracy appear to go unscathed and

the workers serving the general public, the nursing assistants, the nurses,

family practitioners, various technical people in the hospitals who have to

provide services to the general public, their staff budgets, their operations

budgets, have been cut to the bone at a time when the call on the health care

system due to the stresses of our everyday life is increasing the ability of

that system to respond on a front-line basis to the needs of our citizens is

dropping every day. This is as a result of poor planning, poor use of the

resources available to us.

Now, as I indicated, at this stage of this fiscal year we

have to come up with significant savings in the order of $60 million just to get

us through this year, and one has to wonder what is coming next, but obviously

there really has not been any kind of a structural approach to the financial

problems of the Province by this government. They have simply been content over

the years to slice willy-nilly, or little bits and pieces here, but there has

been no real attack on what money we have available, what services we have to

provide to people, and how do we make the necessary adjustments to do so. As a

result, we are seeing considerable grief and pain in the governmental sector,

and a significant cutback in services to the general public without any rhyme or

reason to what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, much has been said in this Assembly as well

about this government's approach to pending transfer cuts from the federal

government. Whatever you want to say about the feds, Mr. Speaker, they've been

using a scalpel in their approach. They've picked out certain sectors of

governmental activity and they've decided as a policy that this is going, that

is going, this may be increased, this is going to be decreased. National defence

is under the gun, the UI program is under the gun, transfers to the provinces

are under the gun. All of these three categories are a deliberate policy

initiative of the national government, but as a result a poor province such as

this one will take a disproportionate hit.

One of the problems we have with this government being of the

same political stripe as the government in Ottawa is that it is not saying much

except that it understands that the feds have decided to devastate defence, it

understands that the feds have decided to embark on a social engineering

experiment whereby it says that seasonal work UI is no longer a viable lifestyle

in this nation of Canada and it is to be eliminated from Canada. If that

eliminates Newfoundland and Labrador as a viable province, then tough luck to

you guys.

That is what the federal government has said. It is a clearly

stated policy initiative. To its credit, it has said it straight out. But not to

the credit of this government. It hasn't said much about that policy initiative

and the devastating effects it is going to have. I saw an editorial in today's

Evening Telegram where they said if this is the way the federal

government is going on with it, then we down here shouldn't be fighting the cuts

in the UI. With respect, I have to disagree with that editorial stance. The job

of a provincial government is to stand up for the government and the people of

the Province, for the budget of the Province. This particular government has not

stood up. It has been overly understanding of cuts that the federal people are

coming forward with.

It is not the job of the Premier of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador to say there is absolutely nothing he can do about

federal cutbacks in this Province unless he were prime minister of Canada. Right

now he is elected Premier of this Province. Until such time as he is elected

prime minister of Canada he would do well to use his own office to fight those

changes that are negative to this particular Province. Instead he just wishes he

were prime minister so that he could direct the expenditures of the national

government.

I sat in the gallery when I was an employee of the former PC

Administration and I watched the Liberal party in Opposition. When Brian

Peckford was premier he took on Joe Clark, he took on Pierre Trudeau, he took on

Brian Mulroney. Even when he took on Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney the Liberal

Party in Opposition, all it could scream was: You are being easy on your federal

cousins. Now we've not only got federal cousins on the go here, we've got

kissing cousins. It is so close it is almost incest. Yet at the same time they

sit quietly, they don't open their mouths, they don't say a word! They haven't

said a word since coming to power. When the federal Tories were in they did have

a fair bit of criticism for the feds, but once the federal Liberals got in their

relationship was too tight, too cosy, and the Province has suffered as a result.

The defence cuts that came down the other day. George Baker

is one of the few Liberal MPs who has spoken up against some of the cuts coming

our way, in stark contrast to the Liberal government of the Province. I heard

Mr. Baker on the open line the other day when it was put to him: You've been a

maverick in the federal Liberal Party, you've been pointing out these

devastating cuts for Newfoundland, wouldn't you be better off sitting as an

independent or joining the PCs or joining the Reform or joining the Bloc or

joining someone, so that you would be in a better position even still to

criticize this government? Then Mr. Baker very quickly pointed out that he was a

lifelong Liberal and he couldn't operate except within the Liberal context.

This is the same Mr. Baker who recently made all these

disclosures on defence who saved the electoral bacon of the new Member for

Gander, who spent eight or ten hours on the phone personally dragging out the

vote on Election Day in Gander, knowing full well what was coming in terms of

defence, knowing full well what was coming but biding his time, biting his lip,

until such time as the Gander by-election was over. While Mr. Baker may enjoy

playing the Maverick, Mr. Speaker, he is, like above all else, to be a Liberal,

my Party first, my province, my country second, that has always been the

motivation. What astounds me as a provincial politician, Mr. Speaker, is that

this Liberal Party, both in Opposition and in government, have said: my Party

first, my province second, even though it is a provincial party, and my country

comes - My Party first, my country second, my province third. It is somewhat

passing strange that a provincial party puts the interest of the nation ahead of

the interest of the province in terms of what it says and what it does with

regard to expenditures impacting negatively on this Province.

Mr. Speaker, there is another Liberal in this nation who has

received resounding applause from the Liberal benches opposite. I mentioned

earlier the former Minister of Finance when he brought down his `smoke and

mirrors' Budget. Some time ago, we saw the minister stand and make a very

glowing public statement in this House with regard to Brian Tobin, the federal

fisheries minister and how he chased the Spanish off the high seas and got a big

round of applause from the government benches opposite, only some weeks and

months later to find out that in so doing, we sold our souls to the Spanish, we

gave them back their boat, we released the crew, the fish that we confiscated

and put in a warehouse, we put on a boat and shipped it back to Spain at a cost

of $40,000 or $50,000.

We even had the net that we brought down to the United

Nations and made a big display of, Mr. Speaker - the federal fisheries

department wanted to display that at the C & E Exhibition in Toronto, and the

Spanish Embassy got on it and that had to be taken down in the middle of the

night, because we didn't dare aggravate or embarrass the Spanish Embassy or the

Spanish government. So what we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a game, an incidence

of smoke and mirrors, Mr. Tobin, on taking on the Spanish. Where is our Cabinet

minister in the Federal Government with all these cuts coming in matters of

Defense, UI and transfer payments? As a member of the Cabinet, he has done very

little, he hasn't anything near the clout that the former minister, John Crosbie

or former, former minister, Don Jamieson had in terms of having a presence in

the federal Cabinet to mitigate some of these negative effects on this Province.

