• t Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Volume XL First Session Number 53 VERBATIM REPORT (Hansard) Speaker: Honourable Patrick McNicholas Tuesday 5 November 1985

The House met at 3:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! Before calling Statements By Ministers I would Like to deal with a question of privilege raised by the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. Each member has the use of government stationery and facilities to conduct the affairs of his or her constituents. A member has this right because of the fact he or she is a Member of the House of Assembly. This right does not extend to the use of these facilities in the name of any political party.

The stationery was printed with the initials of the political party on it and indicated the office address was that of a political party. This should be discontinued. In my view, there is no prime facie case established that the hon. member's privileges have been abused or that the privileges of the House have been affected. Statements by Ministers MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DAVE: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I wish to inform the hon. House today of the appointment of Ms. Elizabeth E. Marshall of St.

John's to the position of Assistant Deputy Minister of Transportation (Finance and Administration). Ms. Marshall succeeds Mr. David Oake in a position, which has been vacant since Mr. Oake accepted the duties of Assistant Secretary to Cabinet. Ms. Marshall, a native Newfoundlander, is a graduate of Memorial University of Newfoundland, having completed her post secondary studies in 1973 with a Bachelor of Science - Mathematics degree. In 1978, Ms. Marshall received a Chartered Account designation from the Atlantic Provinces' Association of Chartered Accountants. Since September of 1983, Hz.

Marshall has held the position of Director of Government Accounting with the Department of Finance. In this capacity, she has been responsible for the general administration of the Government Accounting Division. Ms. Marshall has also served as Director of Internal Audit with the Department of Finance from 1981 to 1983 and, prior to that, she was Manager of Internal Audit with the Department of Finance from 1979 - 1981. From 1976 - 1979, Ms. Marshall was employed as Senior Auditor with the Office of the Auditor General, Province of Nova Scotia.

She has also worked with the Accounting Firm of Thorne, Riddell, and Company in both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in the position of auditor. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that Ms. Marshall's educational background and work history will L2812 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2812

be definite assets in her new position as Assistant Deputy Minister (Finance and Administration) with my department. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Ms. Marshall on her appointment. I have every reason to believe that she is an excellent person and will certainly bring all the necessary qualifications to that job. However, I must say Mr. Speaker that I am extremely disappointed.

When I saw this statement on my desk I became excited, as members opposite did when the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) stood and they all thumped their desk. The reason for this is we expected something more than just the appointment of an ADM. This Province still does not have a secondary roads agreement; this Province is in doubt as to what is going to happen to our railway. MR. MARSHALL: A point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR.

MARSHALL: It is accepted that in responding to ministerial statements a member is confined to commenting on the statement itself. What the hon. gentleman is doing is getting into the realm of general debate and there is another time and another place for that. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: The member for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr. Decker) was responding to the statement, he was not debating the statement. He was just expressing his disappointment in the ministerial statement that was made.

I suspect that what he was about to say is that it is a nothing statement really and that is really what is it because appointments go on everyday. When you see the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) standing up the way he stood up today, wasting time in the House, it shows that members on this side are getting under his skin and that his skin is really thin. Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the point of order is well taken. The hon. member has one minute left to finish up his comments. HR. DECKER: Mr.

Speaker, I am sure there are appointments within the Department of Transportation day after day. There are truck drivers and there are tractor operators appointed everyday. If the minister is L2813 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2813

going to waste the time of this House by bringing in announcements everytime someone is appointed to a particular job, I think it is a disgrace for his department, Sir. What we are waiting for is a secondary roads agreement and we are waiting for the department to do something, not just to take up the time of this House with, as my colleague says, "nothing statements". MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Any further statements by ministers? MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge with regret the death of Dr.

Eric Pike, which occurred on Sunday, November 3, and to move that the House send a message of sympathy to his wife and family. Dr. Pike was born at St. John's into one of the oldest Newfoundland families. He graduated from Memorial, Dalhousie and Cornell Universities. At the time of his death, Dr. Pike was a senior physician at the General Hospital and was the Chief Provincial Forensic Pathologist with the Department of Justice - a position created earlier this year. For years before, he worked as a pathologist with the Department of Health. Dr.

Pike was recognized as one of the leading authorities in the field of forensic pathology in all of North America. I wish to acknowledge on behalf of the government the outstanding contributions made by Dr. Pike to his profession and to the administration of justice in our Province. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Members on this side of the House would want to associate themselves with the motion presented by the Minister of Justice (Ms. Verge). Dr. Pike was indeed an outstanding Newfoundlander.

He made a very worthwhile contribution to his profession and to the Province. In fact, as the minister said, I think he was one of the Leading pathologists in North America. Mr. Speaker, we would want to associate with the minister and also ask that a letter be sent to the family. The death of Dr. Pike is a great loss to the medical profession and to the Province. Oral Questions MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.

Does the minister feel that the importation of Canadian beer into Labrador or into any other part of the Province is a strike breaking measure on the part of the L2814 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2814

government? Yes or no? Is it or is it not? MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour. MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker, a simple answer, no, I do not think it is a strike breaking tactic. MR. LUSH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Hr. Speaker, my question to the minister is how can the minister pretend to be bona fide or to be neutral when his Cabinet colleagues, particularly the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins), approved the importation of beer into Labrador?

Is the minister part of this decision to bring a union to their knees, Sir? Is he part of this decision or is he not? MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour. MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker, under normal situations where there were more than one company and the product was being produced, it is logical to think that one company would go on producing.

It is almost like saying that somebody bringing beer in or taking beer to Labrador, I suppose, or, for that matter, to any other place, if there is going to be a strike then the other companies that were producing that product ought not to produce that product. I guess I am looking at it, Hr. Speaker, from the vantage point that we all heard what the Minister of Finance said about the beer into Labrador. Most sensible thinking people would have thought that this strike would have been over and because of climatic conditions in Labrador, beer was sent there to avoid having a shortage perhaps at a later time.

I was asked a question, Mr. Speaker, on CBC last Friday and I am sure the hon. member heard my answer which was no, it was not intended as a strike breaking tactic. HR. LUSH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: In that television programme to which the minister refers, the Minister of Finance, Dr.

Collins, said the strike was the fault of the union, he blamed the union for this strike, and I am wondering whether the Minister of Finance was then articulating the view of the Minister of Labour, whether he was articulating the view of the government that the Minister of Labour does not have the courage to espouse, and 1 am wondering if this is probably the reason why we have had these long-drawn-out strikes, because the Minister of Labour does not have the courage to speak his views. So will the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Blanchard) now tell the House whether that was the view of government, whether it was his view, or whether the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) was expressing his own personal view? L2815 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2815

MR. BLANCHARD: way he feels? Does he feel that Mr. Speaker. this strike is the fault of the union? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour. MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather academic question and although it may not deserve an answer, I will answer it in any case. Obviously Dr. Collins is the Minister of Finance and he speaks for the department that is responsible for the distribution, marketing, and pricing of beer or whatever. I speak for the Department of Labour and Dr. Collins was in no way speaking for me.

As a matter of fact, I was asked about that statement and I said from my viewpoint it takes two to make a quarrel, that negotiations went on and a strike occurred. And nobody was expressing my views, Mr. Speaker, I express my own views. MR. LUSH: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I always thought that there was a principle of Cabinet responsibility in the British parliamentary democracy.

Now I am just wondering whether or not we operate here in some other form, whether we have a democratic form of government or whether it is some other outlandish form of government. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) said that the strike was caused by the union, that the union was to be blamed for this strike. The question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard) is, is this the MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour. MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker, again this is a case of opinion.

There might be a variety of opinions among ministers as to whose fault the strike may be or who bears the brunt of the blame for a strike going on. This strike has gone on too long and many people in the public may have their own ideas as well as any minister in the Cabinet or any person in this House. My own view was, and I expressed it, that it takes two to make that kind of a quarrel. And while I may have my own views, which I am not going to express publicly about this strike, there are two parties in the dispute. Sometimes there is more blame on the company and sometimes there is more on the union. MR.

CALLAN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Bellevue. MR. LUSH: A final supplementary, Mr.Speaker. MR. CALLAN: I will yield to my comrade, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Several times during that particular prograimiie the Minister L2816 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2816

of Labour (Mr. Blanchard) indicated that he was not a part of the decision-making process. Now, Mr. Speaker, again that is a strange situation in a Cabinet, that a minister if not part of the decision-making process. Now, maybe this is why we have so many long-drawn-out strikes in this Province, the minister is not a part of the decision-making process. So I ask the Minister of Labour, when he was talking about that programme, which part of the decision-making process was he not part of, was it the part of the process to import beer or was it the part of the process to resolve labour disputes in this Province?

What part of the decision-making process was he not part of? MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour. MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. the member for Bonavista North (Mr. Lush) wants to get that tape and have a look at it. I said, I am not part of that decision-making process,' and it was followed by a statement relating to the distribution of beer, where it goes, the marketing, and I followed that by saying, 'I have a responsibility for labour relations matters, the Liquor Corporation, which reports to the Minister of Finance (Dr.

Collins), is part of the whole process in that. KR. CAI.LAN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I was in the town of Come By Chance on the weekend attending a meeting of concerned citizens in that area - they are still wondering about the future of their hospital. A year ago, Mr.

Speaker, I asked several questions here of the Premier and the Minister of Health, and one of the questions I asked the Premier was if there were any set of circumstances that would change government's mind about their plan to shut down the Come By Chance HospitaL once Clarenville caim on stream. Mr. Speaker, in way of

preambLe, I should mention, of course, that recently we have heard that the Come By Chance area has been chosen by Mobil Oil as one of the sites for the fabrication relating to concrete platforms. We are talking probably about 500, 1,000, perhaps even 1,500 workers in that area, so I want to ask the Minister of Health (Dr. Twomey) if that is a new additional circumstance that could possibly change the mind of government, or is it still the intention of government to close down the Come By Chance hospital when Clarenville comes on stream. DR. T%'JOHEY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. DR.

TWOMEY: Mr. Speaker, there have been no recent change or decision made by the Department of Health. The news release that we published last year is my reply to any of the questions that you ask in this House. I think we made it very clear in that news release, yes, we would keep it under L2817 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2817

observation, and obviously the implication was if there were certain circumstances in which other things had to be done, we would always review it in a very careful, very conscientious and very human way. MR. CALLAl: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: I am not exactly sure what the minister said. I think, Mr. Speaker, the minister said that there is some possibility that it is going to be under review. In addition, Mr.

