March 28,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 7

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

public galleries a group of Grade IX students from MacDonald Drive Junior High,

together with their teachers, Mr. Douglas Gosse and Mr. Scott Hewlett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: At this time I would like to render a ruling

on a matter raised by the hon. the Government House Leader last Wednesday, March

22, 1995, in which he proposed to the Chair that the Member for Bonavista South

had stated that the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations had

misled the House, and that that remark by the hon. the Member for Bonavista

South was therefore not in order.

In reviewing Hansard, it appears that the hon. the Member for

Bonavista South said, and I quote: "Mr. Speaker, the minister said, and I think

it can be found in Hansard, that there was no special committee of Cabinet. I

have a press release here put out by the minister - I don't know if it was a

typing error, or if the minister was misquoted, or if the minister misled the

House."

It is clearly unparliamentary to accuse another member of

lying or deliberately misleading the House; however, the precedents on whether

the accusation of misleading the House is unparliamentary vary. Some Speakers

consider that it is, others that it is not, while someone applying the wisdom of

the Chair consider that it sometimes is and sometimes is not.

Maingot in Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , page 205,

states: "To allege that a member has misled the House is a matter of order

rather than privilege, and is not unparliamentary. To allege that a member has

deliberately misled the House is indeed unparliamentary."

In my view, it is therefore the element of deliberateness

that makes an allegation of misleading unparliamentary. To allege that

statements are unintentionally or inadvertently misleading is, therefore,

parliamentary.

If in context - and I say in context because the member need

not use the term `deliberately' in making a statement, but, if in the context of

all that the member says, the member either says or clearly infers that another

is deliberately misleading the House, that member is out of order and must

withdraw the remark.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I am doing well so far, then.

If I may say, in getting to a conclusion here, in this case,

when I have examined the context, I do not find that the Member for Bonavista

South accused the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations of deliberately

misleading the House. In the context he appears to be suggesting that there was

an error of one sort or another that may have placed wrong information before

the House.

In conclusion, the Chair would be happier if members

refrained from using the term, `misleading' and drew upon the large number of

members choose to use the term they must do so in a manner which does not

suggest that the other member was deliberately doing so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Premier, who is away today attending the

United Nations High Seas Conference, I am informing the House that an agreement

has been reached between the Mushuwau Innu, representing the Band Council of

Davis Inlet, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in accordance with the RCMP's

provincial policing contract for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The primary goal of the agreement is to establish an interim

policing arrangement which will provide effective, efficient and culturally

appropriate policing to the residents of the community of Davis Inlet. This

interim arrangement results from several months of negotiations among the Innu,

the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and government officials in an initiative

started last fall by my colleague, Mr. Roberts, the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important agreement. It will provide

the residents of Davis Inlet with the maintenance of peace and the provision of

protection through crime prevention, community education and law enforcement.

Through the appointment of community based Innu peacekeepers, it will permit a

policing effort that is culturally sensitive to the needs of the people of Davis

Inlet.

It allows for thorough community involvement by means of a

Community Policing Committee comprised of members of the community who will have

input into selecting Innu peacekeepers, monitoring the provision of policing

services to the community, identifying community policing issues and concerns,

working with the peacekeepers to seek solutions to these concerns, and

developing policing strategies and programs which will aid in the overall

healing process of the community.

Under this agreement, Mr. Speaker, the Innu peacekeepers will

be appointed peace officers under the RCMP Act. They will have the authority to

enforce any

Summary Conviction offence within the community of Davis Inlet, and

to work with the RCMP in the enforcement of offences which may fall outside the

Summary Conviction category.

Provision is made in the agreement to ensure that any

additional training required by the peacekeepers will be available, through the

RCMP Recruit Field Training Program. Provision is also made, Mr. Speaker, for

the RCMP to participate in training initiatives which will ensure culturally

appropriate policing services.

now therefore expect policing and Court functions in Davis

Inlet will resume on a normal basis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure if he is acting Premier, acting Justice

minister, or what he is going today, probably he is just acting as usual. Anyway

the statement is by the hon. Minister of Finance, or acting Premier, I take it,

in any event we welcome this announcement. It has been a long time coming, a

long time in the making, and we trust it will lead to more positive things in

the future. There are a number of questions that will no doubt arise from this

brief statement because we do not have all the details. I only received the

statement a minute or so before the House opened so I have not had a chance to

go through it but there are questions like, what would make this system now

better or different than other systems that are in place in certain parts of

Canada, in other jurisdictions?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Well, I am not asking the Government House

Leader. I am speaking to the acting Premier. There are other questions I will

ask the acting Premier. Are there plans, for example, to extend this type of

policing to any other aboriginal communities or are any other aboriginal

communities looking for it throughout the Province? Does this now address the

Innu justice system question that we saw raised far and wide in the media,

internationally as well as nationally? That in itself is an issue apart from the

policing issue. I guess the most important question of all, aside from how much

authority these new peace officers will have, will they be the same as RCMP

officers, or just in part? Will there be RCMP officers in attendance, or in the

community of Davis Inlet, as well as these peace officers? Finally, the most

important question, I guess, when does the government intent to resume its land

claim negotiations with the Innu? I guess that is the most important. We will

pursue those in the days ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the news that an agreement has been reached with

the Innu with respect to policing in Davis Inlet. It provides some hope that

there will be a more harmonious relationship. I think it has been a very long

time coming and the government has failed to reach a speedy resolution because

of problems of its own. I think it does provide some hope that a more culturally

sensitive policing and involvement of the court in Davis Inlet with the

co-operation of the Innu people leadership, and police, peace officers who will

be appointed and I hope it does work. It remains to be seen, Mr. Speaker,

whether it can work as well as it has in other parts of the country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to advise hon. members of government's decision

to designate the main line of the Province's railway corridor a Provincial Park

under the Provincial Parks Act. Commonly referred to as the Newfoundland

T'Railway, Mr. Speaker, the park will extend from St. John's to Port aux

Basques.

Following extensive discussions and negotiations with the

Lands acquired the railbeds in this Province. Since that time, Mr. Speaker,

government assessed the railbed's feasibility in becoming a Provincial Park and

in December of 1994, the railbed was transferred to the Department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation. Further negotiations with CN regarding bridges and

culverts were conducted and today we are in a position to designate the main

line as a Provincial Park.

This Province-long corridor gives representation to the

Island's inherent natural and scenic landscapes. The T'Railway will provide

resident and non-resident tourists with year-round recreational and site-seeing

opportunities.

The Newfoundland T'Railway was a recommendation put forward

by a consortium of research and development companies under the direction of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Development Council. Most provinces in Canada

have developed or are in the process of developing provincial-wide t'railways.

This Newfoundland link will therefore, connect the east and west coasts of the

whole country.

Mr. Speaker, considerable interest has been expressed by

rural development and community groups in establishing a t'railway system. These

groups, in consultation with the Parks and Natural Areas Division of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation will work in partnership to develop and maintain the

Newfoundland T'Railway.

The park will differ from other provincial parks in that

communities and special interest groups will play an integral

part in developing

and maintaining and managing the T'Railway as a recreational and tourist

resource. In addition, persons using the corridor will do so at their own risk.

Snowmobiles and ATVs will be permitted in this provincial park. The Department

of Tourism, Culture and Recreation will however, address the issue of access to

property rights on an individual basis.

This trans-Island link is a very important part of our

heritage and government is proud to preserve its cultural and historic value for

future generations. On June 29, 1898, the first passenger train travelled from

St. John's to Port aux Basques; a journey that took some twenty-eight hours to

complete. From that day, and until its decommission in September of 1988, many

residents and tourists have travelled this route; a journey of adventure and

natural beauty that has become a topic of Newfoundland writers and musicians.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation is proud to take an active

part in keeping this cultural link alive

in our Province as a recreational t'railway. Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few words to

sum up this statement by the minister. It is about time. It is good to see that

the government finally got something together in conjunction with the federal

government and got some jurisdiction, the Crown Lands got jurisdiction over the

railbed, but I hope this is not done at the expense of other parks around the

Province. We just witnessed last week or a couple of weeks ago the closing of

twenty-nine provincial parks around the Province for a total saving of some

$300,000 to the provincial government. I wonder now is the department going to

put that money into the development of the railbed across the Province. If not,

it should.

Another concern I have is that if the government couldn't

afford to keep open the twenty-nine parks, what are they going to do in trying

to develop the rail link across the Province, the railbeds across this Province?

One example I have in my district - and the minister should take note of this,

because every time he goes to the West Coast he sees it. I mentioned it to the

Premier's office in Corner Brook a couple of months ago. Between Deer Lake and

Corner Brook now the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has the

railbed taken over. He has it taken over. It saved him millions of dollars. I

would say now that if anybody who travels there will have to go down on the

shores of Deer Lake or else go to the left of the Trans-Canada and the southern

by-pass in order to get back on the railbed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: So, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. minister

that it is a good thing that they finally got it together. I hope that in

conjunction with probably the department of development and other departments in

government that this can be of some benefit to not only developmental

organizations -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: - but to business around the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Trans City (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The Member for St. John's Centre needn't worry

about old Trans City, he will hear lots about that. But today, Mr. Speaker, I

want to turn my attention to an issue that I raised last fall in the House, last

November, in fact November 28. It is a question that I have for the Government

House Leader who I understand still haunts the offices of the Department of

Justice up there. He is, I understand, the minister responsible for the

electoral boundaries gerrymandering and he nods his head in agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask him this question. He will recall,

no doubt last fall in particular, when I flicked out amounts of money that we

have been hearing have been spent on this process he dismissed our estimates of

what this particular comedy of errors has cost the taxpayers. So I would like to

ask him today, can he now tell us how much money has been spent on deciding,

re-deciding and deciding again the electoral boundaries issue?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.

gentleman for the warm and cordial introduction he has given me. His flicks are

pretty - well I won't say that, that may be on the verge of unparliamentary - I

can get the information. I don't have it here today. It would be in the tabled

estimates showing the amount actually spent last year under the sub-head to

which the Electoral Boundaries Commission expenditures are accounted for. There

have been no expenditures since last fall under that sub-head and the last

expenditures would have been incurred for the period ending June 30, 1994, last

year when the Electoral Boundaries Commission delivered its report to me.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am a little

surprised the minister, who has had some of his onerous responsibilities taken

away from him lately, would not have had more time now perhaps to accurately get

the numbers. Let me ask him this question then: would he be surprised if I told

him that the cost and the amount of money that had been spent, taxpayers money

spent on this ludicrous proposal and process is $369,200? Would he say that that

is a fair and accurate number or would he be surprised by that?

