November

2, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 55

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, before we move on to routine

proceedings, this might be an opportune time for me, on behalf of the

government, to extend a warm welcome to two new members of this House. One is

the brand new Member for Ferryland district. I want, on behalf of the

government, to extend a personal welcome to him and assure him that our effort

to prevent him from getting here was nothing personal against him. It was an

effort to increase the ranks on this side and was not, in any manner, directed

against him personally. I assure him that he is a welcome addition to the House.

We look forward to working with him for the remainder of this term, and then we

will let the electorate decide which of us comes back after that time around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: I want to also extend a welcome back, I

guess is perhaps the most appropriate way to say it, to the new Member for

Naskaupi, who probably has collectively spent more time in this House than

anybody else presently sitting here. I don't know if there is anybody else

sitting here who has spent quite as much time here as the new Member for

Naskaupi.

I am particulary pleased that the people of Naskaupi district

answered the government's request and chose that new member. He has made a very

significant contribution to the government, and I am sure that his many years of

experience in the past will be of benefit to the whole House.

I want, Mr. Speaker, to extend a warm welcome to both new

members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the Premier

in welcoming the two recent additions. I cannot exactly call the Member for

Naskaupi a new addition to the House. He has been around for quite some time, on

many occasions that I recollect. I recall, in fact, being in Your Honour's place

as Speaker of the House, and getting some so-so advice from the Member for

Naskaupi when he was then, I think, House Leader for the Opposition, if not

Leader of the Opposition - I can't quite recall now - 1979 to 1982.

There is no doubt that the Member for Naskaupi has made a

large contribution to the public service of this Province. I only wish it might

be able to last a little longer than this one is likely to. I don't express that

sentiment in any negative way, other than the fact that we, too, felt that his

narrow victory in Naskaupi was one that we should have tried to avoid, if we

could possibly have done it. Maybe we will do it the next time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, his narrow victory in Naskaupi.

In the case of the sweeping victory of the Member for

Ferryland, one which will become massive after the next election, I suspect, I

can speak more readily, because I have been working closely with the Member for

Ferryland over the last few months. I can tell the people of Ferryland and the

members of this House of Assembly that we have in our midst, forgetting

partisanships, an individual who is going to make a tremendous contribution to

the future of this Province. He is a very hard worker for his people, the people

of Ferryland district, and I have no doubt in my mind he is going to be around

for a quite a long time. I join with the Premier in welcoming both members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Premier and with the Leader of

the Opposition in welcoming the members to the House. We did our very best to

keep the new Member for Ferryland out, but were not successful in doing so, and

we welcome the opportunity to hear what he has to say on behalf of the people.

Of course, we gave the Member for Naskaupi an easier ride by not opposing him.

We also welcome him to the House and look forward to debating with him in his

new role as Minister of Justice, and/or his new role as House Leader, as well as

his former role as Minister of Justice. I welcome both of them and look forward

to an interesting session with both.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed, I think it

would be appropriate, as well, to pass on a few sentiments to our friend, the

Member for Gander, who served the Legislature for three years and served the

Premier as House Leader. And I mean this in all sincerity when I say it, that

the Member for Gander did a tremendous job, I think, as Government House Leader.

I know he was very co-operative with us. My House Leader tells me that he was

very co-operative with him in all of his dealings. I understand the public

reason the Premier gave for the move and that is acceptable; I understand and

take his word for that, but I didn't want the opportunity to go by without

saying to the Premier and to his colleagues in the government caucus, that the

Member for Gander performed his role as House Leader for the government side, in

our view, in a very admirable way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the Leader

of the Opposition for his generous comments. It gives me an opportunity to

acknowledge the terrific responsibility that the Member for Gander undertook in

the formation of the new government, both as House Leader and in his role as

President of Treasury Board and President of the Executive Council. When we did

the re-arrangement recently and combined the Finance and Treasury Board

ministerial responsibility in the way in which we did, the Member for Gander and

I discussed the matter. He requested a bit of relief from the level of the

burden, and I was quite prepared to grant it. He has, as the Leader of the

Opposition has said, served the people of the Province and the House, in

particular, in that capacity, extremely well. I am happy that the Leader of the

Opposition has mentioned it because it gives me an opportunity to publicly

acknowledge that terrific contribution and to express, for it, the gratitude of

this side of the House to the Member for Gander. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't want the

occasion to pass without adding my support for what the Leader of the Opposition

has said. My dealings with the former House Leader, I have found to be very

cordial. He served the House with great diligence, with great courtesy to hon.

members and with great honour to the position. I thank him for his contribution.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Premier. I read with some interest a newspaper coverage of his speech, last

Wednesday, I think it was, to the Provincial Employers Council, and I watched

some of the television coverage. I think, if the newspaper reports are accurate,

the Premier is quoted as saying that 'the government is prepared to do it's part

to create an attractive economic climate for businesses to invest in.' That is

the end of the quote, or at least part of the quote.

I wonder if he can tell the people of this Province what it

is specifically he has in mind, and that his government is now prepared to do to

encourage business to invest and to create jobs, and specifically whether this

is something that he hasn't done in the last three-and-a-half years? What is it

he plans to do specifically?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can take the balance of

Question Period and that would just about get me started to lay the foundation

for the full program, but I don't think people want me to abuse Question Period

in that way, so I won't do that. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that spelled out in the

strategic economic plan is the basic approach that government intends to take in

terms of reorganizing government management of the economy, the social sector,

the taxation regime, in order to create the regulatory regime, in order to

create an attractive climate.

Now, I can go into some detail, but I don't want to get

started and then have people say: 'That is enough. You are abusing it.' It would

take at least and hour to spell it out in the kind of detail the member asks

for.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question. I am

interested to hear the Premier refer to the Strategic Economic Plan. I reviewed

this today in the Liberal policy manual of 1989, the one he used for the

election campaign, where he said: we've had enough studies and task forces,

among other things, the state of the economy has been studied to death, what we

need now is action.

I want to ask why specifically his government has rejected

any concrete action to stimulate investment and economic growth over the past

three and a half years? Also, why after having said 'read my lips, no more

studies,' did his government do nothing except another study to prepare another

booklet of promises?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I'll ask a Page to get the

Strategic Economic Plan and bring it to the member so he can read it. Obviously

he hasn't read it. It is not a study. If he read it and understood one single

word in it he will know it is not a study. It is a specific outline of the

specific courses of action to be taken in each individual area. There are some

134 specific actions, as I recall. It is not a study. We've put in place a

monitoring committee and they're reporting quarterly to the Cabinet on exactly

what's done, what action's been taken, under each one. That's got nothing to do

with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, that's got nothing to do with it. The

government didn't do that at all. Read the Strategic Economic Plan, and please

political concerns and they have to try and present it in a political way. But,

Mr. Speaker, the Strategic Economic Plan specifically spells out the course of

action. It is not studies. We rejected during the campaign and we reject today

this concept of studies - then put them on the shelf and forget them all. This

is a specific outline, a specific blueprint, and the government is going to

follow it in detail.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier didn't answer my

first question. What have they done in the last four years, and why haven't they

done anything to specifically stir some economic growth? I remind him that the

Strategic Economic Plan was developed after a period of study and consultation

by a committee that he set up himself. So he doesn't know what he's talking

about. It was a study, it was the result of a study, after saying he wasn't

going to do any more studies.

Now I want to ask him, getting back to the speech to the

provincial economic council - the reference in the news coverage that I followed

at least implies that the Premier has said that Newfoundland businesses had done

very poorly in the area of generating economic activity and creating jobs. In

fact the Premier himself wondered aloud, according to the papers and the quotes

in the papers: where have we failed? I think those were his words, or words to

that affect.

I want to ask him: doesn't the Premier remember the

introduction of his own payroll tax, the increase in corporate income tax

brought in by his government and the increase in corporate capital tax brought

in by his government? I want to ask him: in fact, haven't the business profits

in this Province been stymied because of the massive burden of tax increases

imposed on businesses in this Province by his very own government? Isn't that,

in fact, where we have failed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is not, because as usual, like all

half-truths, it deceives more effectively than a lie. It is a half-truth, but it

is only a half-truth. What he doesn't say is that the school tax was abolished

for all businesses, and anybody paying less than $100,000 in payroll pays no

school tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: So the half-truth deceives and misleads

very effectively, Mr. Speaker.

What he also doesn't say, Mr. Speaker, is that we have

inherited a very difficult economic situation, some of which we inherited from

the former government, some of which flows solely from the mess they made, and

some of which derives from the economic recession that the whole nation has been

in in the last two years and may well be in for another year or so yet,

depending on how circumstances unfold over the next few months. Now, in those

circumstances, Mr. Speaker, when the federal government in making fishery

decisions put twenty-odd thousand people out of work, it is impossible to put

forward proposals that will fly in the face of everything operating in all the

rest of the world and reverse all the economic pressures of the rest of the

world. This little government here is suppose to do that? How irrational can

that point of view be, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised to hear the

hon. Premier cast blame on everybody else in the world and not take any

responsibility himself. I want to remind him that when he became Liberal leader

in 1987 he promised, in fact, to the Liberal convention to stop blaming others

and "vow the Liberal Government will not stand idly by and do nothing until the

feds and others come to our rescue." This was his very quote, "Liberals will

never do that." Your Honour probably remembers because he was probably there.

"We have to stop blaming our problems on others and start coping with them

ourselves," Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the Premier: will he not concede that his

promise made in 1987 is a false one and one that he never was really prepared to

keep? And will he, once and for all, take the responsibility, or at least his

share of the responsibility for the economic decline that has occurred in this

Province over the last three-and-a-half years, instead of doing precisely what

he saidhe would never do - blame others?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to lay out for

the House - and I'll probably get that ready in the next day or so - exactly the

circumstances that we're in. Exactly what we have responsibility for, and

exactly what the members opposite have responsibility for, and I'm prepared to

put the two side by side, and let the people of this Province judge where

responsibility lies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SIMMS: Call an election (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, I'm quite prepared to do that too,

I'm quite prepared.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Just invite me! Just give me cause! Just

give me cause!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: They are quaking in their seats over

there. Now, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Call it!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - that we're following the right course

has been confirmed by the federal government. Did anybody read the federal

government document just issued? It's virtually a copy from what we put forward

in our Strategic Economic Plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, I'm delighted with it. I take it as a

great endorsement of the approach that we've taken. Even the format is the same.