Speaker, to the fabrication of concrete platforms that will be taking place at Adam's Head, which is closer to Arnold's Cove than it is Come By Chance but is in the same general area, with the news recently that Mr. John Shaheen has expired, perhaps there might be some new hope for the refinery and therein might lie an added reason for a need to keep a hospital in that area. But let me ask the Minister of Health this: Next year, 1986, marks the Fiftieth Anniversary of the start of the Come By Chance Hospital. Some people in the area are wondering what celebrations may mark the Fiftieth Anniversary.

It seems to me as though the minister is saying, that the Fiftieth year will be marked by sorrow. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Maybe the hon. member would pose his question. MR. CALLAN: Would the minister then confirm that the possibility of the refinery being reactivated in six months or a year's time be another added circumstance that could change the government's mind and keep the hospital? DR. TWOMEY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. DR. TWOMEY: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to clarify one statement.

I said last year that it could be reviewed and, I do not know if I mentioned it in this House, I mentioned utilization. We intend to have a primary medical clinic there. As to the opening of the Come By Chance oil refinery, I think it is a hypothetical question and I feel you should ask one of the other ministers in this House. MR. CALLAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: Mr.

Speaker, assuming that what the minister is saying is correct, and assuming that the Premier and the other ministers he refers to all concur and the hospital does close within six months or a year, what sort of medical facility will people then have in that area? Will it be, as the minister points out in recent letters to some people in that area, that after 5:00 o'clock and on weekends there will be a nurse and a doctor on call? What will that mean? Would 1.2818 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2818

the minister not agree that what we would have then is a similar situation to what they had at the Whitbourne clinic before a tragic accident took place and the rules had to be changed? What exactly will they have there? DR. TWOMEY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. DR. TWOMEY: I said last. Spring the clinic will be open from 9:00 to 5:00. I also said last Spring there will be a doctor on call. I also said last Spring there will be a nurse on call, if necessary. I said last Spring we would review the workings of the clinic after it had been open for a period of time.

I think you asked the question last Spring, what would happen after 5:00 o'clock? I gave you the answer then and again I give it to you now. Yes, we will review it. But I did not say we will review the use of the hospital as an acute care hospital. I did not say that. MR. CALLAN: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, we saw what happened at Whitbourne when the brand new niilti-million dollar facility opened there, the medical clinic.

We saw what happened, we saw the federal member, Captain Norrissey Johnson, on television being buttonholed by a lady who lost a son as a result of a car accident and then we saw the rules changed. The minister is saying there will be a review, is he saying that he is going to let the same thing happen at the Come By Chance Medical Clinic as happened at Whitbourne, that the door will be barred after the horse is gone, that after an accident takes place then the rules will be changed and a nurse will be kept on duty all weekend, every day after five, and a doctor will be on call?

That is the situation at Whitbourne now. There is a nurse on duty seven days a weeks, twenty-four hours a day, why Will the minister not say that is what they will have at Come By Chance when it becomes a clinic? DR. TWOMEY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. DR. TWOMEY: I will state it again and I will repeat, we said it will be open from nine to five, I said there will be a doctor on call for emergencies after five o'clock. I said that there can be a nurse on call. And to go further, yes, an x-ray technician, a laboratory technician.

I cannot talk nor will I give you an answer on any hypothetical case that you might ask me. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: I can see my friend from Bonavista North is standing, Mr.. Speaker, I defer to him. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. L2819 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2819

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. member for Fogo. HR TULK It has been common practice in this House, Mr. Speaker, that if a person is recognized and he sees someone standing in the House that he wants to defer to, that that person be allowed to do it. Now, let me understand clearly the rules of the House. Are we operating under different rules now or what is happening here? Because it has been a coiranon rule in this House for years, as I understand it, that anybody who stands can defer to anybody if they so wish.

I was recognized and deferred to my colleague from Bonavista North (Mr. Lush). Or do I get a chance to ask my question? MR. MARSHALL: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, there is no rule in this House that somebody defers to anybody, the only rule is if the Speaker catches the eye of the person who stands. Mr. Speaker, I do not see that hon. gentlemen, for instance, would defer if somebody on this side of the House stood up. I think we would probably feel a bit despoiled if they did.

And the same way with the hon. the member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick), I can hardly see the Opposition deferring to him. And neither the member for Menihek or anybody over on this side of House is going to speak by fiat of the members of the Official Opposition. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, there is no point of order. Any hon. member who is recognized does not have a right to pass that right on to another hon. member. I have recognized the hon. member for Menihek. There is no point of order. MR. TIJLK: Mr. Speaker, on another point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Another point of order, the hon. member for Fogo. MR.

TULK: Now that the Speaker has made that ruling we will abide by his ruling, of course. But let me ask you, Mr. Speaker, another question, a point of clarification. Since you recognized me and I deferred and that is not allowed, am I now to take it that I am now the person in this House recognized by the Chair? If I am not allowed to defer, then I want to ask my question. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is out of order. The hon. gentleman does not get up in his place and ask questions of the Speaker.

The Speaker enforces the rules of the House. We cannot help it if the hon. gentleman is a little bit sore pressed today and a little bit out of sorts. The hon. member for Menihek was recognized and we L2820 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2820

will have to allow the hon. member to ask his question. MR. TULK: To that point of order, Mr Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Let me make it quite plain to the man who would disrupt this House, take it on his back, take it out of here altogether, that I am not questioning the Speaker, I am just asking for a point of clarification. The point of clarification is this: The Speaker recognized me, the Speaker has said that 1 am not allowed to defer, but having been recognized, do I lose my turn or what? MR. SPEAKER: The hon, member has no point of order.

I have recognized the hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for the Archives, the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth (Mr. Matthews). My question is, in 1974 Hr.

Gordon, who is chief of the manuscript division of the public Archives, in a report that he presented to the provincial government as an advisor for it, indicated that the Colonial Building, in which the Archives are presently housed, is completely inadequate for the purpose of housing an Archival collection, essentially that the foundations are not strong enough to take the weight load, that it is an inappropriate place for putting shelving, and that the heating system at that time was totally inadequate.

My question to the minister is, are there any plans in the works or any plans that you see in the immediate future for removing the Archives from what is clearly an unsatisfactory condition in the Colonial Building to an appropriate building? MR. MATTHEWS; Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the hon. member's question under advisement and report back to him within a few days. MR. FEN21CK: A supplementary, Hr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Hr.

Speaker, a further report called Canadian Archives 1982, done by the public Archives of Canada, indicated that Newfoundland has almost the worst record of archival spending of any Province except Prince Edward Island. Indeed, over the four or five years prior to the 1982 report, there was a considerable drop in the amount of spending. My question to the minister is, is there any intention on the part of the provincial government to reverse this unfortunate trend and increase the amount of spending on our Archives so that we can protect our cultural heritage? HR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker.

L2821 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2821

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I guess it comes back to the same old question of dollars and cents. It is not that as a government or as a department we do not have priority to the Archives and to our culture, it is a matter of the budgetary process and budgetary allocations whereby the government sets priorities. And, as I indicated in answer to the hon. member's first question, I would like to take it under advisement and give him an answer within a number of days. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fogo MR.

TULK: A question for the Minister of Labour. A few minutes ago, in reply to a question from the member for Bonavista North (Mr. Lush), the Labour Minister said that he would not express his opinion of whether the union was to blame or just who was to blame for the brewery strike, as did the Minister of Finance. Let me ask him a question. Was he aware of the decision being made? Did he make his views known to Cabinet on the effect this could have on labour relations in this Province, or is he still acting like the deputy minister that he was? MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour MR. BLANCHARD: I am not really certain, Mr. Speaker. When this particular decision was made, I believe I was not just out of the Province, I was out of the country. But, I guess, if what the hon. member is asking is would I have strong views against that, I have to stand up and be counted. I would have no strong views against that. I would view it as being a decision that was made to assist the people of the area in difficulties that they might find themselves in later. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr.

Speaker, is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard) now telling us that he agrees with the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins), that indeed the union, in this case, is responsible for the strike? Just where does he stand on that? Is that the case? MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council on a point of order. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, it is here in the rules that you are not allowed to multiply or repeat a question. "Multiply, with slight variations, a similar question on the same point." Page 129 of Beauchesne.

The hon. gentleman is repeating what the hon. member for Bonavista North (Mr. Lush) was asking the minister a little while ago. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, I feel L2822 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2822

that the question the hon. member was asking was somewhat different from the previous one so there is no point of order. MR. TIJLK: Mr. Speaker, I will again put my question to the minister and the question is, quite simply, was he aware of the decision, did he communicate that to the Cabinet, and is he saying this is the fault of the labour movement in the Province? MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour MR. BLANCHARD: Hr. Speaker, I was not certain what your decision was. I am quite prepared to answer the question.

There is no connection between the two things that the hon. methber is asking. He is asking if I agree with Dr. Collins that the union should shoulder the greater part of the blame for the strike. I do not necessarily share that opinion. He is asking if I was part of the decision or did I agree with the decision. I answered that question earlier, Mr. Speaker. I said that I had no strong differences with that, but to ask me if I am blaming the union, I have already stated to this House, Hr. Speaker, that it takes two to start a dispute and there are two parties involved. It is as simple as that. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Windsor-Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, what the ministers were saying and what came through loud and clear at the interview, whether the minister agrees or not, is that he was playing second fiddle to the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) and had no say in that decision. And we are wondering, and the labour movement is wondering, whether the minister was out of this Province by coincidence or if he was out because he knew a decision was coming that was going to be averse to settling that strike? Did the minister take himself out of that decision deliberately? MR. BLANCHARD: Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Minister of Labour. MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker, when I play my fiddle I always play first fiddle and I did so in this case. The answer to the hon. itmthers question, Mr. Speaker, and 1 would have to check this, I stand to be corrected, but I think I was on a short holiday at the time of that particular decision and I learned about it on my return. MR. FLIGHT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Windsor - Buchans, MR. FLIGHT: Mr.

Speaker, the minister obviously did not have himself very well briefed because he looked very much like he was playing second fiddle on that interview and he looks very much like he has been fiddling with the labour movement since he became minister. Now, Mr. Speaker, would the minister be kind enough to tell us whether or not the action of making that shipment to Goose L2823 Nov-ember 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2823

Bay has improved? MR. SIMMS: You do not have yourself briefed very much, either. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Grand Falls (Mr. Simms) has enough problems with his councillors, trying to get the right ones elected, without trying to help the Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard). Now, wou]Ld the minister indicate to the House whether or not the action taken by the government and endorsed by the Minister of Finance (Dr.