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

MR. ROBERTS: In return for the onerous responsibilities I

have had to give to other ministers I have assumed further onerous

responsibilities, not the least of which is answering silly questions such as

the one the member just asked. I would neither be surprised nor unsurprised. I

have told him I don't know the answer. I can get the answer. There is nothing

mysterious about it. The bills were incurred by the Commission. They were

incurred from monies voted by the House of Assembly and they were incurred by

the Commission in doing its work in the discharge of the mandate given to it by

the House of Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Byrne secundus would be

well advised not to speak until he is recognized by the Chair. Let me come back,

Mr. Speaker, I shall say to the Leader of the Opposition if he needs or wants a

detailed breakdown I will get him one. There is no mystery in it at all. All he

has to do is ask but I don't pretend for a moment to have that kind of

information on the tip of my tongue and I am not going to try to take any other

position. I will get the information if he wants it but if he knows it cost

$369,000 why is he asking silly questions at the start as to how much does it

cost? All he is doing is wasting his time and the time of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked him the

question was because in the fall when I suggested $300,000 or $400,000 as a

cost, you said to the Premier: no, no, no, that is not true. The fact of the

matter is, it is true and now I want the breakdown which he indicated he would

table in the House. If he could give us the breakdown of the total expenses we

would appreciate that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what we have had happen here is we have had

an independent commission travel all over the Province, not once but twice

because the government was not satisfied with the results of the Commission in

the first place. Now we are told that the government has appointed a

commissioner, according to the Throne Speech, who is none other, I understand,

than a public employee, Mr. David Jones -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to get to the question.

MR. SIMMS: - who will develop a third set of boundaries

that is obviously more to the liking of the government. Will the Government

House Leader table the criteria that Mr. Jones was given by the government in

order to come up with a more Liberal set of forty-eight seats that we have been

told about?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's silliness

has now descended into foolishness. He would have been further ahead if, instead

of listening to tavern gossip, he had asked who the commissioner is. The

commissioner is not Mr. Jones. The commissioner is Mr. Nathaniel Noel, for

twenty years a judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, now

retired. Judge Noel or Mr. Noel as he now is - Judge Noel, as one would know

him, accepted the commission -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from Burin -

Placentia West -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice Noel served for one

term in this House as a member sitting on the Liberal side. If we were to

disqualify everybody who ever sat as a Liberal we would disqualify about

three-quarters of the people in this Province who have a contribution to make to

the public life of the Province. He has served with distinction in the Supreme

Court, or in the District Court and then the Supreme Court, for about twenty

years, from memory, and is a most distinguished member of the bench who is now

retired. He is doing some work for us as the commissioner of the regulatory

reform process; he accepted a commission from the government.

The other answer to the hon. gentleman's second question is:

I would be delighted to table the terms of reference and will arrange to do it

at the earliest opportunity. But instead of these silly questions slandering

Judge Noel and Mr. David Jones, why doesn't the hon. gentleman simply get up and

say: Who is the commissioner?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the reason I thought it might

have been Mr. Jones is because we were told in the House last November 28 by the

Premier - I was told - that in fact Mr. Jones was the person who developed three

possible proposals and looked at developing the boundaries for it. In fact, it

was Mr. Jones who was sent to our caucus meeting to give us the presentation.

Now the minister is saying there is another commissioner, Judge Noel, and

presumably that is being done at no cost, because there is nothing budgeted and

he said there was no more money to be spent.

I want to ask the minister this particular question if I

might. According to the Throne Speech, the commissioner "...has been appointed

to define and draw the boundaries of the electoral Districts by following

guidelines developed from the recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries

Commission." That is what it said in the Throne Speech. I want to ask the

minister this. How can that be so when the Commission actually recommended

amending the act to permit certain changes, notwithstanding the population of

resulting districts? How can that be so? That was what the recommendation of the

Commission was. It was not their recommendation to have forty-eight seats.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say the

Premier's answer last fall was correct then and correct now, and there is no

inconsistency between the two answers. Mr. Jones developed some proposals,

information was provided to hon. members opposite, and to the hon. Member for

St. John's East, and that information stands on its own merits, and nothing more

has been done by means of developing legislation.

The Commission's report is public, of course. It recommended

two sets of boundaries. It said: If we follow the act, we recommend the House

with forty-four seats, and they gave the boundaries of those seats. Then they

went on to say: But in our opinion the act should be changed so as to allow a

House of more than forty-four seats. The government's response is not to change

the act. The act they are referring to is the electoral boundaries commission

act, which is not the important one in this context. The important one is the

House of Assembly act which actually sets the boundaries of the seats. There

will be an amendment brought forth in due course to the House of Assembly act

when we get the report of Judge Noel. Judge Noel's instructions are set out in

the commission which I've already undertaken to table, and that reflects the

means of carrying into effect the recommendations made by the Commission, with

one important variation, and one we've stood by throughout, and the House has

endorsed repeatedly.

The Commission's recommendations would have created seats far

larger in variance from the norm than the 10 per cent factor set by the House.

The instructions to Judge Noel are to stay within the 10 per cent norm and to

proceed from there. But the instructions I think make it very clear. We will

table them in the House. We are quite glad to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We look forward to

receiving that information and the criteria that have been developed. The thing

that is difficult to understand here is Mr. Jones did develop boundaries, we

were told he was going to be drawing up the boundaries, and now we are doing it

again by another commissioner. I think that is where the confusion is and maybe

we will have a chance when the minister tables the criteria to find out.

What I would like to ask the minister also is this. Back on

November 28 in the debate here in the House with the Premier, or questions that

I had for the Premier, the Premier told the House as well that the government

had seen three possible proposals from Mr. Jones. One for forty-six seats, one

for forty-seven seats, and one for forty-eight seats. He said: Anyone who looks

at it would see very clearly what was the right course to follow. That was the

Premier's quote. Of course, we have not seen it. I would like to ask the

minister now, would he table those three proposals so that we can have a look at

them for ourselves to see exactly what transpired?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the hon.

gentleman has not seen those drafts is correct. That is one of the penalties he

must pay for not being in the government. I would have to consult with my

colleagues before I undertake to table them. These were matters that I am not

even sure went to the full Cabinet. They were certainly seen by committees of

the Cabinet and there are a number of variations. The ones that will count are

Judge Noel's report and I give an undertaking on behalf of the government now

quite willingly - it has not been asked for but let us get it all out. Judge

Noel's report as we receive it, in whatever form it comes to us, will be tabled

here in the House as soon as we get it, and in the form in which we get it, and

that is the one that counts.

Mr. Jones developed a number of proposals, as the hon.

gentleman says, with forty-six, forty-seven, or forty-eight seats. The

forty-eight seat was the only one that met the publicly stated criteria of the

10 per cent variance, Mr. Speaker, and that is the one that -

MR. SIMMS: That the government has set.

MR. ROBERTS: - the one that the House of Assembly has

twice set at the request of the government. It has twice set at the forty-eight

seat proposal which was the one that has met the 10 per cent criteria which the

House has twice endorsed at the request of the government.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the Minister

of Finance some questions relating to payments to a sinking fund to purchase the

hospitals built by Trans City, the end of the thirty year lease period. The

minister had one of his familiar lapses of memory yesterday afternoon and did

not have the details available. Surely, now he has them after twenty-four hours

and he may be planning to give us the answers in Answers to Questions for which

Notice has been Given.

Would he tell us now, are the sinking fund payments being

made to Confederation Life? Will the payments increase over thirty years, by how

much, and what is the interest rate that is applying to those payments?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is the same

question that the hon. gentleman asked very recently, yesterday, I believe, and

I indicated I would endeavour to get the answers and inform the House.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, how long does it take the

minister to get that information. Surely, that is available at a moment's notice

from his staff. Surely, it is available from the files that the minister had in

his hand when he went to Supreme Court last summer, because no doubt that

information was all requested there as well. It cannot be something that is

going to take a lot of research. I am surprised that the minister has not had it

available.

Will the minister tell us if the sinking fund payments and

accumulated interest cover the $16 million that is estimated government will

have to pay to buy out the 60 per cent of the purchase price at the end of the

thirty year contract? If not what kind of a lump sum payment? How much of a lump

sum payment will government have to add in addition to the money paid to the

sinking fund in order to purchase out these buildings at that time?

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

MR. BAKER: The government will have to make no payment in

addition to the sinking fund payments that are set up.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I think there may well be an

additional amount, and if not there are two amounts, at least, that are being

paid to Trans City. Certainly there is the amount that is being paid by way of

lease payments, and these are escalating. Then there is the annual sinking fund

payments, and I am led to believe that these in fact are escalating. When the

minister answers the questions I have asked him yesterday and again today

perhaps he will confirm that, that the lease payments and the sinking fund

payments escalate at certain periods of time, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister confirm that the total cost therefore will

be $96 million for the lease and $16 million for the lump sum payments, a total

of $112 million that they will pay for these three facilities?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, these numbers are not correct

and I will table the correct numbers in the House. I would like to point out to

the hon. member that the total cost over thirty years of the three hospitals

will be slightly less than the cost of the Sprung greenhouse, and we will have

three hospitals to show for it at the end of the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the

Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board. Prior to releasing your

Budget, announcing your Budget last week, did you do an analysis of your Budget

in terms of what the impact of your Budget would be in terms of job losses to

the Province as a whole? And can you tell the people of this Province how many

jobs will be lost as a result of your Budget?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot. I indicated in the

Budget, and was very straightforward about it, there will be some job losses

over the period of time referred to. I don't know how many, because much of what

has to be done has to be done in consultation with groups and individuals, and

we are trying to find the most efficient way to do those things with the least

impact. So I can tell the hon. gentleman that this is not an exercise where we

get up and say that we are going to reduce the public service by a couple of

thousand jobs. This is not what is happening here. We are trying to find the

best way to provide the most efficient service, and we suspect there will be

some job losses at the end of the day, but the numbers are not very high at all.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I suspect the minister knows

full well what job losses there will be. I suspect full well that he has targets

that he wants to meet in terms of the number of jobs that he wants to reduce.