Spelling out the problems, the objective, and then the action items to be taken.

Even the format of it is the same. They didn't quite give us full credit for

authorship of it, but I understand that. They don't usually. But what I do is

take great encouragement from the fact that the federal government at long last

is going along the same lines.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the two governments will be able

to work well together to put the plans into operation. Because don't ever

overlook the fact that the government that will benefit most from economic

direct financial benefit, and it's in their best interest to do the maximum they

can to achieve economic development here. I'm confident they will cooperate with

us.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting, the Premier is

referring to the prosperity plan, I think, of the federal government, that he

now says is a copy of his Strategic Economic Plan, which in itself was a copy of

the House Royal Commission under our administration about two or three years

before that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Therein lies the purpose for this line of

questioning today. When is the Premier and his government, or when are the

Premier and his colleagues, going to do something, take some specific action?

What action is he going to take now that he hasn't been able to take over the

last three and a half years? All of a sudden he's going to take some action.

What is it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the hon. member

brought up the Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment which they put

forward and I commend the former government for having done that. But then they

took it and put it on the shelf and promptly forgot it. That's precisely what

they did with it. Now just to put it in perspective, I was told just this

morning that this matter was put in great perspective, as somebody was talking

about the new Strategic Economic Plan being the bible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Being the what?

PREMIER WELLS: Being the bible for future economic

development in this Province. Being the bible. Now, Mr. Speaker, Dr. House put

it in a little better perspective. He said: it may be the bible, but it's really

only the new testament. He said: the Royal Commission was the old testament.

Essentially he's correct. The Royal Commission assessed the circumstances that

existed in the Province. But the guidelines, and how we go for the future, and

the plan for future development, is in the Strategic Economic Plan. It was not

in the Royal Commission Report. That was a Royal Commission Report and it

depended upon a government having the competence, the initiative, and really the

determination to make the effort to design a plan out of it to make the economy

of the Province work.

Now I referred to the federal proposal. It's their new one,

called Inventing Our Future. If you take that and look at each of the items,

they spell out, in exactly the same form as we did, what the challenge is, what

the objective is, and the action to achieve it. I see by The Evening Telegram

editorial that it took seventy-five pages and cost $20 million to do. I'm happy

to say we came in at a good deal less cost than that and produced what, in my

judgement, is a far, far more effective plan, but I nevertheless welcome the

federal initiative.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier said he was going to make comparisons to what we

were responsible for and what their government is responsible for. So in that

vein I would like to ask the first question in the comparisons to the Minister

of Social Services. Will he tell us how many people, how many cases, and how

many people today are on social assistance in this Province compared to when

they took office in 1989?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, to be exact I would have to

check the figures, but 1989 - the caseloads would be up approximately 50 per

cent in the three year period.

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

West on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: I would certainly hope, Mr. Speaker, that

answers the Premier's question, that there are more people on social assistance

today in this Province - 50 per cent more under his leadership than there were

under the Conservative government. That is the fact the Minister just stated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Services

no doubt has seen an advertisement that was in The Evening Telegram this past

weekend, by the Newfoundland Association of Social Workers, that says that

children in the care of the Director of Child Welfare may not see a

representative of their guardian for months at a time, regardless of the foster

home situation, because there are not enough workers to provide adequate

supervision and assistance to foster families.

Mr. Speaker, there are people in this Province today

starving, day by day, waiting for social workers to visit their homes because of

the lack of staff.

Let me ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: will he confirm to the

House that the

article in The Evening Telegram is true, number one, and that

people are waiting days upon days, and sometimes weeks, before they can get a

social worker to visit them for social assistance?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to react to an

advertisement in The Evening Telegram, but I can say that our caseloads are up,

as I mentioned. I think the figures would be neighbouring 50 per cent after

three years, since 1989, as I said. That, of course, means that social workers

have demands on them.

You mentioned child welfare, and we have added people in the

child welfare division. We added some fifty people a couple of years ago, and

compared to other provinces - because I have checked the stats - they are up,

but they are not inordinate for this period of time. Other provinces are

experiencing exactly the same difficulties we are, Mr. Speaker, and we are

coping as well as we can, and making sure that the resources we have available

to us above the district office level are moved down to the district office

level. We are in the process of doing that right now. So, Mr. Speaker, we are

addressing the problem.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the social workers in this

Province cannot do their caseloads. The social workers in this Province cannot

visit people who want social assistance, and there are people starving, day in

and day out, because this minister and this government will not provide staff.

Let me ask the minister this: Why is he laying off social

workers in this Province? Will he stop laying off social workers in this

Province?... because there was a social worker laid off in the Marystown office

in the last couple of months, where they are overworked as in other parts of the

Province.

So will the minister tell this House when he will stop laying

off social workers in this province, and when he will hire new social workers to

look after the needs of the people who need it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any social

workers or financial assistance officers being laid off in Marystown or any

other office. I am surprised to hear that statement.

What may have happened is that as the result of a competition

a person may have been bumped out of a position, but certainly not laid off.

Nobody has been laid off in any of the offices throughout the Province, of which

I am aware. I will check that out, Mr. Speaker.

We are doing all we can to make sure that services are being

delivered, particularly in the areas where the caseloads are the highest - and

we have some areas that are worse than others. Albeit the caseloads are high

practically everywhere in the Province, but we are addressing the caseloads and

making sure, as I said, that social workers and financial assistance officers

are supported by adequate clerical staff; that we are moving people down from

our regional offices. That process takes time, Mr. Speaker. It is ongoing right

now. We have to deal with union agreements and the Public Service Commission,

but as quickly as the competitions can take place and the changes in work duties

can be brought about, we are positioning people on the front lines to deliver

services as we should.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: I have a question for the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations. On September 18 the minister announced an $11

million job creation program. The funds now have been nearly all spent, if not

all spent, yet the demand is steadily increasing. In fact the latest Stats

Canada shows some 6,000 more unemployed and 11,000 have left the work force from

August to September.

Let me ask the minister: what does he intend to do for all

these people, the thousands of Newfoundlanders who are seeking work but have

been unable to find it on the programs? What is he going to do for these

thousands of people?

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

Labour Relations.

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

appreciate the question from the hon. member. As he indicated, on September

18th. we announced our attempt, on an emergency basis, to provide some

short-term employment opportunities for people who hadn't been successful in

this year of continuing recession in getting work as they normally had in

previous years. This is a problem that has been with us now for the last couple

of years, and again as pointed out earlier, not only in our Province but across

the country.

We have been successful in putting almost 3,500 people to

work in the last couple of weeks. These people are working today because of

initiatives taken by this government, who otherwise would not be working today

as we stand here in this House of Assembly. So we have recognized and we

announced at the time that that was not going to meet the full need, and also we

pointed out consistently that that is not the answer in any kind of a

sustainable basis to the economic problems in the Province.

We believe firmly, and have committed to it now for three

years, in terms of trying to make sure that the circumstance prevails where we

can assist employers in the Province who want to hire additional people

themselves. In this year alone, through three different programs that we have

put in place in terms of wage subsidies for private sector employers, we have in

fact put in place 1,336 full time jobs by providing subsidies to employers and

another 1,891 seasonal jobs of up to fifteen weeks in duration as well as some

student jobs where we paid half the cost to employers who are willing to hire

people themselves. We believe and we will be committed to maintaining that kind

of an effort through the long-term because we believe that helps the long-term

solution.

In the meantime we have recognized that from time to time, as

we have done again this year, we may have to intervene. We can't meet the full

need, but we have managed to help some 3,500 people, recognizing that there are

quite a few that still need and would like to have assistance, but we don't have

the financial capacity in the Province right now to meet that entire need.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo on a

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me remind the

minister, that is 1,000 less than his press statement of the 18th said.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister: how does spending for

job creation in all the government departments compare with spending in 1991? I

am not referring to the EERP program where it is increased by 2 million, I am

talking about overall spending for job creation which this government said it

wasn't going to do, but yet it does each year. How much less was spent in 1992

as compared to 1991?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check that

information for the hon. member and will undertake to do so. He mentioned at the

beginning, however, that the short-term initiative is 1,000 less than we

announced in the press statement. That is because today I am telling how many

people are working today. The total amounts of monies that we had indicated of

the $11 million are not fully expended yet in the social services component, but

just about every one of the projects are on the ground in terms of the other

departments that are sponsoring work. We still fully expect that by the time the

full $11 million is expended that somewhere between 4,000 and 4,600 people, as

was pointed out in the press statement, will in fact be put to work because of

this initiative of the government.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo on a

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the minister that in my district on

Fogo Island, 150 people applied for eight positions with the Development

Association. The same thing occurred on the mainland portion with the

Development Association there. That is about 300 applicants for about sixteen

positions. What advice or hope does the minister give to the thousands of

unemployed Newfoundlanders for the coming year?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: I have, Mr. Speaker, actually been speaking

to quite a number of the hon. member's constituents and many others because I

have received phone calls from interested individuals from all over the

Province. They are pointing out to me shortcomings as they see it in the current

program because we have a lot of people, for example, who have not been able to

access work for a number of years and need twenty weeks to start in the

workforce again and qualify for unemployment insurance and so on, they have been

in that position.

I have been quite honest and up front with them in saying

that what we have is a circumstance that this government by itself cannot

alleviate or deal with. However, we are quite confident that we did not do

anything at this point in time to worsen the particular situation which we are

in, and with the monies that we have available, because we also have to keep

that in mind, we have found a way to help up to 4,500 of them in these couple of

months. We have not found a way to help them all, and they have been buying into

the message by the way, that they have recognized that it is not in their best

interests or anybody else's, to hold out hope that the only place they could

ever find employment or work, is if the government puts them to work, and they

recognize that fully.