Nothing, Mr. Speaker, we have heard nothing from him on that whatsoever. So he

hasn't said anything on transfers, he hasn't said anything on UI, he hasn't said

anything on Defense, and as I said, George Baker has said a little, but only in

the context that he must always, until the day he dies, remains a Liberal,

because being a Liberal and a member of the Liberal Party, for most of these

people, appears to be the first and foremost goal in life. The be-all and

end-all of political existence is remaining a Liberal. They were like it in

Opposition; they are like it now in government, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What bill are you on?

MR. HEWLETT: The Finance bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we have is a Liberal Party that, on a

particular issue back in the 1960s, got a big name for itself as a sell-out

party in terms of Churchill Falls. They did a bad job there, they got a bad

reputation for it and after twenty-three years in power, they got the flick,

electorally, and that was the focus of public dismay with regard to that

government, the Churchill Falls issue.

In Opposition, Mr. Speaker, they did nothing but carry the

Federal-Liberal line whenever they could, attack the P.C. government for not

being tough enough on the feds; the P. C. government that took on the feds,

regardless of political stripe, and now in office, Mr. Speaker, they again are

in bed with the Federal Liberals and are not standing up for the people of this

Province.

Something I pointed out very early in the term of this

government, Mr. Speaker - basically, you know, they say a picture is worth a

thousand words. When this Assembly was in the Chamber up in the tower, and our

party went from the government common room to the Opposition common room, I had

the opportunity some months later, during the Christmas party to drop in to the

government common room, and our common room was hung with various sorts of

pictures and notices and the usual bric-a-brac, I suppose, that might be common

in a government office, but what struck me as extremely strange, more than

passing strange, extremely strange, Mr. Speaker, was that the government common

room under the new Premier Wells, was hung with pictures of federal-Liberal

prime ministers. I found that astounding.

When I was Chief of Staff in Brian Peckford's Premier's

Office, and when we remodelled, one of the first things we did was hang a

photograph of Joey Smallwood on the wall as the first Premier since

Confederation. We hung Joey, we hung Frank Moores and we had a picture of the

current Premier, Mr. Peckford. The first thing this government did was get rid

of all - Thou shalt have no other gods before me; I do believe the first

commandment is, and he took it quite literally. Joey's picture came down, and

the only gods that were allowed on the wall were federal Liberal prime

ministers. I think that sums up very much the ilk, the attitude, of this

particular Liberal government, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Would the hon. member yield for a question?

Where are you talking about all these pictures hanging?

AN HON. MEMBER: You should have been listening.

MR. FUREY: I was listening and I'm trying to - he is

saying on the Eighth floor?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Oh, I'm sorry.

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

MR. HEWLETT: With regard to photographs, Mr. Speaker, in

the Eighth floor office, as remodelled by Premier Peckford, renamed unofficially

`Buckingham Porch' by the Member for Port de Grave; we hung pictures of former

premiers, which I gather, bit the dust as soon as the current Premier came to

office.

Then as I said, when I had an opportunity to visit the new

government's common room, when our Assembly was up in the old Chamber, that

common room was adorned with pictures of federal Liberal prime ministers. So it

shows the priority. Even a provincial Liberal premier named Smallwood was not

hung in the common room of this new Liberal government. It showed a total

preoccupation with the feds. Obviously, it showed where the Premier's mind-set

was.

When he replied to a question the other day from the Leader

of the Opposition, his only response was: I really can't do anything about that

unless I were Prime Minister of Canada. The man nearly - I'm sure he cried

himself to sleep the night that Mr. Chrtien got the leadership and went on to

become Prime Minister. Up until then we are given to understand that the man was

actually taking French lessons with a genuine desire to abandon this Province to

its fate and become the prime minister of the nation.

What we have is a Liberal Party which, through either its

federal representative in the Canadian Cabinet, or through the Cabinet ministers

down here who have not stood up for the interests of this Province, put the

interests of the Liberal Party first, the interests of the Liberal Party of

Canada second, and we, as a province, and the people they are primarily supposed

to serve, come last.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take a few minutes to speak to Bill No. 29,

An Act

To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, et cetera.

I was tempted to interrupt the hon. the Member for Green Bay

when he was speaking, but I said what I would do was I would make some notes,

and I would get up and make a few comments in retaliation on the points the hon.

member was trying to make. One of the first things I noted that he said was:

This government is not standing up for the people of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. He has a right to his opinion. No matter how wrong it

may be, he has a right to it. I'm going to take a couple of minutes to tell you

how we are standing up for the people of this Province.

I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to speak to a

small group of high school students who are taking democracy class. One question

that one of the students asked me was: Why does government have so many

cutbacks? Why is government always closing down, talking about closing down,

always cutting back and laying off? Why is it that you fellows are doing that?

I said: That is a matter of choice. We don't have to do that.

But I will give you one or two choices and let you make up your mind if we are

doing the right thing. I took a piece of chalk and I wrote on the blackboard

what the former government left this Province in debt to - in excess of $7

billion. Out of that - and I'm not going to quote exact figures - comes about

$585 million a year in interest.

MR. FUREY: And he wants us to hang Frank Moores

(inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: And he wants to hang Moores.

The students started to get interested. We owe $7.2 billion;

we pay out $585 million a year in interest. I said: That has to come from your

parents' tax dollars. Those are tax dollars that we collect from your parents,

we've got to pay away almost $600 million in interest charges each and every

year before we spend a cent on health, transportation, education or any other

service that you require in this Province.

Now, the easiest thing for a politician to do in this world

is to spend money. If I want to become popular out in my district, or if I want

to become popular in the Province, all I have to do is spend, spend, spend; give

everything to the people that they want. Now, how do you do that? You can only

do it with money. If they want new roads, new hospitals, new schools, and all

the new things, there is only one answer, you have to do it with money. Now, the

fishery is closed down; there are fewer people working; there are less taxes

coming in. Ottawa is cutting, and we owe over $7 billion, so there is only one

way you can get it; you go borrow it.