The question is this, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister announce

today, or will he make a commitment today, to release what his analysis was. How

many jobs will be lost in this Province? And will he confirm that he is

balancing the books on the workers of this Province?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. gentleman, we did not

set a target of job losses. Job losses do not enter into the equation at all. We

have set targets for efficient delivery of services, and perhaps more efficient

delivery of services, and I indicated that throughout this process there may

indeed be some job losses, but they will not be very high. Mr. Speaker, what he

is asking for simply does not exist. The member is simply out to lunch on this.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is not this member that is

out to lunch, I can assure you.

Let me ask the Minister of Health: Can he stand up -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible.)

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Eagle River, I

would sooner eat chicken any day than eat crow like this government has been

doing for a year-and-a-half.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the Minister of Health: Can he

confirm to the people of this Province that there will be significant job losses

in the Department of Health -

AN HON. MEMBER: Health care sector.

MR. E. BYRNE: In health care sector - I apologize. Can he

confirm that there will be significant job losses in the health care sector, and

how many jobs will be lost as a result of this government's Budget.

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

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

The answer to the question has already basically been given

to you by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. There is no definitive

number tied to the Budget in terms of job losses. The expectation is that any

adjustments in staffing should be taken care of through attrition, or

retirements, or that sort of thing. There are not going to be significant job

losses, as a result of the Budget, in the health care sector. We will work with

the employees who may be affected, to ensure that they are treated in a fair,

proper, humane and equitable way, and that will be in keeping, of course, with

everything that this government has and will continue to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the last number of years we have heard much to-do in the

House of Assembly with regard to the Strategic Economic Plan, and much of the

money, I think, associated with it can be attributed to public relations

expenditures, but this year's Budget Speech makes reference to $10 million in

connection with the Strategic Economic Plan. I wonder if the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology could enlighten us as to what this $10 million is

all about.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to. The

Strategic Economic Plan has 134 separate action items. I just had the privilege

of attending a conference at the Board of Trade, where a number of sectors were

dealt with in breakout sessions. I can tell you, $500,000 will be dealt with in

terms of service quality, putting the client first - that is to say the taxpayer

- that will be flowed through the Public Service Commission. Five hundred

thousand dollars will be spent on the mineral exploration assistance program.

The hon. member would be interested in knowing that that grew by 10 per cent in

'93, 40 per cent in '94, and a projected growth of 45 per cent this year.

Mr. Speaker, there will be $800,000 from the Department of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation. They have a series of projects that they are

going to pursue in line with the strategic plan. $3.5 million will flow through

my department for the information technology sector, our on-line task force, new

business market and product development, $1 million will go into Fisheries, Food

and Aquaculture for the development of aquaculture, particularly, Mr. Speaker,

mussels, scallops, Arctic char and steelhead trout. $100,000 will go into the

Preventive Mediation Program through the Department of Employment and Labour

Relations and understand, Mr. Speaker, that last year, you had something in the

order of 370 requests which were used for mediation which helped prevent labour

problems.

Mr. Speaker, further to that, another $10 million, 100 per

cent dollars from the Province will go into the forestry sector. Essentially,

Mr. Speaker, this money will flow through in line with the Strategic Economic

Plan and will be aimed specifically at those initiatives that I just mentioned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister care to indicate just how much of the $10

million is going to be spent in administration and how much is actually spent in

the direct creation of jobs or the direct support of industry? Is there a clear

breakdown as to what is administrative and what's in the direct support of

economic development itself?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the specific

breakdowns but I will be happy to get them, but I was pleased to hear on the

radio, thirty days ago, the hon. member say, that this minister ought to be out

promoting the Province more, and that is essentially what I was doing in Asia

over the eight days.

We had five countries, forty-six meetings and attended to

incredible international press for this Province. I can tell the hon. member

that we have announced because of that, the EDGE legislation, which is nearly

ninety days old, two companies in January, I will announce two next week; the

board is meeting on eight applications this afternoon, there are another seven

waiting, there are twenty in discussions with the Province, there have been

1,000 calls to the 1-800 line; 5,000 packages have gone around the world and

there have been two, major, promotional tours, one across Canada and the Eastern

United States by the Premier. I just did Asia and the great, and cordial and

wonderful personality of the Government House Leader will promote us in Europe

this summer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the recent changes that have occurred as a result of

our latest provincial Budget and its use of capital revenues from the south

coast ferry service buyout as a current account item - and the south coast ferry

service, as far as I am concerned has indeed come under question. Mr. Speaker, I

ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: Can he guarantee the

people of the south coast, a service that is comparable or superior to the

service now operated by Marine Atlantic?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, on March 8, a year to the date that I was sworn

in, the minister said -

MR. DUMARESQUE: That was a mistake.

MR. CAREEN: No mistake. You found out what was a mistake

when you ran up against us in Placentia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: Toeless Danny.

When the minster, Mr. Speaker, announced that the lump sum

would take care of things in perpetuity, in other words, when parallel lines

meet. Well, parallel lines obviously have met here. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the

minister made reference and I guess really, the end has come, because we see

what has happened to the money.

Mr. Speaker, I now ask the minister: Can the people on the

south coast be assured that the passenger fares and freight rates will be

reduced given the fact that there is no funding avenue left, or will the people

of the south coast actually see a reduced service at a higher cost to them?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, to the first part of his question, no to

the second part of his question, Mr. Speaker.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, this minister went up and down

the south coast on a couple of occasions making wild and empty promises and we

see it here today coming home to roost, what that minister is. After his

anniversary the other day, with a gospel sing-a-long, he deceived the fishermen

a few years ago and the plant workers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: - but I will tell you sir: The Lord is not to

be deceived nor can he be deceived.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: No Sir, the people on the South Coast -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is unparliamentary to accuse another member of deceiving.

So I take it under advisement but I caution the member not to use it again.

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to say he

deceived. I said that the Lord cannot deceive nor be deceived. Now, there is a

big difference in the minister and the Lord, thank God!

The ferry service, Mr. Speaker, has become a - there is a big

difference, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. member to get to the

question, as well.

MR. CAREEN: The ferry has indeed become a budgetary

figure, subject to budget cuts like the rest of the services we see. Mr.

Speaker, what plans does the minister have for the coming years when we no

longer have any money to put into this service? Will there be further

reductions, Sir? Has there been any long-term planning used in this budget at

all, I ask the minister?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. member and

this House of Assembly that I am not ashamed of the people of Port de Grave

district and their religion. Let me tell the hon. member, if the government of

the day had listened to me three years ago, the Spanish would not be on the

Grand Banks today. Let me also say, they are now using the same thing to cut the

nets - I brought two people over from Iceland to tell them what to do.

As for the people on the South Coast, Mr. Speaker, they are

going to have a better ferry service than they have ever had as long as they

have lived there. Will the fares be cheaper? Yes, the minimum fare for the

Marine Atlantic is $9.25. They will be substantially cheaper and they will be

getting an improved service. We have not sold out the people on the South Coast

like you sold out the railway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I ask

the minister: Is there a plan or a study under way to combine the Registry of

Deeds, Crown Lands Registry, the Municipal Assessment Division and possibly

other divisions into one division and/or department?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, not as far as I know, Mr. Speaker.

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

John's East Extern.

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

Perhaps the minister doesn't know and I anticipate that he

wouldn't. People working in these divisions and the general public are saying

that the units will be combined and may be privatized. They are also saying if

there is a GIS, a Geographic Information System steering committee in place,

possibly under the Department of Finance - will the minister undertake to find

out what is going on and report back to the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is

totally confused. I don't know what he is talking about at all.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations.

As we know, the story continues to unfold about the emergency

job creation program, and of course, the deadline is drawing near. The latest

report I heard was in Ramea where sixty weeks were approved, now only twenty-six

of those weeks can be used. Of course, the story goes on and on in my district.

I don't have the final report on that. Can the minister tell us, with the weeks

that are not being used, what will happen to that money that is coming back into

government? Is it going to change something in the criteria, where these people

who desperately need these jobs - for example, the people in Ramea and the

people in my district and all over the Province - can avail of this stingy $5

million that was put out in the first place, Mr. Speaker?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to the hon. member that we don't have the program

completed yet. There will be, obviously, some slippage but let me say to the

hon. member that we will have more people involved in the Employment Creation

Program this year for a lot less than we had in other years with a lot more. So

there will be well in excess of 2,000 Newfoundlanders who will have taken

advantage of the program. I think the criteria proves something and I will be

happy to report to the hon. member when the program is completed. The funding

for this particular program, as the member should know from his colleagues, that

funding in the fiscal year of 1994-'95 will end on March 31. Now, there are some

discussions going on between myself and the Minister of Finance, but I don't see

how we can extend that period, I say to the hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual

Report, 1994, of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table six copies of two Orders

In Council to meet the requirement of the Financial Administration Act. These

are pre-commitments, in Tourism, Culture and Recreation in terms of advertising,

and in Education in terms of school textbooks.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to also tables copies of a Special

Warrant to meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act. This

Special Warrant has to do with additional funds respecting this year's Budget

requirements for the SRDA agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table six copies of special

warrants, also to meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act.

These involve special warrants issued to provide additional funds this year to

cover the property acquisitions for the capital roads program, increased cash

flow expenditures, which are 100 per cent federal under the Newfoundland

Transportation Initiative, and about $27 million to provide additional funds in

respect of items under the Department of Social Services.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we are about to get into the

enthralling debate on Interim Supply. Before we do, would you first please call

Motion 4; that is a first reading.

Motion, the hon. the Premier to introduce a bill, "An Act

Respecting The Revision And Consolidation Of Subordinate Legislation," carried.

(Bill No. 7).

On motion, Bill No. 7 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

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

call Motion 3, which is the Committee of the Whole on Supply, the Interim Supply

bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from His Honour,

the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: The message from His Honour, the

Lieutenant-Governor, is dated March 16, 1995. It is directed to the hon. the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and reads as follows:

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland,

transmit estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for

the year ending March 31, 1996. By way of Interim Supply, and in accordance with

the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the

House of Assembly.

