March 21,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 3

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

House of Assembly thirty-two democratic students from Little Heart's Ease

Integrated School in Bellevue district. They are accompanied by their teachers

Mr. Cyril Rogers and Mr. David Peach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today

that Cabinet has given approval in principle for the establishment - on a

provincial-wide basis - of an enhanced 911 emergency telephone system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: The approval in principle follows an extensive

review which determined that the technical capability does exist in Newfoundland

and Labrador and that it is feasible to implement such an enhanced emergency

service for the whole Province.

The enhanced or E-911 service is much more superior than the

basic 911 which relies on a caller being able to speak and give directions as to

the type and location of the emergency.

The Province-wide E-911 service would substantially improve

the level of emergency response for police, fire, medical, ambulance and other

agencies including poison control.

The E-911 service automatically uses the telephone number of

the calling party and creates a visual image on the receiving computer so that

certain information is immediately available to the responding party. This

replaces the need to rely entirely on local knowledge and provides accurate

information substantially reducing the time factor in dispatching the

appropriate emergency agency.

Currently there are two 911 systems operating in the Province

- one on the Northeast Avalon coordinated by the Fire Department; and, the other

one in Corner Brook and some twenty-three surrounding communities are now in

place.

A Cabinet Committee will now consider a number of options and

make recommendations back to Cabinet with respect to (

a) the public or private

operation of the system; (

b) the location of the system centre; and (

c) funding

levels. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice.

Newfoundland Telephone has indicated that it is prepared to

participate in the development of a Provincial-wide E-911 system. This company

would absorb the technical costs for capital equipment and to recover these

costs, users would be charged a monthly toll on their telephone accounts to

cover the cost of the service which we estimate to be around somewhere between

sixty and eighty cents a month.

This arrangement would require the Province or some other

agency to incur other costs associated with developing the E-911 system and to

cover the operating and maintenance costs.

The Province or some other agency would be responsible for

the cost of establishing a public service answering position which would have to

be established to receive incoming calls from the E-911 system.

In all likelihood, the Emergency Measures Division of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs would assume responsibility for the overall

coordination of this program.

There are many benefits, Mr. Speaker, associated with a

Province-wide-911 system. Some of the more significant ones include: It would

provide a high quality standard of emergency response and dispatch on a uniform

basis to all portions of the Province to the extent that the individual services

are available. It would provide a foundation which would allow enhancements in

the future such as development of an electronic dispatch system. This system

would electronically guide responders to any location in the Province and could

be used by any of the participating agencies that may desire that level of

service.

For smaller municipalities, Mr. Speaker, of which I am

acutely aware, implementation of the E-911 system allows them to have an

emergency response system that they cannot afford at the present time.

For larger municipalities, which presently have a basic 911

service or which may not have any, it answers their demand to provide an

enhanced service that they have wanted to implement individually for some time

but could not afford.

For response agencies, key emergency information would be

provided automatically by E-911 to the public safety answering point immediately

as a call is received.

The ability to independently capture the location of the

caller would virtually, Mr. Speaker, eliminate any false alarms or where they

are not eliminated, help identify and detect the perpetrator of them. This would

save thousands of dollars especially on the Avalon Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, a rapid response time is vital to all

emergencies in this Province, but especially critical in life and death

situations. An E-911 system significantly reduces time delays in getting

information on the emergency and in dispatching the proper response.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a

copy of his statement previous to coming to the House.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the

minister and the government in bringing in such a policy; well, I suppose I

should caution from the outset I guess, that this is a recommendation and an

approval in principle to be further reviewed and further looked at by a

Committee of Cabinet.

Anything could happen I suppose, from here on in but I would

suspect that this will be something that will be instituted within the next few

months, possibly twelve months, a year or so, and it will be a good thing for

the Province as a whole. I notice it is for the Province as a whole, right

across; much needed, Mr. Speaker, especially in the rural areas of this

Province, but I have a few concerns and I would caution the minister today on

one of them and that is: I notice here, that Newfoundland Telephone has

indicated that it is prepared to participate in the development of a

province-wide E-911 system.

As I said earlier, they say here that the technical expertise

is in place. They have the capability of doing it, no question, but what will be

the charge? If, for instance, it is 50 cents or $1 a month it might not sound

much, but to subscribers all across this Province, especially as it pertains to

a 911 number and the times that it will be used, if it is not monitored and not

watched very closely, Newfoundland Telephone could make a lovely tax grab off

something like this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well, that is good to hear. That is one of

the concerns I had, and if that concern is addressed by Cabinet, or will be

addressed by Cabinet as they move along in setting up a number such as this,

well then sobeit because the same thing applies to cable companies across the

Province. Although they have a licence they can darn well come out after with

certain channels and pick up a couple of dollars extra a month, and I would

caution the minister on making sure that something like that does not take place

because this, like I said, would be a good thing for the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to a topic I raised yesterday

in Question Period, the Trans City scandal, and I want to direct my question to

the Premier.

The Supreme Court heard evidence from the architect for Trans

City, a Mr. John Hearn, and the evidence was that the company's owners knew from

the beginning that the interest rates would be the key factor in awarding the

hospital contracts. Now, no other bidder knew that. In fact, the tender call

asked for annual rental costs only; there was no mention of interest rates.

I would like to ask the Premier, who is now the Justice

Minister: Has he made any attempt to find out how Mr. Hearn, and Mr. Case and

his colleagues and associates, got that kind of information - as Justice

Minister?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As far as I know -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: As far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, the

conclusion is not exactly as the hon. member states.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well, the hon. member should read a little bit

more.

MR. SIMMS: No, you should read a little bit more.

(Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: My understanding is that was an issue that was

raised, and that there were, in fact, I believe, three companies that dealt with

the interest rate issue, that it was not something that was simply the

proprietorship of one company. It was probably available to everybody else.

I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that it is the

interest rates that determine the rental rates. If in fact the rental rates are

low it is a result of low interest rates, or low interest rates can cause a

lowering of the rental rates.

Mr. Speaker, the firms that bid on the basis of the

Province's level of borrowing, the companies that bid on that basis, had to, in

fact, indicate that the interest rate would affect their ultimate rental. That

is why I believe three of the companies actually used that criteria. So it was

simply a mechanism to point out what the rental rate would be at some time in

the future. It could not be specified simply because the interest rates were

changing every day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board can ramble on all he wants. I'm not asking him any questions

about that. I'm asking the Premier as the Minister of Justice: Has he made any

attempt to find out how Mr. Hearn, Mr. Case and his associates got the

information that they had that gave them the edge in this process? I ask him as

Minister of Justice.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, they did not

have the information and it was not indicated that they actually had the

information.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm assuming that the Minister of

Justice, the Premier, has read the decision. If he has he would know that what

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board just said is not accurate at all.

Because on pages 112 and 113 of the decision it indicates clearly that Trans

City knew it had that vital piece of information on interest rates. In fact, the

architect, Mr. Hearn said during the process that the company's owners had

boasted to him privately, at a private meeting, that they had an edge. It is

clear now that they knew from the beginning that the tender call issued on June

20 which referred only to the annual rental cost was false. So while everyone

else in the process was misled by the tender call, Trans City alone was told the

truth. Now, that is certainly an edge.

I'm asking the Premier, as Minister of Justice, is he at all

concerned about the strong suspicion of conspiracy and fraud about this whole

affair? Doesn't he think that the people of the Province have a right to know

what went wrong, and if anyone in government engaged in criminal conduct?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Stop this charade now, Mr. Speaker. Nobody

- nobody - in government engaged in any criminal conduct. The member's comments

in that direction are irresponsible and unworthy of him, as Leader of the

Opposition, to be making these kinds of allegations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as to the fact that some witness said the

company had an edge - I don't know of any bidder yet who didn't say to somebody:

I think we have an edge. We have an edge. We say to somebody else: I think we

have an edge to get this done in Newfoundland. All kinds of people think they

have an edge and say it, and to interpret those kind of things from that

statement is irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker, I say again, I accept the statement of the

Minister of Finance that there was no favoured position or favoured information

given to anybody. I must confess, having read the judgement, that our people did

a very poor job of presenting the proposal. They used the word `tender', they

used the word `proposal', they caused the creation of confusion when it ought

not to have been there. Now, government must take responsibility for that. We

must take responsibility for that, but that is a far cry, Mr. Speaker, from

anybody doing anything deliberately to create a preferential position for

somebody else. That it was not presented in a clear manner, is beyond question.

It is obvious. All anybody has to do is look at the invitation for proposals and

the word `tender' is used, the word `proposal' is used, and it allowed an

argument, which argument the judge accepted, and which argument the government

disagrees with, and as a result, has appealed the decision to the Court of

Appeal.

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

MR. SIMMS: There is only one person who is irresponsible

and incompetent in this matter and that is the Premier and the Minister of

Justice. That is where the irresponsibility lies. How do you know the answers to

all of these questions? What are you, judge and jury? You don't know the

answers. That is precisely the reason why an inquiry is needed, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask the Premier this, as Minister of Justice. Does he

not think that the police should be investigating the allegations then of

wrongdoing contained in the evidence taken by the Supreme Court? Does he not

think that should occur?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary to the Premier as Minister of

Justice. Does the Premier know if the police had in fact already begun an

investigation on their own, or that one was about to get underway, or that in

fact indication had been given that one was about to start? Does he know that as

Minister of Justice?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: To the best of my knowledge, everything

the hon. member just said is complete fabrication on his part.

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

MR. SIMMS: He can accuse me of all he wants. I didn't

fabricate anything. I asked him a question. Is he too sensitive to answer the

question? I want to get it clear: Is the Premier saying he is not aware that

there was an investigation about to get under way, or one had started, or that

there had been an indication? Can I ask him to make that clear: he is not aware

of it, or that there wasn't?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that anybody

even thought of it, let alone one under way. I have no knowledge anybody was

even thinking of it, or that there is any basis for it, except in the warped

minds that put this proposal forward.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, it is not a

proposal yet. I am asking him a question. Did the Premier, or the former

Minister of Justice, directly, or indirectly through his officials, or their

officials, ask the police to put on hold any investigation into the Trans City

affair until after the government's appeal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have now sunk to a new

low. I never imagined that a member sitting in this House would sink to such a

low. I might ask him if he has requested the police not to investigate his

mistreatment of his wife, and that would be equally valid. I know it has no

validity, but it would be as valid as his statement. It is grossly irresponsible

and offensive, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary to the Premier.