I said to the students: We will go borrow it. I want to get

re-elected, we want to get re-elected, you want us to do everything to make you

happy, so we will borrow and we will spend it. Now, at the end of the next

election, when the next election comes up at the end of this term - in taking

over we owed $7 billion and we will increase it to, let's say, $9 billion,

borrow another $2 billion; now, that means that in four years we have borrowed

another $2 billion, and that means we have to pay another $200 million or $300

million a year interest charges, minimum, on top of the $585 million that we are

already paying, and we will do that for two or three terms. Then, when we are

finished with the government, when your parents or the voters of this Province

decide to vote us out, the debt has gone from $7 billion to $14 billion. Now, we

have doubled the debt of the Province because we wanted to make everybody happy

so we would get re-elected. We would have built some pickle factories, some

cucumber farms, and all of these silly things. Now, who has to pay for that

debt? Look at the Page, the young people, and look at the few young people in

the gallery. When they become educated and they get out to work, they will be

responsible to pay the loans that we, as irresponsible, drunken sailors, spent

the money in this Province and put us $14 billion in debt.

That is what the former government did. What we are doing is

standing up for the young people of this Province. We are not going to allow the

debt to grow. We are going to try, number one, to provide the best service we

can within our financial means. We are going to try to provide some kind of a

sensible financial picture for the future of this Province that the young people

can have at least a decent future where they can make their own decisions and

not have to worry and to raise money to pay off what former governments

irresponsibly spent, and that is the way the hon. members thought over on that

side for seventeen years in government - never thought about the future, never

thought about what somebody else would have to pay back, as long as they kept

the voters happy. That was their only concern, as long as they could get

re-elected, spend the money, pave roads, buy new equipment, build new buildings,

anything to get a vote; and who pays the piper?

Some day, some time, somebody has to pay the bill, and I do

not want to be part of any government - any government - that is going to put a

debt load on the future children, the future generation, of this Province, and

that is what they are trying to do, put a debt load on the young people of this

Province, who will spend their whole lives paying off the debt that we, as

foolish politicians, irresponsible politicians, made. And that's what it is all

about.

Running a government is no different from running a household

or business. If you take in $2,000 a month, you can't spend $4,000. If you spend

$4,000 your debt will go up, and at some point in time the bank manager is going

to say, `no more'. And that is what the banks are saying to all governments in

the world, `no more'. Now, just imagine if that crowd on that side were over

here today, and they kept spending like they did for seventeen years. What a

mess we would be in!

Now, let me tell you about Brian Peckford, standing up and

shouting and bawling for the people of this Province, taking on his own

government in Ottawa. Do you remember the factory-freezer trawlers? Remember all

the shouting and bawling and we, as Opposition people, told him the

factory-freezer trawlers would destroy the fishery of this Province? And he took

on his great enemies up in Ottawa, and he was going to stop it, and he took off

his coat and slammed it on the floor. Well, what happened to the factory-freezer

trawlers? They went to the Grand Banks, Mr. Speaker, and today we have no

fishery. We have no fishery because of the brain-storming of the former

government and the Mulroney crowd in Ottawa and John Crosbie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: That is what fighting done. At least Brian

Tobin had the courage to take them on and get rid of them. At least he had the

courage. At least they are not out there now fishing. And the reason why every

Newfoundlander today is depending on hand-outs from somewhere else in Canada is

because you shagged up the fishery and you have to take responsibility for it.

That is what standing up for the Province is all about, Mr. Speaker. That type

of attitude got us to the point where we do not know if we are going to have any

future in this Province. We don't know if there is any future left for this

Province. Somebody should read the book that was recently written about the

former Prime Minister, about the kind of corruption that was in this country,

why we owe three-quarters of a trillion dollars debt load in this country and

they want to borrow more, they want to spend more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is not up. I am just

calling for order, that's all. This afternoon it is beginning to sound like a

hockey game. The hockey game is at the stadium tonight. So I suggest that hon.

members should get tickets.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest hon. members should listen. They would be very wise

to listen. All they have to do - if you don't want to listen to me this

afternoon and you don't want to learn about corruption, sit down and watch

The Fifth Estate this evening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: You talk about corruption; you talk about

spending taxpayers' money. It would make your pickle factory look like a pickle

jar, what is going on tonight. `Bev's Dip' would stand up with pride compared to

what is going on tonight but, Mr. Speaker, we have to pay for what has happened

in the past. What we are doing as a government who are responsible, we are not

only responsible for what is going to happen in the Province today, we care

about the future of the Province. We care about the youth of our Province. We

want them to have a fighting chance to be able to make their own decisions, a

matter of choice, not to have to pay off our debt, not to have to pay off our

silly mistakes. They want to be able to look into the future and make a choice;

live in this Province and make a decision and make a choice to do the things

they want to do, to build with the future. Mr. Speaker, that has been the

problem with governments of the past, they have never cared about the future.

They have cared personally about themselves, about voting day and what they can

do to keep the voters in this Province happy. I want to say in conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, that I am proud to belong to a government who care about the future of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, if we ever heard from

somebody who said one thing, one day and the opposite the next day, we have just

heard it, `Standing up and fighting for Newfoundlanders.' The hero, Mr. Speaker,

a few years ago when he was kicked out of Cabinet - how he was going to fight

for, stand up for the fisherpersons of this Province. Have we heard one word,

Mr. Speaker, about the thousands who have been cut out of TAGS? Has the minister

spoken on that issue? Not a word, Mr. Speaker. He is a wimp, that's what the

minister is, a wimp.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in 1992 there was $1.1 billion

spent by the Federal Government on the UI program in this Province. Now the

unemployed, Mr. Speaker, there are more unemployed in 1994 than there were in

1992 and this year they spent $645 million. Where is the hero now, Mr. Speaker?

Why did he not stand up and fight for the people who are being cut off the UI?