Sgd.:________________________________

Frederick W. Russell, Lieutenant-Governor

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together

with the bill, be referred to a Committee of Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

Supply on the message and the motion of the hon. the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a fairly

routine matter, the matter of Interim Supply. Government routinely gets Interim

Supply to tide it over until the Budget Debate is finished, essentially. The

real debate on the financial details comes in the Budget Speech. It is covering

all departments and it is $1,054,155,600 of Interim Supply. I would ask hon.

members of the House, after some debate, hopefully to quickly pass this bill

today so that we can get on to the more important debate, the Budget Debate.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Resolution

That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for

the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service

for the financial year ending March 31, 1996, the sum of $l,054,155,600.

On motion, resolution carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, I just quickly want to have a

look at these Special Warrants here. It is a good opportunity for me to ask the

minister for a little more explanation here. The authority is the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation - $500,000. This is advertising, this is placing

the advertising for...? Is that pre-commitment of advertising in trade

magazines, that sort of thing?

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: How does that compare with last year's

amounts? is that comparable?

MR. GRIMES: About the same. (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: About the same.

AN HON. MEMBER: Almost identical.

MR. WINDSOR: The Department of Education and Training:

distribution of school textbooks to be delivered in 1995-1996, in the amount of

$6.5 million; public examinations, related materials, $70,800. Is this

comparable to last year, as well?

MR. BAKER: It was to meet the need, Mr. Speaker, books

that were planned to be purchased, and simply the commitment had to be made

ahead of time to have them ready for the school year. So it is to meet the need

for the next school year. That amount varies from year to year, depending on how

many new texts are coming in and so on.

MR. WINDSOR: Getting into these Special Warrants then,

Mr. Chairman: $1.8 million for Works, Services and Transportation. Would the

minister like to tell us what this $1.8 million is for? Highways, transportation

- Is this the one as the minister said, they are 100 per cent federal? Are these

all 100 per cent federal?

MR. BAKER: These are all under the Newfoundland

transportation initiative, the Trans-Canada Highway. They just got a bit more

work done than they thought they would. It is 100 per cent federal money. We

simply pay it and then recover from the Federal Government, so it is no expense

to us.

MR. WINDSOR: Could the minister tell us which areas these

were expended in? Obviously, these are extensions on some (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I have no idea, Mr. Chairman. There was a lot

of work going on last year, so it is some of the work that has been ongoing.

MR. WINDSOR: Getting into the next section, Mr. Chairman

- where is the next one? The Clerk has given me three copies of all of these. It

takes awhile to get through them. I think I have five copies. I think you gave

me the wrong stack here, these are all the same. I will wait until the Clerk

gives me the copies.

Mr. Chairman, let me ask the - we have $2.5 million for

Works, Services and Transportation, Land Acquisition, Property and Furnishings.

Would you like to give us some more details on that one, tell us exactly what

that one is about? Do you have some details on that?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I could check the exact details, Mr. Chairman,

with Works, Services and Transportation. I believe it was property acquisition

having to do with a number of proposed roads, The Outer Ring Road, I believe the

Goulds Access Road and so on, buying properties and perhaps some land in the

Corner Brook area as well, to purchase these properties for Trans-Canada Highway

construction and construction under the Newfoundland Transportation initiative.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Okay. Emergency Response Program, is this

the program that was announced by the minister during the summer? Is this the

same one that we kept saying that the government is going to need and should

have had in the Budget, and every year refuses to put it in the Budget and every

year it comes in with a special warrant later on, finally admitting that we were

right, that they knew they should have created that program in the first place?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Yes, it is the same program, Mr. Chairman,

that we have done for a number of years and hon. members opposite, when they

were in government and had a 20 per cent unemployment rate, they didn't do it.

It is the same program, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: I advise the minister, Mr. Chairman, that

once again he is incorrect. We had far better programs and created far more jobs

than this government has ever produced. This is the government that wanted to

eliminate them altogether and now, finally, starting to realize that you cannot

eliminate make-work programs as much as none of us likes to see them. As much as

we dislike them and as much as they tend to contribute to the way of life I

talked about yesterday, where it is destroying the work ethic of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians; unfortunately today, that there are no alternatives available

to Newfoundlanders who find themselves without work and government has a

responsibility to create, in the short term, until they get off their collective

rear ends and create some full-time employment in this Province.

Now maybe, the minister would like to tell us therefore, this

$27,300,000 for the Department of Social Services, a result also of their lack

of action in stimulating the economy of this Province. Could he tell us, is

there a breakdown for this, for the sorts of things, allowances and assistance,

$19 million, home support services, I mean, these are tremendous amounts so

could the minister tell us why he was not able to more accurately predict in his

Budget the amounts that were going to be required here, and did we not tell him,

during the Budget debate last year, that he had been overly optimistic, that he

had overestimated the performance of the economy, that the social services rolls

were going to grow and that he had underestimated the amount of money that he

had in the social services department, simply to make his Budget look good?

Would he like to tell us that?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, this amount of $27,300,000 is to

provide additional funds in the Department of Social Services in the areas that

the hon. member outlined.

I would like to say to him that certainly this is an amount

that was underestimated in the Budget and certainly, the hon. gentlemen in his

Budget response last year, indicated that we would need more money in social

services and I agreed and said that, yes, if in that eventuality, we would

provide it with a special warrant. The hon. member went on to say that because

of all this we were not going to meet our target of only a $25 million deficit,

we are going to have a $200 million deficit, Mr. Chairman, and he was absolutely

certain of it. I ask the hon. member: is he so absolutely certain today?

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

MR. WINDSOR: I am absolutely certain, Mr. Chairman, that

the minister didn't have a $25 million surplus, that he has jimmied the books

again to try to make it look as if he did, and if we could look deeper we will

find that he didn't even get the $25 million deficit that he had projected last

year. If he hadn't given away the ferries or taken on the ferries, but taking

away the responsibility from the federal government to provide ferry service in

Newfoundland in perpetuity, if he hadn't taken $20 million from the sinking fund

last year to put into his current account, the money that was put aside to pay

debt that he has taken back to put into current account, Mr. Chairman, to pay

daily expenses then he certainly would have had a deficit this year as he had

predicted, Mr. Chairman. We weren't so far off the mark.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, they are the same kinds of

comments the hon. gentleman has made year after year. He has, for the last three

years, got up and said exactly the same thing, his response to the Budget this

year, I could have gone back and read the last two years and then I would not

have to sit in the House and suffer through what he had to say. It was exactly

the same thing, that we are going to have increased deficits, that we are going

deeper into debt, and all that kind of thing.

Mr. Chairman, Nesbitt Burns - Newfoundland has been at the

forefront in Canada. It is the only Province to have recorded a decline in the

deficit for four consecutive years. Obviously, we have fooled the financial

markets, we have fooled all of these people, like Nesbitt Burns, and Scotia

McLeod, we have fooled the rating agencies, and we have fooled everybody else

except the hon. gentleman opposite, or is he the only one that is in step? Is

that what he is saying, that all the rest of us are out of step and he is the

only one in step?

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.

I notice the acting Premier and the acting Minister of

Justice, the minister who does more acting than Broadway, acting, testy today

over there. I can understand the Minister of Finance being testy because the

Member for Mount Pearl over the last two days has exposed this minister on his

handling of the Trans-City deal. He has exposed the Minister of Finance, the

head honcho on the Cabinet committee that we all know about. He has exposed him,

two payments, two schemes, but it will cost $116 million by the time they

purchase those three hospital facilities, a total of $116 million that this

minister and this government is going to cost the taxpayers of the Province.

The Minister of Finance really thought that the people of the

Province would not find out the real cost to the taxpayers. They thought they

could cover up. The Premier tried to cover up. Day after day, after day, in this

House he would not stand in his place, he would nod, you do it Winston. You

answer it Winston. He tried to stay away from it and now we have finally found

out why the Premier is down in the United Nations, down in New York. He refused

to take the Member for Eagle River because he got his travel budget blown apart.

I wonder how much money they are asking for in the Interim

Supply Bill here. They are asking for a little better than $1 billion. I wonder

how much is included here for travel? Under Tourism, Culture and Recreation they

are looking for just about $14 million. I wonder how much is in there for the

minister to globe trot down in Japan again?

MR. GRIMES: Most of that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, the minister is honest, most of

that.

We all know why the government needs Interim Supply. They

need to pay the bills after March 31. There is a payday, I believe, on April 5,

and they need to pay the bills. That is why they are asking the House to approve

this Interim Supply Bill of a little better than $1 billion.

Then today we see the tabling of special warrants, some

surprises. Once we get a chance to look at some of this, I say, we will need a

little more probing and it will raise some interest in the House, I am sure, but

outside as well, once we get a chance to look at those warrants and see what

they are really all about. It will be quite interesting to see this time next

year, I say to my colleague for Mount Pearl, how many more special warrants we

will have, how many more special warrants will the minister stand in his place

next year and table at this time?

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is looking

kind of strange over there.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, it did not look like you were

looking at me, I say to the minister. I was not quite sure where you were

looking. You looked like you were cross-eyed. My point to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations is that we will not have many special warrants

tabled, I am sure, for employment generation programs. The fuss we had to kick

up this year to try to get you to spend a few measly dollars, and then you went

and doctored the program, then you get up today and brag about the number of

people who are employed under the program, when you limited the number of work

weeks to six and most people could not qualify.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, another minister testy

today. What is going on with the ministry? They are gone mad over there. Why

does the minister get all jittery and shaky when the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes mentions some of his buddies and his political friends? Why does he get

jittery and shouting and bawling across the House? Why does he? What is wrong

with the minister?

You see, this is the kind of thing, the kind of behaviour by

ministers of the government that just could cause us not to give the government

interim supply. This kind of behaviour by the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and others. We just

might dig in and you just might not get interim supply Friday. We might be back

here Saturday and Sunday.

DR. KITCHEN: Pigs might fly.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry? What was it the Member for St.

John's Centre said? Pigs might fly? Is that what he said? We could be, I say to

the member, if the government doesn't come clean, particularly on this Trans

City issue. If the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board doesn't come clean and

admit to the people, the taxpayers of this Province, just what it is costing

them. The Member for St. John's Centre was just about to pound his desk when I

said that then. He was so happy that I brought it up, because he wants to know

as well what has gone on with this Trans City scandal and how much it is costing

the taxpayers in the Province. We just might not grant interim supply if the

government doesn't come clean.