Again, I say to him, he is not the judge yet. I asked him a

question. I asked him a clear question. Did he, or did his former Minister of

Justice - you didn't answer the question - directly, or indirectly through

officials, ask the police to put on hold any investigation into Trans City until

after the government's appeal? It is a straightforward question. It is not an

allegation. I am asking the question, and I am entitled to ask the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, it carries with it the

implication that it was done. Of course not, no member sitting on this side of

the House would ever think of stooping to such a despicable level of behaviour.

That is left to the members opposite who ask the questions in this way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the hon. the Minister of Social Services. I

would like to know if the hon. minister is concerned about the situation that

has been arising in the news lately about deaths occurring in boarding houses?

Several people have been killed in boarding houses over the past two years, and

in some cases clients of the Department of Social Services have been involved.

Recently, the government has allocated funds to upgrade

rooming houses, so that they have the necessities, for people to live in. I

would like to know if this measure is simply a Band-Aid to cover a problem that

needs major surgery, or does the minister think that by upgrading the houses,

the problem will disappear?

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

MS. YOUNG: I don't think problems would disappear

overnight in any situation. I think they have to be dealt with reasonably, and

it is a very complex issue. It is not something that housing can straighten out.

It is not something that this department can straighten out overnight.

We have a number of people who are living all over this

Province, and we cannot be responsible for every home in which these people

choose to live, every building. I certainly have concerns about the matter, and

our department is always concerned about matters such as this.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the deaths have involved ex-psychiatric patients, I

say to the minister, who have been released into boarding houses as a result of

programs being implemented by the Waterford Hospital, as a direct result of

cutbacks at that hospital. Many of these ex-patients become part of the social

services system, but are not getting the proper support that they need. I would

like to know what exactly the Department of Social Services is doing to make

sure that there is proper support for these people so that they are not harming

themselves or others.

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

MS. YOUNG: I guess you are referring to The Right Future

Program. That is a program funded by the Federal Government, and we implement

the program, and certainly these people are not at risk. These people are placed

out into communities, they are placed into homes, and there are people with

these people almost constantly, depending upon the need for assistance. We

monitor these situations, and I don't think that these are the people to which

you should be referring.

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

for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think that the Department of Social Services, along with

municipalities and the Department of Justice, should investigate this situation

with the boarding houses. I think that this issue is a symptom of a much larger

problem within social services, itself. Will the minister agree today to

investigate these boarding house facilities and provide the support needed to

prevent future life-threatening occurrences?

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

MS. YOUNG: Well, he's got one thing straight, Mr.

Speaker, he says that it is an issue that should be dealt with through housing

and certainly we can look into the concerns. We are aware of them, we are

dealing with them and I would like to assure the member that that is not the

first time that we became aware of all of these issues.

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

West.

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

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

This past winter has probably been the worst I have ever

seen, in terms of snow-clearing, on the Burin Peninsula Highway. The only thing

more scarce than cod fish in this Province has been the snow-clearing equipment

on that highway, I say to the minister. For several days prior to this recent

storm the Burin Peninsula Highway remained, in a lot of situations, one-way

traffic. There was no effort made, or at least the snow was not moved back to

provide for two-way traffic. As a result, a tunnel was created, and in this

recent storm, people became stuck, snowbound and stranded on the Burin Peninsula

Highway for many hours. I would like to ask the minister - I mentioned to him

yesterday the situation down there and what was happening - I would like to ask

him if he has made any effort, since I spoke to him yesterday, to have

additional equipment go on that highway to make the road wider?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is a lot of exaggeration by

the hon. member, saying there has not been any equipment out there on the Burin

Peninsula this year. What he is saying is unfounded, there has been a lot of

effort made. I make effort every single day. We have had a tremendously

difficult winter. We have had a lot of snow and even though it didn't snow last

week, the winds blew very hard. I have a certain amount of power in the

department but I don't have the power to control nature, the wind blowing and

the snow falling.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: The equipment that is badly needed, the most

needed on the Burin Peninsula Highway is a few snowblowers. So probably the

minister could substitute for one of them.

Mr. Speaker, my concern is that the minister has become

totally obsessed with the Department of Fisheries as opposed to the Department

of Works, Services and Transportation and, as a result, has neglected what needs

to be done in terms of snow-clearing on the Burin Peninsula. I have had calls

from people who have been stranded on the Burin Peninsula Highway during this

period, people who were there from 9:00 one morning until around 3:30 yesterday

evening they finally got in to Marystown. I would like to ask the minister: Will

he give assurance that the necessary snow clearing equipment - or what I am

being told is snowblowers that are needed, because the snow is piled so high it

has to be blown back, a grader cannot move it. Will he put the equipment that is

needed on the Burin Peninsula Highway so that it is opened again and people

won't have to continuously drive through a tunnel?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure the hon. member that I have been obsessed with

the fishery since the day I was four years old and the first time I stepped

aboard a fishing boat. I haven't stopped being obsessed with it since, as every

Newfoundlander and Labradorian should be. There is nothing wrong with being

obsessed with the importance of the fisheries.

There is no less or no more service being given on the Burin

Peninsula, Conception Bay, Central Newfoundland, Western Newfoundland, Northern

Newfoundland. When the snow falls, the wind blows and it is necessary to have

the equipment out, the equipment is out. Is your area going to get any better

treatment than anywhere else? Absolutely not. When the requirement is to have

equipment out there, it will be there, and when the snow falls anywhere else or

the wind blows anywhere else, the same preference and the same treatment will be

given to other areas around this Province. You are not going to expect us to say

that your area is getting less snow clearing or less equipment on the Burin

Peninsula? We have taken equipment out, when we have had a major snow storm,

from Clarenville and other depots and put it up there when it is necessary and

then take it back. That was done last week, it was done when it was necessary

and the road is now open.

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

for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the road was closed this weekend

and it was opened yesterday morning. I spoke to someone today who said it three

o'clock yesterday evening that they finally got in to Marystown after being on

the road from nine o'clock the day before.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the minister that I didn't

say he was obsessed with Fisheries; I said: you are obsessed with running to the

Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, that's the difference.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister now admit that it is because

of cutbacks of this government, shortage of staff and the lack of good and

adequate equipment that is causing people to be stranded on the Burin Peninsula

Highway for days and days this winter?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: The last part of his question: Absolutely

not. There have been no cutbacks in the department. It is strange, Mr. Speaker,

that the road was blocked Thursday, Friday, Saturday or whatever according to

the representative for the area, but it is only now, today, he is asking about

it? Why didn't he call me Friday, Saturday, Sunday? He never made a phone call

but waits until Tuesday after the road is open and then makes an issue of it. It

is kind of ridiculous I think, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) as a witness.

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

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) but I won't say what you told

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I had a fisheries question here, Mr. Speaker, but we are

preoccupied with moratoriums on snowploughs I think. I have a question for the

Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

I wonder if the minister could inform the House as to what

the status of the situation on the Grand Banks is today; I understand some

Spanish vessels have come back into the area and I wonder if the minister could

update the House as I am sure he has been briefed by DFO people as to the

situation and could he tell us what it is, what it's like out there now, what is

happening, are the Spanish fishing or what is happening?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The information I have to share with the House, Mr. Speaker,

is that indeed there are some vessels that have moved in on the Nose of the

Bank. The information, just before I came into the House is that there is no

information to confirm whether they are fishing or not, at this time.

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

supplementary.

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

I wonder what -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I understand weather is playing a

factor, I guess, in the surveillance here.

I am wondering, if the Spanish do go back fishing, I say to

the minister, what is he going to recommend to his federal counterpart, what

would be the provincial government's recommendation to Brian Tobin and the Prime

Minister, if the Spanish put their nets in the water again?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't share with the House at this point what the

recommendation would be simply because a decision of that magnitude would

require other input other than myself.

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

Opposition House Leader.

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

I am wondering if the minister could inform the House if he

has been in touch with the federal minister on the issue and when does he expect

to communicate with the federal minister again on the situation?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My officials have been in touch on an hourly basis today with

DFO; I will be speaking to the federal minister after the House closes this

afternoon.

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

MR. CAREEN: My question is for the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation.

Some pulp and paper industry officials have expressed grave

concern about the federal budget's plan to bring in a user pay system for

ice-breaking services. These industry officials say that having to pay for this

service themselves would be too costly and could result in a loss of that

industry.

Sir, what is the provincial government going to do, to

alleviate some of the fears of the pulp and paper industry?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: That is a pretty difficult question to

answer. What is the provincial government going to do to alleviate the fears?

Well, we have sat down and we have had meetings with the parties from

Abitibi-Price, Kruger, we have listened to their concerns about the impact it

would have on their business, their financial operation if, and that is the key

word, if, user fee was brought in by Transport Canada on ice-breaker services.

We are equally as concerned as a government of the impact on our Treasury, our

revenues that it would have because we too, use the ice-breaker services there.

We are talking to Transport Canada; it is only in the talking

stage and I don't think anybody has made anything definite if it is going to

happen. We are certainly aware of it, we have had meetings with Transport

Canada, we have a meeting with industry and we are as much concerned about it as

is the private industry, but we have to remember that the future government's

proposals of the federal proposal of the future is user-pay service. To what

extent we don't know, but we know there is going to be some user-pay service

brought in. But to alleviate the fears, no more than talk to them as we have

already done.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you. Sir, as we well know, should

passenger ferries have to pay for such ice-breaking services than not only will

local passengers have to pay higher ferry rates, but rates will go up so high

that any potential tourism will be lost. What is the provincial government going

to do in this regard so that ferry service rates will not increase exorbitantly?

Are you talking to Marine Atlantic?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: I'm not sure if I understand the question.

What would the - if the ice-breaker services were brought in, what impact would

it have on ferry rates? If any? Well, first of all, it is only on the northeast

coast. There would be no impact on the South Coast where we have very little

ice, if any at all, on the South Coast services. But on the northeast coast,

depending on what the cost would be - there is a lot of assumption. We estimate

the present cost to the federal government at around $20,000 per day. I think

last winter, if we had been charged for each day they served us, it would cost

somewhere around, in Fogo alone, $1 million in ice-breaker services. That is if

at the rate of $20,000 per day.

I'm not going to say what impact it would, if any, because we

don't know if it is going to happen, because it is an assumption right now.