They are saying to me in their conversations that they hope

that this government's long term plans as spelled out in the Strategic Economic

Plan bears some kind of fruition, so that there will be job opportunities for

them in the private sector and otherwise, and that all of them can get to a

point where they won't have to be waiting around in September, October or

November of any one year, hoping that maybe the government might put them to

work. So they are certainly hopeful that there will be enough private sector

involvement, with some useful encouragement by the government so that they will

have useful, meaningful job opportunities in all the regions of the Province.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for

Works, Services and Transportation. The minister is probably aware that a

demonstration was held this morning at the St. Joseph's Depot by the people of

Mall Bay protesting conditions of the road. First of all, the minister will also

be aware that for the last three years I have listed this as the only priority

to be addressed in the area, and I ask the minister if it is his plan to see

that his department will address the conditions of the Mall Bay Road in this

coming Budget, in relation to major upgrading and paving?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the people of Mall Bay had

some concerns about the conditions of the road today and the regional manager, I

understand, had a meeting with the people at 10:30 today. I am awaiting a report

on that situation to see what action can be taken to rectify their difficulties

in the short run. As to commitments with respect to next year's financial

resources, with respect to the capital roads program, as the hon. member knows,

no commitments of that nature could be given at this particular point in time,

save this, that the roads needs of the Province will be assessed on a priority

basis in the spirit of fairness and balance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his answer. The last part we will

talk about later on. I will talk about the fairness and balance that we have

received in the past. I said to the minister that today's demonstration was not

for the long term, as my first question alluded to, but in relation to the

present conditions.

The condition of the four-mile stretch - which is the only

piece of dirt road in the total district now leading to a community, by the way

- shows the lack of work being done by the minister's department in the area,

when they cannot maintain four miles of dirt road. The reason they cannot do it

is not because they have an inadequate depot or crews out there, but the fact is

they have no money to do any maintenance at all. So I ask the minister: when he

consults with his people who are out there today - very good people by the way -

will he go according to their recommendation and provide the funds needed to do

the job that has to be done to make sure that road is in a passable and

acceptable condition?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find the member's question somewhat interesting when he

says that the department does not have the funds to maintain the road. I

understand that one of the principle concerns arose due to the fact that the

department was out ditching along that stretch of the road, and as a result of

their ditching efforts and improving the ditching and drainage along that

stretch of the road, the ditch was deepened, and now one of the concerns is that

there be guide rails placed beside the deepened ditch. So to say that the crews

are not out working on that stretch of the road is totally inaccurate. In fact,

it is because we are out there trying to improve the road that maybe even

further improvements are required.

So, Mr. Speaker, after I get the report from the competent

officials who are out there assessing the situation, we will see what action can

be taken to rectify their problems, as has been done and will continue to be

done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The old words, `dig, dig', and the minister has just dug

himself a bit deeper. The fact of the matter is that for three-and-a-half years

the residents of Mall Bay have been asking the crews locally and the department,

through petitions and delegations, to put a bit of gravel on the road. The crews

refused to do it during the summer, but they went out and dug a ditch that took

away twelve feet of the road. They dug a ditch wide enough to bring a boat from

Mall Bay up through, and took away twelve feet of the road whereby the road is

now dangerous.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. gentleman is on a supplementary.

MR. HEARN: I ask the minister: Will he please correct the

goof that his department has perpetrated upon the residents of Mall Bay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I have just this

moment received a preliminary report from the meeting. The regional manager has

agreed to partially fill the ditch again, which will alleviate some of the

concerns.

Contrary to the member's allegation, the principal concern of

the people there was for the upgrading and paving of the road. Again, Mr.

Speaker, a decision will have to be made in due course on this particular issue.

As I indicated to the member, the needs of the people of Mall Bay and St. Mary's

- The Capes will, for the first time in history, since this administration took

power - when they were over there they did it on a purely political basis, but

he can be assured, notwithstanding that the people of Mall Bay are represented

by an Opposition member, that road will be given every consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Just before moving on to the routine matters of the day, the

Chair thought, since there has been a little bit of a recess, that I would quote

from our Standing Orders, just to remind hon. members -I am sure hon. members

will know what I'm quoting - about this most important ruling from our own

Standing Orders, 31(c). I thought there might have been some necessity to do

this, so I want to remind hon. members of that important Standing Order which

says:

"In putting any oral questions, no argument or opinion is to

be offered nor any facts stated except so far as may be necessary to explain the

same; and in answering any such question, the Minister is not to debate the

matter to which it refers."

I think that is a very clear rule, a very clear Standing

Order, for both sides of the House to acknowledge. Thank you very much.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled "An Act To Amend The Uniform

Services Pension Act."

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, 'An Act To Amend The Public Service Pension Act."

I also give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act, The Horse

Racing Regulation And Tax Act, The Liquor Control Act And The Retail Sales Act."

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Highway

Traffic Act, No. 2."

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The

Licensing And Inspection Of Health And Social Agencies." Also, on tomorrow I

give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend

The Medical Act."

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend the Waste

Material Disposal Act, No. 2."

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce the following resolution:

"WHEREAS it is evident that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador has not addressed the impact of the moratorium on the fishing

industry;

"THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador address its responsibilities to those directly affected by the

moratorium."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

Addressed to the hon. the Minister of Finance:

I, the Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland,

transmit supplementary estimates of sums required for the public service of the

Province for the year ending March 31, 1992, by way of further supplementary

supply, and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I

recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.: _______________________________

Frederick A. Russell, Lieutenant Governor

AN HON. MEMBER: Order 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 1.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

with the amount, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

Bill No. 26.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wish today to introduce to this Committee, Bill No. 26.

Hon. members will notice this bill was prepared by my predecessor, the Hon.

Hubert Kitchen, Minister of Finance. That is the name under which it appears.

Mr. Chairman, I would like, first of all, to pay tribute to

the former Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: He, Mr. Chairman, has helped guide this

Province through perhaps a couple of the most difficult years that the Province

has seen, a time when transfers from the federal government were, in proportion,

declining, when there were fundamental changes in the structure of the economy

of Canada. The former Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, helped guide this

province through those difficult times with a very distinctive flair.

Members opposite sometimes have referred to him by a variety

of names and various terminologies that, I understand, were terms of affection

rather than of abuse. I am sure that they also recognize what a tremendous job

the former Minister of Finance did in his portfolio.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, this bill is a supplementary

supply bill that refers to some expenditures for the 1991-1992 fiscal year.

Perhaps it could be argued that this should have been dealt with a little

earlier. I would like to remind members opposite that when we took over this

government we dealt with a couple of supplementary supply items that were a

couple of years old, at least, and that, in terms of this type of supplementary

supply, it is a normal thing that the Special Warrants be issued; that the

special warrants be tabled in the House; that everybody, all members of the

House, the press, and the people of the Province, through the Special Warrant

process, are aware of the expenditure and it becomes part of the budgetary

expenditure for that year; that later on a supply bill is introduced to give

effect to same; and that these expenditures have been properly done through the

supply process.

The expenditures mentioned here, Mr. Chairman - I would like

to just briefly go through them - are under a number of headings, and they deal

with six particular Special Warrants, again that have been described in this

House and have been dealt with by the House.

First of all there is one for the Executive Council to the

tune of $500,000. This expenditure was perhaps one of the amounts of money that

could be classed among the better spent amounts of money ever brought into this

honourable House. There is $500,000 relating to the Economic Strategic Planning

Committee. The money was used, in part, to develop what we now know as the

Strategic Economic Plan for the Province, a document that will see this Province

pull itself up by the boot straps, Mr. Chairman. So this was a well-spent

$500,000 that government allocated for the future of this Province.

The next amount, Mr. Chairman, was a Special Warrant having

to do with the Legislature, itself, a Special Warrant of $255,000 for

communications and members' travel expenses. This was at a time when there was

some change in the process of budgeting from yearly to fiscal yearly and so on,

and it required an extra amount of money, so that was done through a Special

Warrant.

There was an amount of $821,000 - a Special Warrant for

Forestry and Agriculture - of which, I am sure if members opposite require a lot

of detail, the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture will only be too glad to

oblige a little later; it has to do with a Canada/Newfoundland subsidiary

agreement relative to the livestock feed initiatives, better known as ALFI. This

was an agreement that was reached during the year, and we had to then do a

Special Warrant to give effect to that particular agreement.

The Department of Health had a warrant that year of

$3,329,300 and that, largely, had to do with physician services, about

$l,200,000, and grants to hospitals about $2,100,000. This is the kind of

adjustment that happens periodically, year by year, in terms of expenditures in

the health care system, that essentially are unavoidable.

There is a Special Warrant for $1,350,000 for the Department

of Justice. If members remember, that particular Special Warrant is one that had

to be brought in in reaction to an arbitration award having to do with the

correctional officers. That arbitration award was separate from the arbitration

award for the police officers, and was an unpredictable amount. Once the

arbitration award was brought in, then there was a certain amount of retroactive

pay that was involved, and the total amount retroactive, plus the ongoing

expenses for the year 1991-1992, amounted to $1,350,000.

By far the largest amount there, taking up three-quarters of

the total amount, was a warrant for the Department of Social Services -

$12,700,000. As members opposite realize, when we do a Special Warrant for

social services, half of that is recoverable; so, in effect, it was a net

expenditure of half of that, or $6,350,000, on the part of the provincial

government. Again, this was an overrun in social assistance for that year, as

well as an extra expenditure in the foster home allowances.

Mr. Chairman, these are normal amounts that from time to time

governments have always had to bring in to obtain extra money - money needed

that was unexpected at the time of the Budget. I am sure members will recognize

that each of these Special Warrants was unexpected.

I would like to also indicate that the number of Special

Warrants that have been used over the last three years is 'way down from when

members opposite were in government - 'way down. Instead of issuing dozens and

dozens and dozens of them, this government's practice is to issue Special

Warrants only when there is an absolute necessity. Our intention is to continue

with that practice, to issue Special Warrants in only the circumstances that

special warrants were intended to serve, and to not use Special Warrants as a

way to get all kinds of extra expenditure approved. It is simply for use in

emergency circumstances, when the House is not open, and certainly these types

of expenditures are emergency expenditures.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to introduce this bill, and I

say, if members opposite want more details of each of these expenditures, I am

sure that the ministers will be only too glad to provide the details, as much as

members opposite require.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me also, in beginning my remarks this afternoon, address

the change in portfolios and the impact that has. Let me welcome the Member for

Gander to his new portfolio, and congratulate him on taking the dual

responsibility of President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance.

Now, I have some reservations about that because I think

there is some benefit in having two agencies that are two different departments,

two ministers that are responsible for the finances and financial administration

for government in this Province. So I have some reservations about combining the

two although it has been done in the past. It was done by previous

administrations and I had the same reservations then.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No. I never did have to. I always thought it

was wiser to have them separated, to be quite honest, even though my predecessor

had both portfolios for a while. It has been done on a number of occasions, so I

am not suggesting that it is something new, but there is some merit in

separating the two.