When the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board stood up and

talked about warrants I wondered what kind of warrants he was talking about. I

would say there will soon be warrants coming into the House, Mr. Chairman. There

will soon be warrants from the sheriff I would say for some of them over there

if they don't smarten up, clean up their act. Soon be warrants from the

sheriff's office for some of them over there, I would say, if they soon don't

smarten up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Don't talk about them, said the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations. Who is the sheriff, anyway? Who shot the

sheriff? I thought I shot the sheriff in 1982 but I guess he came back. The

sheriff rebounded, he came back. Who shot the sheriff. I thought I took care of

him in 1982, but they tell me he is back now with a horse and everything, just

like Dennis Weaver. He is more expensive than Dennis Weaver, I would say I hear.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Taking care of Roger Simmons? Boy, I

tell you one thing, you have to be pretty good to take care of Roger Simmons, I

would say to the member. The member knows him better than I do. He is pretty

cagey.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What? Getting cold feet against Roger,

yes. But you never know. If the federal government keeps up using the whipper

snippers and whatnot, there might be a chance on the South Coast. If that great

powerful federal government with all its commitment, with its great commitment

to stopping foreign overfishing, if it keeps using the whipper snippers, you

never know what the political chances might be on the South Coast.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What? Fill them up, fill up the nets, we

don't mind, fill up the nets full of juvenile turbot and other species of fish,

fill them chock to the brim, and then we will go along and cut the nets. Down

goes the net with all the juvenile fish to the bottom, and we cry victory. What

a great victory. Thousands of pounds of juvenile fish gone to the bottom in the

Spanish net and we rant and roar: What a victory for Canada, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes, in the name of conservation. My

colleague for Humber Valley says: How true. How can hon. members be serious

about applauding it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry? Either way you cut it, I say to

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the Spanish are still

overfishing, catching juvenile fish. Not a lot better, whichever way you cut it.

They are doing today what they did when John Crosbie was Minister of Fisheries

and Oceans, when Ross Reid was Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. They are doing

today what they are doing now that Brian Tobin is the Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans. I say to the minister, whatever is happening is inadequate, I say to the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

For us to go off down to New York now with the big

song-and-dance again, with the net and everything else -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Or do nothing like you fellows did for

years.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Member for Eagle River who

last week was so proud to be a Canadian and a Liberal -

MR. DUMARESQUE: And I'm still proud this week.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say you should be wearing the whipper

snippers on the back of your jacket. Put on a promo for whipper snippers. You

knocked off one with the whipper snipper, and the other nineteen keep fishing.

Then the one you cut off puts on another net and you still have twenty fishing;

and when you cut the net all the juvenile fish go to the bottom of the sea, so

that doesn't regenerate, so big victory. So the inconvenience is, for the

Spanish crew, that they have to put on another trawl.

Then you have the Spanish Government, who is supporting it

with two military vessels now, and who has obviously agreed to financially

support the fishing industry for any losses of nets and other things, who

couldn't care less. You cut their net, they go outside and put on a new net and

come back in and drag up the fish again, and every time they cut a warp - well,

they cut one now, in how many days since they came back in and started fishing?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Ten days since they came back to fish

again? We cut one net. We haven't stopped them from catching any fish. How much

fish have these twenty trawlers taken, I say to the Member for Eagle River, in

those ten days? And we go off down to New York with a net, and we get into a

little sparring match down there with the European Community.

AN HON. MEMBER: And we're winning.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, there's no doubt, I say; yes, we are

winning. What a victory! There are only twenty out there today dragging it up -

what a victory, I say to the Member for Eagle River. There is no harm to say

that you would sing and dance to whatever they do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: God in Heaven, I say to the Member for

Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: There were eighty out there last year.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, there were never eighty out there, I

say to the Member for Eagle River - in his imagination. Now there were eighty

out there when John Crosbie was minister.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Eighty out there last year.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, yes, in the member's mind, and the

night the government changed the numbers were cut in half in the member's mind.

MR. DUMARESQUE: You don't see either one of them

(inaudible), and you won't see them from Spain in a year from now.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Why would that be, I say to the member?

You know why, I say to the Member for Eagle River? Because there would be no

point in dragging a net that -

MR. DUMARESQUE: There was never a Tory had any

(inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I was going to tell the member that I

agree with him; they won't be out there in a year, because there will be no

reason to come over in a year. They would just have cold, Atlantic water flowing

through a net with a liner in it, not catching a fish, won't be able to pay for

the fuel or the crew, so they won't come over. They have to use a liner now to

make it viable - the member knows that - that is why they are using the liner.

Well, let them overfish for another period of time and the liner won't be any

good, so they won't come over, because all they will be doing is pulling the net

with cold, Atlantic water flowing through it, no fish, so the stock will be

extinct.

So I say to the Member for Eagle River, we should not applaud

that they will not be there in a year, because the reason they won't be there is

that there will be no fish there in a year - and a great victory that will be, I

say to the Member for Eagle River, won't it, a great victory - no Spanish out

there overfishing now because there are no fish to catch. The stock is going to

be wiped out, I say to the member. None of us are proud of what is happening out

there, and I wish, in the name of God, there was some way to get at the problem,

but we are back, I say to the member, to where we were three or four years ago.

MR. DUMARESQUE: For the first time in our history we are

doing something instead of putting our heads in the sand, refusing to do it

because of politics.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What are we doing?

MR. DUMARESQUE: What are we doing?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Watching the Spanish overfish.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Arresting vessels (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: One.

MR. DUMARESQUE: No.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: One.

MR. DUMARESQUE: No.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Canadian vessels. Before we arrested a

Canadian vessel, I say to the Member for Eagle River. Our own boat we arrested

before, our own boat. What an admission of -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) nets cuts. You never saw

(inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, you know when you have the

Member for Eagle River because that is the behaviour he demonstrates when you

have him. When his only defense of his buddies in Ottawa is to sit in his seat

and scream and shout across the House, and try to talk over whoever has been

recognized by the Chair, that is when you know you really have him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, a whippersnapper who supports the

use of the whipper snipper.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Nothing wrong with it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And, of course, the Premier knows,

because the Premier refused to take him down to New York.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not mature enough.

MR. WOODFORD: The Premier is down in New York and can't

sit down because (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, he went up to the Premier, begged

and whined and wanted him to take him down there, and the Premier said, `Danny,

how many more times do I have to tell you? You're as juvenile as the turbot they

are catching on the Grand Banks.' That's the reason he gave him for not putting

him in Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: `You're as juvenile as the turbot, and

you know, Daniel, how I feel about juvenile turbot. I will tell them in New

York.' What were the words he used, the adjectives he used down in the United

Nations yesterday? I read them somewhere today.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, there were three words. I forget

them - I can't remember now. I wish I could remember. But he is down there doing

his best. I applaud the Premier for being in New York.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is more than you've ever done.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, no doubt, and more than I'll ever

do, but I would have done it if I could have the taxpayers of the Province

sending me out of the Province for ninety to a hundred days a year, I think I

might be in New York today. I think I just might be in the Big Apple today. I

think I might be, I say to the member. I might be down in New York today if the

taxpayers were bank rolling me down there.

The poor old member, it is a shame you know - but I tell you,

I will make the member a promise, if he can get a commitment from the Premier -

MR. WOODFORD: To let him go into Cabinet.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, not that! God, we would never want

him to be a minister! But if the Premier will promise the House that he will

take his parliamentary assistant on the trips for the duration of the fiscal

year, of which this billion dollars will help pay for, if he will get a

commitment that the Premier will take him with him, I think I can convince my

colleagues that we will pass the Interim Supply Bill by Friday. Now, you go out

and get on the phone to New York -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) today, then we can get on

with the Budget.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh no, we want a commitment from the

Premier. Go and call the Premier in New York. I am sure you can get to him just

like that.

MR. TOBIN: I must say, the Premier looked good yesterday

sitting next to Brian Tobin.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, it was good yesterday, I must say.

The Member for Burin - Placentia West reminded me of something: watch the

television. Mr. Tobin, in his usual eloquent way, was there - that is the

federal Mr. Tobin - and he asked: `Where is that paper?'... and as quick as a

wink the Premier went down the pile and he picked it up - his shoes left - and

he flicks over the paper to the federal minister. Doesn't that tell it all, I

said? Doesn't that say it all?

AN HON. MEMBER: Brian's parliamentary assistant.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He looked so good. There is a message in

that for the members opposite, those who are encouraging the hon. Brian Tobin to

come back to seek the leadership of the Liberal Party. For those who are

encouraging him to do that, I tell you, there is a message in what you saw

yesterday, `Don't waste your time asking me to come back with you, boys, I've

got it too good here. When I can have your Premier up here passing me my papers,

why do I want to come back and be your leader and your Premier? Why would I

seriously think about it?' Just think about it.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) Humber East.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm sorry? The Member for Humber East,

what?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Wait until you have to pass papers to

Lynn Verge.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, if that is what it takes, I say to

the Member for Eagle River, I will pass the papers.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations, I liked that. Yes, I would need a telescopic arm, I would need

to keep pulling it out - pass the papers up. It is a good rebuttal. But it told

me everything when I watched the Premier out there yesterday passing papers to

the federal minister. It put everything in order when it comes to this Province

and this country and who runs - and who has power and who doesn't and who is

beholden to him.

MR. TOBIN: They wouldn't let you go with the Premier.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is too bad, the member would have

liked it in New York. I have seen how much he enjoys Ottawa. I have been in

Ottawa and I have seen how much he enjoys Ottawa. Can you imagine how much he

would enjoy New York?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: By leave?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We didn't record your time, but it seems

like ten minutes to me.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have only been about five minutes. I

watched the clock. I have been about five minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We didn't record the time so it seemed like

ten minutes to me, but -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I am sure it does, Mr. Chairman,

with all due respect. I would be surprised if it doesn't seem like five days, if

you want me to conclude, I will. So you are asking me to conclude?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you can get up again afterwards.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will start it off right now and time

from now on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten minutes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ten minutes, yes.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am happy to rise on the bill here today, Interim Supply,

but it didn't sound like my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank was speaking

for ten minutes; I think he was cut short. It was such an enjoyable debate and

exchange across the House, that I think everybody was happy with it, Mr.