There has been no announcement made. We are meeting with Transport Canada on all

operations of Marine Atlantic, of the Transport Canada services to Newfoundland,

and the user-pay system, on the airport policy, and all marine policies. We will

be negotiating and talking. When we do, and if there is any final decision made,

all of the operation - not just the cost of fares will be impacted upon - but we

will be putting a study into the cost of ice-breaker service and all other

services that Transport Canada will be talking about in the future on user-pay

systems.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Sir. They say every action has a

reaction. What the federal Minister of Transport is proposing is going to have

an awful effect, and a long-range, an echo throughout this Province. These talks

were - user-fees are going to implicate us all. Sir, has the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation, together with other affected departments,

made a consolidated pitch towards the federal government to protest user-fees

for ice-breaking services? Have you and your crowd stood up to fight for the

people of this Province?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, if we look at a $45 billion

deficit that we the taxpayers of this country have to pay, the multi-billions of

dollars worth of debt that this country is carrying, that we all have a

responsibility, for the sake of the fishermen, for the sake of every

Newfoundlander and Labradorian's future, there is a major deficit that has got

to (inaudible), has to be paid, dealt with in the future, before we can realize

the benefits of it.

Yes, we are concerned about the user-pay system. To what

extent it will have on all the individual users. Will it be greater than the

deficit we are carrying? Absolutely not. The deficit is number one. The debt of

this country has to be dealt with. We will work with the federal government.

Where it needs to oppose the federal government or talk to the federal on strong

terms about the impact on Newfoundland, none of us on this side will make any

hesitation in making that step.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister

of Education and Training and concerns an apparent directive either sent by him

or by the government to child care centres at the University, at the

Confederation Building and Cabot College, not to take any children from outside

the institution. At least there are rumours about such a directive. Can the

minister confirm that such a directive was given, and by whom? Is it for the

purpose of supporting private day cares outside of these institutions? What is

the purpose of such a directive?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, government as an employer

provides day care for children of employees. This is a good program, and I would

encourage all employees in the Province to do that. However, we will find that

in some of the government-sponsored day care centres children other than those

of employees have been taken in. This is not the intent of the day care centres

in government owned facilities therefore we have instructed some government

centres not to accept children unless the parents are employees, or the parents

are guardians.

Now, in the case of Cabot College it is a little different.

The day care centre in Cabot College is required in teaching. We also teach the

course on how to provide day care in there, so we are looking at that one in a

different light. The situation with the University, Mr. Speaker, that is run by

the students over there. It is a co-operative day care centre and we have not

decided yet whether or not that day care centre actually comes under our rules

or intention. I am not sure we have the authority. I do know we did give them a

onetime grant to get set up but we are looking at the terms of reference which

are part of that day care centre.

The hon member has part of his facts right. We have indeed

sent a directive to day care centres that are there for employees, for their

children to attend. It does not mean we are going to kick children on the

street, Mr. Speaker. We did say that children who are already there in due

course will not be kicked on the street but hopefully if they stop using that

service they will have to be taken back in, but the intent of day care centres

in government owned facilities is there for the employees, and government is

providing it not as a government service but as the services of an employer, a

progressive Liberal employer, Mr. Speaker.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am surprised that the minister is contemplating issuing

directives to Memorial University Day Care when he professes to have an arm's

length relationship with the university. I would also like to ask him in

connection with the Cabot College one, as the minister has suggested, this is a

bit of a laboratory for instructional purposes as well and anything that would

detract from its liability would threaten the course, can the minister confirm

for the sake of those operating the Cabot College Child Care and Early Childhood

Education Program that the minister does not intend, in fact, along with other

programs that Cabot is running such as the ABE program, to in fact get those

programs out of Cabot College and privatize them and send them off to private

institutions? Can the minister confirm that he intends to ensure that the Early

Childhood Education Program at Cabot Institute will remain intact?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is government's intention

that day care would be provided for employees where it is practical and

reasonable, and where the employees themselves are involved somewhat, almost

like a co-operative thing. As I explained to the hon. member the case of Cabot

College Day Care Centre is a little different and we are examining that to make

sure it is not doing anything which is contrary to the guidelines set out, but

we are very much aware of the fact that the day care centre in Cabot College is

part of the course so we certainly will bear that in mind.

Can I assure Cabot College that that day care centre will be

there forever, and that we will forever bring other people in? That will depend

on the situation as it arises, Mr. Speaker. We want to make sure there are a

critical mass of children there and that they can be used for that course, and

that will be done. As for the intention to move ABE outside colleges, that is a

area which we have not ruled out or which we have not ruled in, Mr. Speaker.

There have been presentations made to me over the years suggesting that maybe we

should private Level 1 of ABE and maybe we should look at that, however if that

were ever to arise before ever we did it we would talk to his cousins in the

unions, and deal with that issue very reasonably, as we do with all issues, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to table the report of the Social Services

Legislation Review Committee respecting a review of Bill 41, "An Act Respecting

Advance Health Care Directives And The Appointment Of Substitute Health Care

Decision Makers".

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Report received and adopted.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with

section

35 of the Medical Care Insurance Act, I am pleased to table the 25th Annual

Report of the Newfoundland Medical Care Commission. This report is for the year

ended March 31, 1994.

Notices of Motion

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

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

tomorrow, move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on

Ways and Means to consider the raising of Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Mr. Speaker, I also give notice that I will, on tomorrow,

move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to

consider certain resolutions for the granting of supply to Her Majesty.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, move

that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to

consider certain resolutions for the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we shall give over the day to

debating the Address in Reply, as I announced yesterday, but before I do I

wonder if we can come to an understanding on the procedure to be followed

tomorrow with respect to Private Members' Day.

Let me say, my suggestion will be that we embody this in an

amendment to Standing Orders, and that has not yet been done. I will have to

speak to the Clerk, and we will get a draft which can be circulated around, but

let me state what I understand to be the understanding, and then if it is a

consensus, which is what I understand to be the case, then perhaps Your Honour

could put the appropriate motion for tomorrow only and we will deal with that.

My understanding is the agreement has four points. The first

is that the right to determine which motion is to be called will rest ultimately

with the Opposition and the Government sides of the House. Tomorrow will be

called by the Opposition side.

Secondly, the House Leader for the parliamentary group which

has the right to select the motion on any given Wednesday will advise the House

on the preceding Monday of the motion, normally by means of a Notice of Motion,

but by whatever is an appropriate procedure.

Thirdly, the mover will have twenty minutes to open the

debate and twenty minutes to close the debate. The other members will be chosen

by the Chair alternately, and no member shall speak for more than twenty

minutes.

Fourthly, the motion should be debated for one day only, and

at the end of that sitting put to a vote by whatever form.

That is essentially the procedure which we had in place since

1989 until last spring. If that is agreeable to my friend from St. John's East

and to the House Leader for the Opposition, then perhaps Your Honour could put

it as a motion for tomorrow and I will ask the Clerk to try his hand at drafting

an amendment to Standing Orders to embody that procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: I just ask the Government House Leader, that

would entail an amendment to the Standing Orders, I believe, would it not?

MR. ROBERTS: I would suggest we would put it, at this

stage, as a motion for tomorrow, Wednesday, only, and then we will see if we can

have a draft to Standing Orders back in the House before next week. I think the

Clerk ought to be able to do it before then. He is very good at drafting.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened carefully to what the Government House Leader

said, and while I can agree to what he said for tomorrow, it appears that if

what he says is put into effect it means that this private member does not have

any right to have a Private Members' Resolution heard, except with the consent

of the Opposition. It also means that no back-bencher on the government side, no

individual, can have their Private Members' Resolution heard without the

government deciding whether or not a private member can have his or her Private

Members' Resolution heard.

It is totally contrary to the notion of Private Members' Day.

What we are really talking about here is Opposition day, or some other thing

which is not essentially a Private Members' Resolution. If it is a Private

Members' Resolution, and if we are going to change a rule to allow for Private

Members' Resolutions, then there ought to be a procedure where all private

members have access to it.

So as not to disrupt the proceedings of the House for

tomorrow, and the understandings that have been reached up to now, I have no

difficulty with tomorrow's resolution going under these rules because there is a

problem with the way the rule is written to now, but I will object strongly, and

I do object strongly, and I invite other private members who are not in on the

inside with the Government House Leader or the Opposition House Leader to object

as well, whether in your caucuses or publicly. That is all I have to say, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we on this side have worked out

our differences. What I present is consensus for this side. Now I realize on the

other side, because of the temporary fragmentation of the Opposition groupings,

we have a different situation. All I will say to my hon. friend is he ought to

give me some modest degree of credit, being as I'm a very modest person, as all

members will acknowledge. The reason he gave is precisely the reason why I

suggested that we adopt this procedure only for tomorrow. That will give us a

few days to try to find a way to accommodate his position. He must remember he

is but one of eighteen members opposite, and he has the rights of a private

member only on that side.

The position which I'm putting, the position which has been

(inaudible) - he is waving his hands and pointing to the private members on this

side. The private members on this side have acknowledged the rightness of this

procedure, or propriety of it, and my understanding is the private members on

the other side are, with the exception of the hon. gentleman, who is

legitimately raising a point which we shall try to address in an appropriate

way. That is why we are only doing it one week at a time. I would remind him of

the Kris Kristofferson song, One Day At A Time . Let's just take it one

day at a time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In order to deal with the motion I wonder if we might have a

copy in writing. It seems to me as well that there may be more things in the

motion than necessarily need be there to deal with tomorrow's motion, but of

course the hon. Government House Leader is entitled to whatever motion he

wishes. I don't have a copy of Hansard, and if you have the motion in writing it

might be more helpful to put it to the House.

MR. SIMMS: Question on the motion?

MR. SPEAKER: There were four elements and I counted five

different aspects to it. I think number three had two in it. In order to put the

motion it is going to be hard for me to recollect.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I can give you the notes from

which -

MR. SPEAKER: If I may finish.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know if the Government House

Leader's intention was to put the motion tomorrow or today, which was my other

question.

MR. ROBERTS: My request, Your Honour, would be that we

deal with the matter today for tomorrow -

MR. SPEAKER: Today, okay, fine.

MR. ROBERTS: - and I can pass Your Honour the note from

which I read if that would help, or I can -

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: - rephrase it as a motion, if you prefer.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to know exactly what is being

proposed because the hon. Member for Humber East has - or rather -

AN HON. MEMBER: Humber East?

MR. ROBERTS: No, no.