But I wanted to congratulate the President of Treasury, the

Minister of Finance. I have confidence in the minister that he will, indeed,

bring a measure of common sense to the portfolio. I extend congratulations to

the former minister, who, I am sure meant well, but unfortunately, I am afraid I

don't bear the same respect for his performance in that particular portfolio.

We brought him into this government in that portfolio with a

substantial surplus and he very quickly turned it into record deficits and

maintained that; his only consistency is in maintaining a deficit for ever year

that he was a Minister of Finance. So I say, we wish him well in his new

portfolio of Health, and we say, thank God, we finally have him out of the

Finance portfolio, because of the devastating effect he had on that portfolio

and the economy of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, the minister, himself, pointed out that this

bill is far too late in coming before the House. We are talking about the

1991-1992 fiscal year and here we are, halfway through the 1992-1993 fiscal

year, so it is certainly closing the barn door after the horse is long gone,

long spent, long forgotten about. Obviously, it shows that there is absolutely

nothing the House could do about these expenditures. This bill, of course, will

be approved - it has to be approved. Even if the government didn't have to use

their majority in the House, it would have to be approved in due course, because

the monies have been spent. So we have no intention of even attempting to try to

stop this bill, even if we had the numbers in the House of Assembly to do so.

But one has to question the impact of having such legislation

before the House today on the accountability of government. As the minister

pointed out quite correctly, Supplementary Supply or Special Warrants, is a tool

that every government must have; we don't question the government for using

Special Warrants; things will arise during the course of a year that governments

certainly could not have predicted. But, Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that one of

the things that is being financed is the Economic Strategic Planning Committee.

Well, there wasn't very much strategic planning in the budgeting process if they

didn't know that during the course of the year they were going to establish that

committee and begin what they have put forward as a great work. That is another

question, Mr. Chairman, and we will have the economic plan or economic strategy

document up for debate, no doubt, in due course. We could get into it now, I

suppose, but I will hold that for another time.

I certainly want to take considerable time during this

sitting of the House talking about the economic strategy of this government, or

the lack thereof; let me simply say the economic strategy plan is, I guess,

remarkable, simply in its lack of any details. What is remarkable about it, is

that it took so long, three-and-a-half years for this government, of whom one of

their prime objectives, prime planks, in their political platform during their

last election was that 'We are going to immediately get on with economic

reform.' Mr. Chairman, we have not seen very much, in fact, we have not seen any

economic reform.

We have seen economic destruction in this Province as a

result of the tax policies of this particular government. They have done nothing

to generate employment or economic activity in this Province and that document

is certainly not going to do it. All that document represents, Mr. Chairman, is

a compilation of numerous reports that were on the shelves of government,

programs that were in place or that were looked at, Mr. Chairman, over the past

number of years. The committee now has studied all of those and they have come

back with nothing new, just another report, Mr. Chairman.

What is this government doing to deal with the problems

today? The Premier tells us, over twenty-five years the economy of the Province

will improve. I am sure we are all worried about twenty-five years, it is a

matter of concern; but our chief concern today, Mr. Chairman, is unemployment in

this Province today, jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today, jobs for

young people coming out of our schools, our universities and our technical

colleges. They are not available. The promise of this Premier to bring every

Newfoundland mother's son home has gone in the wrong direction, Mr. Chairman. We

saw more young people, our best young people, our brightest, best-trained young

people leaving this Province to find jobs because of the failure of this

government.

Now, this government came up with one program - one program!

When they came into office they said: 'We won't use make-work programs.' That is

one of the reasons for this approximately $12 million for the Department of

Social Services. This government said: 'We don't believe in short-term make-work

programs. We are not going to use it.' Well, they soon found that developing the

economy does, indeed, take some time. There are no instant solutions. In the

short-term, any government in office today will have to turn to short-term

make-work programs to allow people enough job opportunities to get them and

their families through the year. So they have had to turn to it, and they turned

to it again this year.

The Minister of Employment together with the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Social Services made a great announcement

some time ago: Emergency Employment Response Program. The minister spoke about

it in response to some questions from my friend, the Member for Fogo, earlier

today. It was back on September 30th - I have the press release here. I ask the

Minister of Employment: What would an Emergency Employment Response Program do?

It would create jobs on an emergency basis, I assume. That is the objective of

an emergency employment response program, to create jobs immediately -

short-term jobs, but jobs immediately to put people to work. So we welcome that.

I have a copy of the press release issued by the Official Opposition Leader

saying, we welcome this program. It is a bit too late, and there is not enough

money, but we welcome this $11 million.

I was pleased, Mr. Chairman, when I got directly from the

minister's office: the minister was kind enough - and I congratulate him on that

- to send me a copy of the information on the qualifications for jobs under this

program. I was pleased that the minister had the courtesy to do that - he gave

me a listing of those projects applied for in my district; now, Mr. Chairman,

the minister is, indeed, to be congratulated for that, I think it is indicative

of the minister's approach to working with the members of the House of Assembly

and recognizing their role in municipalities and in the district - until I

looked at the projects, Mr. Chairman.

I was given a listing of projects for the District of Mount

Pearl. I said: 'Good.' I was asked for my comments on them. The first one I

looked at, Mr. Chairman, came from the minister's own department, Employment and

Labour Relations, and the sponsor was - this was approval by district - 1992,

Seventh Day Adventist School Board, Mount Pearl, $37,950. I thought, this sounds

like a pretty good Budget. Then there were two other applications by districts,

so I assumed that these were not yet approved, but I was later told that they

were.

The first one came from Employment and Labour Relations

again. Mary Queen of the World Parish, Mount Pearl, $12,000. That is the

Catholic Church in Mount Pearl. Then there was, through the Department of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, $30,000 for the City of Mount Pearl for

employment generation. Well, I was quite pleased, Mr. Chairman. I was quite

pleased that my District of Mount Pearl was getting three make-work programs

because there are not a lot of applications that come from my district -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are pretty prosperous though.

MR. WINDSOR: We are very prosperous, but we don't have

the same rural development associations, the communities councils, and all the

various groups that normally apply and sponsor projects under this particular

program. The City of Mount Pearl is taking advantage of it over the past number

of years. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and his predecessor have been fairly

generous in providing grants through the City.

I looked at them a little more carefully and tried to get

more information about how people could get employed on these projects. The

first one I checked was the City of Mount Pearl application. I called the City

Clerk and said, `What is this $30,000 going to be spent on and how many jobs are

there?' He said, `I don't know what you are talking about.' I said, `What are

you talking about, you are the City Clerk? I have a letter here from the

minister saying that there is a $30,000 project for the City of Mount Pearl.

Tell me what it is.'

Well, after a couple of days we found out what it was, Mr.

Chairman. There are zero jobs created. When I look back, I should have known. It

was my stupidity. If I had read the sheet at all I would have seen under the

City of Mount Pearl: Labour, zero dollars; other, $30,000; total, $30,000;

number of jobs created, zero; and number of weeks, zero. So what is this doing

in an Emergency Employment Response Program? We are supposed to create jobs but

yet, on the minister's list, zero jobs and zero weeks. What is the $30,000 for?

I found out, Mr. Chairman, it was the last $30,000 of a $90,000 commitment the

previous minister had made to build a building up on Kenmount Hill, not in my

district at all. It is in his own district of Waterford-Kenmount, and it didn't

create any jobs this year. It was last year the building was built, a community

centre on Kenmount Hill.

The present minister, unfortunately, in bailing out his

buddy, has taken $30,000 from an Emergency Employment Response Program to make a

capital grant to the City of Mount Pearl for work that was done last year. That

is a wonderful way to create jobs, Mr. Chairman!

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister is not listening now, he is

ready to go.

MR. WINDSOR: The minister is listening because he knows

what is about to come next. I am going to move on to the Department of

Employment and Labour Relations next. I am going to move on to the next one, Mr.

Chairman, the one that was approved for my district. Seventh Day Adventist

Church, $37,950. So I checked with the church to find out, `What is it you are

going to do with this $37,950?' Again they said, `We don't know what you are

talking about.' But then we figured it out. The church is not in Mount Pearl,

but their office is and that is why it was listed. The head office for the

Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Newfoundland is on Topsail Road in Mount Pearl.

`Oh, he said, `I know what that is. That is the $37,950 we

spent a year-and-a-half ago upgrading a quonset hut in Botwood to a gymnasium

for the school in Botwood' - a year-and-a-half ago, Mr. Chairman.

How many jobs are we creating this year? None. It was an

excellent project, the church was very grateful, the money was well used, and

the benefits are very real and very significant. It was a superb project and

deserved to be funded. And if it had been funded a year-and-a-half ago, I would

welcome it. But to parade this stuff before us this year and say we have an $11

million program and look at all the jobs we are going to create - well, so far,

Mr. Chairman, that $67,950 in Waterford-Kenmount, theoretically, well,

part in

Waterford-Kenmount and

part in the Exploits District, heck, it is to be in the

minister's own district, that was spent a year-and-a-half ago. We haven't

created a job.

Then I looked at the third one, Mr. Chairman, and it was Mary

Queen of The World Parish, the Catholic Church on Topsail Road - again, in

Waterford-Kenmount, not in Mount Pearl. But I don't mind that. Mary Queen of The

World services people from Mount Pearl. The total was $12,000 and it creates

three jobs. So, out of a total, Mr. Chairman, of eighty-odd thousand dollars

there were three jobs created this year. I welcome those three jobs. All three

projects were good projects. The capital funding for the City of Mount Pearl had

no business in an Emergency Employment Response Program. The minister, no doubt,

made a commitment without full authority and the present minister had to bail

him out. That is what it amounted to. There was $30,000 left out of a $90,000

commitment made a year-and-a-half ago to build a recreation centre in the

minister's own district and the present Minister of Municipal Affairs had to

bail him out.

MR. HOGAN: Do you want me to cancel it?