Chairman, and everybody was enlightened to hear the Member for Grand Bank

speaking; it shows great knowledge of the fishery and what was happening out

there, and take on the Member for Eagle River, the person who tries to make

everybody believe that he is a representative of the people and a great orator

for Labrador.

It was only the other day I saw him on one of the television

shows, I think it was Here and Now ; and he took the side view looking out

over the ice floes. It reminded me of Nanook, looking out over the ice floes of

his native land. Mr. Chairman, the Member for Eagle River, comes in, stands here

in the House and talks about the wonderful things that are happening up in

Ottawa; his mentor up in Ottawa, the wonderful things he is doing out there like

cutting nets and bringing in draggers. Mr. Chairman, the Member for Port de

Grave brought all that forward years ago. Where were you then, you didn't

believe in it.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I did.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, you didn't. You didn't stand up and

be counted, you didn't believe in it because you were after another job, that

was the reason. He had no support from his caucus over there, other than that,

the problem would have been solved today; other than that, the Member for Port

de Grave would have solved the problem and you wouldn't have been in the

embarrassing situation that you are in today - going down on the waterfront and

seeing a charade when they brought in one dragger and left another thirty-eight

out there raking the bottom, and you get up and you say, `I believe in Brian

Tobin and I am proud to be a Liberal, I am proud to be a Canadian.'

MR. DUMARESQUE: Absolutely.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, shame, on the Member for

Eagle River. At least your other colleagues, Mr. Chairman, know who brought the

technology forward, know the man, the man right there sitting on the front

benches, that is the man who went over and had the initiative to bring in the

people from Iceland, that is the man who is responsible for going out there and

cutting the nets, but you never hear his name mentioned anymore, and that is a

shame. There is nothing worse or nothing lower than somebody going and taking

somebody else's idea and saying, `It was mine, it was mine.' Shame! Shame! There

is the member right there who deserves the credit, and I hope it comes back to

him. So give him some credit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he supporting you for leader?

MR. EFFORD: He is trying to get a few miles of road done.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am trying to get some road done, that's

right.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I had my say about that a couple of

days ago when we debated the resolution as put forward by the Member for Grand

Bank. I said what I had to say about that at that time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer back to a couple of days

ago when the Speech from the Throne was read. The former Environment minister,

the Member for Conception Bay South, got up and I think she seconded the motion

if I am correct. My response to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That's right. Mr. Chairman, she got up

and talked about the wonderful things that were happening in her district, and

she said, the two biggest concerns she now has - and I think I can recall

correctly - the two biggest concerns she has, are: sidewalks and I don't know if

she said traffic lights or pedestrian lights.

Now, Mr. Chairman, how out of touch with rural Newfoundland

and Labrador - or what a wonderful place it is, that she lives in! What a

wonderful place she lives in, is Conception Bay South! I have to drive through

there some day and see it, or else I have to take the minister out and show her

what rural Newfoundland is all about - take her out and show her Bonavista, show

her Plate Cove East and Plate Cove West and Duntara and see where people don't

even have a suitable supply of drinking water. There is no suitable supply of

drinking water, Mr. Chairman, seniors, living in their houses without home care.

It is shameful! Hospital beds closed, senior citizens' homes built and ten beds

put forward, and don't have the funding to open them - don't have the funding to

open the ten beds! But a few miles away in an acute care facility, chronic

people occupying acute care beds, costing us three times as much money, but we

can't take them and move them down to Bonavista in the chronic care home because

it was not specified in the Budget that we can do that. We don't mind spending

money as long as it is directed in a certain way.

It is shameful, Mr. Chairman! When I think that same member

was part of the Cabinet, part of the decision-making process, it causes me to

shudder. I tremble knowing that we are in the hands of those people so uncaring,

lacking the knowledge about rural Newfoundland. It's shameful!

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board brought forward a

balanced Budget, but at what price? There is no problem in bringing forward a

balanced budget, whether it is a balanced budget for the Province or a budget

for somebody's home, if you do away with spending, if you don't accept your

responsibilities. There is no trouble bringing forward a balanced budget. But

when you go out and see the number of people who are out there today unemployed,

you see the number of people who are hurting - I wonder how many people took

pride when the minister got up and said: Today, I'm proud to stand and deliver a

balanced budget.

If people were working, if there were no need out there, and

if the needs were being responded to, then I would be the first one to give the

minister a good hand and a good rap on the desk.

MR. BAKER: That is not true!

MR. FITZGERALD: Sure, it is true, Mr. Chairman, and the

minister knows that. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations shakes his

head. What a farce of an employment program that the minister introduced! He was

shamed into it by people on this side of the House. The hon. the Member for Baie

Verte - White Bay here, he got laryngitis after talking that much in trying to

represent his district and represent his constituents in presenting petitions

here in this House. He was continually up. And finally, the minister convinced

some people in Cabinet that there was a need out there. He responded to it.

I believe the minister was sincere, but I think, being a new

minister, he probably couldn't get the rest of caucus to come on side. I can

imagine the minister trying to convince the House Leader of the need in rural

Newfoundland to create emergency employment. I can imagine the trouble he had.

In fact, the Premier got up one day and he looked behind at the minister and

said the minister couldn't have been awake. When the minister had made a

response to a Morning Show program, the minister's comments were -

because it was out of sync, what he believed in. He said: The minister must have

been asleep.

The minister wasn't asleep, the minister was concerned. He

was showing some concern. I honestly believe that, Minister, I honestly believe

you were concerned. But I believe that the Cabinet wasn't concerned. I don't

know why you are so hesitant about naming the people who were part of that

special committee that put together the criteria. I don't know why you would

hide them and you take the blame yourself. Don't do that, because they wouldn't

do it for you. You see what is happening to the member sitting next to you now.

You see the way they are hoodwinking him, taking all his credit, taking all his

glory. They will do the same thing with you, I can assure you.

The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs - we met

this morning and brought forward some concerns. And it was a good session - it

lasted about three hours, three hours-and-a-half. I brought it to the minister's

attention that I don't know why anybody in this Province today would want to go

out in rural Newfoundland and become a councillor, become part of a town

council, a municipal government, become part of a forum of municipal government.

I don't know why they would. Because here is what would happen.

In the past, there was always some funding there, some

encouragement for people to form these local district associations. I am not

saying go out and borrow and borrow, no, I am not. I didn't say that. It is

shameful when this government today comes out and says, `There will be no tax

increases right here. We are bringing in a balanced Budget without any tax

increases.' But, Mr. Chairman, there are tax increases, and they are being

filtered down to the municipalities by the government of the day, shedding their

responsibility to the people, and it is being passed on to the community

councils and the town councils in rural Newfoundland.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to start this debate by reading this: `It may be

as faint as a fog-bound morning in Bonavista but there is a new light in

Newfoundland.' On Monday, the Globe and Mail headline was, `A Practical

Spirit in Newfoundland'. It says, `the government realized that early and

responded aggressively.' `In its provincial outlook,' Nesbitt Byrne says,

`Newfoundland has been at the forefront of fiscal restraint in Canada. It is the

only Province to have recorded a decline in the deficit for four consecutive

years.' It says, the Budget isn't all, either, that is hopeful on the rock these

days. Premier Clyde Wells has proposed changes to hidebound areas of social and

economic policy that have always been sacrosanct, collectively. They represent a

sea change, a milestone. A fundamental change in public policy is happening in

Newfoundland, leading the country, Mr. Chairman, in fiscal restraint, in social

policy, and in economic development.

This is not the record of the tired old Tory ways. This is

the record of a strong Liberal Government with imagination, and with aggressive

courage. It is not going to hide behind maybe something in the wind that might

fall bad for the political fortunes of their party. They are looking at what is

in the best interest of the people. We went to the people nearly two years ago

and said: `We are not coming offering you a bag of goodies, a Sprung greenhouse

here, a Sprung greenhouse there. We are not going to offer you millions here and

millions there, a pickle factory here and a pickle factory there. We are not

going to offer you that. We are going to offer you the straight goods, we are

going to tell you the truth, we are going to give you some imagination, some

political will and some vision. We are going to give you what you deserve, and

that is good government.'

The people of the day, nearly two years ago, came back and

said: `Yes, yes, stay in there, stay for four more years because you have done a

better job than the other crowd did. I know the mess you have in there.' I heard

it all, and hon. members also heard it. Every door we went to we heard it time

and time again. Are we going to even think about giving it back to the tired old

Tories? Are we now going to give it back now to the Member for Humber East, the

one who was in there in the tired, old Peckford days and the short-lived Rideout

days? Are we going to pass it back over to the Member for Humber East? There is

nothing over there. There is not a stir out there in Newfoundland today caused

by that party over there.

As the Globe and Mail concludes, `It is this practical

spirit that will bring Newfoundland out of economic stagnation. It will be the

Liberal Government that will say to the people, `Have not is no more.' It will

be the Liberal Government who will deliver on that statement, and not the tired,

old Tory ways, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt.

I can't help but listen, and actually smile, when listening

to the Crosbie puppets over there now saying we are not going far enough: `You

haven't gone and taken over the world, you still haven't gone over to Africa,

you still haven't solved the problem over in Iceland, you still haven't fixed

everything else that is wrong in the world.' We have done, Mr. Chairman, what no

Minister of Fisheries, what no government in Ottawa, what no government here in

Newfoundland ever did when it came to foreign overfishing, what they ever did

when it was dealing with the seal population.

How many times have members opposite stood up and said: We

should do this. But there was no political courage in Ottawa, there was no

political support in Ottawa, there was no backbone in the prime minister of

Canada who was a Tory for the last time, and obviously, Mr. Chairman, that is

why there are no Tories in Ottawa today. Because the people in Canada lost total

confidence in that party. It had no vision, it had nothing to offer, it had no

people there who were willing to work and put the interest of the people before

their political stripe. That is recorded in history and it will be recorded

again the next time we go back to the polls in this Province.

MR. TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, more a point of clarification.