MR. SPEAKER: St. John's East has (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The Speaker may have got it right, but the

hon. Member for Humber East speaking through her proxy -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I take it - in terms of the resolution for

tomorrow, just so members are clear - is that the right to determine which

motion is to be called will rest with the Opposition and the Government sides of

the House alternately, which I think would mean that tomorrow the Opposition has

the right to determine the motion. In this case the Opposition House Leader

would have the right to select the motion, will advise the House each Monday of

the motion to be debated, which I think our records will show was done. Thirdly,

the mover shall have twenty minutes to open and to close the debate, and other

speakers will be chosen alternately by the Chair, and no member will speak for

more than twenty minutes, and will limit the time to one day rather than two.

Those are the elements.

All in favour of the motion, `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I should have asked if there was

- before I put the motion, the hon. the Member for Pleasantville.

MR. NOEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if members would,

before they finalize this, agree to give consideration to the possibility of

reducing the allotted time for speaking to fifteen minutes, rather than twenty

minutes in each slot, so that more members would have an opportunity to

participate. I think that lots of time we get a lot of repetition on private

members' days and....

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is proposing an amendment

that the time for speakers other than the mover be fifteen minutes. Any other

speakers on the motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Fine with us. Mr. Speaker, to the amendment,

it is fine with me, and I understand with my colleagues here on this side of the

House, the more the better.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I would like to have an opportunity to speak

to the Member for St. John's East about this before we make a final decision

but, as far as I am concerned, reducing the speaking time, not only for Private

Members' Day, but for the Leader of the Opposition, for the Premier, for members

of the House in any other debate, thirty minutes. I have been here a fairly long

time, like members opposite, and to me, if you can't say what you are going to

say in fifteen minutes, at the most, you have a big problem. The problem - and

you know the realistic problem, and I can say this now publicly and openly in

front of the world, the real problem, quite frequently what you find, is members

are groping to try to fill out the thirty-minute speaking time because they feel

that somehow they have to speak for thirty minutes, but they don't, and that is

hard to get through everybody's head. So maybe the simple way to do it would be

to have a look at speaking time for all debates, including the private members'

debate that the Member for Pleasantville mentioned, let's deal with that. Sure,

fifteen minutes if that is what - we don't have any problem, as far as I know.

Nobody here would object too strenuously. The only problem we may have is

finding enough speakers on a private member's motion.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) chicken (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, as you said yesterday, you know all

about that don't you?

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

MR. HARRIS: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, let's

not get carried away here. There may well be times when he would like to speak

for more than fifteen minutes, whether for reasons of bringing matters to the

attention of government; we need to concern ourselves with closure and items

like that. I think the suggestion of the Member for Pleasantville is a good one

and a good example of the role of private members in this House. What I am

concerned about is that we, by agreeing to a rule - now whether it was the rule

in the past or not - by agreeing to a rule now that precludes private members

from having a Private Members' Day without the consent of one side or the other

of the House, that we are in fact limiting the opportunity of private members to

have their individual resolutions heard, as opposed to some party policy

strategically put forward by one side or the other. But I would support

wholeheartedly the change of the amendment from twenty minutes to fifteen

minutes and leave it at that for Private Members' Day. I would like to see

Private Members' Day truly made Private Members' Day, as opposed to a government

or Opposition day.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question on the

amendment and the resolution?

MR. TOBIN: That is just for tomorrow?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, just tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, this resolution would vary our practice

and rules, just for tomorrow. If people are ready for the question we will vote

on the amendment of the Member for Pleasantville that the time limit, for the

other speakers, other than the mover, be fifteen minutes.

On motion, amendment to resolution, carried.

On motion, resolution as defined and amended, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, that done, perhaps we could

call the Address in Reply and I assume some member from the Opposition will seek

to catch Your Honour's eye.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 1, Address in Reply.

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like a few moments to reflect for awhile on the

Throne Speech delivered by His Honour a few days ago. Mr. Speaker, one of the

themes emphasized in the Throne Speech was fiscal responsibility on the part of

the government, I guess, leading the way to the Budget which we will see in a

couple of days time. The speech, as well, Mr. Speaker, reflected on the year

past for the government, and it was a bit thin on plans for the year upcoming,

not surprising in light of the fact that this is becoming a relatively tired

government and relatively shell-shocked in regard to the number of things that

it has been involved with over the last year or so.

In terms of fiscal responsibility, Mr. Speaker, it is one

thing to talk it and another thing to walk it, to act on it. The hon. the Leader

of the Opposition, in Question Period yesterday and today - and previous to the

House closing before Christmas - spent considerable time dealing with the issue

of the contracts awarded for three hospitals in this Province, contracts that

have been under a cloud of suspicion and controversy since the issue first came

to the surface a few years ago, contracts which eventually landed the government

in court in a civil suit which led to a decision against the government which

they are now appealing. But the bottom line on the whole issue was that under

the guise of fiscal responsibility, under the guise of providing new health care

facilities in an expedient manner, and at a cost efficient way of doing it, the

government ended up spending several millions of dollars over and above what

they would have spent had they built these facilities through the usual public

tender system.

Well, what we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a government which

has paid tremendous lip service to the notion of fiscal responsibility but when

it comes to lining the pockets of companies and/or individuals who have an

inside track with this government, they seem to have a memory lapse as regards

their ultimate fiscal targets.

Mr. Speaker, the way this hospital thing was gone about is

nothing short of scandalous in terms of the politics and morality of it, and in

terms of the money, there are million spent that need not be spent, that were

not so much, I suppose, wasted or lost, but in one way or the other, directed

into the pockets of people in additional profits with there coming to the

Province no additional gain as a result.

So, Mr. Speaker, here we have, as I said, a government that

on one hand complains all the time that it is fiscally strapped, has to be very

cost efficient in the running of the health care system, yet can spend millions

over and above what it needed to in order to build three hospital facilities in

the Province, and obviously, the motivation there would appear to be political.

Along the same lines, government spent, if my memory serves

me correctly from the media, some $7 million or so in the pursuit of the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, a subject which they said was in the best

interest of the Province in terms of the finances of the Province, but there is

a school of thought which would indicate that the best interest of the Province

would not be best served by the privatization of Hydro. However, government, in

spite of the lean fiscal times we are in, spent again several millions dollars

in the pursuit of that initiative, only to have dropped the initiative recently

and we are seeing this money basically go down the drain.

One has to wonder, as well, what the motivation was

ultimately in the privatization of Hydro. The cost associated with

privatization, apart from the cost associated with the sale, these costs will be

passed on to the consumers of electricity in the Province, both domestic and

commercial, so that your ratepayer would pay more and the only discernable group

of people that I can see who would actually gain from the sale of Hydro would be

individuals, some of them in this Province, but most of them elsewhere in

Canada, North America and/or the world who have sufficient personal wealth to

invest in shares in a regulated public utility such as Hydro, a very lucrative,

very safe, blue chip investment for those who have the money to put into it, but

certainly not your average Newfoundlander, and certainly not to the advantage of

your average Newfoundlander or your average Newfoundland business in terms of

electrical rates.

Yet, in the pursuit of that initiative, an initiative of

dubious benefit, to put it mildly, to the Province, the government in these very

difficult fiscal times nonetheless expended several million dollars all for

nothing. We saw, as well, earlier in the new year, and late in last year, an

initiative from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, in which I

think, again several millions of dollars were set aside for an emergency works

program. This is something that the members of the Opposition, and I am sure

certain private members on the government side, were agitating for for quite

some time. All during the Fall of 1994, the employment picture in the Province

was nothing short of desperate. People needed work, people had a few weeks of

insurable earning and they needed extra weeks in order to qualify for

unemployment insurance yet government was extremely reluctant to come forward

with a program.

Again, in the name of fiscal responsibility, money couldn't

be found for ordinary people, ordinary, working people, ordinary, seasonally

employed people to get them through another winter. Somehow, as I said, millions

could be found for Liberal contractors in the hospital business and millions

could be found in the pursuit of a dubious privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, yet it was only with the greatest reluctance that millions were

found for a works program - a few millions, far less than were actually needed,

and when we got the gory details on the program, Mr. Speaker, it became obvious

that the qualifying criteria, as regards individuals wanting to get on these

programs, were extremely strict, and we have yet to find out the real truth of

just how much money has been spent or will be spent on this emergency works

program.

The minister, I think, refers to $5 million or so having been

allocated. The information I get from my own district from the councils

concerned and the development association is that fully 50 per cent of the job

slots provided to my district, a rural district, with an absolutely desperate

unemployment problem, fully 50 per cent of these job slots have been left

unfilled because individuals cannot be found who will actually fit the program.

So we have, you know, in the case of hospitals and Hydro,

many millions of dollars being spent to pursue certain political goals of this

particular government and yet, a much more modest amount put forward for an

emergency works program to help ordinary people in the Province, a program with

such restrictive criteria that even a far more modest amount will eventually

probably be drawn down.

The truth of that particular program is yet to come out, Mr.

Speaker, and the minister was far from forthcoming under questioning yesterday

in Question Period as to the actual amounts of money that will be spent as

compared with the amounts of money that have been touted.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of, I guess, the political priorities

of this Administration, I was somewhat amused this morning to listen to the

regular morning Open Line show and find my counterpart, the person for whom I am

a critic, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology calling in to Bill Rowe

from Japan. Again, another jaunt - as he was so quick to point out, his trip

wasn't - another jaunt to the Orient in order to promote the government's new

EDGE legislation.

It would seem that if you look at the news reports of

information provided to the press on the travels of various ministers, that the

pot appears to be bottomless when it comes to the pursuit of these particular

initiatives. When one hears the government speak of its EDGE initiative, one

would think that dozens if not hundreds of companies have been started up in the

Province and that hundreds if not thousands of people have been employed.

MR. SIMMS: Tens - tens of tens.

MR. HEWLETT: Yes, as the Leader of the Opposition says,

we are not into dozens and we are not - well, we are into tens I suppose, tens

of people may be employed and we have ones of companies, Mr. Speaker, we have

one company and we have one company and we have one more and one more and

waiting, so we have tens of companies - not even tens applying, Mr. Speaker,

ones, I suppose, have been approved so far.

This is far short, Mr. Speaker, of the Smallwoodian sort of

rhetoric we could get into about not one, not ten and so on. We are barely into

the teens if we stretch it with regard to the EDGE legislation, but when it

comes to the cost of travel of Ministers of the Crown, jaunting around the globe

to support this particular initiative, we are into the hundreds of thousands if

not millions of dollars in travel expenses.