Not a word, Mr. Speaker, not a whimper. He talked about the debt that is being

mounted in this Province, and he went on to say that we are paying over $600

million on the interest. Mr. Speaker, we are paying $541 million on the interest

and the other $60 million you are leaving out, the Minister of Finance would

love to have right now I say to the minister. He talked about debt, but did we

hear him complaining when they spent millions of dollars to try and privatize

Newfoundland Hydro? What did he say about that, Mr. Speaker? What did he say

about the millions that were just spent on the referendum in this Province? Did

anybody hear him say anything on that? What did he say about Trans City, the

hospitals in this Province?

Mr. Speaker, the largest single deficit ever compiled in this

Province in one year was done by the Wells administration of which that minister

was then a part, the largest single deficit in the history of this Province.

Where was he then?

MR. E. BYRNE: Ask him what the Liberal Party said when

Peckford wanted to call a year's moratorium on the northern cod allowance in

1981? What did the Liberals over in the Opposition say at that point? What did

John Efford say (inaudible) Port de Grave? He told Brian Peckford he was nuts.

Did you not? In 1981 when the Peckford Administration called for a moratorium on

the northern cod allowance what did you say then? Everybody in this Province

told him he was nuts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this minister was part of the

biggest charade this House has even seen, and he allowed it to happen more than

anyone, because the balanced Budget this year, that was announced some time ago,

it was balanced because he was prepared to give away the money from the

Southcoast ferries that was brought in by the federal government. He sold out on

that, Mr. Speaker. You talk about hypocrisy; you talk about standing up to fight

for Newfoundlanders. Every day he was going after Cashin, he was going after

somebody. Then he talked about Brian Tobin, the only battle that was won. Every

single bill that was incurred with the arrest of that vessel, the Estai, was

paid for by the taxpayers of this country and now they are being sued.

They returned the fish, they returned the boat, they returned

everything and not a whimper from the Member for Port de Grave. He talked about

Peckford and the factory freezer trawlers and all of that, Mr. Speaker. This

government has brought in a very dangerous policy in my opinion, and that is,

where fish is caught in this Province it must be processed in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's bad, is it?

MR. TOBIN: No, but one of these days 3PS is going to be

opened. One of these days there is going to be a quota in 3PS and I am sure that

the fishermen of the South and Southwest Coast will be glad to hear it, the same

as fishermen in other parts of the Province are glad to hear that their areas

are open. That is what is going to happen. Then, I wonder where will the Member

for Port de Grave be?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: You know what I am talking about. I look

forward to 3PS opening and hopefully it might be next year.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: All you will be able to do is look at it

and drool. If you want to see a revolution, try it.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if they ever came

after it or not but I know that the fishermen on the South Coast went to

Labrador and fished for years because the fishermen on the South Coast of this

Province fished twelve months a year. They did not go out when the weather was

fine. They did not go out when they could see clothes lines on the back of the

House. They did not go out when the sun was shining. They went out in January,

February and March.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: They went out in January and February and

March, and the scars are there to prove it. Look at the crew of the Blue Foam -

AN HON. MEMBER: Blue Mist.

MR. TOBIN: I am sorry, the Blue Mist and the

Blue Wave . Look at the crews of those vessels.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't even know the names of the

boats.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I do. I know Charlie Walsh was skipper of

one and Stewart Price was skipper of the other, I say to members opposite, but I

can tell you they were the people who we grew up with on the South Coast of this

Province. They were the people we hardly knew, because they didn't walk the

roads after September. They were beating the ice. They were froze to death. They

were starving to death. They were hard-working, dedicated, Newfoundlanders, true

and blue fishermen. That is what they were.

The Member for Port de Grave can get up here and talk about

what he likes, but I can tell him one thing; you cannot get on with trying to be

the hero one day, trying to save the fishery, save the fisherpersons in this

Province when you are in the back benches, and become a wimp the next day, and

give up the ghost when you become a member of Cabinet. You cannot have it both

ways, I say to the Member for Port de Grave.

Mr. Speaker, there are other issues that have to be discussed

here. I remember back when the Member for Port de Grave was in the Opposition,

and the Government of Newfoundland never spent enough money in its history to

please the Member for Port de Grave. He wanted buildings built; he was on

television with the CBC when the CBC gave him a forum to discuss the health

care, himself and the member for the Straits. They went over with their buddies

from the CBC, at that big forum, and he crucified John Collins, who was then the

Minister of Health, because they were not spending enough money in health care.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The Member for the Straits and the Member for

Port de Grave. CBC gave them a forum one night, over there - John Collins was

there - and they crucified the minister. They crucified him because he wasn't

spending more money in health care. Now they are both part of a Cabinet that is

constantly, constantly, every day, attacking the sick and the suffering of this

Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now the feds are doing what they like.

MR. TOBIN: The feds are doing exactly what they like.

Have we heard the Member for Port de Grave talk about the

changes that are going to be made to the UI system? Does he support them?

MR. EFFORD: I have to leave.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, you should leave. This has been said for

you to leave. It has been said for you to hang your head in shame and leave. It

has been said to expose you, and if you cannot take the heat get out of the

kitchen, I say to the Member for Port de Grave. If you cannot take it, get out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Member for Harbour Grace, you

cannot play the games that the Member for Port de Grave, or the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, plays without being exposed, because I

remember well, as do my other colleagues who were in the House, how we were

never satisfied with spending money in health care. How do members opposite...

did we hear the Member for Port de Grave the other day say anything when the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs announced a reduction of 22 per

cent in the MOGs? Not a whimper. We did not hear much from any of the members

opposite, but you will have an opportunity one of these days to stand and vote.

You will have that opportunity, to stand and vote in this House as to whether or

not you support the attack that has been made upon the municipalities in this

Province. You will have that opportunity, to let the councils know where you

stand, and every single council in this Province will know where every single

member stood on that vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes,

MR. TOBIN: Yes, bar none.

AN HON. MEMBER: They won't do what some of your members

did in the referendum when they voted overwhelmingly to do one thing, and some

of your members did something else.

MR. TOBIN: Who voted overwhelmingly?

AN HON. MEMBER: The people of Mount Pearl did.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what about the Member for

Exploits?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, yes, they are different. His vote is

different. It is worth two, is it? What about the Member for Exploits?

AN HON. MEMBER: Eagle River.