The member I know obviously is not in Cabinet, and when he refers to "we" he is

referring to himself and some other people. I wonder would he clarify who the

other people besides himself are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. We are

Liberals on this side of the House, we are progressive people, we are

visionaries, we are action people. We are people who stand up and fight for what

is right for the people's interest, not the interest of the political party that

we represent. We are proud to be that. We are proud to stand over here and stand

behind our record. For anybody else who would have sat in this House and for the

first time since 1949 be able to stand behind our Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board and say that we are for the first time in our history delivering

a balanced budget in this Province at this point in time, with no increases in

taxes and no new taxes.

I don't know how we haven't seen the people come up and take

him out of the House of Assembly and march him around this Province. Because he

has to be a miracle worker. He has to be somebody who has a vision, and

obviously supported by a government that has the guts to do what is right. Any

other day, any other government, any other place in this world who would see the

kind of performance for the last four years, and particularly the last couple of

years by this minister, would have to be bringing accolades to this House, would

have to be standing up and congratulating him.

But no! They are not concerned about the future generations

of this Province. They are not concerned about whether we have a debt that we

can get some control over. They are not concerned about whether we have any

money to develop our economy. They are not concerned about whether we can

continue to provide quality education and social services and health care. They

are not concerned about anything else, only now to try to find a leader that

they can try to find a parade then to try to take them out of the political

wilderness.

It is not going to work. The people of this Province know

that they want good government, they know when they are getting good government,

and they will know where to mark their x the next time around because they have

seen good government. They have seen it enunciated, most recently in our Budget

Speech. An historic day, a watershed day, a day that should be recorded and will

be recorded in history as a day when we turned our back on fiscal recklessness,

on total irresponsibility when it comes to dealing with our finances, and a day

when we put the people of this Province first and the future generations will be

number one on our priority.

We should be hearing more people on the other side of the

House. Because they are not going to get the credibility. That is why they

haven't anybody running for leader. That is why when the Leader of the

Opposition resigned there just before Christmas, he said: Look out, the doors

are going to be blown off here, I've got seven already who are going to go, and

I know there are four or five others out there in the wings. Oh yes, there is a

lawyer downtown, there is a Danny, Dougie, Buddy, all the people, Sailor White

and people like that. They were going to blow the doors off her trying to get

into the Newfoundland Hotel to get hold of that mantle.

But slowly but surely they marched up to the microphone:

Well, I'm not going to run, I'm going to chicken out, there is not much over

there, is there? I mean, how many times did we hear it? What about if I did win?

I almost had a nightmare, one fellow said. I woke up in the middle of the night

and said: Oh my, if I did win, what would I have? A rag-tag of a political

party, visionless, no courage, being seen as Crosbie puppets in their best days,

nothing to offer the people of this Province, not a thing.

We had all kinds of people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, and the best they could come up

with, Mr. Chairman, was a candidate supported by Bill Barry and the right-wing

side of the Tory party, the Preston Manning of the Tory party in Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Bill Barry. And the Carl Sullivan, the

Con Sullivan. But there is no con going to be delivered to the people of this

Province, I can tell you that. Because what we know is the truth. That Bill

Barry's policies are not going to take over the fisheries policies, as much as

the Member for Ferryland is in favour of them.

I have some confidence in the Member for Grand Bank. I am

sure he is not going to allow the Bill Barry vision of the future to overtake

what is left of that political party. I am sure that he won't put up with it. I

am sure that he will stand up against it, and I am sure that the Member for

Ferryland is going to show us how many dollars, how many tens of thousands of

dollars, does Bill Barry and the Sullivans and that vision of the fishery put

into his campaign?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to rise

to say a few words on the bill on Interim Supply.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: A new suit, no problem now to get a new suit

now; the wife gave me that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, what a pitiful, pitiful

relation to The Globe and Mail . They are so desperate to look for

something positive to say about the party, they go to The Globe and Mail ;

imagine. Ask all the Newfoundlanders around the Province what they think of the

Budget in the last four or five years, but no way; the Member for Eagle River

goes to The Globe and Mail and holds it all up. That's who is going to

elect us the next election, The Globe and Mail , the same Globe and

Mail that called us the barbarians of the seal industry, the same Globe

and Mail that said, you are all lazy and looking for government hand-outs.

That's the same Globe and Mail - I think it is - the same Globe and

Mail . That's what they are looking for, as you are reading. Well, my God,

how pitiful have they gotten? How low have they gotten?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: How low can you go? They are looking for the

approval of The Globe and Mail . Now I have heard it all. The Globe and

Mail is their newest poll. How desperate have they gotten?

You go around this Province and go up to Southern Labrador,

where I visited a little while ago, and I would be concerned a little bit if I

were the Member for Eagle River - a blinding snowstorm, five or six communities

are all that could come to the meeting anyway, 220 out on skidoos and four-wheel

drives, and another 100 in Forteau who couldn't get there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) sub sandwiches (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, no sub sandwiches, no chicken,

nothing in Labrador, no, sir, not a thing. All it was was good, solid Tories

coming out to say that we are going to support a leader - five and six - that's

what it was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, I am going to tell you another

thing; none of the rent-a-cars came from Quebec that came up to that meeting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Not one of them; they all came on their own

skidoos, their own gas from Labrador. As a matter of fact, a lot of people from

the Blanc Sablon area wanted to come up to the leadership delegation meeting.

Even the people from across the border wanted to come up and take

part in the

meeting, it was that exciting - 220 people out in L'Anse-au-Loup for a PC

delegate selection meeting - 220 people, another 100 stuck on a bus in Forteau

who were really upset that they couldn't make it up there, and then we had calls

from Blanc Sablon, wondering if they could come up and vote in Newfoundland for

our next leader. That is where the excitement is. I will tell you where else the

excitement is about the leadership, 800 people out in the District of Kilbride

for a delegate selection meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: So what?

MR. SHELLEY: Are you telling me there is no end to the

other interest? Out of fifty-eight meetings, we had two controversies with some

chicken and pizza, and all of a sudden everybody blows it up. We had a couple of

feeds... I would say before the leadership is through there in the not too near

future, it won't be chicken and pizza, it will be steaks and chateaubriand.

That's what it will be, steaks and chateaubriand, you just wait. If you think

you have a taste of it now, you wait until you taste the chateaubriand from the

leadership that is coming over there in the next little while.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the member, when he goes back to

his region, and back to his district, and talks to the few excited people who

were there who are coming to this leadership on April 28, I wonder how many he

will get out for their leadership they will be having in the near future.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) because it is closed

membership.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, that is right; it is closed membership.

You have to have a membership card and all this (inaudible).

Mr. Chairman, I couldn't believe it, to see the member,

especially this member, who talked about the seal industry, stand up so proud of

The Globe and Mail . My God, right out of Toronto, the barbarians, the

Newfoundlanders, the same people who said we were the lazy people who look for

government hand-outs, are now approving of the Government of Newfoundland. Well,

big deal! Who cares what The Globe and Mail says. I said that since day

one. I am not going to change it anytime. The last paper I want to rate me is

The Globe and Mail .

AN HON. MEMBER: A few weeks ago they (inaudible)

downgraded Trepassey.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, The Globe and Mail last week,

with the downgrading of Trepassey, and talking about the Trepassey people, and

Newfoundlanders in general, they weren't too excited about The Globe and Mail

then.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is the mark of desperate people - they

will do desperate things.

MR. SHELLEY: Desperation calls for desperate things.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say a few words - and I brought up

the question today and I will go back to that now that we have finished with the

leadership - about job creation, the $5 million that was spit out to this

Province and administered in probably the worst way that any money could be

administered, except for the $10 million that was administered for Hydro, of

course, but the $5 million that was sent out to administer in this Province for

job creation, what an insult that was. Every day that goes by and the more

stories I hear - and I know the minister heard them too, I know the Member from

Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir has heard them, I know the Member for Eagle River heard

them, all the same stories and the minister has heard them. What a gross

misconduct of administering money in this Province. It is unbelievable, when a

person can sit there - a husband who wanted to get on this project - a husband

who was receiving $200 a week -

AN HON. MEMBER: Out passing out the chicken coupons.

MR. SHELLEY: I didn't pass out any chicken coupons. The

husband

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: And job creation - a true story for the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, I know you have heard them but I

will give you the one story that was so gross that the criteria I said, had to

be looked at again. Mr. Chairman, the one man who was receiving somewhere

between $200 and $210 a week on unemployment, four children in the house, his

wife needed six stamps but because he was receiving the $190 a week or more, of

course this poor lady who needed two more weeks could not get on the project.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's your fault.

MR. SHELLEY: My fault the criteria is like it is? Okay,

very good. Well if it is my fault give me the power to change it and we will

change it real fast. We will have the rest of the money out and change the

criteria tomorrow morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: No problem, if you think it is my fault. The

minister knows and this minister knows, it was a gross administration of money,

the funding. Do you know what was missing? It was common sense, plain simple

common sense. The measly money that was put out there, Mr. Chairman, I say to

the minister in all sincerity, should have been given to the districts - like he

did, he started out on the right track and split up the money evenly, I will

give him credit for that - then let the people in the districts, through

development associations or independent groups, decide who the most needy people

are and let them go to work on the projects.

Now, Mr. Chairman - the best example was the one I just read.

The most recent report I just heard was Ramea, sixty weeks they were given down

in Ramea. Do you know what they were doing for those other six weeks they

needed? They were apple picking in Nova Scotia. They were getting sixty weeks

down there and they are sending them back twenty-six weeks. They couldn't use

it: no boy, we're all okay down here, the work is fine, we are all fine. We are

sending back twenty-six weeks. We don't need that. We don't need your measly

$100,000. I mean it is so ridiculous it is almost not worth the comment. The

simple fact is minister, is that the criteria for this is out to lunch. It just

does not relate. Why wasn't it polled and let the people in the different areas,

the Ramea groups, the Baie Verte Peninsula, the Southern Labrador and everywhere

else, why didn't you let them administer money to the people who needed it most?

It is a simple, simple request and with a little bit of common sense would have

solved a lot of the problems.