One also has to wonder, speaking of the political initiatives

of this Administration, of course, if Minister Furey, calling in from Tokyo this

morning on the Open Line wasn't ensuring that he kept his name in the news, with

Minister Grimes and Minister Efford and so on, still playing on the local scene

in terms of the politics of the leadership convention - the upcoming leadership

convention, I should say, of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. So

one has to wonder if Minister Furey was calling in on the Open Line to actually

do a report on his EDGE jaunt, or if it was to keep his name in the news with

Minister Efford and Minister Grimes being in the news on the local scene, not

wishing to lose any steam in the Liberal leadership race which will soon be

officially ongoing, which has been really ongoing for quite some time.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the matters that I have pointed out

here, the hospital scandal, the Hydro faux pas, the phantom make-work program,

the EDGE travel program - these are all very expensive multi-million dollar

initiatives on the part of this government in very difficult times. We have a

government which has been stating it is broke and has to watch its pennies

closely, yet on initiatives that for various reasons, the least of which are the

well-being of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, it appears to have a

bottomless pit.

One other expensive initiative that the government has

embarked on that I would make a comment on is regarding the electoral boundaries

issue. The government set up a commission after the last election to review

electoral boundaries, giving it a mandate to significantly reduce the number of

seats in this Legislature. The committee went around the Province, at

considerable expense, and came back with a recommendation for a forty seat

Legislature. The Liberal Party didn't like that because, obviously, a number of

their members would get caught in the squeeze play in such a scenario, so the

commission was told to pack its bags and hit the road again. They came back with

a recommendation for a forty-four seat Legislature, again at a cost of many,

many thousands of dollars, and again the Liberal Party, having too many members,

from its point of view, caught in the squeeze play, told the commission to

unpack its bags and go home.

Just before Christmas we were treated to a presentation from

an employee of government on a proposal for a forty-eight seat Legislature,

which I can only assume may be the basis of an initiative regarding electoral

boundaries that was mentioned in the Throne Speech a few days ago.

In my particular situation, the district that would come out

of such an initiative is indeed somewhat strange, at least geographically. The

north part of Green Bay would be put into Baie Verte district, and Green Bay,

having been sort of eaten away on one side by Baie Verte and caught in a squeeze

by Exploits district on the other side, would essentially be squeezed inland,

would pick up Badger and Buchans, Millertown, Buchans Junction, and a chunk of

the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor, a rather strange conglomeration of

communities with no real community of interest, and I guess I will find out this

summer, if this government pushes through with that initiative, what the people

in Central Newfoundland, in the new district of Green Bay - Buchans, will think

of this as I go door-to-door and ask for their opinions on this brainchild of

this particular Liberal Government - again, a brainchild that essentially has

come out of the Cabinet and/or the caucus room after several hundreds of

thousands of dollars were spent going through the charade of an electoral

boundaries commission touring the Province seeking public input. But the public

gave input that did not suit either the Liberal caucus or the Liberal Cabinet,

and as a result, their work has been dismissed after many hundreds of thousands

of dollars has been spent. And we presume that we will get a new set of

boundaries that is in keeping with the wishes of the Liberal caucus and Cabinet.

As I said, it remains to be seen what the ultimate outcome of that will be, but

again, with a tremendous amount of public funds being spent, and ultimately, a

political decision being taken.

Mr. Speaker, I pointed out just a few items here, but all of

them, big expenditure items in tough, financial times, a government which out of

one side of its mouth preaches fiscal responsibility, and on the other side of

its mouth preaches a degree of political fiscal wantonness, I suppose. But I

think the people can see what is going on. Certainly, those of us in Opposition

will certainly continue to help the people see what is going on, and I think,

ultimately, the people will speak with regard to the performance of this

government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to be able to say a few words on the Throne

Speech on behalf of the people I represent. When I was listening to the Budget

Speech of the Minister of Finance for Canada, and he was speaking about bankers

and Standard and Poor's and Moody's and all these people, it came to my mind:

Just who owns Canada, anyway? Who owns Canada?

The other question comes up - and then when we heard the

Throne Speech the other day, the same thought was going through my mind. We

talked about the Board of Trade, the international business community. The

thought came to my mind: Boys, let's not digress too much. For whom are we

governing? Whose interest are we representing? I know who I represent. I'm

trying my best to represent the people of St. John's Centre. I'm not

representing Europe, I'm representing the people of St. John's Centre.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Some part of the time, a part-time member.

We have to think about the things in the past a little bit, we have to be

concerned about the future, but mostly, I'm concerned about the present. One of

the points that impressed me very much in the Throne Speech were the remarks

that I believe were inserted by the Lieutenant-Governor, himself - there are

other good points, but I just want to highlight these for a moment - when he

said that this year marks the 50th anniversary of the ending of the Second World

War, and the war in Europe and the war in Asia, the 200th Anniversary of the

Royal Newfoundland Regiment and the 80th Anniversary of the Battle of Gallipoli,

where we take pride, he said, "...in remembering their... contribution to the

cause of freedom and peace."

Thinking back over those years I remember very well - some

members don't remember it, but I do - the conclusion of that war, and the

remarks of Franklin Roosevelt. Franklin Roosevelt and others were talking about

the four freedoms: the freedom from fear, the freedom from want, the freedom of

speech, and I believe the fourth one was freedom of religion.

The one I want to talk about mostly now is freedom from want

- because everybody in St. John's Centre is not free from want. I believe that

there is a great number of people in this Province who are not free from want.

We have not achieved that freedom as yet in this Province and in this country.

And I am afraid, listening to what is happening, that things may deteriorate, if

we are not careful to remember who we represent and who owns Canada and who owns

Newfoundland.

Let's look at food. There is a number of things that people

need in order to live. You need a bit of food, you need a bit of clothing, you

need a half-decent place to live in, you need it warm sometimes, you need a bit

of recreation, and you need to have a good feeling about yourself. Let's take

some of these things in turn. Let's take food. I believe it is a darned disgrace

in this Province for people to have to go to food banks. There is no need of

people having to go to food banks! There should be no need. We should have

enough, enough money in the kitty, we should spread the money around a bit, so

that people don't have to beg at food banks once every three months. You can go

to a food bank once every three months, and if you are short in between, God

help you. You have to try to do your best, or do without, or do something, and

that is not appropriate. That is not appropriate in this society where thousands

of Newfoundlanders and Canadians gave their lives to fight to preserve a freedom

from want. That is not appropriate.

Talk about a bit of clothing. How many youngsters have I seen

this winter trying to go to school with holes in their sneakers in the snow?

Youngsters who have nothing really to put on, wearing a light sweater to school.

It is enough to make you cry, and it is happening in this city, it is happening

in my district. I'm angry! I'm never so angry! That people can sit and say: We

are doing alright. We are not doing alright. Youngsters should be clothed, they

must be clothed.

Let's talk about the Department of Social Services. I don't

want to be knocking the government, but I will represent my district. The

Department of Social Services - three ministers that I know, not in a row. I

can't remember what the hon. Member for Port de Grave said, but I do remember

his successor, Mr. Gullage, and I remember the hon. Member for Bonavista North

when he was minister, and the present minister. Three times they met the press

or made an announcement about the people who were cheating on welfare. The

impression is out there that the Department of Social Services is - one of the

big things they have on their mind is getting rid of the welfare cheats.

That is not the purpose of the Department of Social Services.

The Department of Social Services is to look after the people who want, who need

things. I agree that the people should not be cheating, but when I see people

harassed - like the other day. A seventy-five years old woman phoned me up. She

said: I got a bill from Social Services for $174.15 that they said I owed them

from 1983. I said: Maybe you do owe it. She said: No, before I got my old age

pension I went and I said, Are we square now? Yes, you are square. But they have

a bunch of old balances over there on a sheet that nobody knows about and they

are sending out those letters hopefully, I suppose, to snare a few old people

into sending in a few bucks if they can.

That is just one example. There are many other examples that

I can give you on the same issue. That has to stop. I believe that people should

pay their debts, but you have to be careful about harassing people about that.

That is not the individuals. I don't blame the individuals who work in the

Department of Social Services, because most of the people who work in the

Department of Social Services, from my point of view, are polite, return calls,

and all that stuff, certainly to me, and probably to - but not always - to their

constituents, to their people, clients, and I know they are busy. It is the

policy, the bullying policy. It is the policy that is wrong, not the individuals

who work in the department.

The levels of assistance are too low. We haven't raised the

levels of social assistance now for a couple of years. We did put in a heating

allowance, and God bless, that was great for the winter. We did a few other

things, like helping out the single parents, I remember that one. These are good

things that have been done. But it is still inadequate. It is inadequate to

sustain a decent life, it really is, even a half-decent life. People who get

their cheques lost in the mail - very often that happens - have to wait

sometimes, have to wait till the end of the month. How are they going to live in

the meantime? Serious questions come up.

The hon. member over there raised today about mental

patients, Bonavista South. St. John's is an area where a lot of people come from

all over the Province, some from within the city, who have been discharged from

the Waterford, or who need to see psychiatrists, and most of the psychiatrists

are in the city. Some have serious problems. Some are trying to live outside the

Waterford, getting checked with their psychiatrist and taking pills and so on,

and trying to maintain a living. It is pretty rough for many of the people that

I know. You visit them. They are cut off from their family, because very often

their families are not the same. Their children no longer live with them, they

are as lonely as the dickens, and they have very few contacts. It is a terrible

life, and I believe that there is something that has to be done there too.

Anyway, another thing about it is earned income. People who

are on social assistance are allowed to earn a few bucks. You can't earn an

awful lot. If you are a single unemployed male you can earn up to 50 per cent of

eighty dollars. You can earn forty bucks and still maintain your social

assistance. The maximum that can be is $115 for a family that is not affected by

unemployment insurance. What I am trying to say is that I believe that the time

has pretty well come now for us to - and I am very glad that this government is

pursuing with Ottawa the whole question of a guaranteed minimum wage and along

the lines that the recovery commission proposed so that people could earn money

and gradually withdraw from social services. There is a tremendous move I

believe and it is high time for us to get into that mode. We should be in it as

quickly as we can so that people can earn their way out of social assistance.

Now a person is afraid to take a job, afraid they might get cut off or earn too

much and if they are cut off that is very bad.