MR. WINDSOR: But you're a minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Just for a moment, because I know I can get

up again. I just want to finish this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave, the hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, how can this government put

this forward as an Emergency Employment Response Program? How can the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations justify paying past debts with funding that

he stood somewhere in the - probably in the Cabinet room or the Caucus room, and

had a press conference, together with the Minister of Social Services and the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs? The three of them stood there and

made this great announcement. And here are two projects just in my district, two

out of the three - and they're not even in my district, but that's irrelevant -

but three projects that I was notified about directly, two of which will not

create a job.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that is not only unfortunate, that is

downright deceitful, it is misleading, it is an abuse of the privileges of the

House.

MR. MURPHY: Stick to the bill, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WINDSOR: Because here was this government saying -

I'm sticking to the bill. If the Member for St. John's South knew anything about

the House of Assembly, he would know that on a money bill I can't be irrelevant.

Every time the member gets up he is irrelevant.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that this is

deceitful. It is an abuse, it is misleading, falsely telling the people of the

Province that we have an $11 million program to create employment this summer.

Thousands of poor unfortunate people out there who have been unable to find jobs

this summer -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: - thousands of people who are unemployed,

who are on social assistance, who are desperately looking for at least

short-term work to help them support their families, have been led down the

garden path deliberately by this minister; he deliberately misled these people

into thinking that they could get a job.

I had dozens of calls from my district. It even says in the

release: 'If you have questions, contact your member of the House of Assembly

for details.' I had no details other than one-liners which say, Here's your

district, here's a sponsoring agency and the amount of money - no details. So I

immediately went about, as I'm sure other members did, getting the details of

these jobs so that all of these people who were calling my office looking for

help and how to get them could be given the information. There was no

information to give them.

So while I'm finished on that aspect the hon. gentlemen will

give me leave and then I'll sit and I'll come back with another topic in a

moment.

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

Capes.

MR. WINDSOR: The minister is not even going to respond to

that?

MR. GRIMES: To what?

MR. WINDSOR: To what? Were you listening to what I said?

MR. GRIMES: I will straighten it out for you but you

obviously don't know how it works.

MR. WINDSOR: I do know how it works, because I have

talked to your officials and I know how many jobs were not created.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) explained it to you. Perhaps you

didn't understand when they explained it.

MR. WINDSOR: The minister is too embarrassed to get on

his feet and defend himself now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

The Chair has already recognized him.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HEARN: I won't take too long. I also want to refer to

some happenings in the minister's department in relation to the programs, as he

knew I would, and also perhaps mention the fiasco in Mall Bay.

Let me say to the Minister of Employment and Immigration -

how I wish he were! Let me say to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations that we received in our district a few dollars from the minister's

department, certainly not one-fiftieth of the total amount, but we did receive

two or three projects - three projects, I believe, about $40,000 or $45,000,

which was probably as much as the member got.

I am not complaining about that. We are thankful for it. It

did provide a few jobs. It wasn't money that had been promised last election, it

was new money, so we could create jobs with it. However, the minister's

department did award one project to a regional association - Southern Avalon

Regional Development Association - covering a large geographic area where a

number of people are looking for employment this year. They advised the

committee that they had been successful in obtaining a small project, $6,000 or

$8,000. The regional board and discussed procedure, talked to the minister's

department and worked out the details, advertised for a couple of positions. But

before they could start the projects or hire anybody they had a subsequent phone

call which told them that the project wasn't theirs, that a mistake had been

made, apparently a computer print out and the project number didn't coincide

with the district involved or the association involved. Consequently they were

informed: the money is not yours.

Now this is after I have been advised by the department. I

don't get on singing out about projects we get. I just let the associations

apply and take the credit for it. The minister's department had dealt directly

with the association. Then for the sake of $8,000 to have to call them up and

say: Sorry, we made a mistake. The computer was wrong. It is really someone

else's. Surely God somebody in the department or certainly when it reached the

minister they should have said: Well look, if we made a mistake like that after

calling a regional board and having them go through the procedures of working

out all the details, to tell them we are not going to give them $8,000 when we

found out it was going to St. Mary's - The Capes, you know it was a terrible

embarrassment.

I presume it is an oversight. I give the minister the benefit

of the doubt. I presume it was an oversight. Mistakes can be made by even

computers. But even if it was a legitimate mistake surely a department or if not

the professional staff in the department, the minister, will overlook such a

mistake and say: Well I mean we can't let this happen. We can find in a total

amount of $11 million, $8,000 for a regional association, the members of which

didn't receive any other money. It is the only project they received that they

could find the money. I hope the minister is going to be able to tell us in the

next few days that a mistake was made and that it was a bit embarrassing, that

he feels bad about it, and that he will find in his department the $8,000 to let

the association go ahead with the project they had planned.

Getting back to the other problem in the district, the road

to Mall Bay. A bit of an embarrassment because when I talked about only four

miles of road in the area, what I was trying to stress is the fact that the

department crews, the highways -

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Tourism who was

always gabbing trying to make an impression as a backbencher is now a minister.

So consequently keep quiet and listen. He has received his reward now. I am sure

he can keep quiet while we are speaking in the House.

The area involved, because we only have four miles of road,

what it should mean is that the local depot involved should not have a serious

problem in maintaining the road in an acceptable driving condition. The people

of the small community, the small isolated to some extent community of Mall Bay,

who have to drive every day to school -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Mr. Chairman, I ask if you could keep the

Member for Port de Grave quiet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes is having

difficulty speaking. I advise hon. members to stop -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: You are having difficulty listening. It is the

same old joke that you had fifteen and twenty years ago.

MR. WINDSOR: When did you dust that one off? You should

get somebody else to write you some new lines. That is an old one.

MR. HEARN: The only thing we can do to compensate for the

twenty and thirty year old jokes of the Minister of Justice, I figure, is to

bring back the former Member for St. John's North. Maybe we will have to get him

to -

AN HON. MEMBER: He can run in St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: He certainly can. Or any good Tory can run up

there and win the election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Now that might be an interesting scenario

because we do have a candidate running up there for the Liberals, a former

member who came in looking for a seat. A fellow by the name of Fred Rowe.

MR. WINDSOR: What?

MR. HEARN: A former Member of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: We will be back to 1965 in no time.

MR. HEARN: He is going to run in St. Mary's - The Capes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: No affiliation, of course, in St. Mary's - The

Capes, but he is going to run up there.

So what they did, apparently, in Mall Bay, was to try to dig

a channel down to the community. Well let me tell the minister responsible that

when polling day comes up in Mall Bay the residents of St. Mary's - The Capes

always get out and vote. In fact in one election we had 94 plus per cent, the

highest in the Province. Let me say to the minister that the residents will get

out and they will go by trike, they will go by bike, they will go by car, they

will go by train; but even though he is trying to dig a channel down there, they

are not going to row.

Mr. Minister, the point I was trying to make is that the

highways depot in the area has four miles of dirt road to maintain - very little

else to do except some ditching and shoulder maintenance and so on. Most of the

depots, as you are aware, have very little money, and they will tell you that we

need to do a good gravel job on the road, but they do not have the money to do

it.

What they did is bring in machinery to ditch the road, but

instead of just digging an ordinary ditch to drain the road, they dug a moat - a

channel. They took away twelve feet, apparently - that is what the local

residents tell me - they took away twelve feet of the road, and now they have to

go back and spend more money to fill in the ditch.

All we are saying is that the local crew he has up there are

a very good crew, a conscientious crew. They know the job. They are good

workers. They do not have the money to bring in equipment to put some gravel on

the road. That is all the residents are asking for, short-term. Long-term we

hope the minister, in his spirit of fairness and balance, after requesting it

and only it for three years now in a row, that the fourth request he will grant.

The residents of Mall Bay, for the eleven years I have been

there, up until the past few years, never had a problem, even when it was a dirt

road; neither did the people who drove across the country from St. Mary's or

drove on the Cape Shore. The roads were well maintained, because they have good

maintenance crews, as the member knows, when they have money enough to do the

job. The problem is, they are cut back so much up there, they have no money to

operate. They can drive around in the truck and stick up a sign here and there.

They do not have money enough to bring in a backhoe to dig out a gravel pit to

haul some gravel on the road, and that is the responsibility of the minister. So

hopefully after he sees what has happened the last couple of days, he will make

sure that even if they take some of the gravel they dug out of the ditch, and

put it on the road instead of hauling it away somewhere, they would have a

reasonably good gravel road and that will do them until the minister gets a

chance in the Spring to upgrade it and then pave it.

It is not a major job. It is something that should be able to

be done through the regular maintenance, but they even tell you: We cannot do

our regular maintenance because we do not have money enough to do it. It is not

the people telling you that. The people of the minister's own department will

tell you that.

One of his chief officials was up there today and had a

meeting with the people - a very good conscientious individual. I have had a lot

of dealings with him and have not had any problems with him. I am sure the

minister will get, number one, a report of the situation, and he will also get a

recommendation as to what can be done. So it is entirely up to the minister. His

engineers know what to do. They know how to do it. They have the equipment, and

they have the men to do it. All they want is the go-ahead and the financial

support to do the job which has to be done. So I presume the minister will do

that.

I think the Member for Mount Pearl has a few more words of

wisdom, so I will let him take over, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some

brief comments on the bill. Before I get into some detail I just want to make a

comment.

Earlier the Member for Fogo questioned the fact that we would

spend some $11 million this year, and the fact that we said previously we had

hoped this would not have to take place in this year. Every year, of course, you

hope that the economy is going to be such, in co-operation with the federal

government, that this government and the federal government together could have

a situation where a program like this and the three departments involved -

Employment and Labour Relations, Municipal Affairs and Social Services - would

not have to get together to bring $11 million into the economy. But, Mr.

Chairman, we are not in that situation as yet and we are still left in a

position in this year that such a program was necessary.

In spite of what was being done in Employment and what was

being done in Social Services with our regular program initiatives, it was

necessary to put such a program together, so I am surprised to hear that comment

from the Member for Fogo, questioning why in fact we would put this program in

place, because this program has helped members on both sides of the House, in

districts throughout the Province both on the Island portion and Labrador to a

considerable extent, and, Mr. Chairman, we have made sure that the projects that

have been approved have been substantial, have been worthwhile.