Collins), and the decision made by the Minister of Finance to make that shipment to Goose Bay, had an adverse effect on labour relations between himself and the unions representing the breweries? MR. BLANC}IARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Minister for Labour MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker, that is a very subjective question. I do not know whether it has made any difference or not. I had a meeting last Friday with Mr. March and he is supposed to get back to me either today or tomorrow to let me know where we are heading with this dispute.

But to say that it made difference, the whole matter was not even mentioned when I had my meeting with Mr. March. So it is very subjective and I do not know the answer, Mr. Speaker. MR. FLIGHT: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the member for Windsor - Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Would the minister tell the House who speaks for Labour in this particular dispute, is it the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) or is it the Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard)?

That is the question the labour movement is asking in this Province today, who is speaking for Labour in this particular dispute, is it the Minister of Labour of the Minister of Finance? MR. BLANCI-IARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour. MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain where the hon. member is getting his information about the question that labour is asking, who speaks for labour. They know very well. As a matter of fact, this very week I had a very informative meeting with the President and Secretary/Treasury of the Newfoundland Federation of Labour.

We discussed a number of issues of concern to the Federation of Labour. They will be coming back to me again to talk further about it, they just grounded those issues with me. There are not complaints, Mr. Speaker, about the Department of Labour these day. I am not sure where he is getting his information. I have got a good relationship, Mr. Speaker, even with Mr. March who is very embroiled in the strike, the subject being discussed here in the House now. MR. BAKER: L2824 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2824

Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Gander. HR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands (Mr. Simms). I want to know why he finds it so necessary as the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands to threaten, in a presss release, the voters of Grand Falls that they should elect a Tory Council next Tuesday. Why is he carrying out this gross interference in the Municipal Election process? MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. HR. SIHHZ: Hr.

Speaker, if the hon. member has to ask that question, then it is no wonder he is sitting over on that side and not over on this side. What I did in that release was simply indicate that I was looking forward to working with people who were able to co-operate with the government. I stand by that. MR. BAKER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Gander. MR. BAKER: In his press release he said that it was important from his perspective as Minister of Forest Resources and Lands that candidates who get elected are people, 'I will be able to work with.

Now, that in itself is a veiled threat to the people of Grand Falls to elect a Tory Council. I would like to ask him again is he saying that he, in fact, cannot work with the present council, as indications seem to be, and he is starting a campaign against the incumbents in Grand Fa 1 Is? MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. HR. SIHMS: Mr. Speaker, the whole question is out of order, of course, as Your Honour is aware. But since you are letting me answer, I will try to answer it.

First of all, I think it is important for all of us to hope that people who are elected as members of town councils will be people whom we can each work with. That is all 1 said in my, statement. There was nothing more to it than that. He can try to make a mountain out of a molehill, he can ask me a question about my particular portfolio, if he wishes, or he can continue to ask silly questions, such as the ones he is asking here today. MR. BAKER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the member for Gander. MR. BAKER: Hr.

Speaker, the hon. minister put out the press release as Minister of Forest Resources and Lands and that is why I asked him as Minister of Forest Resources and Lands abaout this threat, because Grand Falls is very closely tied L2825 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2825

in with forestry. I would like to direct my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Doyle). Does he condone this kind of gross political interference in the municipal election process, this Tory interference in the municipal election process which is now going on? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen any statement that was made by the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands, so any comment that I would make on it I would be making completely in the dark.

However, it is necessary for all members to establish a good relationship with whomever is elected on November 12. MR. BAKER: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I recognized the hon. member last time for a final supplementary, It now move to the hon. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education (Mr. Ream). In Light of the fact that there is cLearly political interference in iminicipal elections, will the minister assure this House and the people of Newfoundland that, unlike the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr.

Doyle), he has taken steps to ensure that there will be no political interference in school board elections? MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker. HR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education. MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I can say quite truthfully that there will be absolutely no political interference in school board elections. MR. DECKER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it obviously seems to be a laughing matter as far as members on the other side of this House are concerned.

But will the minister concede that the possibility exists that political interference can take place in school board elections just as it takes place in municipal elections? MR. FLIGHT: What? MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education. MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I presume that what the member is getting at is if politicians want to get out into the communities and lobby support for people of certain political stripes. Of course that can take place in any kind of election. Nominations for the school board elections are closed and have been L2826 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2826

cLosed for quite some time. We have more people running for election to schooL boards this time than ever before. Two-thirds of our boards will he elected this time,

whereas only one-third was elected previously. There is a Lot more interest, but certainly I have not received any reports of poLiticaL interference, and I am sure that there will not be any from this side, at least. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The time for Oral Questions has now elapsed. Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given MR. HEARTh Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education. MR. HEARTh I have an answer to a question asked by the hon. the member for Menihek, October 31.

His question was for me to give a list of all school tax authorities in the Province; to indicate the number of employees that they employ in total; the total of payroll paid to them; the total operating costs of these school tax authorities over the last fiscal year and the last couple of years going back at least three to four years; the amount of revenue raised by each of the school tax authorities and table any quidelines that exist for expenditure from school tax authorities in terms of the money that they have raised. I have all that information here. It is quite Lengthly.

I can certainly read it for the member but perhaps it will do to table the report. I would like to refer to Last year when school tax authorities raised $22,573,369 in the Province. It is a concern, I think, of some people that a lot of this might be spent on administration. Eighty-six per cent of this funding was put in or distributed among the school boards. Besides that, out of the money that was spent on administration, over $300,000 was spent for computer equipment, which was a one time shot. So a very high percentage of the funding goes directly into the local school boards.

Without the $20 million that went into the school boards, they certainly would be hurting in the various areas around the Province. We are very appreciative of the work done by school tax authorities and they certainly receive very little thanks for the job that they are doing out there. So, Mr. Speaker, I will table the answers to the questions for the hon. member. Petitions MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from 182 residents of Main Brook on the Northern Peninsula.

I will just read the final prayer of the petition. 1.2827 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2827

I would like to mention at this time that I have discussed this petition with the member for the district and the petition arrived to me, not as a result of any dissatisfaction with the member at all, but just because I happen to know the individuals involved. The prayer of the petition is: "Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to use its best efforts to convince the Government of Canada to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases" Mr.

Speaker, again, 1 would like to raise the issue of the fact that the family allowance payments are in the process of being de-indexed, and that will erode the purchasing power of parents and of low-income families to a horrible degree. We have raised that issue before, and we have yet to get a clear statement from the government opposite on where it stands on this. The answer that we received from the member for Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warren) was equivocal at best and did not indicate whether there was support for the petition. So I raise it again, present it; this is a petition from a different community.

It is totally in order, I assure you, it is even addressed to the House of Assembly, and I wish to hear some response from the government side. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. DECKER: I am pleased to support the prayer of this petition, Mr. Speaker. This matter has been of some concern for the people of Main Brook for some time. I have discussed it with them on many occasions, let me assure you. The people of St. Anthony also, the people of Goose Cove, and people all over this Province are concerned about this.

I did not get around to sending out a blank petition to the people of Main Brook soon enough that they could sign and mail it back to me. Maybe I should do that at some future time. As the petition states, Mr. Speaker, if we de-index the family allowance, we are going to be taking money out of the pockets of families in Main Brook, and this is true of families all over Canada. As the cost of living continues to rise, it will mean that the families are going to have less money with which to buy food, clothing and what have you. So therefore, it is very clearly a concern to the people of Main Brook.

I should like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is a concern, not only of the families of Main Brook, but also of the business people in Main Brook. And this should be especially interesting to the members of this Tory Government, who are a lways coming down on the side of business. If we take money out of the pockets of our people, the mothers or children, whatever the case may be, we are taking the money out of the businesses in this Province L2828 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2828

and this nation. I heard the figure given some time ago of how many million dollars will be taken out of the economy as a result of the de-indexing of the family allowance. I just forget the figure now. By the year 1990, I think there was something I just cannot remember the exact figure - but it was an astronomical amount of money, Mr. Speaker, and this is a concern. So, in support of this petition, I agree with the mothers who presented it, that it is going to give them less money to spend. I also speak on behalf of businesses, that there will be less money in the economy, which will affect all of us, Mr.

Speaker. MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like at this time to present a petition on behalf of 208 residents of the town of Fortune and surrounding coimttinities, residents from the town of Lamaline, Point May, Fortune and Grand Bank, with the majority of signatures on the petition from the residents of Fortune, who are petitioning this House and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on the high electrical rates that are being assessed. This petition, by the way, Mr.

Speaker, was sent to me in mid-August and I informed the people that I would present it at the earliest possible chance in the House of Assembly. Of course, it is one of many petitions that we have seen presented from all around the Province as it pertains to the high cost of eLectricity that our residents are experiencing. I iriist say, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, this government has taken a number of initiatives to try and reduce the burden on the taxpaying residents of the Province. As I said, there are some 208 signatures on this petition and as the MHA representing these people, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to present this petition and say yes to the hon. member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk), I am certainly supporting this petition as signed by some 208 people from my district. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (HcNicholas): The hon. member for Port de Grave. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I certainly, as the critic for Consumer Affairs, go along with the minister and the 1411A for the district in supporting that petition, but I do not agree with him when he says that the government is doing everything it can to help people reduce their high electricity bills.

What is happening is the electricity bills are continually decreasing. We just found very recently that PEI, through their efforts, earned a good response with the government in Ottawa and now have their rates decreased this Winter at least 25 per cent. We find that a province such as PEI can have their rates decreased 25 per cent and we find our rates here on the Island are continually increasing. L2829 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2829

So the government sitting in power and holding all the purse strings is certainly not doing anything whatsoever to help the people with electricity rates. We certainly have nothing to commend them for on this matter. Nhile we support the people of the district, all over the Province there is a continuous problem. We have people on very low incomes, people such as senior citizens and people such as widows are receiving an amount of money such as $250 a month plus a small supplement from Social Services of $79 a month and they have to pay electricity rates of $250 to $300 a month.

I think this is totally disgraceful. We have offered no solution whatsoever for this earning Winter and it has been brought to the government's attention time after time after time. They say they cannot come up with a solution, yet the Province of PEI came up with a solution where they decreased their rates 25 per cent. I find this totally disgraceful. There is no concern for the people of Newfoundland. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: I would like to support the petition.