MR. TOBIN: What about the Member for Eagle River? Is the

Member for Eagle River in Cabinet? Does that excuse him, I ask the Member for

Mount Scio - Bell Island? Does the member of caucus who got the flick out of

Cabinet, does that make his vote less important? What about the Member for

Stephenville who sits in front of him, I ask the member. What about the Member

for Exploits? Who else?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)?

MR. TOBIN: He voted, Mr. Speaker. Eagle River. The Member

for Mount Scio - Bell Island. What about the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture, I would ask the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is that every

member in this House will have an opportunity to stand in his or her place and

let the municipalities of this Province know whether or not he or she supports

its MOG. We would not be doing our job as an Opposition on an issue as important

as that if we did not circulate to every council in this Province the result of

that vote. We would not be doing our job. If the councils from Mount Scio - Bell

Island didn't know how the member voted on an issue as important as that, if all

the councils in Mount Scio - Bell Island didn't get a result of that vote, it

would be because we were not doing our job, and we intend to do our job on

something as important as this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Twenty-two per cent? Mr. Speaker, I would say

to the member that on Saturday past I spent some time with the mayors of

Marystown and Burin, and the president of the Federation of Municipalities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I told them I'm going to be

forced to run again. For the good of this Province. Everyone on this side of the

House is going to have to run again.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Glenn, no, as tempted as you are to run

federally, as tempted as you are to bump off Simmons, you are going to run

provincially.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would tell the Member for

Windsor - Buchans one thing, that he is history. He will never sit in the House

of Commons again, not for Burin - St. George's, the present member.

I spent some time with those three gentlemen on Saturday and

I really got a greater understanding into the attack -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I said I met with the mayors of Marystown and

Burin, and the president of the Federation of Municipalities on Saturday. I got

an insight greater than I really had on the severity of these attacks and what

it is going to mean.

AN HON. MEMBER: What hotel?

MR. TOBIN: I was in the town hall in Burin, I would say

to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what does it matter where it was?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing. I had a

great conversation with the union at the Marystown plant and the president of

that union said: We had our turn last year. It is Fortune's and Harbour Breton's

turn this year. The same as Harbour Breton and Fortune said last year when it

was Marystown's turn. One thing I would say to the member is that the people of

the South Coast have never been known to be saturated with greed and want it all

for themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is why they are still open; they

are not as parochial as you.

MR. TOBIN: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I got a clip here

somewhere from the Fraser Institute that states -

AN HON. MEMBER: Now he is going to start using his notes.

MR. TOBIN: There could be anything here Danny.

Mr. Speaker, what is the Member for Eagle River telling his

constituents about the cutbacks -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Sure I don't care.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I know you don't care.

MR. TOBIN: I don't know what the Member for Eagle River

purchased.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dog food.

MR. TOBIN: Dog food for Harry. Mr. Speaker, I don't know

what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is up to, I really don't

know. I don't know how, Mr. Speaker - all I say to the Member for Eagle River, I

just got passed some more bad news.

I don't know what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs is trying to do and I don't know how the members over there can support

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I don't know how the Member

for Harbour Grace, who I have known over the past few years, I always found him

to be a perfect gentleman, sincere in everything he does but I don't know how he

is going to be able to stand in this House and vote for a 22 per cent reduction

to the council of Harbour Grace. It is not going to be easy because the Member

for Harbour Grace is not going to bore his way into the Cabinet like the Member

for Eagle River. He is not prepared, Mr. Speaker, to sell his soul like the

Member for Eagle River. Mr. Speaker, he is going to be more like the Member from

Port au Port when the Speaker said: Do you want a Cabinet post?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier said.

MR. TOBIN: The Premier said: Do you want a Cabinet post?

Well if you do you got to turn against your principles, you got to forget about

where you came from, you got to forget about your principles, you have to forget

about your background as an educator in an RC school board, you have to be

prepared to tell the people of this Province that you forgot about all of that,

you want to sell it. The Member for Port au Port - I was not privy to the

conversation but I heard enough about it - I would think, Mr. Speaker, that he

said: Premier, my principles are far more important than the prestige of office

and the perks of office. I will sit in the back-benches any day rather than

compromise what I have been taught a lifetime.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, then there was another call that

went through then to the government members opposite. There was another member

called up -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. TOBIN: I am not going to mention any names. I am not

certain of this but this is how I think it happened. The Premier said: We want

you to come into Cabinet but I know where you stand on education reform, I know

what your principles are but you got to be prepared to forget about them if you

are coming into Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, I would think what he said was: Premier

how fast do you want me in government house? And that is Danny, Mr. Speaker.

That is what Danny would do, Mr. Speaker, and the Member for Harbour Grace would

not do.

I am going to tell the story now, Mr. Speaker, I never told

the story on how bad Danny wanted to get into Cabinet before but I am going to

tell it now and what he is prepared to do in order to get Tom Murphy -

AN HON. MEMBER: So Tom Murphy wouldn't get in.

MR. TOBIN: That's right, so Tom Murphy would not get in

if Danny was going to get in. He was prepared, Mr. Speaker, to -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not supposed to refer to a member

by his first name.

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will call him Harry. He

was prepared, Mr. Speaker, to sacrifice Harry. He was prepared to offer him up,

to sacrifice him, Mr. Speaker, and drag his blood to Tom Murphy's doorstep -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: So that he would be guilty of killing

Harry.

MR. TOBIN: So that Tom Murphy would be blamed, Mr.

Speaker, for doing the job on Harry -

MR. DUMARESQUE: O.J. Murphy.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and Danny Furman.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I thought it was important that the

Member for Port de Grave be exposed and I hope I did.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Okay, I will have a chat on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I can't let it go unchallenged, that scathing

attack that was put on members on this side of the House, the hon. the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation, a very esteemed member of this House and

a tremendous member for the district he represents. I can't help but have

something to say about the lengths to which the members will go. And I

acknowledge the virtues of my hon. colleague, the Member for Port au Port, I

acknowledge that he is a very hard-working member and has strong principles like

all of us do over on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

But I have to say how much I was amused - I would have to say

`amused' would be the proper word - to hear the Member for Burin - Placentia

West say, that a person's principles are more important than the perks of

office, Mr. Speaker. And I must say that it shouldn't be lost on the people of

this Province, that when the Premier of this Province was out there in

1988-1989, holding the press conferences to expose the green cucumbers to

everybody in the Province, while he was out there saying to the people of this

Province, we have now come across a wonderful piece of technology, a piece of

technology that's going to replace the fishery, we are not going to need any

more civil servants, we are not going to need any more jobs in the mining

industry, Mr. Speaker, I have now discovered the panacea for job creation in the

world. I have now discovered that in six days - this long, this long, Mr.