I ran against a very serious problem the other day. This

person was sponsored by the Department of Social Services through university -

alright, for a special reason - $20,000 or $30,000 spent on this person by the

government. Then the person was ready then to get a job, two things happened;

first, he needed some clothing. If you want to get a job as a teacher - you

better be dressed somehow. You can't just dress anyhow, not until after you get

the job anyway but certainly while you are looking for the job you have to be

dressed. Not only that, if you need to have your teeth replaced because you have

a gum disease, you should be able to get your teeth out and new teeth put in,

but you can't.

So after spending $30,000 on a person, the person is

stranded, no clothes. It is kind of foolish but that is the way she goes. These

are strange, strange things. I believe that while we are waiting for the job

situation to improve in this Province, we should - to get people working on

welfare projects and make work projects as much as possible because I tell you,

it is really serious when a person has nothing to do except mope around and

fight and stay around the house and not have anything to do. Even though it may

not be that economically productive, it may be partially economically productive

and certainly the feeling that the person has by going to work and on a project,

it is a tremendous thing. It is not as good as having a full time job but it is

certainly better than sticking around the house and it does something for a

persons - and it does not cost us very much. I believe we should move into these

projects and I am looking forward to the Budget on Thursday and I am sure there

will be money for the Department of Social Services to sponsor many more

projects.

I want to say a word about the minimum wage. I was

disappointed that the Throne Speech did not contain some increase in the minimum

wage. We did increase the minimum wage - I think it was four years ago. It was

three or four years ago, it went $4.25 to $4.75 and that was a good thing to do

but $4.75 is not very much money. Even if a person works full time at minimum

wage it is still not very much money. It is not enough to sustain a person

unless you are part of a larger family, if you are one person and someone else

is earning, it is not so bad but in this particular city where we live, with all

the fast food joints paying the minimum wage or close to it, with security

forces paying minimum wage or almost close to it, where retail establishments

pay minimum wage, where private health care workers are paid the minimum wage in

many cases, where cleaners are paid the minimum wage and not only that but where

the tourist industry is largely paying the minimum wage.

It is good to have a tourist industry and to keep moving it

but basically we are moving into a minimum wage industry. It is basically a

minimum wage industry unlike the paper companies and other unionized entities -

so we have to be fairly careful of what we are doing and I believe that the only

protection that people have from the exploitation that is going on in this city,

the exploitation of human beings, in many cases, is to increase the minimum wage

while we are waiting at least for the guaranteed annual wage to come in.

I want to say a few words - we talked about food, clothing -

now I want to say a few words about housing. I may have more to say later on in

this House about housing. Some good things happen in housing, not very large

things but some little things. Livingstone Street, part of it had some

renovations done to the doorsteps this year and to the kitchens inside,

beautiful jobs, nice cedar steps and beautiful kitchens inside; good, very

pleased to have it.

We are glad too, that there is going to be some work on the

boarding houses but let's not overemphasize what is happening here. Basically

what has happened is that between CMHC and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing,

they found $250,000 to spend on upgrading boarding houses and you know, that is

a 75\25 split and you say: who is the 75 and who is the 25?. Our share is 25; 25

per cent of $250,000. We put $62,500 into upgrading boarding houses but even so,

the person who gets the money to upgrade the boarding house at the rate of

$12,000 per bed, is going to have to charge 60 per cent of the median amount

that everybody else charges, so it's a very little amount but it is something.

I did read in Throne Speech though or, was it on the radio,

where, the Minister of Housing was - if you wanted to get a condominium on

Marble Mountain, you had to apply to the hon. Art Reid. I don't know if you have

seen that ad, we have all seen it haven't we, so I am looking forward, I don't

know - I was going to ask some of my people who are not properly housed in St.

John's, whether they could get a condominium in Marble Mountain, because sure as

hell they are not going to get a unit in St. John's, because there are not

sufficient units in St. John's to accommodate the people who need it.

I would like to see the capital budget having at least $10

million a year for housing renovations in this city. Look at the jobs it would

provide: carpenter jobs, labourer jobs, plasterers, painters, electricians,

plumbers, tremendous work project; it would certainly provide more work than the

Outer Ring Road. The Outer Ring Road is basically using equipment and giving

money to the banks. I would like to see that deal with the federal government

renegotiated so that the $80 million we are going to spend on that road will

stop where it is now, and take the money and put it down in my district over the

next seven years, $10 million a year so that people will have work, good work

and other districts too, whatever and we will have people who are properly

housed in this Province.

You can walk down in many parts of this city and if you are

not careful you will put your foot down through the floor and that is true, or

you can pick the bugs off the wall in the summer time and the mites or the rats.

I don't want to overemphasize this but it is easy to see. We need to replace the

housing situation in this city which is deteriorating, particularly in the older

parts of the city. There are some decent houses, really good family houses,

people have been living in them from generation to generation, they maintain

them but it is becoming increasingly difficult.

I wouldn't mind if we cancelled the Caboto Building and took

the $40 million if we could renegotiate it from the federal government and put

$10 million a year of that in building houses for people. Surely our primary

interest is in making sure that our citizens are fed, clothed and properly

housed, that's the basis of human life and there are hundreds of people in this

city who are not adequately housed, fed and clothed, and I am tired of the slum

landlords. I don't know who they are. I see where the other day the City Council

of St. John's wrote our government and asked that there be a minimum fine of

$100.

If a landlord breaks the city's act with respect to the way

things are, the fine is $100. Well, it is better not to do it and pay your $100

fine than to spend a few thousand dollars fixing up electricity or whatever, so

the city wrote the department and said: please change the City of St. John's Act

and put the maximum fine from $100 up to $5,000 because even the courts were

writing the city and saying: don't send us any more people because you are just

wasting everyone's time, and of course, the reply came back to the city from our

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs signed by the minister saying: I

wish to advise that government has considered the proposal and decided not to

approve the amendment at this time with a request that my department consider

any such change in the context of an overall review of legislation governing

municipalities in the Province.

I was looking forward in the Throne Speech to seeing that

review, that promised the changing of that. It is not there, but I am sure it is

going to happen. I am sure the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will

introduce a bill here in the House of Assembly this Spring, to change it for all

municipalities, so that the fine with respect to substandard housing, people who

are charged and brought to court for not looking at the thing, will be charged

not $100 but whatever the judge feels is appropriate up to $5,000 or $3,000 or

whatever - certainly an amount that is greater than that.

I ask the question: Who are those slum landlords? Who are we

protecting? I remember that question was asked in the House here many years ago.

Somebody got a smack in the mouth out of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Well, you never know. I am almost

threatening to have a look at who owns those houses. I ask, whenever I go

around, "Who owns this House?" I seem to get the same answer all the time - not

always - surprising, but what we really need, I believe, is a comprehensive

housing policy in the Province.

Now, I know we have the Strategic Social Plan coming, because

it is mentioned in the Throne Speech, and I know that work has been ongoing for

some time, to develop a comprehensive social plan, but in the interim, I believe

we should be spending money on housing.

Now, let's look at the cold, the heat. A person not only

needs a place to live in, but also needs to be somewhat warm some of the time. I

tell you, I have been in some houses this year, and last year, and the year

before, where it is so cold that I keep thinking of Robert Service's poem,

The Cremation of Sam McGee, in the Yukon. I don't know if you remember that.

I tell you, it's colder in some houses in St. John's than it was in the Yukon

when Robert Service wrote that poem, and you have youngsters there who are very

cold. I don't want to exaggerate, to go to extremes on this, but what I am

saying is true, and it is not right. It is not decent, not Christian; it is not

appropriate in the society in which we live. Youngsters shouldn't have to be

cold.

While I'm at it, I want to raise a question about a disaster

that almost happened to us this year, and that is that serious outage we had.

For three or four days some people were out, and there could have been deaths

galore during that. I remember back to another time where we had outages. I

think it was in the year 1956 or so - I remember where I was teaching, 1956 or

something like that - and we had outages, too, but there has been no progress in

forty years.

I would like for the Minister of Natural Resources, if he

would, to look at this problem, because these companies are profitable.

Newfoundland Light and Power is one of the most prosperous utilities in Canada,

so much so that Fortis is just about buying out the rest of Canada, and it is

all from money that they scraped from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is also another company.

I believe we should look at that to see if our lines are strong enough, to see

if they have enough underground, to see if their poles are upright. I believe

there should be an investigation by this government, a look at that whole thing,

so that people will not freeze, and they can depend on it; take old people,

frightened to death. It's all right for some people to say, "Well, we barbecue

outside." There's nothing wrong with that, but lots of people don't have their

barbecues outside and so on. They can't accommodate; they are dependent on

electricity.

The other policy of Newfoundland Light and Power, of chopping

people off. A fellow phoned me the other day, got a cutoff and the next day she

storms. They are so quick to pull the plug.

MR. NOEL: The Finance Minister had a good idea the other

day on what to do with them.

DR. KITCHEN: What was that?

MR. NOEL: Nationalize them.

DR. KITCHEN: Well, you see, Hydro is almost as bad,

because some of the outages were due to them, too. I don't mean to put

Newfoundland Hydro on a different plane there.

MR. NOEL: Yes, but Hydro doesn't make as much profit.

DR. KITCHEN: That is true, but it doesn't matter, because

Hydro is not owned by us either. Who owns Hydro?

AN HON. MEMBER: You.

DR. KITCHEN: No, we don't own it. It is owned by the bond

companies, for gosh sakes! It is owned by the bond companies, the same crowd who

own the fishing fleets. It is the bond companies.

Oh, you say, the fishing boats are on loan to the Fisheries

Loan Board, but the money for the Fisheries Loan Board is borrowed by the hon.

minister here from the international financiers, so who owns the fishing boats?

We don't. Who owns Hydro? We don't, for gosh sakes.

MR. NOEL: Well, how could we sell it if we didn't own it?

DR. KITCHEN: Well, we could sell our little interest in

it, the little bit that we did own.

The other thing I want to talk about is health. I want to

have a few words about health, and the thing I want to focus on is the cost of

prescription drugs. In this Province, in this nation, in Canada, if you get

sick, you see a doctor, and you don't pay the bill directly. You go to hospital,

and you don't pay the bill, but if the doctor happens to prescribe some medicine

that you desperately need, then you have to pay up yourself. It is great for us

here in the House of Assembly because we are covered under the government health

plan, we pay 20 per cent - I think it is 20 per cent. If you are working for a

large company, if you are teaching in a school, if you are a senior citizen you

pay the prescription costs because the cost of the medicine is paid by the

government, providing you are on the GIS. If you are not on the GIS, of course,

you pay the whole cost. If you are on social services most of your drugs are

covered but not all, but the problem occurs when someone is hit by a horrendous

cost of drugs.