I do not want to point it out but I might as well, it is the original of a copy that I tried to present several days ago. MR. SPEAXIR: Order, please! MR. FENWICK: Is there someone else who wishes to speak? MR. SPEAKER: I recognized the hon. member because I thought he was presenting a new petition. MR. FENWICK: No, no, it was to speak to the other one. MR. SPEAKER: In presenting petitions, it is one member from each side who can respond. So the hon. member is out of order. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, can I ask for a ruling on that. I am not sure what side means in this context. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. member is out of order. MR. FENWICK: Okay. Orders of the Day MR. MARSHALL: Motion 6, first reading, Mr. Speaker. Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University (Pensions) Act," carried. (Bill No. 53). On motion, Bill No. (53) read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow. Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bit I, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Finance Act," carried. (Bill No. 56). On motion, Bill No. (56) read a L2830 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2830

first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow. Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, I913,' carried. (BIlL No. 55). On motion, Bill No. 55 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow. Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a biLl, "An Act To Amend the Financial Corporations Capital Tax Act,' carried. (Bill No. 37). On motion, Bill No. 37 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow. On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole MR. CHAIRMAN (Greening): Order, please! Shall the resolution carry? MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: The bill itself, Bill No. 26, lists on page 3 the Head of Expenditure, Department and the aggregate amount of Supplementary Supply for that particular department. Mr. Chairman, I realize that that is the format that has been used for a number of years in this House to just list the department and the amount for that department opposite.

I realize also that the minister on Friday, the 25th. of October, in speaking to this motion, gave some breakdown of those particular expenditures. I thank him for that. The point I want to make nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, and I say it as a suggestion to the minister for future occasions, is that perhaps the time has come to bring the contents of this bill into line with the format used in the budget itself. For example, Mr.

Chairman, I find it a bit contradictory that, on the one hand, when we are dealing with the regular budget estimates, we are given a breakdown as, for example, on page 29 of the estimates, a breakdown as small as $200 for supplies or *1,000 for employee benefits. First of all, let me submit, that is as it should be because if the House is to hold the administration to account for expenditures it needs the kind of detail that is provided in the estiiiates. So the point I make and the suggestion I make is that the administration give consideration to doing a similar breakdown.

I repeat, I realize it would be a departure from the format that has been traditionally used for this particular type of bill. But given that the minister proceeds in his introductory statement to do a fair amount of the breakdown anyway, it would be helpful to individual members of the House, I say to him, if he would undertake to at least take under advisement L2831 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2831

the suggestion I make to him, the suggestion that he provide in the bill a parallel breakdown, parallel to the kinds of breakdowns you have in the regular estimates for the fiscal year so that, for example, Mr. Chairman, instead of looking at an aggregate of $8,686,000 Supplementary Supply, we would have some detail of that particular expenditure. Mr. Chairman, I want to come to a couple of matters of detail. I hope the minister might respond to the suggestion I have made in a moment or so. Before I sit though, two other items: One, only half tongue in cheek.

I see the Minister of Education here and I would hope that none of the extra $4,329,000 that they are asking for is paying for those ads. I am delighted by the ads. As as matter of fact, I would itve that they he run all year 'round. That is me, the politician speaking. I would hope they would run then all year around. Another suggestion, of course, that I would make to him is that he talk to his seatmate, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Doyle) and see if he could not persuard him to do the ads for him. He would be miles ahead.

But I would hope that none of the amount of the $4 million is for that very particular TV ad campaign. Mr. Chairman, let us come to a comment that the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) made in this Chamber on October 25. In talking about the warrant for the Department of Development of *3,400,000, the minister indicated that $2.5 million of that arrcunt was to provide capital funding for the tewfound land and Labrador Development Corporation in absence of an agreement with the federal government.

He went on to say that "as the hon. members will recall, the federal government has decided not to continue participation in that Development Corporation." Now, for the record, Mr. Chairman, the government he is talking about is the former Liberal administration in Ottawa which at that time, for its own reasons, had decided that it did not want to participate further.

The question I have for the minister, and I ask it bearing in mind that at the time the former Liberal administration in Ottawa decided to opt out of this agreement, there was a fair concern expressed by the provincial government including the Minister of Finance about that option, about the decision of the federal government not to participate further in the funding of the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation.

My question to the Minister of Finance is now that the administration in Ottawa is changed and we have a Tory administration up there and everything is cheek to cheek, hand to hand, jowl to jowl, because of that, has the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Ottenheimer) or the Premier raised this issue with the new federal administration with a view to having the funding restored, with a view to having federal participation in the capital funding requirements of the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation?

It has now been thirteen long wearisome months for most L2832 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2832

Canadians since the Tory administration in Ottawa took over and I would hope in that particular time the Minister of Finance and/or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has raised this particular issue. Perhaps he would indicate to me that that is the case and that funding will be forthcoming? So I leave for the time being, Mr.

Chairman, two questions with the Minister of Finance relating to the issue I mentioned to him about giving a Little more detail in the bill by way of informing members, and secondly, the issue of possible federal funding once again for the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation? '.2hat initiatives his administration has taken in that regard? MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. HR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: I was going to defer if there is somebody on the other side who wants to get up since it has been a habit of going back and forth, but if you do not mind, that is fine. Mr.

Chairman, 1 want to address a ni.nrber of points that were raised by the Minister of Finance (Dr. CoLlins) when he brought it up. 1 would like to have some feedback on it if he will be up in a little while. Looking at Hansard for October 25 on Page 2514 where his comments were initially recorded when he entered the bill, there are a number of items there I would like to point out. One is $211,000 he indicates for the Executive Council required to meet the expenses of offshore negotiations. This is for offshore negotiations. Mr.

Chairman, I recall just a few days ago in this House where we asked for a committee, that is this side of the House - unfortunateLy I have to group myself - we asked for a committee to be sent to Ottawa to protect our inshore fishing industry which would have required a piddling few thousand dollars in order to finance this committee. It was turned down by the other side, yet close to $25,000 is being involved here with offshore negotiations.

I do not say that it is not an appropriate expenditure but what I do say is that it seems to me an financial indication of the level of interest this government has, one in offshore oil, and in the protection of our fisheries, which seems to be a bottom priority. MR. WARREN: (Inaudible) MR. FENWICK: That is a very appropriate comment that he made. Somewhere along the line you have got to stand up and say what you believe and mean what you say. Fortunately these gmemen to my left do not always say that. The next comment, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to make is further on down that column and that is the $1,500,000 for equity financing of St. Lawrence Fluorspar Limited. I would like to mention a few things about that company because it has become apparent, I think, to the members of this House that there are a number of things going on in St. Lawrence with regard to the introduction of this company that L2833 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2833

are very, very worrisame. ALL of us know of the tranatic and tragic history of that particu lay operation, but if early indications are any indication of what is going to happen in the future, then it looks like the future is not going to be any better. I refer, for example, to printed comments that the Town of St. Lawrence in some way has arranged with the particular contractor to set actual pay scales for the people involved. One of the questions that I would have liked to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard) or the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr.

Doyle) is when this Town was certified as a collective bargaining agent for anybody? That is a question we have not been able to ask but is one that I certainly welcome if the Minister of Municipal or the Minister of Labour is willing to take

part in it. The other course, wh would be? that is fundamental which says join in - one is saying, of t kind of a union it I would suggest that a violation of a constitution of Canada you have a right to MR. DA%E: Oh, oh! MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker would you please protect me from the catterwalling across the hall there? Oh good, the catterwaller is leaving. MR. DAWE: Yes, I have got to go out and throw up. MR. FENWICK: I am glad to say that the minister is doing something productive. The other question that 1 have concerns page 2515, in case the linister of Finance (Dr. Collins) is following alon8.

He is listening, it just does not look that way. He talks about a warrant for the Department of Development amounting to $3,400,000, some $2,500,000 is to provide capitol funding for the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Association in the absence of an agreement with the federal government.

This is a very striking thing, I thought we put in a Tory government in this Province so that we would have agreement between the Tory levels of government and here we have a clear indication that the federal government is saying either that they cancelled it, and I am not sure if they did, it might have been the Liberal government. AN HON. MEMBER: It was. MR. FENWICK: Obviously, what they are saying is that they will not renew it.. I am wondering if there is any possibility of this joint funding being renewed on a federal/provincial level.

I thought I might indicate that while we are going through it and when the Minister of Finance gets a chance to speak on it, he might give us some indication. It is the Department of Development. Is it coming back? The other one is one the same page 2515 on the right side and that is the one that I find interesting, to Transportation $12,800,000 made up of $5,600,000 approximately for high priority road improvement and construction problems. Really I think, that we have a pretty bold face here. I would suggest that if you people on the opposite L283 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2834

wanted to be a little bit more honest, perhaps you should say, "for buying the election" because really that is the kind of purchasing we are looking at here. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. FEtTWICK: You were still putting the whole works together up to two days before the election. The last comment I would like to make is on page 2516 and it is less of a partisan one.

It is *6,000,000 for additional funding for Comtrunity Development Programs and I ask about that because, quite frankly, it is a program that when I first saw it - the idea of putting people to work for ten or twenty weeks in order to throw them on unemployment insurance - I thought this was a cynical program and one that should be discontinued and so on. Since then I have modified my position having seen a lot of the programs in effect, I have seen, what I consider, some good coming from it.

But I have also talked to a lot of people who have a tremendous amount of concern about that program and these are people like people running day care nurseries who are concerned that they get a person in for ten weeks, just get them trained in that period of time and all of sudden they are laid off and a new bunch of rookies come in. 'hat I would like to suggest to the minister is because we are pumping so much money into this particular social service program and it is becoming tens of millions of dollars per year, that we take a much closer look at how we are spending the money, what we are accomplishing with it and figure out if there may be a better way of doing the whole thing because, quite frankly, a lot of the recipients are complaining that just after they get them trained, they are gone and, as a result, they do not get the effect of the money.

I agree with putting money into the social services, into day care schools, into nursery schools, and into a number of things that I have seen it put into but I think that if we are spending that much money we should have more concern than just dumping people on unernp Loyenit insurance which is the immediate short-term objective of this program. We should have some concern, not only for the individuals, who I think we want to see looked after, but also for those employers that they are being put with to see if perhaps there is a better way of operating this program. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR.