Speaker. All over this Province, Cabinet members set out in the government

plane, to Wabush, down to Burin, with cucumbers sticking out of every pocket.

They were told to put on overcoats, you could take another

forty cucumbers under the overcoats; and then, Mr. Speaker, going into shopping

malls, going everywhere; and here then the news came in over the wire that not

only were they making the milk go greener in Kilbride after the cows were full

to their stomachs and had to throw it right up, Mr. Speaker, because the people

wouldn't buy it anymore. The people of Mount Pearl having all kinds of headaches

because the lights would never go off over there and then the word came in that

not only was the milk turning green, the cows throwing up, the flowers going

through the roof over in Mount Pearl, the people couldn't sleep, they had to go

down and build bunkers in Mount Pearl because they couldn't sleep over there.

Then they said: in addition to that, we have now had from Newfoundland Light and

Power, the light bill for one week, Mr. Speaker, one week - I suppose the people

in this Province couldn't help but say well: it is not a bad deal, we are

probably growing the cucumbers for twenty or thirty dollars a week because of

this wonderful technology, the vitamins that are being put into the plants

making them grow six days this high and this long, Mr. Speaker - $7,000 a week.

Now, the Member for Ferryland, at the time - certainly, no

man ever replaced him coming from Ferryland - couldn't take it anymore. He said:

`This is it - I have had enough of this scandal.' `I have had enough,' he said,

`of this kind of abuse of taxpayers' money, I can't stand to hear the people of

Mount Pearl being up all night, I can't stand to see the people of Kilbride

having to take their cows out to Pasadena or somewhere to give them some decent

hay or some kind of food.' He couldn't stand it anymore. He tendered his

resignation; he said: `I will not take it anymore,' and, of course, the fellow

who was standing next to him in that Cabinet room, the fellow who was right

there, pounding his fist on the table that he was going to stand up for the

people of this Province, was none other than the Member for Burin - Placentia

West there, as the Minister of Social Services.

Did he call a press conference, Mr. Speaker? No, he didn't

call a press conference because he was too busy issuing purchase orders, Mr.

Speaker, on April 1, of 1989. Purchase orders, standing offer - Please issue a

standing offer for liquor and beer to be picked up on an `as and when required'

basis for the private dining room and various committees of Cabinet, Treasury

Board, IGA, Secretariat for the period. Make no wonder he said he was operating

with a blown mind. Make no wonder that the Premier of the day wouldn't answer

telephone calls on Sprung. I imagine he couldn't get to the door let alone open

the door. Well, what is a dozen beer, $16 or $18 I suppose? No, Mr. Speaker,

nothing close, $20,000 as is, where is, from the Cabinet Secretariat 1989. But,

not to be outdone, you can't have beer and liquor delivered as is, where is. You

must create an ambience so that you will be able to make good solid decisions

under the smoke of the back room, so they said, issue another one `Glenn', issue

another one. Go down and issue a standing offer for the supply of tobacco

products for the Premier's private dining hall, to be picked up on an `as and

when required' from April 1.

Mr. Speaker, I guess you would figure that at one Cabinet

meeting you would probably get a couple of packs of White Owl cigars. I suppose

that would be enough to go around even though they had twenty-three Cabinet

ministers, even though you never had enough in one pack to go around the Cabinet

room at the time. But, no, Mr. Speaker, not two packs of White Owl cigars, not

even two cartons, not even twenty cartons - $5,000 - a tractor-trailer-load of

Cuban cigars to create the ambience for decision-making, so they would be able

to zero in on the best technology for job development in the world, so they

would be able to create those jobs and you would be able to close down the mines

in Labrador West, you would be able to close down the forest industry in the

Province, you would be able to close down Confederation Building.

You would need no more civil service, Mr. Speaker, and you

could tell every fisherman out there, go and take your boats up because you will

never need them anymore. We now have the job creator of the century, the job

creation project of the most renowned technology to be applied here in

Newfoundland and Labrador, the Sprung greenhouse. But, of course, you can't

expect to have the dining room full of liquor and beer, and you cannot expect to

have smoke in the back room, so you can see your way through all those

decisions. You must do it so that you have everything in impeccable order, and

particularly what you lay your drink on, or if you happen to flick your cigar

and some ash fell somewhere, you wouldn't want a piece of cloth or anything to

be dirtied, I expect. So he said: Issue another one, `Glenn'. Go and issue

another purchase order for the dry cleaning of tablecloths, things you put the

wine goblets on, the coasters, Please issue `as is, and where is' for the dry

cleaning of tablecloths and coasters, on an `as and when required' basis, for

the Premier's private dining hall from April 1st on.

I am sure that would probably be fifty cents or a dollar,

because obviously, if they were to follow the lead of this side of the House,

they probably wouldn't have any kind of meetings that would require anybody to

accidentally flick over ash or something. He said: `Glenn', pick those items up

and pay them $1,000, no problem; that should be able to dry-clean the coasters

and the bit of stuff we put our drinks on in case you happen to flick over an

old Cuban cigar.

You can't go drinking beer and wine, and you can't go smoking

Cuban cigars, and you can't have yourself lined up with all the proper

tablecloths and everything unless you have a bit of food on the table. You have

to have a bit of food on the table. So he said: Issue another one, `Glenn', go

down and pop in another PO, boy. It is only the taxpayers' money - who cares? We

are here for the rest of our lives.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Ah, we are starting to get to them now, I

think, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member

for Eagle River couldn't expect those people he is referring to, to be in that

environment with beer, wine, and cigars, and not have any food. Is that what he

is suggesting, Mr. Speaker? Is he serious about that?