I have had constituents who have come to me saying, `Look, my

drugs cost $5,000, $4,000,' and I said, `Go to Social Services and get a drug

card.' Yes, they can go, but their income has to be reduced right down to the

level of social services and the people are gutted. All their savings can be

gutted very quickly by something that could happen to any one person. It happens

very quickly. Some people are caught in that even when they only pay the 20 per

cent they can be devastated. I might say, when I had that portfolio of health, I

did ask the public service, pretty well the first day I got there, if they would

devise some sort of a plan to deal with those horrendous costs, those

extraordinary costs, not the day-to-day costs, but the horrendous cost to

people, but I left without having it done.

I throw the touch to the new Minister of Health to see if he

will bring in a program. I raised this at a national meeting of Health

ministers. The first time I raised this issue of drug costs not being covered

under the Canada Health Act, nobody listened. I just made my speech and that was

the end of it. I raised it at the next meeting and I had two other provinces

supporting it, so if we continue to raise it, I am sure this weakness in the

Canada Medicare system can be overcome, particularly for high-cost drugs. I

don't know what we can do for everyday costs but certainly, when a person gets

stuck with a very high drug bill, they should be looked after.

In the Throne Speech there is a connection between education

and competition, education so that we can compete in the world of technology.

That is fine, but I want to raise a caution that education is a lot broader than

getting a job. I am scared of the tremendous emphasis that is being placed on

science and mathematics, which does not always lead to a job, at the expense of

other things, like history. Hardly anyone takes history anymore, the collective

wisdom about the past. Literature is not stressed as much as it was. The social

sciences and humanities are not dealt with in schools as much as they were four

or five years ago. That bothers me, because student are not being able to come

to grips with some of the problems that other people face and are becoming, I

believe, very self-centred in their math, physics, and science. I don't want to

downplay math, physics, and science but we have to push the other subjects, as

well.

In that case I want to pay special tribute, I think, to the

people, Phil Warren, Dennis Browne, and others, Opposition members and the

members of caucus, who were able to bring about, I believe, a reconciliation

between the two positions of churches and government on this. I look forward

very much to the day when we can resolve this situation to the satisfaction of

all concerned, because I believe it can be resolved, and I am sure the people of

St. John's Centre will be very much appreciative when that day comes.

There is one more point I would like to raise and then I will

leave it. It has to do with the Auditor General's Report. I was very concerned

to see the fact that Memorial University apparently does not want to allow

itself to be audited, and I think they must be. I am hearing some very strange

reports about some of the expenditures at Memorial University, and I believe

they should.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: I know what academic freedom is. Academic

freedom is the right of the professor to profess in the area of his competence.

Academic freedom is not the right of the administrators of the University to

spend money as they wish. That is the prerogative of the Crown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

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

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

First of all, I want to commend the Member for St. John's

Centre.

AN HON. MEMBER: Great Liberal speech.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It was a good speech, one of the better

speeches, I must say, that I've heard since I've been here, which is more years

than I care to mention now. It was a good speech. The man was very sincere on

what he spoke about - very concerned, sincere about standing up for the people

he represents in St. John's Centre.

If you are going to survive in politics today, with the way

of the electorate - the volatility of the electorate, the scrutiny of the

electorate, the mistrust of the electorate, then more and more of us in this

House today, I say, had better take a page from the hon. member's notebook, or

you won't be back after the next election. Because people more and more today

want members to stand up for their interests, for their concerns. I say to the

Member for Eagle River, not to stand up for what the Premier wants you to stand

up for - to stand up for the people who sent you here, as the Member for St.

John's Centre is doing.

`Sullivan' had a big turn-out in L'anse au Loup last night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would say, as many as the Member for

Eagle River attracted in Placentia. Once we heard that the Member for Eagle

River was dispatched to Placentia in the by-election, we cut the spending, sent

the poll captains home, and said: It is in the bag. As soon as we heard he was

dispatched to Placentia, I say to the Member for Eagle River. So he should

settle back now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the defeated candidate now?

MR. EFFORD: Where she should be.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, where she should be, says the

patronage Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. But we will deal with

him.

I want to commend the member seriously on a very good speech.

I'm sorry I missed it, but I had to go outside to the scrum there because the

press was interested in knowing who was the real Minister of Fisheries for the

Province. They wanted me to let them know who I felt was the real Minister of

Fisheries for the Province. `Well,' I said, `it is kind of hard to decide.

Between the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the Member for Eagle

River, the Member for Twillingate, the Member for Fogo, it is kind of hard to

toss the coin - and the person who was sworn into the position a few months

ago.'

MR. TOBIN: We know he got the trip and we know who got

slapped on the hands over it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We do, we know who got cracked on the

knuckles for going up to the White Hills with a bull-horn, but no more. We won't

see it again, Sir - not in our lifetime, will we see that minister up with a

bull-horn on the White Hills. Never again will the man who aspires to be

Minister of Fisheries be up in the White Hills, leading a demonstration. Never

again will we see it.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) drive them out of the boardroom.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, had to send them out - after

inviting a crowd to the boardroom, having to kick them out, drive them out,

because the poor minister of fisheries got so upset.

Anyway, having said that, I say to the Member for St. John's

Centre that I reside in his district, and he said: `Sometimes'. Yes, it is

sometimes. I do have a place there. I do, by the way, I say to you quite

sincerely, have your sticker on my fridge with your phone number on it.

DR. KITCHEN: In case you get in trouble.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That's right, in case I need some help.

But it is there, and I say that very sincerely. It is on my fridge. It tells me

that at least the member communicates with his constituents and so on. We do get

things from him into the place where we live there. Every now and then we will

get something from him, a Christmas card, a little sticker, or something.

AN HON. MEMBER: I get them, too, and I live in St. John's

East.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh no, I get them in St. John's Centre.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But, Mr. Speaker - yes, (inaudible), the

Member for Burin - Placentia West would know, because his parents live there, as

well, very close to me. I can't go as far now as to say they support the hon.

member.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) supported him.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Used to support him. Very good.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments on the

Address in Reply, which is what we are supposed to be debating today, the Throne

Speech. The member went through a whole range of issues that he felt needs

addressing, and I must say, where need be, he was critical of the government,

which is fair. Where it needed to be applauded, we applauded it. There are a

couple of notes I made as I listened to the Throne Speech the other day, given

by His Honour, a few notes I scratched on a few things that made some sense and

a few things that didn't but in the Throne Speech there was reference to new

focus for provincial parks. New focus for provincial parks I say to the Minister

of Tourism and Culture, to close down twenty-nine. Shut down twenty-nine parks,

new focus, there is no doubt it is a new focus, shut them down but of course, we

shouldn't be surprised with the shut-down focus of this government.

They talked about industrial growth and the Leader of the

Opposition said he figured the only industry that is growing in the Province

outside of the one that the Member for Burin - Placentia West and I tout is the

biggest growing industry in the Province, the only other industry I would think

that experienced any growth as the Leader of the Opposition said was the travel

industry, because of the expenditures of the Premier and some of his ministers

who travel within the country and outside of the country. One member alluded

today to the voice reports from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology

which I happened to listen to at one o'clock on one of the radio stations,

Voicer from Asia, Tokyo, I believe it said -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tokyo Rose.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Down there somewhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Charles.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Charles Furey, one Charles Furey, they

wondered who he was?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, gave a report from Tokyo about the

overwhelming support for Newfoundland and Canada's position on foreign

overfishing, in the board room, the corporate community was alive with support

over there for the efforts of the Canadian government and the stand of

Newfoundlanders, he had to call from Asia to let us know that, of this

overwhelming support. I was very, very impressed I must say about that. It was

nice of the minister to call us from Tokyo. Nice of him, I will send and let him

know -

MR. EFFORD: At least (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, you are probably right. I don't know

if he did or not. All I know he called me once, when he was somewhere when the

'89 Leadership was called, I say to the minister, that is all I know. The only

call I ever had from that minister when he was outside the Province was when the

Leadership was announced and he called me to let me know that he was seriously

considering running. Now why he did that, I don't know.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) encouraged them to run?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no. He called me to inform me that

he was - I guess he was more or less asking to keep your options open you know.

I would say he was about three months too late.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now what are you saying about Mr. Neary's

advice to you on the leadership?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What was that?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) clean up the Leadership's

campaign (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I agree with that all the way. For once

in my life I have to agree with him. Oh no, I agree with him every time he

attacks the Premier and the government.

In the Throne Speech as well, Mr. Speaker, there was

reference made that the Strategic Social Plan was delayed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Delayed?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Delayed, slowed down, delayed, didn't

move ahead as quickly as possible, Strategic Social Plan. Talked about the great

impact though of the Strategic Economic Plan, which we all know was such a

success that every where I go now in the district, people are thanking the

government for the Strategic Economic Plan. They are all working, small

businesses are booming, everyone working thanks to Premier Wells and the

government's Strategic Economic Plan. They thank me every weekend. They thank me

and they ask me to thank the government, thank you.

MR. DUMARESQUE: They said, when are you going to get out,

you are too old.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They don't want me to get out, Danny, I

say to you. They don't want me to get out; they sent the Premier's right arm

down to run against me last time, they still told me they don't want me to get

out. Every time they turn on the cameras now, you see the two of them still,

they still wanted me to stay.

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, that is not what I am hearing.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They still wanted me to stay, I say to

the Member for Eagle River.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, that's another story, I say to the

Government House Leader. That's a bridge we will cross later on, next month or

the week thereafter.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Never mind, we will see, we will see.

But, Mr. Speaker, delay the Strategic Social Plan. I can understand why the

Minister of Finance would leave, but of course, everything this government has

tried to implement for the last twelve to eighteen months has been delayed

because the Premier has been so preoccupied with trying to keep his own crowd

down over there. He hasn't had time to govern. They haven't had time to govern

the Province. They've been so preoccupied with their own internal problems, the

caucus revolts and squabbles and riots.

As a matter of fact I had a gentleman call me this morning

talking about foreign overfishing and about some comments that some person had

made on the Open Line show this morning. Mr. Malone. This gentleman had

called because I had heard it and he wondered, wanted to talk to me about it,

about the comments that Mr. Malone had talked about, had said about deep-sea

fishing and all this stuff. At the same time he said: You know, the record of

this government in the last two years has been so abysmal. The gentleman, I

don't know his politics, and I'm not interested in knowing his politics, but he

made that comment which -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) his name?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is a gentleman who you would be

impressed with, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. You

would be impressed with him and his record, and his involvement in this

Province. You would be impressed with him. He did offer that comment, about this

government and its record, particularly the last two years. You've done nothing.