That has not always been the case in the past, Mr. Chairman,

and I am sure members will attest to it, that not always are these projects

worthy of approval or have not always been worthy of approval. They certainly

have been this year, Mr. Chairman. We have taken great pains to make sure that

we have done worthwhile projects in co-operation with development associations

and municipal councils, churches and community groups. I think I am safe in

saying that it is one of the best programs this Province has seen, albeit, we

wish it was not necessary. We certainly wish it was not necessary, Mr. Chairman,

but until we come up with more substantial initiatives on the part of the

federal government, until we come up with changes in the way we assist people in

need, whether it is with unemployment or social assistance or any other support

program, until we make some substantial changes and bring about, as has been

talked about, a guaranteed annual income, which has to be done in co-operation

with the provinces, it cannot be done with the federal government alone and we

know that we have such a hodge podge of services across this country now that

that is going to take considerable work.

I am involved with that now as are other ministers across the

country, there are four or five of us put in place as a committee to work with

the federal minister and try to do something with a base of income that will

bring together the great variety of programs we have across this country, but it

is going to take some time and we hope that it is not going to be introduced

piecemeal or even introduced perhaps as an election platform, which will not be

thought out properly and that could happen very soon on the part of the federal

government. That would be very unfortunate, Mr. Chairman. We hope that when it

is finally introduced, it will be very worthwhile and we will see the provinces

and the federal government co-operating to provide a base of income for our

people to replace the many programs we have now with good incentives, so that

people can earn more than that base of income. They will not be confined, they

will not have clawbacks. That would not be necessary because once they -

AN HON. MEMBER: Jobs lead to permanent jobs.

MR. GULLAGE: That is right, and jobs lead to permanent

jobs, a good point. Training programs, and education programs are put in place

to assist people as they receive a reasonable base of income upon which they can

build by way of incentives, so they have incentives in place to be educated, to

be trained and to do worthwhile work if it is available to add to their base of

income. We are not in that position as yet, Mr. Chairman, so we see ourselves

once again this year having to provide employment initiatives as we have done

and I think we have done a good job in that.

The Member for Mount Pearl mentioned some projects that were

approved, one I think he mentioned in his district, I am not sure how many are

still in progress -

MR. WINDSOR: None in my district.

MR. GULLAGE: - but I may say this to him: we go to great

pains to try to distribute these projects throughout the Province. A lot of the

initiatives for putting these projects in place come from the members themselves

and because he did not come forward with projects for his district, is hardly

our fault, Mr. Chairman.

As a matter of fact, three or four, I will mention them:

Cowan Heights Elementary and St. Matthew's School, Mary Queen of the World and

the Kenmount Park Centre he mentioned, they are all in my district, Mr.

Chairman, several of those were initiated by me -

MR. WINDSOR: Not by you.

MR. GULLAGE: By me.

MR. WINDSOR: Not by you.

MR. GULLAGE: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. We went directly

to those groups -

MR. WINDSOR: Kenmount Park, yes.

MR. GULLAGE: - and we suggested, all the others, every

one of them -

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) Kenmount Park development?

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was involved with that

from the beginning, from the very beginning.

MR. WINDSOR: You had nothing to do with it, (inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: St. Matthew's School and Mary Queen of the

World and Cowan Heights Elementary, all initiated directly by me, by

conversations with the people involved encouraging them to submit an application

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GULLAGE: - and why did the Member for Mount Pearl not

do the same for his district?

MR. WINDSOR: Father Ron would be delighted to hear you

say that.

MR. GULLAGE: Why did the Member for Mount Pearl not do

the same for his district, I might ask?

AN HON. MEMBER: He never had to ask when he was in

government.

MR. GULLAGE: So why the Member for Mount Pearl would

criticize the initiative of his colleague representing a good chunk of Mount

Pearl, as he knows -

MR. WINDSOR: Tell me if you think that Kenmount Park

should have been funded from the (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: This is an initiative, Mr. Chairman, he

could have taken for his district -

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) that you made (Inaudible) years

ago.

MR. GULLAGE: - and didn't do it.

MR. WINDSOR: This is the final $30,000.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Chairman, why the Member for Mount Pearl

would criticize -

MR. WINDSOR: Should it have come from (Inaudible) -

MR. GULLAGE: - criticize -

MR. WINDSOR: - (Inaudible) $90,000 in your own district

without (Inaudible) -

MR. GULLAGE: - a project -

MR. WINDSOR: - with no funding in place -

MR. GULLAGE: - for a

section of Mount Pearl that's so

badly in need of it, Mr. Chairman. Kenmount Park has virtually nothing in it, no

services at all, very little recreation.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) capital works program

(Inaudible), employment program!

MR. WALSH: Is that comment from Mayor Hodder?

MR. WINDSOR: Be honest for a change.

MR. WALSH: Mayor Hodder brought that comment, didn't he?

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Chairman, it's unbelievable the Member

for Mount Pearl would criticize a project of this magnitude that will provide

recreation and community services -

MR. WINDSOR: Not a great many jobs.

MR. GULLAGE: - to a group of people now who are cut off

from the rest of Mount Pearl and have no facilities or services at all. Nothing!

MR. WALSH: Mayor Hodder doesn't want that one. Mayor

Hodder hates to see that one.

MR. GULLAGE: So, Mr. Chairman, I have to repeat that

members throughout the Province have initiated many of these programs. Now

granted, development associations, churches, schools and councils and so on,

many of them were banked and ready to go when we announced the program, because

they anticipated that perhaps the environment would be such that we would be

required to do it. But on top of that we had projects initiated by the members

themselves, on both sides of the House. Now why the Member for Mount Pearl

didn't take the initiative to do that I can't explain to this House. Perhaps

next year he will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentlemen (Inaudible) Halloween too

long if they think this is going to pass this quickly today, Mr. Chairman. Spent

too much (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I'm amazed, Mr. Chairman, that the hon.

Member for Naskaupi's sense of humour didn't improve any with his rest from the

House of Assembly. Not only is he back - he's a member from the Dark Ages, his

humour is from the Dark Ages as well. Try to get a few more modern lines, I say

to the Member for Naskaupi. Try to make some intelligent comments for a change,

instead of these silly little quips. I'm not going to waste my time with the

member, Mr. Chairman. He's only here for a brief holiday anyway. He won't be

here very long.

Now let me deal with the Member for Waterford - Kenmount on

his statements. Let me deal with that. It's very clear what happened here. When

the minister was Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs he made a

commitment to the City of Mount Pearl, $90,000 towards the capital cost of

building a recreational complex on Kenmount Park. Indeed, it needed it. Kenmount

Park has been neglected. It was neglected by city council, by the Metroboard,

before it became part of Mount Pearl. It was given to Mount Pearl with no

transition grant, like the $12 million the City of St. John's got when the

member was in crying because the City of St. John's had to take in Shea Heights

and some of these other areas, and Kilbride. So they had to have $12 million.

The City of Mount Pearl has spent $6 million or $7 million in

the member's district in areas that were not part of the City of Mount Pearl but

they were forced to take some time ago. In response to that the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount takes away the expansion area of Mount Pearl that would

have balanced it up, and destroyed the future of Mount Pearl. That's his idea of

good economics and helping a municipality grow. The most prosperous and best-run

and best managed, most effective municipality in the Province. That's their

reward for taking a difficult area, bringing it inside the City of Mount Pearl,

and providing services. What do they ask for? Ninety-thousand dollars.

Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with the recreation

centre in Kenmount Hill. It needs a lot more. It got a heck of a lot more since

it became part of the City of Mount Pearl than it ever had before, or would have

hoped to have had. I don't argue with the project. The member can't crawl out

from under what he's done by trying to say: the member doesn't want the project.

The project was long ago built. What are you going to do, tear it down?

What I don't like is the minister making a commitment for a

capital funding and then stealing it from an emergency employment response

program. This is supposed to get people some jobs this year, to feed their

families and help through the cold winter they have coming up. But the new

minister had to bail out his colleague and take $30,000 from a job creation

program to pay a debt that the minister committed in his own district. Now if

that is not an example of pork barrelling, Mr. Chairman, I do not know what is.

Then the minister is going to try to say that he initiated

the projects. The citizens' committee - Councillor Pearson and her committee on

the Kenmount Park, drove him nuts trying to get something up there. They were

the ones who initiated it. They will be delighted to hear the minister say today

that it was his idea.

I do not have a problem with the funding for Mary Queen of

the World. I have a problem with the minister trying to take credit for it, but

it was Father Ron who initiated the project and who has put together the whole

thing. It is a good project. I hope it is approved and they get the funding.

That is going to create three jobs. At least it is three. It is a good project.

But for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to try to pass off work

that was done in his own district - to take an old shed and convert it to a

gymnasium for the Seventh-Day Adventist School in Botwood a year and a half ago,

it was finished last year; the final cheque was paid in March. In March of 1992

the final cheque went out to the Seventh-Day Adventist School Board, and here on

September 30 the minister stands up in a press conference and says: I am going

to spend $11 million and some of this is going to the Seventh-Day Adventist

School Board, when it was money that was spent a year before in his own

district. That is absolute, outright, deceit, Mr. Chairman. It is deceit for a

minister of the Crown to stand up and make such a statement, knowing that it is

not true. It is cause for a resignation, Mr. Chairman. He is deliberately

deceiving the people of the Province.

He does not have a defence. He has not gotten on his feet

yet. I do not say he will.

It was a good project. I do not have a problem with the

project, if it had been funded under last year's program. But to stand up this

year and say we are going to create jobs; I do not know how many jobs it says in

the press release - all kinds of jobs they are going to create. Anyway, a couple

of thousand jobs they were going to create, short-term jobs this year - and to

find the money was spent and paid out. All they are trying to do now is juggle

the books.

We will have another special warrant. We are doing

supplementary supply for 1991-'92. That is what we are debating here today. Next

year we will be debating supplementary supply for 1992-'93, and the Minister of

Finance will come in with an $11 million extra expenditure; $1 million under

employment; $5 million under social services; and $5 million under municipal

affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Whatever.

That will be a special warrant, and you will try to tell us

then: Well we did not have any choice, 1992 was such a terrible year for

employment, the worst in history - in recent history at least - we had to create

some jobs. We will not forget when that comes up. We will not forget where the

money was spent - that it was spent the year before. It was actually spent here.

The minister should have tacked it on to this special warrant, because this is

the year in which it was spent - not try to pretend that this is new money for a

problem this year; that we are going to help try to alleviate the problems.