Mr. Speaker, the real point of order is, we are on Bill 29. I

don't see anywhere in this about tablecloths. I see here about pensions and

reductions in contributions and all this stuff. I'm just wondering if - I don't

know if the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board knows what he has us into

here. I'm sure he didn't expect this debate today. I'm just wondering if

relevancy might apply here to the Member for Eagle River. Because every other

speaker, so far, has been to the point and to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully

concur with the comments of my friend, the hon. the Opposition House Leader, but

I think it is a rule honoured more in the breach than in the observance. To the

extent my friend, the Member for Eagle River is in violation of it, I note my

much closer friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West probably was even more

to blame in this case.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will rule on the point of order.

It has been a precedence in this House that bills of a

financial nature permit a wide-ranging debate. I can attest to, as sitting in

this Chair for the last hour, that it has been a wide-ranging debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, how more appropriate can you

be when you are discussing whether money should come to this House, when you are

discussing how public money should be spent, how more appropriate should it be

than to properly put into perspective how the previous administration handled

taxpayers' money? People out there should know that yes, indeed, they had to

create the ambience for good solid decision-making, they had to have the beer

and the liquor in the private dining room, they had to have the big Cuban

cigars. Of course, I know it is not on the PO, but I'm sure the minister of the

day, the Minister of Social Services, had his own stock of Bic lighters so he

didn't have to issue the PO for them.

As I was saying, not only then did they say: Okay, we are

going to have our Cabinet meeting now and we are going to have our $20,000-worth

of wine and beer and liquor, we are going to have our $5,000-worth of cigars,

and make sure that all the tablecloths are done so $1,000 for that, but we can't

be in here having nothing to eat. So he said: `Glenn', go out and issue another

one, it is only taxpayers' money, boy. I mean, we have lots of that. We are

going to be here forever because we discovered Hibernia and we have Brian

Mulroney up there now selling all the Canadair jets to the French, and we are

going to load up `Frank' and people like that, Mr. Tobin. We don't have to worry

about having a little bit of taxpayers' money spent around for our good PC

colleagues around the table.

They said: Go down and issue another one. Please issue a

standing offer for the purchase of groceries for the premier's private dining

hall - issue a few snails, a few smoked oysters. I suppose they went out and

bought a bit of salt fish, tried to have a couple of rabbits, I suppose. That is

what the former premier used to have. No, no problem. He said: Go out and make

sure that my Tory Cabinet colleagues are fed well.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, I suppose - what would you say?

Thirty dollars or $40?

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred dollars.

MR. DUMARESQUE: One hundred dollars? No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five thousand dollars.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Five thousand dollars. Now, he would

know! He is more accurate. Oh yes. No, Mr. Speaker, make no wonder, it wasn't

$40, it wasn't $100, it wasn't $1,000, it wasn't $5,000, but for a couple of

months he said: Give me $10,000-worth of food. Get the transport truck. Bring

her up, he said.

Now then, here we have the ambience. Here we have the

environment for decision-making for the people of this Province. You have

twenty-three Cabinet ministers with a big Cuban cigar stuck in each one. Then

you have the wine goblet in the other hand. Then you have the members of the

Executive Council, I guess, going around with the plate with the smoked oysters

on it, and a bit of caplin -perhaps they would have a bit of caplin there. So,

in that smoke-filled room, in a situation where the liquor is starting to take

effect, you can understand why they would zero in on the number one job creation

project in this world, the Sprung Greenhouse. We see it: it is coming into our

minds now, `Glenn'. We see it coming forward. Is that a welcoming committee

there for me, `Glenn', or is it a PC rally?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) smoke.

MR. DUMARESQUE: He said when the smoke cleared: `Glenn,

they have guns.' `Oh, yes, Mr. Premier, that is for the twenty-one gun salute.'

`But, Glenn, why are they pointing them at me? Why are they pointing them at me,

Glenn?'

So back aboard the bus, get back in to Confederation

Building, get back to that dining hall; it is much more comfortable back there.

You need a compass to navigate, certainly, around there because of the smoke,

because of the Cuban cigars. Also, you couldn't be just eating any kind of food.

You had to have very specialized food, and if we didn't have enough on the table

at the time, then we should get some so we could store a little bit. So he said:

`Glenn', send out another PO. It is only taxpayers' money, nothing to do with

it. We have Mulroney up there now, not afraid to inflict prosperity on

Newfoundland and Labrador. He is not afraid to do that, so we are going to have

all kinds of money, `Glenn'. We are going to be rolling in it. We are going to

be the sheiks of North America in a couple of year's time, so go out and issue

another PO. Please issue a standing offer for the purchase of frozen and

seasonal produce. Now what would that be, I wonder, `seasonal produce'?

AN HON. MEMBER: Caviar.

MR. DUMARESQUE: That would probably be a little bit of

caviar, I suppose, a little bit of those -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) used to send that in for

nothing.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh, they used to send that in for

nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh, a little bit of caviar probably, as

and when required from April 1, 1989 to March 31, 1990. Now, they were really on

to a real grand scheme here. They knew that on April 3 there was going to be an

election called, but they said, from April 1 to March 31, 1990 we are going to

be here, the sheiks of the Northwest Atlantic. We are going to be here rolling

in the dough that Mulroney is going to give us. We are going to be here,

`Glenn', my son, he said, until the Liberals rots, every one of them in the

Province, so let's have some frozen and seasonal produce to go along with our

Cuban cigars and our liquor and wine, to go along with the clean tablecloths and

the coasters. Fifteen hundred dollars should do it, he said; give a shot over to

Bidgoods there. Go over to Bidgoods and get some caviar so we can have a little

bit of caviar to go along with all of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: I don't know exactly what they were

looking for. I don't know what they were looking for on that day, because I am

starting to put together the puzzle and I cannot understand what they were

looking for, because one minute he was saying, `Go out and issue PO number such

and such for the liquor and the tobacco'. Then he said, `Go out and get the

$10,000-worth of food.' This was the groceries. Then he said -

MR. DECKER: Who was the Premier when all of this was

going on?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh, that was Peckford; that was his name,

Peckford - this long, this long, six days; yes, Mr. Speaker, the invention of

the century.

But they didn't know if they could zero in on it, so they did

not want to buy all the groceries, I suppose. That is the only thing I can

figure out, because here they did something early in the day, they issued PO No.