FENWICK: Oh I know and I am not complaining. The fact is there are some good aspects to it but I think there are enough dilatorious ones that we should look at the prograttme closely. With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. MR. GILBERT: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. MR. GILBERT: After hearing my colleague to my physical right and political left, I wondered how you could talk about Mr. Cashin's representative in the House of Assembly. It is L2835 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2835

nice to see that he is here and alive. months after the last budget came in, it seems a little strange to T. it remiimds -me that a few days ago he stood up and was warning people to beware of standing in the midd Ic of the road because you get hit both ways. I have a feeling that he is in that position right now. He does not seem to be improving his situation. Every time he gets up he seems to get further into the middle of the road. Anyhow, Mr.

Chairman, I want to speak on Bill 26, "An Act For Granting Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending The Thirty-First Day Of March One Thousand Nine Hundred And Eighty-Five And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service". First of all the thing that strikes me - and like my colleague from Gander (Mr.

Baker) yesterday, I am a new merrther - it is a little strange that here we are, after we had a budget introduced in May of this year for the current fiscal year that was lauded by members opposite as something akin to the Magna Charta and maybe a Little better, at least the most serious and honest piece of legislation since the Magna Charta. But now I find that when we passed this budget we not only passed the budget for operating this year but we were left with $56,361,600 on the Table that we had left over from last year.

Now this, to me, is a strange way to operate but I suppose they told me that government operates in a strange and mysterious fashion. When you pass a budget to operate for the current year and then you find that you have $56 million left there to be voting on now seven 1 suppose rwhen the minister starts to correct me for being a new member now, he will certainly do it in fine style, as he did my coLleague from Gander yesterday.

I will sit here in awe and wonderment when I hear the correction because of the wisdom I will hear from a person who brought in budgets for the last five years with whopping deficits every year. We have not heard this year if there is any deficit or maybe he has learned the old secret, he is going to budget his deficit high enough that he will not have a deficit. AN HON. MEMBER: He is going to be more accurate. MR. GILBERT: After five years he should be more accurate. So I am prepared to sit here and Listen to his explanations and be willing to learn from him.

I hope in his explanations he might learn a little something too so that he will come in a balanced budget after a while and we will not be left here next year to debate a $56 million deficit that was left over from the previous year with all those fine items that are left outstanding in this thing, including why it was there. When we look at the actual bill and what we are doing with the money and where it is being spent, there are many things you can question.

Municipal Affairs is one that is always an interesting one when you see that we have communities in Newfoundland that have fire-fighting equipment that they cannot find money to send L2836 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2836

people out to show them how to use, communities that the only bit of fire fighting equipment they have actually is a respirator. Here it is, a community like Francois, struggling to set up a volunteer fire department and you ship them out the only bit of equipment they can use besides a water pump, which they have to carry on their backs. Then they were going to send someone down to show them how to use this but, unfortunately, there is no money. Yet here we are talking on a bill that you want passed so we can approve the spending of *56,361,600, all that in one. Just imagine!

And we have comxriinities in tewfound land that you cannot find enough money in the Department of Municipal Affairs to send someone down to train people on how to use a respirator. There is something wrong with the system that we would have stand here in this House and be asked to approve monies that were spent without any thought going into it. We had passed a budget for this year yet, you are asking us again to approve this money that is spent.

We also have a situation where there is no way that we know when this is spent or how it is going to be spent and then you come and blatantly ask to approve a piece of legislation after the money is spent. You can go down through this again and you can walk into any of the coirmunities in tewfoundland and they will tell you they cannot get money from government. It is not there for the Departnnt of Municipal Affairs. Yet you are overspent by *7 million and nobody knows where it is gone. It certainly was not into any of the Opposition districts.

I am sure it must be into the the old days of the 1/45th split I would imagine that we heard referred to yesterday. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you are aware of that one. What we are speaking on about now goes back to March 1985. This is money that is left over from the previous years. So what I am saying now is that it must have been in the split. Again what I find so confusing to me is the fact that here they are able to ask us to approve a bill for a *56 million in overspending, and then you will find that there has been no control on it, as to how it is spent or why. Then we are supposed to approve it.

We have seven or eight items here, here is how it was spent. What is the breakdown on it? In the Municipal Affairs one there is $6,783,300. Where was that spent? How was it broken down? I know yesterday the minister was telling my colleague from Gander (Mr. Baker) that he could not spend money in Twillingate if it was spent in St. John's. I would like to know in this Municipal Affairs one where exactly it was spent? Was it spent all over the Island? Was it spent in one or two special places? Again, in Transportation is another $12,885,000. Was that spent in St.

John's or Ottawa, or was it spent in various districts throughout the Province? Was it spent just in one? Could you tell us where? This is where, on this side of the House, we find it extrenly difficult to support the bill. As much as we would like to be able to support the hon. Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) in this, L2837 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2837

we find it extremely difficult when we discover that all we get is a bunch of figures passed to us for money that was spent nine, ten, and eleven months ago. We do not want to he criticalL of the hon. minister. But unfortunateLy when we do not have the explanations - and this is the thing that we need - so as a new member, I am asking because I really do not know how you could do this? So if you would tell me, Sir, how that money for Municipal Affairs was spent, I would be quite happy to have the breakdown of it and, maybe, the one for Transportation? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker. MR.

CHAIRMAN (Greening) The hon. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I have a few words to say on this bill. This warrant, by the way, is to cover expenditures up to and including I believe March 31, 1985. IL wonder can the minister teLl us how many more such warrants can we expect in this session? How moch more money has been spent since that date for which no provision was made in the budget and can we expect more such Special Warrants soon? The minister has become noted for poor budgetary forecasting.

We all know that any similarity between what the minister forecast and what actually happened is becoming purely coincidental. One of the problems, Mr. Speaker, obviously, is in the advice he is getting from his department. The thing that worries me is one of the persons who was responsible for advising the minister in his budget forecast, that person I believe was his deputy minister or assistant deputy minister, is now one of the people who are doing the forecasting for Fishery Products International.. MR. TULK: Oh, no. MR. W.

CARTER: Having learned that fact my hopes for the future welfare and success of that company I must say were somewhat diminished. That is the kind of advice that the minister was getting. We all know what has been happening of course in the past few years with millions of dollars out in forecast. Like I said, any similarity between what has been budgeted and what actually happens and is spent is nothing more than a coincidence. I notice in the bill, Mr. Chairman, there is an amount for Transportation, almost $13 million.

I would Like to bring to the minister's attention the situation in my district of Twillingate where, prior to the April 2 election, a promise was made by the Premier, through the then member for that district, that certain capital works would be undertaken in the district of Twillingate that were subsequently ignored. The promises were not kept. I can refer the House to a letter to the Premier on July 4 from the Town of Twillingate.

It was published, by the way, in the local press wherein the town brought to the Premier's attention the fact that certain promises were made with respect to roads, with respect to water and sewer 1..2838 1oveiiber 5, 1985 Vol XL Uo. 53 R2838

that were subsequently ignored - broken promises. to ask the hon. member for Beltevue to restrain himself. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Young), Newfoundland's latest $3 million bionic man, and that is what his election cost - MR. YOUNG: (Inaudible) Minister of Fisheries. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that the hon. member won his seat by 200 votes and I think that cost the people $3 million, $35,000 per vote. MR. YOUNG: (Inaudible). MR. CUAIR1AN: Order, please! MR. W. CARTER: Newfoundland's $3 million man, and I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, there is inflation for you.

There is inflation for you. That is inflation of the worst kind. MR. CALLAN: Don (inaudible) will get you. MR. W. CARTER: If anybody in this House would agree that the hon. member's election is worth $3 million, then I do not know what - DR. COLLINS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker MR. SPEAKER: A point, of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellevue (Mr. Callan) is interrupting my hon. friend, making interjeetions against the hon. member. So I would ask you MR. CALLAN: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: To that point of order, the hon. member for Bellevue. I would also ask you, Mr. Chairman, to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Young), if he is going to be speaking at all, at least he do it from his own seat, but he should not be interjecting anyway. MR. CHAIRMAN (Greening): To that point of order, I will ask all members to be silent while the hon. member for Twillingate (Mr. W. Carter) is speaking. MR. W. CARTER: A good idea, Mr. Chairman. SOME HON. MEMBERS: A good ruling. Hear, hear! MR. W. CARTER: It is an excellent ruling, Mr. Chairman. The $3 million bionic man, Mr.

Chairman, should following your ruling. He has an obligation to do that. AN HON. MEMBER: $19 million. MR. W. CARTER: $35,000 per vote to get elected. Mr. Chairman, in the estimates, I have a letter here which would concern my friend for LaPoile (Mr. Mitchell), two letters, in fact. One letter came from the Ministerial Association in that L2839 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2839

area, signed by Lieutenant David Sparkes, who is the Acting Secretary of that Association and also a letter from the Gateway Senior Citizens Club, signed by the president and secretary and so on. They bring to the government's attention, Hr. Chairman, the serious situation that exist in that area, having to do with the Dr. Charles Legrow Health Centre. I am surprised that the member for LaPoile (Hr. MitcheLl) has not raised the matter in the House, because it is a very serious matter.

The letter, of course, refers to the fact that one of the wings in that health centre, I think, containing around twenty beds, is closed. The hospital is understaffed. The staff is overworked. To make a long story short, Mr. Chairman, things are not as well as they shouiLd be in that hospital. The authors of these letters are not - HR. MITCHELL: To a point of order, Hr. Chairman. MR. CI-IAIRMAN: To a point of order, the hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. MITCHELL: Hr. Chairman, I would like to comment just for a second on what the hon. member for Twillingate (Mr. W. Carter) has raised.

For years in the LaPoile district we have had to suffer with an inadequate hospital. Just over a year ago this government dedicated $13 million hospital in the LaPoile district. In that hospital there are facilities for a chronic care unit. It is a turn-key operation. I have not been a member who does not do my work in the House of Assembly. I do it in my office with proper representation to the proper departments involved. I can tell the people of the LaPoile district that it is top priority to have the chronic care of that hospilaL open in the near future.

I hope it will be in the new estimates and in the new budget. Thank you, Hr. Chairman. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. W. CARTER: To that point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of order, the hon. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Chairman, there is no point of order. The hon. member will have a chance to speak, if he wants to. But certainly that is no point of order. MR. T1JLK: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman. HR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of order, the hon. the member for Fogo. HR. TIJLK: Hr.