I found it very difficult to explain to my constituents, once

I got the information - it took me a day or two to find out because nobody knew

what it was all about, and no wonder they did not - I found it difficult to call

those people back and say: I am sorry; that was announced; it was in the paper;

there was supposed to be money there, but it was spent a year ago. It is not

going to help you this winter.

There are three jobs at Mary Queen of the World, and they

were told: Hire heads of families first. Hire those that only need one or two

stamps first. Do not hire those who need ten, because they will want ten weeks.

Hire only the ones who need one or two stamps, and then get rid of them and hire

somebody else; so there will not be three jobs; there will be ten or fifteen

jobs - but they will all be for two or three weeks each; and every one of the

project co-ordinators have been told that. Hire the heads of families first,

those that only need a couple of stamps to get them on unemployment. That is

what this is all about, Mr. Chairman.

Now I'll leave that for now, but I'll be back to it, you may

rest assured. I'll be back when I check some more districts and find out how

many more projects like that have been announced that are not going to really

create a job.

It's interesting. I can understand the minister trying to

pull a little trick here and there, but when he states - right on his own sheet

- zero jobs. It's laughable. Employment and Labour Relations, emergency

employment response program, 1992-1993. Funding, City of Mount Pearl. Under

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, $30,000. Jobs zero, weeks zero. Emergency

response program. Jobs zero, weeks zero. He could have at least pretended that

there was one job. Perhaps a part-time job, perhaps the city clerk who'll spend

ten minutes bringing the cheque to the bank or something. He could pretend there

was something generated.

How can they deny it? Jobs zero, weeks zero. Tell me - for

$30,000? That's the last $30,000 of the $90,000 commitment the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount made to put a little recreation centre in his own riding

when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs. He didn't have any money to do it,

you see. He only gave them $60,000 at the time: we'll give you $30,000 next

year. So there's where they found the $30,000. This is where they found the

$30,000, from money that was committed by the minister last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Completed? I guess it is completed. The

Seventh Day Adventist School Board got their last cheque from the minister in

March of 1992. In September the minister announces funding.

Mr. Chairman, an amazing minister. He'll be on his feet, he

was there this afternoon, saying: we created 3,500 jobs this summer. Line them

all up in front of Confederation Building, let's see them, let's see the 3,500

jobs. I tell you who created jobs. The federal government through the funding

that they brought in here. If we didn't have a transportation agreement that

this government opposed so drastically when they were in opposition, thought it

was a great sell-out, and now they're out there tripping over themselves to make

announcements of all these highway construction programs - what a great creation

of work and employment and economic activity. The same federal-provincial

that they were knocking, saying: that's a sell-out, the Roads-for-Rails

agreement. If we didn't have the Roads-for-Rails agreement we'd all be on the

rails going out of here.

Without that program, without the Hibernia project that

without all of the make-work money that's coming in here, without the fisheries

adjustment program that this government wants to turn its back on and accept no

responsibility for, without federal money coming in here, there'd be no money in

here. None whatsoever.

If this government doesn't wake up and stop playing games

with their great economic strategy document, the only employment that document

will create is the printing of the document. Nothing new in there. Some of it

has been taken verbatim out of previous reports. They didn't even have the

ability to paraphrase it, put different words in there and different adjectives.

Right out of previous documents. Wonderful document. It took them three and a

half years. They came to power saying: we will change the economy, we'll create

jobs, we'll have a whole new approach, we're immediately going to appoint this

great economic planning team, Economic Recovery Commission. There's more money

in the Budget for economic studies and economic strategies, but none for

economic action. When are you going to start creating some jobs?

We don't like these make-work programs either but they're a

fact of life in today's economy. Because no, you can't create thousands of jobs

overnight, not long-term permanent jobs. The Minister of Industry knows that.

He's learned that by now. He got his feet back on the ground. When he came into

office he said: Now I will take over and I will create jobs. Boy, we will have

the economy rolling in six months. He now knows it is not possible, and I am not

here to try to pretend that it is possible. It's a tough job. It's a tough job,

but I haven't seen a lot of action.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be back

again.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: I will just rise for a couple of minutes, Mr.

Chairman, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - mostly because I wanted to save the hon.

member opposite from the barrage he was about to take from the hon. Member for

St. John's South, and I will be much kinder than I am sure the hon. Member for

St. John's South would have been.

I just wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, that there is a

slight problem with the hon. member opposite in that I have had experiences with

only two of the fifty-two members in terms of the information I supplied them

corresponding to our involvement in the Emergency Employment Response Program.

We had two of them, one member who spoke in the House and one who is not here

today for some good reason and both in the Opposition. But it is obvious to me

the only thing I can understand in terms of what has been said and what they

have done is that they didn't read the materials I sent to them.

I sent materials, Mr. Chairman, to every member because as

was indicated I really believe that when we are making these kinds of decisions

that the members from the areas might have more information about the local area

than I would have or the officials in our department. And together with that

input we can make, probably the best decisions.

What we had in a couple of cases is we sent out a letter

outlining two things. One was a list of projects that had been approved last

year so that everybody would understand the kind of thing that happened with

this program last year and the kinds of things that were funded so we could get

a feel for the type of initiatives that were approved in a previous year. The

point that has just been referenced, the hon. Member for Mount Pearl talks about

the Seven Day Adventists, that was only the list of projects for last year. That

was a project funded last year provided to the hon. member as an example of the

kinds of things that were done.

MR. WINDSOR: Well why was it approved in 1992?

MR. GRIMES: Because all of these were given final

approvals last year - and if any one of you wanted to call the office to get

clarification we could have straightened it out for you, but obviously some

people misunderstood.

MR. WINDSOR: I did call your office. Your office didn't

understand it either.

MR. GRIMES: Strangely enough, Mr. Chairman, there were

only two people as I point out. One is the hon. member who has spoken here, and

the other is the hon. Member for Green Bay. The hon. Member for Green Bay went a

step further and took last years list of approvals and announced them all again

this year - the ones that I sent him as an example of what was done last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I get a call and find out because it said

approved - and you don't have to be an absolute genius, Mr. Chairman, because

look at the procedure we followed. We were sending them, Mr. Chairman, a list,

examples for last year and then a list of potential projects for this year to

ask for input as to which ones we think should be approved. And for someone to

misunderstand that and then make an announcement saying that these are approved

when I am asking which ones, I am asking for some help and guidance and advice

as to which ones should be approved and because there was a list given of the

ones last year so they would know the kinds of things that were done and in what

area, somebody went out and re-announced them and said these are already

approved when I am writing a letter saying: Please suggest to me which ones we

might approve this year. Now there is some misunderstanding there somewhere. In

the case at hand immediately, the Seven Day Adventist example was a project

approved last year. It gives me a perfect opportunity to point this out as well

because this matter might come up again later as we discuss this issue in the

House of Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, all of these projects are funded. The funding

passes through some funding agency: Development Associations, Town Councils,

service clubs in different communities and so on. And the only way they can be

tracked by way of what we do in our offices is by taking the address of the

agency that is making the application and therefore gets the funds. You'll find

lots of times that in our breakdowns - for example, in the central Newfoundland

area where I'm from, many of these things, the development association, which is

headquartered in Grand Falls - Windsor, sponsors projects in Exploits district,

in Windsor - Buchans, in Grand Falls and sometimes even almost out as far as

Lewisporte, even though they have the Lewisporte area development association.

The boundaries don't exactly coincide with provincial boundaries.

So there'll be some difference. Because for some reason

members opposite seem to be preoccupied sometimes about saying: how much money

was spent in these districts and these districts? We look at where the need is,

and where the money should be spent to have impact on the people we're trying to

impact. That's not the kind of thing that we often keep track of. But it seems

to be a question first to the lips of those members opposite. Because as I've

said in this House before, Mr. Chairman, it's the way they used to make

decisions, and they can't get it out of their minds.

All they used to do was look at the districts and say listen,

load up the PC districts and give a few scraps here and there to the poor old

Liberals, because it doesn't want to be 100 per cent. We don't do that. We give

money to the different districts because of the fact that there are people in

that area who have need. Because we've checked the unemployment insurance

statistics. We've checked to see how many people are about to come off the

unemployment insurance rolls. We check the social services rolls, and we try to

identify the areas of greatest need. We fund projects in those areas.

It was made clear when we announced these projects that they

were not intended to try to alleviate difficulties being experienced by people

attached to the fishery. So there are areas of the Province that have high

unemployment rates at the present time, and difficulties with social services,

but we're still trying to make sure that there are appropriate fisheries

responses for those, mainly from the federal government. If that doesn't come

through in any way, shape or form, we'll have to reassess our position on that

matter at the point in time. Clearly we made that as part of our announcement as

well.

So we looked at funding for last year that we provided to

everybody as examples and funding for this year that were potentials. The only

ones that had already been approved on that list were some projects in the one

million dollars from recreation, through the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, because the minister had tabled that list the same day that

we made the announcement. So on the list for 1992-1993, which is this fiscal

year out of which we're funding this project, there would have been one or two

approvals at the top - if there were some recreation projects or local service

district projects already approved - and all the rest would have said: pending.

The members were asked: look through these. The other thing

that happened as well was it said: if you are aware of, in any way, shape or

form, other project work, other projects that should be considered in your

district, please advise us. This is what my colleague and good friend, the hon.

Minister of Social Services, was talking about. When he looked at it he went

out, like many members did, and said: here's a list of some things, but maybe

there are more things in my district that should be considered. He went out and

talked to people about that and other applications came forward. Some of the

current list got approved, and some of the new ones got approved. It wasn't a

first-come, first-served. It was greatest need, and trying to make sure we were

doing things that were in the long-term benefit of the people involved.

Something that would be lasting and something that would make a contribution.

So I can't be responsible for some misunderstanding of

people. If they didn't get it straight, maybe they'll get it straight after

today.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that the very fact

that we sent a list - he gets up and ha-has and pooh-poohs about $30,000, no

jobs, and so on. We provided the information deliberately because as he said:

why couldn't I have pretended that there was a job? We don't do that. That's not

the way we operate. We provided the information so that people would know. At

the very beginning of this program we said: basically, 70 per cent of the monies

that are in this total of $11 million will end up being spent on wages for

people. It's no good to give money to people if they have nothing to work with.

Thirty per cent of the money will be spent on materials, and making sure there's

something there that they can do.