030016 from Executive Council, a very big order of business, for $10,000-worth

of groceries, and then they said -

MR. DECKER: All of this had to go through Cabinet.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh, yes, well, that is what Cabinet was

for.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes. Then they said: Well, we will zero

in on some seasonal produce for another $1,500, but obviously, they never got

exactly what they were looking for. They took $10,000 there, $1,500 there, and

the same day issued another PO - Please issue a standing offer for the purchase

of fish items as is and when required by the Premier's private dining room from

April 1, 1989 to March 31, 1990.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fish items?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Fish items, yes. Now, what would that be,

I wonder? They never picked up their snails and their caviar and stuff under the

$1,500 order. They went over to the General and went in and said we are buying

all the groceries here, $10,000 worth here but they did not get it there either.

So they said boy, you got to go right down to Fishery Products International. We

got to have those fish. So he said, yes Glen no problem, taxpayers money, no

problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well you would expect after spending

$10,000 on groceries, another $1,500 then on seasonal items, you would expect

probably $100 I suppose. No, what would the Member for Grand Bank - what would

he suggest would be - yes, because you went and got $10,000 worth of supplies

there, $5,000 for cigars and another $1,500 for seasonal items. So I suppose you

would say $200, $300? No, Mr. Speaker, another $3,000. He said another $3,000,

round it off. Glen said: I can't get that today, Mr. Premier. No problem he

said, I got a chief of staff for that kind of stuff. Mr. Hewlett, get in here. I

got a chief of staff for that kind of stuff. How are you going to earn your

severance pay now Mr. Hewlett if you don't go down to Bidgoods and get this

stuff for me? So you get down - $10,000 in this hand, $5,000 in this hand,

$1,500 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) when he walked in.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I'd say, that was just before of course

he had resigned. Shortly after resigning you know the house they had up in Mount

Scio? The Mount Scio house, that was just after he resigned. The Mount Scio

house, Mr. Speaker, and that was before that of course but the previous Cabinet

meeting to this one had to deal with the relinquishing of Mount Scio house. So

they had to say okay, this is another special Cabinet meeting we go to have here

now to make sure that the assets of the Province; the furniture, the royal oak -

AN HON. MEMBER: The goblets.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh yes, the wine goblets, the crystal

wine goblets, the wine holder that goes by the bedside, that one, Mr. Speaker.

They said these are the people's resources. These are the people's assets but we

must have another special cabinet meeting now Glen. You get a hold of the

Executive Council there and ring her up, Mr. Speaker, ring up another one. He

said have another Cabinet meeting so we can have a proper exposition of all the

people's assets so we can get them properly tendered. We will get the best price

for them and we will get the taxpayers of the Province coming in and saying good

job Brian, good job Bill, good job Glen, good job Lynn. They will come in and

say thank you very much for taking the assets of the Province and tendering them

properly and getting them out but no, no, no. A wee little voice down in the

corner said: Mr. Premier we can't go doing that. We can't go public tendering

the wine goblets and the china. We can't go tendering the royal oak, Mr.

Premier. How can we do that? You are not going to have nothing when you leaves

if you does that. So we are going to have to do it right like we does with all

Tory stuff. We are going to have to do it right. We are going to go around the

table now and see who wants some of this kind of stuff.

Brian said, well Glen you have talked to Haig Young there,

you have talked to the minister of public works and he has an assessment on the

value of this I am sure. Haig groaned and of course that was a yes, two groans

was a no. Mr. Speaker, he said yes of course, I got a full appraisal of this

done. I have wine goblets now that have been assessed at thirty-two dollars,

crystal wine goblets, Mr. Speaker, that were in the Mount Scio house and with

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for nigh on eighty or ninety years.

Thirty-two dollars each, there were twelve wine goblets that were there. Now

they said, look this is thirty-two dollars each, Mr. Speaker, and they said

let's see if we got any bids. If we got any bids on the go. So they went around

the table at thirty dollars. Too high. Twenty dollars, do I hear twenty?

Fifteen? Too high. No, twelve? No, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) too high?

MR. DUMARESQUE: A dollar-fifty? Gone, gone. The Premier

got them. You got them Premier, you got the goblets. The Premier got them for

$1.50, $32-china wine goblets, in the history of the Province, the possession of

the taxpayers of this Province for tens of years. Then they said, let's go on to

the wine container that goes by the bedside. Well, let's go to that. Now, Haig,

Haig, do you have that assessed? Hmm, yes, that one grunt was yes so he had that

assessed, he had that appraised, that was the way they operated, secret code you

see. Did Bill say it wasn't appraised?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what he said.

MR. DUMARESQUE: No. Haig said it was appraised. That's

nothing Bill, it is appraised, Haig said, so the wine goblets were gone,

thirty-two dollars, down to a dollar-fifty, the Premier got them, some

coincidence.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a lucky break.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Now, Glenn, what would you bid on the

container that goes by the bedside, the one that was in the Province's

possession.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), decanter.

MR. DUMARESQUE: The decanter I guess, I suppose it was. I

don't know if it is true or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: You wheel it in (inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, you wheel it in on a tray and I

think Haig said that looks like item twelve, fourteen - yes, $350, appraised at

$350 so the hon. Member for Humber East I think put in twenty dollars? Too high,

too high, yes, too high.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said it was too high?

MR. DUMARESQUE: The secretary, the chief of staff, he was

the one who held the auction; he held the auction you see. Yes, the intent was,

you see, they went around the table and the Tory tendering process was that you

don't get the highest tender, you get the lowest tender. That's right, any time

you are selling an asset, I mean, I think that it was repeated here the other

day. The former finance minister got up and he lambasted this President of the

Treasury Board, Minister of Finance, he said: Why did you take the highest

bidder for the hotels? Why, why did you take the highest bidder? That's because

he was trained under the Tory tendering process, you don't go for the highest

bidder when you are selling off assets, you go for the lowest one.

Yes, so the Member for Humber East bid twenty dollars on that

big trolley with the wine to go by the bed -

AN HON. MEMBER: She got it.

MR. DUMARESQUE: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: She didn't get it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, the Member for Burin - Placentia West

said seven dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what, did he get it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: No. Too high. Three dollars and

seventy-two cents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who got it?

MR.