Chairman, the records should show and, of course, the people of LaPoile should be aware of the fact that the only way that they can get their representative in this House to speak is for somebody like the member for Twillingate (Mr. W. Carter) to get up and make certain points about his district and then he gets up on his feet in a rage because he really has not done his job. L2840 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2840

MR - CHAIRMAN: To the point of order. There is no point of order. call some of these people liars, he can. That is his prerogau-tive, I suppose. The hon. the member for Twi 1 lingate. MR. W. CARTER: With respect ,I would certainly suggest that the member get a copy. In fact, I think, it has been copied. Yes, there is a copy gone to the hon. member. MR. MITCHELL: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. MITCHELL: For the hon. member's information, yes, that copy was sent to me. I have already dealt with it.

I have already adressed the Department of Health and I have answered that letter. I do not have to bring it into the House of Assembly to deal with it. I have dealt with it at my own time, inmed lately. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of order. It is a difference of opinion between two hon. members. The hon. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I would strongly suggest to the hon. member if he has taken action and if he has gotten positive action on the request, he should start informing the people in that district.

We are still getting the word back, by the way - and if he wants to MR. TULK: It is his constituents. MR. W. CARTER: It is his constituents - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. MITCHELL: I do not know if I am hearing right here today - MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Is this a point of order? MR. MITCHELL: - or not. HR. CHAIRMAN: Is this a point of order? MR. MITCHELL: A point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. MITCHELL: We had the Opposition talking about eavesdropping and everything else. Here we have the member for Twillingate (Mr. W.

Carter) getting up and saying, I am lying to the people in my district. HR. TIJLK: He did not. MR. W. CARTER: No, I did not. HR. MITCHELL: Or he insinuated. AN HON. MEMBER: He did not. L2841 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2841

MR. MITCHELL: He insinuated that I was lying to the people in my district that I was doing something on their behalf or not doing something on their behalf. I would like to set the record straight. I do represent the people of LaPoile and I believe that I do it adequately. I represent them very well. IlK. CHAIRMAN: To that point of order, it is a matter of clarification on behalf of the hon. the rrer for LaPoile. The hon. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Chairman, if I have offended the sensitivities of the member I suppose I should apologize.

Maybe I should not, on second thought, because in that district, they say in these letters, there are a number of people who are in need of chronic care. AN HON. MEMBER: How many letters? HR. W. CARTER: Two letters. There are people who are in need of chronic care. They point out, Mr. Chairman, in this letter that there are - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HR. W. CARTER: Hr. Chairman, could I have silence? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. the member wishes silence. 14K. W. CARTER: In this letter, Mr.

Chairman, they point out that there are no nursing homes within the area from Rose Blanche to South Branch and that there are a number of people in the area desperately in need of chronic care. They point out that there are twenty beds in the Dr. Charles LeGrow Health Center that are now not being used. They point out that the service in the hospital is not up to scratch, and that is no reflection on the workers and they say that here.

But because of the shortage of money or the Department of Health cutting back on their funding, the hospital is not operating as well as it should and that there are twenty beds lying dormant that could be used by people who are in need of chronic care. I bring this to the House's attention. I think this is the sort of thing that the Department of Health should be looking into. Surely there is a need for it. I am sorry that the hon. the member has taken exception. I am trying to help you.

I wish that you would get up some time and make a case for the Premier to keep his promise to the people of Twillingate, the promise that was made in the last election. Why do you not, tomorrow, reciprocate. Be a man! Give me a break! MR. MITCHELL: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order, the hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. MITCHELL: This is ironic. Within the last two weeks we have had two of the parties opposite over there, the NDP Party and the Liberal Party, harping on the chronic care wing of the hospital. Now I appreciate L2842 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2842

this. I think that this is wonderful because it is helping my cause. But do you know why they are doing it? Because they know that the people in the district of LaPoi].e have good representation in this House and they know that I have been working on this problem and that those beds are going to be open next year and they want to get the credit for it. That is all they are doing it for, Mr. Chairman, is to try to steal a bit of credit. MR. TULK: To that point of order, Mr Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of order, the hon the member for Fogo. MR.

TULK: The member for LaPoile, I think it is, or the part member for LaPoile or the member for part of LaPoile should remember that what we are trying to do is we realize the people of LaPoile have a very weak member, that he does not stand in this House for his constituents and that he usually stands up to tow his party lines. MR. MITCHELL: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. TULK: I am on a point of order. MR. CI1AIR14AN: Order, please! The hon. the member for Fogo is speaking to that point of order. MR.

TULK: The member for Twillingate, both in pity for the member for LaPoile and his constituents, has made good representation on behalf of LaPoile. He has been a gentleman about it and asked the member for LaPoile if one of those days he would stand in his place, if he can get up - MR. MITCHELL: Next year. MR. TULK: Not next year but this year and support him in trying to get the Premier of this Province, who made millions dollars worth of promises to people in his own district in Twillingate. He is being a gentleman. I do not know what makes the hon. gentleman so touchy. Mr.

Chairman, there is obviously no point of order. We are just trying to help a very weak member survive and we want to get him elected again the next time because there are only going to be one or two left. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I wouLd like to speak to that point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. MITCHELL: I would like to inform the House that I am not touchy on those issues. I am not touchy at all.

But when the Opposition says that the LaPoile dIstrict has a weak member, I do not know if they know what they are talking about because it was only last week when I stood in this House on different occasions and I fought for the fishermen of my district when it came to fishermen's unemployment insurance. Where was the Opposition then? Where were they? Wallowing over there in their newspapers. I rose and I fought against the factory freezer trawler application. MR. CHAIRMAN: L2843 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2843

Order, please! To that point of order, it is a difference of opinion among three hon. gentlemen. MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, another point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Fogo. MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman should realize that when it coiis to UIC his government, the people that he sits with over there, the forty-two and a half of them or whatever is over there, he should realize that we are not out to waste the time of the House talking about UIC regulations when we have made the point months before, when we put together a report. When is he going to catch up to what is happening?

On FFT5, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) says he opposed it the day it came out, well the Premier took a couple of weeks, maybe the Minister of Fisheries in some far corner of Newfoundland did oppose it, but the Premier certainly did not. When are you going to catch up and learn that there is a House to be in? You should stay on top of it and not have the member for Twillingate come in here and represent your constituents for you. MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of order, there is no point of order. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that this debate has taken this turn.

I certainly did not want it to do this but I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that tomorrow morning I will be free to sit down with the hon. member and I will help frame some questions that he can put to the Premier. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. W. CARTER: I need your help. Just as I am trying to help you now, I hope that tomorrow you will reciprocate and help me. Tomorrow we will sit down and frame some questions and we will ask the Premier, by the way, about the senior citizens home he promised TwilLingate.

We will ask him about the water and sewer system that they promised Twillingate, that they promised Durrell, Back Harbour, Indian Cove, and Newville. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. member's time has elapsed. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. MITCHELL; Mr. Chairman, it is a little bit ironic that on a bill such as the one we have before the House, Bill No. 26, the money bill, that the Opposition over there really cannot find anything to debate it on or to debate about. Now, what do they have to do? Pick on a backbencher. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. MR.

MITCHELL: Now, that is basically the input of their debate in this Bill 26. I would like to probably inform the member for Twillingate (Mr. W. Carter) that I really do not need L2844 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2844

his help in trying to represent the people in the LaPoile district. I would suggest to the hon. meither for Twillingate that if he wants to spend his time more appropriately representing his own constituents he does not have to come down and sit down with me and try to get some ideas from me as to how I am representing the people in LaPoiJ.e.

Why does he not go directly to the people involved, the ministers, the department and put his representation before them Like I have done and try to make sure that his requests will be into the estimates and into the budgets that are going to be coming before this House next year? This is the type of representation that I have given the people of the district of LaPoile. This is the type of representation that I want to be able to give them. HR. TULK: Hr. Chairman. MR. CHAiRMAN: A. point of order by the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Hr. Chairman, let me try to straighten this hon. gentleman out now.

He is up now trying to give my friend for Twillingate (14. Carter), I do not know what you would call it, I suppose you would call it, out around where I come from, a tongue lashing. He has him scared to death down there, he is trembling in his seat, just look at him. Hr. Chairman, let me tell him that there is some relevancy in this bill, it is a money bill. That is the one fact he stated which is true. Would he please, then, use this opportunity to do what my friend from Twillingate (Hr. W.

Carter) told him he should do, and that is, to represent the people of LaPoile, otherwise, we are going to be forced to ask, 'Where is Neavy when LaPoile needs him?' So would he stand up and make some representation? We do not have to tell him what to do. He knows what to do. HR. RIDEOUT: To that point of order, Hr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN (Greening): To that point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the point of order allegedly raised by the Opposition House Leader (Mr. Tulk) is that the gentleman from LaPoile should be relevant to the debate.

Now, I would remind Your Honour that the question of representation was raised in this debate by the hon. gentleman's colleague. All my colleague is doing, Mr. Speaker, is taking the opportunity, under a money bill, under which, as you know, Your Honour, you can speak about anything under the sun, to reply to that kind of representation. I would submit, Hr. Chairman, that all the hon.

Opposition House Leader is trying to do is to waste the time of my colleague, who is making such a fine speech to this House, outlining his tremendous efforts on behalf of the people of LaPoile, one of the best members that the people of LaPoile have ever seen in this legislature, Mr. Chairman. HR. TULK: To that point of order, Hr. L2845 November 5, 1985 Vol. XL No. 53 R2845

There is so much confusion here from the other side that it is very hard for me to hear Your Honour's rulings. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of order, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, let me tell the hon. gentleman that I am not trying to waste his time or put him down, or anything like that. I just say to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) that this gentleman from LaPoile (Mr. Mitchell) needs all the help he can get. That is all I am trying to do, be very helpful. He needs all the help he can get. MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of order, the hon the Minister of Fisheries. MR.

RIDEOUT: The hon. the member for LaPoile has been besieged with requests from the Opposition to help them out. The hon. gentleman from Twillingate (Mr. W. Carter) is begging my colleague to take him by the hand and bring him down to the Premier and try to help him out, because he is so inadequate in representing the needs of the district of Twillingate. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN (Greening): To that point of order, I would ask both sides of the House to co-operate and be silent while the hon. the member for LaPoile is speaking. The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR.

MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, we have a very important bill before this House today, and that is Bill 26. When we look at what this bill contains, we find it contains money. I will just name some of the departments under which it will affect my district: Mines and Energy, Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development, Transportation, Education, Social Services, Labour and Manpower and Municipal Affairs. Just the other day, a member of this hon. House was quoted in the newspaper as having said that this government was not doing anything by way of putting money into my district.