In many cases, as we had discussed with our colleague, the

Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs, in many of the

recreational and local service district projects that he announced, much more

than 30 per cent of the money was needed for materials and things to make sure

that something useful got done. So the trade-offs were made, and in some

instances, as with say, a $30,000 project, it is possible that some of those

could have been 100 per cent for capital and material, and then from some other

part of a project, either through Employment and Labour Relations, or Social

Services or elsewhere, a labour component would be provided so that useful work

would be done. And we were not about to send out a list trying to doctor it up

and say that every one of these projects, one by one, will come out to say there

are so many jobs here, and so many weeks of work and so on. Some were designed

to provide capital and materials, others were designed to provide exclusively

labour, and in the whole combination, the Cabinet committee was charged with the

responsibility to make sure that as close as possible to a 70/30 split occurred,

so that 70 per cent of these monies would find its way into the hands and

pockets of people to spend and to help them on a personal basis, and 30 per cent

of it would be required to make sure there was useful work being done in all the

projects that were approved.

So you can see, Mr. Chairman, as well, that we did not try to

pretend, or try to fool anybody, or doctor up some numbers to make it look good.

We believe in presenting the facts as they are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

I apologize to my colleague. I did not realize -

MR. FLIGHT: That's what it is to be a lame duck

(inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I am sure the hon. minister knows all about

being a lame duck, Mr. Chairman. If there is anyone who has more experience in

this House now than that member -

MR. ROBERTS: Could the hon. member speak (inaudible)?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, no problem. We will just keep it going

until the Government House Leader gets back because we know the place won't

function unless he is in his seat. We know the place won't operate without him

here, so we will all try to keep it going until he gets back. If he takes a bit

longer, I am sure members opposite will give me some leave. Then my good friend,

the Minister of Finance, might go to bat and try to keep it going for him. You

never know. He might have enough experience to be able to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to have a few words on this bill,

this money bill. As you can see, the debate has become quite wide-ranging and

most of the discussion is taken up in job creation, which I think is very, very

appropriate, because the number one problem in our Province today is the lack of

employment -

MR. WARREN: He is back already.

MR. MATTHEWS: He is back already.

- the lack of jobs. Everywhere in the Province there is a

very serious employment problem, and I am sure that is why members are speaking

the way they are today, in debate, because of the very serious problems out and

about our respective districts.

I just want to say to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations that he did a very good job in trying, I guess, to weasel out of the

situation, as brought forward by the Member for Mount Pearl. It is a very

serious situation where you have a minister who goes to a press conference and

tables documents, figures and statistics, an emergency job creation program -

monies that do not create one job for the year for which it is supposed to

create jobs. I think that is very serious, I want to say to the minister.

Some of the problems, I might say to the minister again, is

maybe some of the officials in his department, not that I want to cast

aspersions on any officials, but there have been various reports coming out of

the minister's department, of sponsoring bodies and sponsoring groups contacting

officials there, and they have not been well received, I say to the minister.

And there is one particular official over there, who asked - among the first

questions that individuals were asked when they called to enquire about the

status of their specific project - asked where they lived, who their member was,

and then went on to elaborate from that.

So even though the minister gets up and tries to say it

didn't matter where an application came from, what community, what part of the

Province, what district it was, who the member was, of what political stripe the

member was, I say to the minister, there have been a number of instances where

one particular official has made it known quite clearly to the people who have

been calling, that that was certainly a factor. He has made some very strong

comments to some people who have called, who didn't call to get that kind of

comment. They called out of a legitimate concern for their sponsoring body's

project application, to see what the status was. They wanted to do two things,

quite naturally, they wanted to create employment and get on with doing the work

of their project.

So I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations -

and I hope he is listening to what I am saying, because that is a fact, that

some of the problems were created by the minister's own officials. That, I am

sure, we can all - any of us who have served in a department as minister knows

that these kinds of things can happen without the minister knowing about it. We

all realize that, or certainly, I do. It is kind of hard to know everything that

is going on with your officials on a day-to-day basis.

But that is what raises the level of scepticism out and about

the Province, when you have officials who say the things that some of his

officials have said, particularly when you look at the background of the

officials who said it. I think the minister knows where I am coming from and of

whom I might be talking, and I would ask him to deal with that situation in his

department.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I was quite delighted to have

projects receive funding in my district, good, worthy projects, creating some

much-needed employment. I am grateful to the minister for that, and to the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs for the recreation funding that we

received. Because it won't go a long way but it will certainly help the cause of

many unemployed people. The money is helping unemployed people in my district

who have now picked up a few weeks work on those project. Much more is needed,

we all know that, because we realize the seriousness of the unemployment problem

out and about the Province.

There are many good project applications in the ministers'

offices, Both the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and the

recreation division of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I have a number of very

good applications that sponsoring bodies have in from my district. One I want to

go on record - and I've spoken to the minister personally about it - is on

behalf of Grand Meadows Golf Association, who are attempting to develop a golf

course in Frenchman's Cove Park. It is a provincially-owned park, a nice parcel

of land for a nine-hole golf course. There has been some progress made - through

federal funding, I might add, job creation money - where a lot of the work had

been done with clearing fairways and so on. It is a very good project. The

sponsoring body has put in years of work trying to access enough funding to

develop this golf course.

It has a lot of tourism implications for my area of the

Province, particularly with our flow of traffic to the French islands of St.

Pierre and Miquelon, where there is anywhere between 25,000 and 30,000 people

who go there annually. What we find is, people drive down to the ferry in

Fortune, take the boat, go to St. Pierre and Miquelon, come back, get in their

cars and drive out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not counting the ones who go back and

forth.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, those are the people from the area who

go back and forth frequently. I'm talking about tourists who come into the area.

Really, what we need there is some kind of attraction. I am glad that the

Minister of Tourism is listening. We need an attraction or attractions to keep

people there overnight so that we get some benefit. Because the most we get now,

if we get anything, is a tankful of gas, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). They have some very good

ideas.

MR. MATTHEWS: They do. But this particular project is a

very good one, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes. But what I am saying is that we do

have a natural attraction in St. Pierre-Miquelon. People come to go to the

French islands. But what is happening is, the ferry

schedule is such that they

get aboard the ferry, go to St. Pierre, come back, get in their cars and drive

away. So we need something there to keep them overnight or for a day or two, and

certainly a golf course would go a long way towards doing that. Because a lot of

people plan their vacations around golf. They play a number of golf courses

during their vacation.

So it would be a great benefit to not only attract new people

into the area but people who regularly re-visit St. Pierre and Miquelon could

stay and hopefully spend some of their money. That would benefit the area, so I

want to mention it to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Labour.

MR. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: You might get the Minister of Labour down

there.

MR. MATTHEWS: You might even get the minister, himself,

if we could ever get the golf course finished, to come down and a have a round

or two. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has been known to play a

few rounds of golf. I know he likes the game. He's very good at it. He is very

good at most things he does. He is very good at most extracurricular things he

does, like golf, hockey and other stuff. Athletics he's very good at. Now I'm

not willing to evaluate the minister quite yet on his job as Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations.

But I just want to go on record as supporting that. I

personally called the minister at his office to talk about this particular

project application. It is very worthy, and I hope the Minister of Tourism, if

there is any influence he can use, would certainly take it under due

consideration, and if sometime he is down in the area, even look at the area we

are talking about, because it has a lot of potential, I say to the Minister of

Tourism. It is really a beautiful area that, if developed to nine holes, would

do a lot for the Burin Peninsula, to keep there some of those out-of-province

visitors and in-province travellers, where now, we don't have a lot of

attractions, do we? If they drive the natural loop around the Burin Peninsula,

you need something to hold them there a bit longer.

MR. BAKER: How about a statue of you?

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, it may cause everyone to leave but

that is the other problem. You make decisions, I say to the Minister of Finance

- you have to be careful, you can't make rash decisions about that because you

could put up a statue of me and there would be nobody left within fifty miles of

the golf course. I don't want that to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are a few areas where (inaudible)

come up against the plans (inaudible) that was in the beginning.

MR. MATTHEWS: Where, the Burin Peninsula?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, it has been very difficult. I thought

that the ones to be the generators should have been those people directly

involved in the industry, who have restaurants, hotels and whatever, that they

should be the catalyst to get it going, but there has been somewhat of a

reluctance to do that, I say to the minister. They are the people who have, I

guess, the most to gain directly from that kind of a situation, but yes, the

minister is right.

I am hoping that will be dealt with shortly and we will get

on, hopefully, with the support of the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, that he will not be using emergency employment funding for projects,

really, that have been done in the past and do not create jobs. Because it is a

very serious situation out and about the Province, I say to the minister, and I

am hoping that he will give this particular application some serious

consideration. I don't know if all his money is gone and, of course, I don't

expect him to tell me. When I hear about that it will probably be on some

announcement.

There is one other thing I want to bring to the minister's

attention. I noticed, with the lists that were sent out, there were a number of

projects listed, as well, from the Department of Social Services, the Community

Development Program. There was a whole whack of projects there and I scrutinized

those and was quite delighted at first when I looked at them, because I thought

there were going to be three or four projects approved out of the Community

Development Program, the social services for the Grand Bank Social Services

District office; but, of course, once I did a bit of checking, as the minister

said we all should have done, that again, it was money that was spent earlier,

it was not new monies.

I don't know the reason for lumping it all together and

sending it out together, if it was a public relations gimmick in the hope that

the press would pick it all up and print all this stuff and people out and about

the Province would think that government was doing far more than it really is

with job creation. Because, once I checked it, I found out that the projects I

had received -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: - the money had already been spent and

they, indeed, again were not creating new jobs, I say to the minister.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, not to belabour the point, but again, a little

further explanation may be necessary in light of some of the comments that are

continuing to be made.

There was a point made again by the hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl, in his few remarks about the Emergency Employment Response Program,

suggesting that all this was, was an opportunity to qualify people for UI and

that, in fact, where you had some money, it wasn't one person going to work for

ten weeks, but it was somebody going to work for three weeks and somebody else

going to work for two weeks, so that it wouldn't be ten jobs, it might be

fifteen or eighteen or twenty jobs.

I didn't quite know what he was saying, except the tone of

his voice was as if he disagreed with that; and I didn't understand again, why

anyone would be under any delusions as to what we were doing, because that was

announced, those questions were asked and that was clearly explained the day we

made the announcement. Maybe he is mixed up with another year, because last year

we annou