The Premier and his ministers, he talked about what a failure you've been. I'm

not surprised that the Strategic Social Plan has been delayed, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech makes reference to the

problems with the pension plans.

MR. TOBIN: Better than Tom Hickman.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will see.

MR. TOBIN: Trans City.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: There is no one going to jail on our side.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I wish, could we have a

couple of members put in jail for at least the next fifteen minutes. Or get the

muzzle. Could we get a muzzle for a couple of members for the next fifteen

minutes?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You are not able to say anything here.

There are too many other people saying things, I say to the Member for

Pleasantville. The Member for Eagle River over there is a motor mouth, the

Premier's motor mouth, should be quiet. He shouldn't be talking about bagmen, I

say to any of them over there, or any other whatever you call those contributors

to parties. If I had the record that this government has of patronizing those

who contribute to us I wouldn't bring it up. I would be ashamed to mention it.

Particularly now with the scandal in front of the people of this Province, day

after day, of the hospital contracts, I say to the Member for Eagle River.

Scandal in front of the people of this Province. They want answers, by the way.

They are not going to be content until they get answers.

With the pension plan problems, Mr. Speaker, I commend the

government for the initiatives they are taking with the pension plans. The

unfunded liabilities have to be dealt with. Some people are not going to like

what is probably going to have to happen, including members on both sides, but

it is going to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Gear replacement program.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if we could

get some kind of a mouth replacement program to take care of the Member for

Eagle River. Not a gear replacement program. I hear, by the way, that he is in

bad need of that too, but a mouth replacement program.

The unfunded liability of the pension plans needs to be

addressed. Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I

didn't mention the situation with turbot on the Grand Banks. There is reference

to that as well in the Throne Speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I say to the Member for Eagle River.

If I only knew half as much as he knows about the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.

My only desire in life is to know half as much as the Member for Eagle River

knows about the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and about the fishery of this... If

only I could live long enough, if only I can be exposed to the fishery enough to

know half as much as the Member for Eagle River knows about the fishing industry

in this Province, how pleased I would be. I think I would be content to go meet

my maker. I might be content to go meet my maker, I would be so proud and

satisfied, I say to the Member for Eagle River. I would be so pleased if only I

knew half -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we have a very serious

situation outside the 200-mile limit. The Spaniards are out there again today, I

say to the Member for Eagle River, who was so proud to be a Canadian yesterday,

and so proud to be a Liberal. We will see in a week or two weeks how proud you

are going to be to be a Liberal, I say to the Member for Eagle River, once this

all comes down the pipe. Do your song and dance in a month's time. Do your song

and dance then when you see what is about to unfold.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a year ago, we wouldn't be

doing anything today.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You wait until you find out what is

happening, I say to the Member for Eagle River, before you shoot your mouth off

too much. You wait until you find out what is really happening before you dance

too much in support of your buddy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I support what he has done. I support

the strong action. I hope he continues it, because if they are outside there

today they should be brought in again, and if we don't bring them in then we

have lost the battle, I say to the Member for Eagle River. If we don't get them

out of there, we have lost the fight.

Like someone said today, and I said yesterday, by the way, it

was a bitter pill to swallow to know that Canadian fishermen were not going to

catch the amount of turbot that we were allocated because the foreigners had

overfished.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I want to repeat it, Mr. Speaker, it was

a very bitter pill to swallow that Canadian fishermen were not going to catch

all of our turbot quota because the foreigners had overfished, but we would

swallow that bitter pill in the name of conservation because we want to keep the

turbot stocks at a sustainable level. We will accept that, as bitter as it is,

but it is like one of my colleagues said this morning, if someone is going to

take the loaf of bread off my table and give it to someone else, I am not going

to be too happy about it. That is what is happening, you know. Either way you

want to slice it up, that is what is what we are doing here. We are taking it

away from our own people; we are not allowing them to catch it because someone

else has violated the NAFO quotas. That is what we are doing.

Like I said, we are willing to accept it in the name of

conservation so that stock is maintained at a sustainable level, but if they are

out there today, and have their nets in the water again, should we accept that?

How interested are they in a negotiated solution to this problem - and we know

their boats are out there because they are monitoring that - how sincere are

they to finding a negotiated solution and resolution to the problem if they are

out there today at that again? Do they think by sending their boats out there

that it is going to make the negotiating atmosphere better, it is going to give

it a better chance to succeed? I don't think so. That is not the way I would do

it. If you were really interested in getting a solution, would you send your

vessels out there again to inflame the situation?

I am not so sure what is really going on in Brussels. I am

not so sure what is really happening, and I will have more to say about it

tomorrow, but don't jump too quickly. There are probably things going on here

that most people don't know about and will not want to know about, once it all

comes down the pipe, I say to the Member for Eagle River. Once it all comes

down, and the dust settles on it all, we will see what gets the settlement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't just support people because of

their political stripe, I say to the Member for Eagle River. Brian Tobin has

done well to date, and I commend him. I hope he continues to do as well as he

has done and we all support him but you know, he doesn't have all full control.

He has to deal with his colleagues in Ottawa and he has to deal with the

European community and we all know how difficult they are to deal with. So we

will see, I hope it works out but knowing those vessels are out there today is

not very comforting to me. It does not give me a lot of optimism and hope that

it will be settled.

Educational reform; Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's

Centre will certainly have a keen interest in that, as most of us do but being

an educator he does. He commended some people who tried to bring this thing

together but there is one thing I noticed that apparently the churches - there

was supposed to be a meeting but they asked for a postponement now to, I guess,

further look at government's position, I guess it was. Mr. Fallon said yesterday

or over the weekend - I heard some kind of news report saying that they had

asked for a postponement on the situation. So I don't know what that means. I

hope it is not bad news. I hope it doesn't mean that it is coming off the rails

again. I hope that they do stay on track and I hope they do negotiate a

settlement to that particular issue for the benefit of young Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. Young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who need the most efficient

educational system that we can offer them, the best education possible we can

offer them, I hope that succeeds.

The Auditor General's report, Mr. Speaker, yesterday - the

poor Minister of Employment and Labour Relations knees are gone. The Member for

St. John's Centre talked about Memorial University and their refusal to be

audited. Now he was Minister of Finance just a few short years ago. The current

Minister of Finance supports the University in denying or refusing the audit.

The Premier has continuously defended the University. I remember last year or

the year before it got kind of heavy on this situation about Memorial

University. It was interesting to hear what the Member for St. John's Centre

said, I guess being a former employee of the university - I guess the Minister

of Fisheries was as well. I don't know what his thought - sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave of absence.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You're just on a leave of absence.

Really? So you can go back?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, I wouldn't go that far now, go back

any time you want. I am not so sure about that now, go back whenever you want.

That is like I thought, I say to the minister -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, well that is true. That is probably

more reason why they should be audited, I say to the Member for Pleasantville.

Maybe they are still paying him, who knows, on retainer or something, just so he

will go back, not if he goes back. He will get paid when he goes back but just

so he will keep it in his mind that he might want to go back.

MR. NOEL: I said be kind.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, always. I am always kind. I was very

kind when I was minister. Yes, very kind. I remember dealing with MUNFA - I

don't know if you were on the association then, were you? No, they would not

have you near that.

I was going to say that reminded me of something. Remember

when I ran in the first election - I sought the nomination in 1982, so the

superintendent of the school board came over to see me and he said: I will just

chat to you about this situation. You know if you get elected - after the first

term if you want to come back teaching there is no problem but if you get

re-elected, well then it is sort of good-bye. It is hard to say if I put that in

writing or anything like that - I mean he initiated the meeting. He called me

into the principal's office and we had a little chat. So about a week or two

into the 1985 election I get a call from the same superintendent, after he

identified himself, he said: Bill I wanted to call, what did we agree to in the

last election with you? I said: well you called me into the office and you told

me that if I only had one term and did not get re-elected or quit that I could

go back teaching. Why are you asking me?' He said: Well, we have a teacher

running against you, Mr. So-and-So; I said: Oh, yes. So he said: he wanted to

know what the situation was. So I want to tell him what I told you. I said: I

can only repeat - I remember very clearly what you told me but I said I tell you

what, don't worry about me, worry about Mr. So-and-So because he is the one who

will be teaching school after April 6.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, that reminded me of it when he said

he could go back when he liked. Of course I thought as well that if I got

defeated, which I was never really worried about, or if I quit, that I thought I

had a job but I really didn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, true, I suppose. That is four

elections ago, for God's sake, it is time I got defeated now.

MR. TOBIN: I had to quit to seek the nomination.

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, you are right, I say to the Member

for Eagle River.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Humber East will take care

of that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't know what this is about, she is

not even here, the poor lady, to defend herself.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I hope so. I would say I could be very

good at doing the Verge shuffle.

AN HON. MEMBER: I would say you would have a seat down

behind (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would say, depending on the result,

that the Member for St. John's East (inaudible) recognized as a party. How many

do you need to be recognized as a party, three members?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Four.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Four. Well, there are two or three over

there, and two or three of us. Who really knows? It could really change in the

next eight weeks.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh God, no. You weren't privy to the

conversation the Premier and I had yesterday. I was in Ed's seat, and he wasn't

there. The Premier said to me: Bill, how do you feel in Ed's seat? I said: I

really can't tell you, Premier. He said: We could do with a little change and a

little enlightening on this side. Morale is low here amongst the troops, he

said, you know. I'm really still thinking about staying on, even though you are

predicting I will be gone by the end of the year. But I want to tell you, Bill,

I am staying, he said. But, he said, I would even be more inclined to stay if I

had people of your calibre in my Administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I didn't know really - I said: What is

he really saying to me? What is the Premier really saying to me? Is it that I'm

that good, or the crowd that he has over there is that bad? I really wasn't

sure, you know.

MR. TOBIN: I hope the media picks it up and blazes it on

the radio (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Both. Why would my good friend and

colleague wish that -

MR. TOBIN: Because your district, your constituents would

say: Bill is crossing the floor, and then we will declare you.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I know. That is true. Yes, God, yes. I

never thought about that. I really don't want him to stay, do I?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: This Tobin or the other Tobin?

There is one other interesting reference in the Speech from