Now, this is a very important bill, and if we are going to try to improve the situation for our districts with respect to essential services, then government must be able to have access to money. And that is what this debate is all about today. AN HON. MEMBER: It is already spent. MR. TULK: The money is gone, boy! Read the bill! That money was gone last Fall. MR. MITCHELL: I did not say that the money was there or the money was gone, I said they have to have money, and that is what this bill deals with.

In my own district, between the provincial government and the federal government in the last year, we have had $4.4 million spent towards an industrial mall. L2846 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2846

We have had *9.5 million over a three-year programme, cost-shared by the provincial government and the federal government for an adequate water system in the district of LaPoile. MR. FLIGHT: Thank God for Neary. MR. FUREY: You are there praising the former Liberal government in Ottawa. MR. MITCHELL: No, I am not praising the former Liberal government in Ottawa, not at all! I am talking about the commitments that were made and the commitments that have to be fulfilled and will be fulfilled by this government.

And, because they have adequate representation, those commitments will be Looked after and will be fulfilled as time goes by. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. FLIGHT: Neary and the federal government did those two things you mentioned. Tell us something you have done. MR. CHAIRMAN (Greening): Order, please! Order, please! MR. MITCHELL: Another area in my district, Mr. Chairman, that is going to be very important, and, I suppose, the Liberals would like to take credit for this, too; you know, they like to take credit for everything.

We have a little bright spot on the horizon, it is not all doom and gloom but there is a bit of a bright spot as far as the district of LaPoile is concerned and that is the gold strike down there, Mr. Speaker. We have had the hon. member for Buchans (Mr. Flight) rising on his high horses every time he gets an opportunity and he is continually asking the ministers of this House, 'When are you going to give us those jobs down in LaPoile for the people of Buchans? When are you going to give us those jobs?* Well, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to say as the member for LaPoile that we are Newfound landers first, we are not from Buchans, we are not from Stephenville, and we are not from Corner Brook. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MITCHELL: We have to build and we have to create jobs in this Province for Newfoundlanders first. The jobs that are created in the different districts around this Province depend on the type of representation that is in this House of Assembly. Let me say that if all of the districts in Newfoundland has the representation that they have in the LaPoile district, they will see accomplishments, Mr.

Chairman. I am looking forward to B.P. Selco down in the Cinq Cerf area opening up that mine and employing 200 or 300 people in my district, Mr. Chairman. I know that they are going to do that because this government is going to co-operate with that company to do everything that they can to get another industry going. We have seen it happen in Corner Brook with Kruger, we have seen it happen down in St. Lawrence, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to be sitting on this side of the House and to be working not for the people of L2847 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2841

Buchans, but working for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that you will never see from this hon. member, Mr. Speaker, is when there is an issue as important as the jobs for the people in my district to be able to sit here and not support a motion, or not to support legislation that is going to drastically affect those people. Mr. Chairman, we have seen it happen. We have seen it happen last week. MR. CHAIRKAN: Order, please! The hon. member's time has elapsed. MR. MITCHELL: By leave? SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. No. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Finance. Mr. Chairman, I hestitate to interrupt. We just saw a tremendous battle here in parliament. The whole weight of the Opposition was thrown on the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Mitchell). He not only withstood the vicious storm, the tremendous attacks, but he beat them and cowed them into submission so that no one could even get up on their feet afterwards. What a spectacle! What an example! I hope me. all get Mansard and read it in our homes tonight. Mr. Speaker, getting back to some of the points that were raised. The hon. the member for Fortune-Hermitage (Mr.

Simmons) brought up a point about the format of this bill and I think he made a good point there. He wanted more breakdown in the

schedule attached and I guess the reason why it has not been given to now is that this bill is really a compilation of Special Warrants that were tabled in the House and those Special Warrants do have the breakdown. Nevertheless, I think it makes a good point and we will certainly take it under advisement and hopefully next time such a bill has to come into the House the

schedule we wi 11 have further breakdowns. Another point he brought up was the $3 . 4 million in the Department of Development and he wondered as this was for capital funding for the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation whether we had made representations to the federal government to contribute again an amount to the capital funding of this organization. I can say we certainly have. Unfortunately we were not successful.

We ran into the restraint program of the federal government; a restraint program, I am afraid, that had to be put in because of the overspending of the Liberal administration for the last five or six years. They were left in a invidious position when they took over government and at this point in time they felt that they could not accede to our wishes, but we have hopes for the future. The member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) questioned the amount in Executive Council, he said that there was $211,000 for offshore negotiations. He was a little bit L2848 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2848

wrong there, there was $150,000 for the offshore negotiations and there was *61,000 for the Social Policy Committee Chairman's expenses, when the late the hon. Hr. House occupied that position. We have no apology to make over the $150,000 for the offshore negotiations. This was a titantic battle to get the offshore agreement that we got - The Atlantic Accord.

I believe that many, many people did not for one minute think that this small, rather impoverished, thinly-populated Province would be able to succeed in this when we had the whole weight of the federal government, the Liberal administration at the time and we had the judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada against us.

I think that everyone said, 'Look, you may as well lay down and die and accept something like Nova Scotia's ratty old agreement and just be pleased that you are struggling through by your fingernails.' Nevertheless, we persevered and we have got an agreement that other Provinces are now trying to ertijlate. It is interesting to note that the federal government recently promised the Province of Nova Scotia that they will change the agreement that the Nova Scotian government was happy to accept to include the provisions that are in our agreement. So that is the explanation there.

The hon. member also questioned in Finance $1,500,000 for St. Lawrence and he wondered why we were doing this because, in his mind, there are certain difficulties with the labour situation down there. All I can say to that is that the people in St. Lawrence are absoLutely delighted, absolutely enthralled that the mine is opening and it is going to open in such a way that there will be more processing in that area than ever before. We see nothing but plaudits and praise for putting in that *1,500,000. 1 am afraid that the hon. the member for Henihek (Hr. Fenwick) has got his messages wrong somewhere.

He also questioned the $5,500,000 in Transportation as did the member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir (Hr. Gilbert), I can just point out that we get requests for road building, improvement and construction. It really is not a departmental program in terms of starting the process. The process is started by the municipalities themselves, they make requests and we respond to those requests. So that $5,600,000 was a partial response. We wish we could have been able to put in more but that is all that we could manage at the time. We put in $5,600,000 to respond to some of the requests put to us by the municipalities.

In Social Services, he questioned whether the Conmunity Development Program, into which an additional $6,000,000 was placed, whether that was a good program. 1 am sure that there are improvements that can be made to it. We are making them a LI the time. One of the improvements made, was a point that the hon. member brought up that in some cases the length of time individuals are on program is insufficient or is thought to be insufficient.

We have found that to be so in some cases and we have increase the length of time that certain individuals can stay on the programs, especially individuals dealing with handicapped children and so on. The member for Burgeo - Bay L2849 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2849

d'Espoir wondered why we were bringing in Supplementary Supply. I think he may have partially been labouring under the impression that the Supplementary Supply related to this year, because he said, "2e brought down the budget in March and why are we now bringing in Supplementary Supply?" I think, in actual fact, he corrected himself later on and as he is aware this Bill relates to the previous year. The reason why there is a Supplementary Supply Bill is that you cannot predict always what expenses you are going to face in a year.

Many emergencies arise that are unforeseen and so on and you have to have a mechanism whereby you can respond to those. We can only respond to those with the authority of the House. Now, the arrangement under the Financial Administration Act is that we can respond if it is required of us to these eirrgency and urgent situations and get the concurrence of the House afterwards. That is what the supply bill is all about. I think he also brought up the point that we may into troubles with our budgetary situation this year. I can inform the hon.

House now that next week, hopefully, I will be able to bring in a half year report on the present status of the budgetary situation and he will be able to get his answer to that question at that time. In regard to Municipal Affairs he wondered why we put in $6.7 million when some municipalities are deficient in certain equipment which I am sure are very desirable and, he indicated, might be very critical. Well the $6.7 million was put in for very critical purposes I can assure him.

It was put in for the sleet storm we had at that time, or certainly before hand, and it was also put in to take care of flood damage that occurred in Central Newfoundland. So surely that was well justified. The hon. the member for Twillingate (Mr. W. Carter) wanted to know how many warrants we can expect for the current year. I am afraid I cannot answer that because, as I indicated, warrants are put in when unusual and unexpected situations arise. Some have arisen to date and we have had some Special Warrants.

I cannot foresee how many more such situations will arise between now and the end of March but we will certainly only bring in warrants that are justified and, of course, we will table the warrants in the House and we will subsequently wrap them up into a Supplementary Supply bill for this year later on. He also commented on poor forecasts. Well I can assure him that I have answered that question many times and I am sure no matter how many times I answer it he will not be satisfied. We do get advise in terms of our forecast. We get the best advise we are capable of getting. We get it from our own people.

As we get the transfer of funds from the federal government, we get it from federal authorities and so on. We just do the best we can I am afraid. I do not have to answer, I think, about the situation in LaPoile - the hospital down there. My hon. friend down there answered that in full and complete detail to the extent that every tongue was silenced on the other side. So I cannot add anything to his very incisive remarks. With that I move the bill. L2850 november 5, 1985 VoL XL No. 53 R2850

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution carry? MR. KELLAND: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member for Naskaupi. MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess you have not got the ti: ne in and the practice to roLl it off your tongue like the Speaker. However, it was a good attempt, a little delayed. Thank you very much for recognizing me. I find the whole thins, as I said a couple of different times before, quite a learning process, Mr. Chairman, in many ways. Of course, I am a rookie insofar as my time in the House of Assembly is concerned.

But in dealing with the gentleman and others across the way, I am far from a rookie in that I have known many of them in a municipal capacity for a number of years. I have seen the way they handle things and how they accomplish or do not accomplish certain objectives. But the learning process goes a little beyond on that. There was quite a wide range of manifestations of the government on that side.

For example, when the Minister of Labour was getting a littLe sensitive over the fact that he was accused by one of my colleagues of playing second fiddle, he became very florid, not an unusual occurrence as we have noticed and rose to make the clear statement that when it comes to playing fiddle he never plays second fiddle to anyone, he always plays first fiddle. Perhaps he should be reminded that Nero also had the same philosophy on Life and he got his posterior par boiled more than once. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. KELLAND: So he should keep that in mind. MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) Nero. MR.

KELLPiND: I will write it down for you, 'Len'. And it goes from that extreme, Mr. Chairman, to the extreme of the member from LaPoile (Mr. Mitchell) who bounces to his feet every time he hears what he perceives to be some sort of a personal insult to him. You know the pomposity of the man, unbelievable, bounce now. Anyone who has to get up in the House and tell the other hon. members that he is doing a good job surely Heavens must be experiencing some form of insecurity. I mean he has to know that insecurity is a fact of life, especially as it relates to the member himself.