I mean the irony of the situation when you got twenty jobs

available at a council office, you have 100 people lining up for them and only

ten can get on because the 100 cannot qualify because they are saying: no, you

are too well off. What are you saying to these people: No boy, you are too well

off. You are making too much money. Like this poor man whose wife could not get

on because he was making $200 a week. I am going to tell you, I visited that

house during Christmas and it was unbelievable to see it first hand. You talk

about the code of starvation, Mr. Chairman, that man opened his fridge and he

told me to tell the Premier and this House - and I can tell him now too, I will

tell that man I did say it in this House - he said: you can tell the Premier we

are not starving but we are next to it. When we use the starving quotation which

you figure I blew up through the sublime there and went to hell with it. The

truth is that these people are in a desperate state and the criteria set in this

- it was bad enough, Mr. Chairman, that the amount of money that went out was $5

million but the truth was they did not want to send out anything so they put

this criteria in place so that we would not even use that much. So that next

week they can run around saying: well, we put out the job creation program.

Mr. Chairman, what this government should start considering

and what any government of the day should consider, is that we are going to find

ourselves in that situation every year. Let's face the reality of that. We are

going to find ourselves in that situation again next year, I say to the

minister. So why not do a little bit of foresight and preplanning? Why don't we

do something that is sensible? Why don't we say now at this time instead of

putting it out into projects. I will agree, Mr. Chairman -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: It gives one a lot of pleasure to hear the

Opposition so intent on wanting people to think that times are bad, that things

are terrible, that life is over, that there is no hope, that things are just

terrible in this Province of ours, that we are all ready to close the door, and

as it is often said in my district, Mr. Chairman, you would only wish for your

political future that the last person to leave Newfoundland, turn off the lights

when they close the doors on the boat at Port aux Basques. Well, such is not the

case, Mr. Chairman, such is not the case, Mr. Chairman!

There is a new enthusiasm growing in this Province to see

that this government has managed to balance the books of the Province and that

you just do not like it; it is very obvious to be able to manage the finances of

this Province in spite of the difficulties that we face, in spite of the harsh

situation created by the closure of the fishery; in spite of the fact that the

Opposition would put forward that we are terrible managers of the provincial

economy. The fact of the matter is we cannot manage an economy, Mr. Chairman.

The fact of the matter is, that we, as a government, can only create a climate

in which the private sector can be the engine of growth for the economy, and we

are doing that in spades.

It is the Opposition who would have us hold the line and also

would have us believe that things are so terrible that despair is the way of the

future, that for people to navel gaze as they often say, to look down, to feel

badly about themselves, perpetuate the myth of the downtrodden Newfoundlander,

make us all permanent victims of the terrible situation and the terrible

circumstance in which we find ourselves. That, Mr. Chairman, is the Tory way,

and for us to believe what they put forward with their leaders, Mr. Chairman, we

would have to think that Newfoundland has no future. Well, Newfoundland has a

very bright future.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, will -

AN HON. MEMBER: They will have to change governments.

MR. RAMSAY: They will have to change what? No, no. The

only change will be in the Leadership of the Opposition and then again, after

the next provincial election, the people will realize that the vision put

forward by this government, one of an enterprising culture, one of a people who

take the ingenuity and the long-standing dedication to pursuing a livelihood in

spite of the odds, that these people here, in this fine Province of ours, will

persevere and will do well. The people in this Province will do well; there is

an enterprising culture being built right from the kindergarten grades in

schools on up through. People are coming to us in many, many ways, they are

phoning, they are coming to visit their members and I am sure hon. members

opposite do have visits from people who want to take

part in the new economy,

who want to be a part of the technological revolution that this Province wants

to be a part of and these people want to be sure that they are not left behind.

The people in this Province, it takes but a small percentage

of change for us to compound that into good growth for the future of our

Province, for the future of our children. We want our children, I don't know

about you, but I would like my children to stay in Newfoundland; I would like my

children to have no opportunity better anywhere else than they can have here at

home, and I hope to be able to, in my own little way, as a member of this

government and as a representative of the people of my area, to offer them some

vision; to offer them leadership and not to put forward the type of view that

the members of the opposition do, that everything is terrible, that we do

everything wrong in this government, that we are just terrible managers of

money.

This balanced Budget is nothing but a lark. If we listen to

the Finance critic opposite then suddenly all of the figures we are putting

forward this year are total fluff, they do not exist. This is all false. One

would have the public of this Province think that everything we have done has

been corrupt, everything we have done is a terrible view of the world, and that

there is no way this government could actually balance its books. And the

Auditor General, of course, would at some stage probably go along, that we have

done nothing but spend our money unwisely and we have never managed to meet the

task at hand of reporting on things properly.

Well, I would think, as was said the other day, that the

board members of the various boards in question, all know for what reason they

are sitting as board members. The hon. members opposite would have you believe

that there is nothing but graft and corruption over here. Well, such is not the

case and the public of the Province, it is obvious with their view of the

political leadership in this Province, certainly do feel that this government is

doing a good job, that this government is leading the way for the whole of the

country.

This government is doing what is right. It is getting out of

the support of business in putting forward grants. This government is doing it

by loan only. The government is supporting the different industrial sectors, it

is supporting the strategic side of computer technology through the on-line

program, the opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador in the new economy,

through a report which will be made to Cabinet in about six months time. That

report will give us a strategy that we will follow in our efforts to diversify

Newfoundland into the new economy.

We are going from the fishing net to the inter-net. We are

not going to dispose of the fishing net but we are going to build on the fishing

net and move our economy to the inter-net.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RAMSAY: The Opposition does not want to hear this.

The choice and the vision for the people of this Province is not to have chicken

or to have chinese food. The choice of the people of this Province is whether

they want sound, good government, or just have someone there who wants to be

Premier. I submit that the people of this Province would return this government

again today, tomorrow, and in the future, because of the sound fiscal management

that the people of this Province have seen over the last number of years.

We look forward to more future balanced budgets. We will

balance the Budget in spite of the fiscal difficulty, and the reason why we will

balance the Budget is because we have to balance the Budget and that will show

good stewardship on behalf of the taxpayers of the Province, Mr. Chairman.

In conclusion I would submit that the Opposition are

wallowing about in a terrible despair. The members of the PC party that they

would have hoped would come forward realized that there was no rationale, there

was no justification for offering themselves for the leadership of a Tory party

that will be in opposition for many, many years to come, and based on that I can

see why they are in such despair. I can see why we have to show the leadership,

show them the way, show them how we are so interested in building up this

Province and not in having people look down and feel bad about themselves, and

feel terrible about the Province.

Let us all get on the same bandwagon and support the

enthusiasm that is necessary to move this Province, to make this Province one

that moves ahead of all other provinces. We are now at the pinnacle of small

business job creation in this Province and let us continue to do that. Let us

continue to make Newfoundland and Labrador the place in all of North America

where it is best to invest your money. Maybe the hon. member there from Labrador

will be interested in investing some of his money back here in the Province

again, as he has in the past. Perhaps he would invest further making

Newfoundland the place for him to put his money so that he does not have to buy

mutual funds and stocks and bonds in downtown Toronto. Maybe Newfoundland is the

place.

Maybe the hon. members opposite will be able to invest their

RRSPs and their mutual funds and everything they have any dealings with here in

this Province because this will be the best return for all these investments

that hon. members have. Probably those hon. members who were here in the past

when the Tory opposition was in government would certainly have a bit more money

to invest because there was a lot more money flowing around at that time, but

possibly even these hon. members, who have a good solid background, would be

interested in investing here in the Province.

That is what we want, to be able to attract new business

investment. Maybe Chuck Furey won't have to go any further than to the

Opposition caucus room to get new business investment. Maybe that is where he

has to go. Maybe he doesn't have to travel. You maintain that he shouldn't be

travelling. Then maybe that is where he will go. Who knows, Mr. Chairman. Maybe

that is the new strategy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much would you bet now on the

leadership?

MR. A. SNOW: I have bet enough. But I'm willing to wager

though that when the time comes to select a new leader on that side of the House

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Oh yes. You can see it. Last night. Did you

see it last night on television when Brian was there in all his glory and he had

his deputy minister on one side and then he had his advisor or his PR man on the

other side? Did you see that? Whatever. The Premier was there, alright? He said:

I need those papers, where are those paper? He turned, and instead of turning to

his deputy minister he turned to the Premier, and here was the Premier going

through the files trying to find Brian the paper, passing it along. I heard

somebody on the other side talking about how he shouldn't be treating the

Premier like that, you know, like an assistant or something. He just said: Get

me those papers.

I heard a fellow on the other - I won't say who it is,

because I don't want to embarrass my friends on the other side. I don't want to

embarrass them, I won't point them out. This person said: My God, it's not hard

to tell now he won't be around long when he is just looking for the papers for

the federal Cabinet minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name him.

MR. A. SNOW: No, I don't want to do that because that

wouldn't be fair. Why should I announce his candidacy already? I wouldn't want

to steal his thunder. He wants to be able to call a press conference to

announce....

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: We all know there is going to be a

leadership race on the other side. It will be good for the party. You will go

through the same process we are going through, which is a building of the party

and attracting

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes. It will be good for the party, it will

be good for your party. Because by doing this you will end up breaking off into

little groups and supporting different groups. So you won't have this single

person just leading you along and you blindly followed. There were only one or

two of you who had the backbone to stand up to the leadership of the party and

say that they were against the policy of the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. Then after, when the public opinion built, then you changed. You

knew then, and so did the Premier know, that it was time to go. When he couldn't

put his will on the people in the party.

Now you are going to be going through a process. It will help

your party to have a new leader. Because it is good for the political process

and it will be good for your party, as it has been good for our party to go

through the leadership that we are going through today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No, it hasn't been good for my checking

account, I will agree with that. Because we all must contribute to the process.

Mr. Chairman, it was with interest that I listened to the

Member for LaPoile talking about the creation of the enterprise culture, as if

to say that by sitting here in the House and passing one piece of legislation

you can all of a sudden change the whole history and the culture of this

Province - one piece of legislation - the EDGE legislation. Well, it's a little

more complicated than that. By passing one piece of legislation - yes, I agree,

I voted in favour, I thought it was a good piece of legislation - the EDGE

legislation - but that does not create an enterprise culture. This government is

going to have to do other things. They are going to have to do other things to

create an enterprise culture. Some of those things I have been asking them to do

since I have been elected, for the last six or seven years, and they haven't

paid any attention whatsoever.

We know that a tax regime is important for anybody to

function in, whether it's the government attempting to set up a tax regime such

as we have se