I think those extremes, by way of bracketing what I have had to say, Mr. Chairman - MR. MITCHELL: Once a Liberal district and you cannot take it. 4R - 1CTT.LAND You come on up to my district and we will see what we can take. Anyway I would be more than happy to sit down if he wants to raise a point of order or something like that. Mr. Chairman, just to sort of bracket what I have to say by those extremes that I noticed in L2851 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2851

my Learning process here in the House, I wou Id like to support my co I league from Fortune-Hermitage (Mr. Simmons) in his suggestion for more detailed information under the heads of expenditure and thank the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) for his concurrence that he will look to that and perhaps take it under advisement and with a view to consolidate it. Even though it is already available in other forms, perhaps a consolidation might make it a little more accessible to us, would lead to more meaningful debate and cut out a lot of the rubber ball tactics used by LaPoile's member over there.

It is interesting to look at some of the figures here, and they are in head form of of course and not in great detail. Rural Agricultural and Northern Development, for example, gets $3.1 million. What interests me there is that that is a concern that relates to my district, not only my district of course, I think the LaPoile member mentioned some of those aspects were in his as well and many, many others.

I wonder in thinking about this, particularly as it relates to Labrador, I would like to know what kind of a split and wtat kind of a division of that $3.1 million would have a direct affect and is it being channeled properly? For example, I strongly object as a citizen, a taxpayer, and an MHA, to the method that the government frequently uses in getting information out to the public in Labrador specifically, because I am familiar with that. For example, if a minister calls a press conference and issues a statement shouLd it be necessary for the member for Torngat Mountains (Mr.

Warren) to charter an aircraft, f Lick into Labrador so that he can make a siirultaneous statement in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, jump on a Queen Air charter and dart back to St. John's? That is a very expensive operation and I am wondering what sort of proportion of that funding is being directed towards that kind of an activity? MR. DECKER: It is shameful. HR. KELLMD: Compare this, the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development (Mr. R. Aylward) is making a statement relating to Labrador. His parliamentary secretary, the member for Torngat Mountains (Mr.

Warren) charters a Queen Air - an expensive proposition - goes into Happy Valley-Goose Bay, calls a press conference and reads the identical statement at the identical time, given the half hour time change of course, and then a charter back out. The hon. member, if he was here would tell you that, "Gee Whiz, one time the Naskaupi member," myself, came out on that aircraft." I got a ride out - HR. DECKER: You will not come out on her anymore though. MR. KELLAND: - and probably that will terminate my access. I got a ride out, but the interesting thing is that Queen Air is a fairly large aircraft.

Who offered you the ride, Garfield or Bob? MR. KELLAND: I do not refer to their names. Which members? The Bobbsey twins L2852 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2852

is that what you are talking about? MR. KELLAND: Oh, yes. Of course. Just like AN HON. MEMBER: you would. With all sense of (Inaudible). integrity, honesty and without my hair curled. MR. KELLAND: Oh that does not really make any SOME HON. MEMBERS: difference, who offered me the Hear, hear! ride. I came out on the aircraft and there was about three or four MR. SIMMS: people aboard and three or four But you stiLl went? empty seats. Now that is terrible. I mean, was the Queen HR. KELLAND: Air necessary to start off with? Anyway, Mr.

Chairman, as a Was the entire trip necessary in professional heckler who is a the first place? Little shaky in his own district we will attempt to ignore him and MR. SIWIAS: go on ahead with what we are Did you ask him that before he got saying. I could ask that you on the flight? apply the order rule, but nevertheless. MR DEC1CFR: riametui. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. BAKER: Now, 'Len', boy, if you want to talk stand up. MR. SIMMS: Did you? MR. BAKER: On a point of order. MR. SIMMS: Can you answer the question? MR. KELLAND: What was the question? MR.

SThI4S: Did you ask him all that before you got on the plane? MR. KELLAND: Of course. I could not ask him how many seats were empty until I looked, you see. MR. SIMMS: But you asked him whether this was all necessary? MR. KELLAND: The hon. minister looks a little different than when he was Speaker, but he does not act a hell of a lot different. Nevertheless, let him go. Okay that is one question in Rural Agriculture and Northern Development.

Now if it was necessary and, say, other government officials on official business for whatever reason who could make use of that aircraft, perhaps, it could be more justified, Mr. Chairman, I suggest. 1 would Like to know how often that has been done, perhaps? Why is it necessary when you could use a Teletype, of course, for much less cost than a Queen Air charter both ways. MR. BAKER: On course they use teletypes at Newfoundland Information Services. MR. KELLAND: L2853 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2853

That is wonderful stuff. Another thins 1 wouLd Like to raise some points on Transportation, which is a fairly large chunk of this, of course. 1 am not going to go into the Churchill Falls Road and all that sort of thing. The minister is well aware of that. But what I am concerned about is will any of that money, the $10 million plus, be directed to a level of safety as it applies to employees of the Department of Transportation, in particular reference to the Highways Division. Frequently these people are required to be at road camps somewhere remote from their actual homes.

Are they, the beneficiaries, let us say, of adequate safety precautions in sometimes not the world's best accommodations? We are talking about trailers and things like that. I have had information from employees of the Department of Transportation that they are very distressed that this is not taking place. By the way, this issue is a Little advanced notice so you will not have to use your glass on the wall, that it will be raised again under another portion of this particular Fall sitting of the House.

I am concerned about that because when you talk about safety of people and you put them up on the road twenty, fifty, one hundred miles from their home and they are required to stay over many, many night and they are living in poorly lighted, poorly ventilated, poorly heated accommodations, we are wondering if some more funding should not be directed to their safety and comfort while they are away from home in that kind of a status instead of flying the ministers around and their parliamentary secretaries on charters and things like that? So soitthing like that shou Ld be Looked at.

I will again, as I mentioned, bring that particuLar item and related items up in the House at some future time. On Hines and Energy, the minister who has the responsibility for housing has also something that deeply concerns me and concerns many people in our Province both in Newfoundland and Labrador, as has been expressed in the House. I guess the minister has a concern about housing or the lack of it and so on, because in a recent presentation of a petition in the House the minister agreed that he would provide funding for a tenants committee to have direct input into his department. MR.

CHAIRMAN (Greening): Order, please! The hon. member's time has elapsed. MR. TULK: What a pity. SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! By leave! MR. J. CARTER: Mr. Chairman. M1. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member for St. John's North. AN HON. MEMBER: By leave! MR. J. CARTER: No, no leave! No leave! MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member for St. John's North. MR. W. CARTER: L2854 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2854

Mr. Chairman, I would not have bothered to get up to speak because I thought that this matter might be passed fairly quickly, but I see from the way the Opposition are acting that they intend to keep this debate going for a long time. If that is the case, I think then it is a debate that one should, perhaps, get into because a very interesting point has come up. Fortunately, a very wide-ranging debate is allowed at a time Like this because we are on money matters, not only money that has been spent, money that should be spent, and money that may be spent in the future.

I would Like to talk for a moment not about money that has been spent or misspent, but about money that ought to be spent in the future and money that could very well spent. I would like to draw the House's attention to a book that is the property of the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) that he was passing around and it is entitled Seal Wars: An American Viewpoint, by Janice Scott-Henke, I think she pronounces her name, and it is an extraordinarily good defence of the seal fishery, of the necessity for it to continue, and of the danger of giving up, even at this point when we think that all is Lost.

I would recommend it to hon. members opposite and not only to hon. members opposite, but I would suggest that the Minister of Finance (Dr.Collins), or the government, purchase many, many copies and distribute them far and wide. Not only to members and to communities in Newfoundland but particularly to interested groups outside of Newfoundland. I am sure we could all come up with a fairly lengthy List of people who ought to get this book and who would benefit from receiving it. It is called Seal Wars: An American Viewpoint, by Janice Scott-Henke.

If I might, without risking having to table this book since it is not my property, just read a couple of bits from the flyleaf. "No issue in Canadian history has been as volatile as that of the seal harvest off Canada's East Coast. Practically every nation on earth has been involved in this heated controversy. Foreign movie stars, motivated by whatever values, have taken up the moral cudgel and met the barbaric Newfound lander on the ice. As with every issue of this magnitude there has been distortion, excessive propaganda, and, in this case, big bucks.

An annual occurrence, both the seal hunt and the protest has a story. Now for the first time an animal wildlife consultant has put it all together. This book will be followed, if not read, by millions. It is an important work, important for Canada and the world." The author sounds a very stern warning note towards the end of the book when she suggests that the anti-seal hunters are not only anti-seal, they are anti-hunt, they are really vegetarians in disguise.

Having presumably won the battle for banning the seal fishery, they are now going on to other so-called endangered species and they are even suggesting that animals all together not be killed. They would turn us all into vegetarians. I suggest myself that the reason L2855 November 5, 1985 Vol XL No. 53 R2855

for some of these groups existence is the fact that they can con money out of the public and I think they do very well. HR. TULK: I notice now that they have gone off the sea Is and off the fur and are going for the nucLear. MR. J. CARTER: They are professional protestors, but the danger is they are going to try and turn us all into vegetarians. It seems laughable at this point just as their attempt to ban the seal hunt was laughable ten years ago but we know now that it is anything but laughable. I really would urge the Minister of Finance (Dr.

Collins) to take a serious look at getting possibly many hundreds of these books and send them to appropriate agencies, people and places. I have only had a chance to skim it. Hon. members have been somewhat distracting and I have not been able to give it my full attention this afternoon but from the few Little bits that I have read, I think it is probably one of the ist important books to have been written about and for Newfound land in this decade and, perhaps, even in this century. I think it should be distributed, it should be highlighted.

I cannot speak too highly of it because I think the points it makes and the arguments it makes are extremely important. I recommend it and I hope the Minister of Finance will exceed to some of my recommendations. MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Fogo. tR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman on the other side that it is not very often that we find somethin to agree on in this House because it is not very often that the meitther for St. Joint's North W. Carter) gets up and says something as sensible as what he just said.

I happened to have met, at the Royal Commission hearings in Montreal last year, the author and she does have a very extensive knowledge of the seal fishery. I am sure that we on this side of the House would concur with him, and I hope the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) was listening to his colleague and to me, as well. It would probably be a very good expenditure if this book were to be distributed around Newfoundland i