November

8, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 67

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before calling routine business, on behalf of hon. Members, I

would like to extend a warm welcome to the House of Assembly today to fourteen

Girl Guides, accompanied by their leaders Michelle Ansara and Denise Michelin;

also twenty-four people from the Bridges Program, the YMCA and YWCA, St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a

moment to commend an individual. Last evening I attended a ceremony on Signal

Hill at Cabot Tower, a ceremony which saw the unveiling of the sites surrounding

Cabot Tower, Signal Hill. The restoration of course has been going on for some

time now of the entire surrounding area and indeed the hill itself, because it

is of course, historic in every respect.

Paul Johnson, through the Johnson Family Foundation has been

spending now considerable - million of dollars really, in restoring a lot of our

heritage and a lot of our history, particularly on Signal Hill. I want to take a

moment now to commend him for his work; he spent upwards of a million dollars on

restoring this latest phase of Signal Hill and the restoration surrounding the

Tower and last evening he was commended for his work by Environment Canada, and

presented with a placque honouring his contribution at this particular time. I

want to add to the Federal Government's comments and to their recognition of

Paul Johnson in particular and the Johnson Family Foundation for the fine work

that they have done in helping us restore our valuable heritage and in

particular Signal Hill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just briefly want to

be associated with the Minister's comments. The Johnson Family Foundation is

noted for several involvements over the years and not just this particular

project on Signal Hill; but the Signal Hill one is a tremendous example I guess,

of what can be done with some outside financial help like that provided by Paul

Johnson and his family, so we would like to be associated with those remarks.

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

Extern.

MR. HARRIS: St. John's East, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: East, sorry.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

express my appreciation as Member for St. John's East, to Paul Johnson and to

the Johnson Family Foundation. The exhibit called The Lookout Project on Signal

Hill is a remarkable achievement. It is a very significant contribution by Paul

Johnson and his family's foundation, and it is one of these rare acts in our

Province, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately too rare, of public philanthropy. As a

personal contribution Mr. Johnson spent three years and considerable sums of

money undertaking this remarkable project, and I commend it to all Members to go

and have a look. It is an outdoor exhibit which brings to life the history and

geography of the Province. It makes a visit to Signal Hill a much more enjoyable

experience. It is a great contribution which will last for many years.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the House

that the present Minister of Justice and Member for Humber West will also be

resigning his position as Chairman and Member on the Constitutional Committee.

In the interim, I have asked the Member for Bonavista South to replace the

Member for Humber West on the Committee, and of course the Vice-Chairman, who is

Mr. Roberts, will continue now as Chairman. How we will structure it beyond that

we will decide later, once some other decisions are made, and a further

announcement will be made at that time. We will be asking Mr. Gover, other than

the direct duties of Chairman, to take on all the other duties which the Member

for Humber West would have otherwise performed in respect to the matter.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Premier mentioning this to me before the

House opened, and I am pleased to see Mr. Gover being appointed to the

Committee. I do not know if it is a sign of bigger things to come; who knows? We

will have to wait and see.

Secondly, we have no difficulty with the Vice-Chairman

carrying on in an interim capacity at least. He knows my views on it. I think

the Chair should be occupied by an elected Member of the Legislature, so

hopefully that is what will come out of it in due course, but that is his

decision.

Finally, while I am on my feet, if I could, I think I should

make the observation that we, on this side of the House, have some concerns

about the Committee's plans, the immediate plans, because the Committee has

decided to hold hearings beginning next Tuesday.

MS. VERGE: The Committee did not decide it (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, the Committee did not decide it.

Apparently the staff must have decided under the direction of somebody.

Nevertheless, the Committee is beginning its hearings next Tuesday, Wednesday

and Thursday, I think. I have a concern that there may be not quite enough

notice for people in those areas, and perhaps there might be some

reconsideration of that particular matter. Because we would not want to see

occurring in this Province with our Committee what is happening with the

Federally appointed Committee. So I just bring that to the Premier's attention.

He might want to respond to it now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do want to respond to

it now. To the best of my knowledge the Leader of the Opposition is not

correctly informed. As far as I understand it the Committee decided when the

hearings would take place and where. Now the Member for Humber East shakes her

head but I am satisfied that the present Chairman of the Committee knows what

went on in the Committee, and I have no hesitancy accepting his advice that the

Committee decided.

Now all Members of the House know my own personal view that

this is not the right way to go constitutionally. We have established this

Committee solely because the Federal Government insisted on the process it has

in place. I have expressed my opinion time and time again that it is not the

right process, that it will not work, and I think I have been borne out when you

see what has happened. My opinion of it has been clearly borne out and shown to,

in the end, have been correct. Now I would not be at all surprised to see a

similar thing happen to our Committee. Not because of organization or anything

such as that, but because this is not the right process to deal with this

situation at this time. So I do not want anybody to believe that because you do

not take months in advance to line up and orchestrate people to come and appear

and give (Inaudible), that it is going to be a sign of failure.

So with respect to the concern raised by the Leader of the

Opposition, I understand his concern. I would not be a bit surprised to see that

it is not heavily attended, it does not get a great deal of attention in the

communities to which it will go. I was not convinced that such travelling around

the Province was necessary or beneficial in the first instance. We put the

Committee in place because the Federal Government insisted on having this

process and we - if they insisted on meeting with local Provincial committees -

have to have one.

So, Mr. Speaker, we will try it and see what happens, and

deal with the problem if, as and when any arise.

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

MR. SIMMS: I realize this is not Question Period but

since we are on the topic, perhaps by agreement, I would like to say to the

Premier: my understanding is that the committee decided the locations and so on

but not when the meetings would occur. Again, my concern is that the meetings

begin next Tuesday. The advertising for those meetings has only just begun

today, say, for example, Thursday, as I understand it in Central Newfoundland.

There might be some advertising for a committee meeting on Tuesday, so I am not

surprised that the Premier might have the view that these meetings might not

work and people might not come out. Why would they? They do not have time to

prepare. That is the only point we are trying to make. It is a reasonable

request to ask that maybe the meeting scheduled for next week could be deferred

for a week, or something, and give the people at least a week or ten days worth

of notice so that they could properly prepare, because while you might think it

might not work it is certainly our desire to see that they will work.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will today raise with the

Vice-Chairman, now acting Chairman of the committee, the concerns that have been

expressed and let the committee make its own decision on the matter. They may

decide to defer or they may decide to proceed as planned. We will let them

decide.

Oral Questions

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

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

Premier. The Minister of Finance announced in his Budget on March 7 that

Government was going to eliminated 2500 jobs, made up of 1300 permanent, 350

part-time, 350 seasonal, and 500 vacant positions that were going to be

eliminated. Subsequent to that beginning last March, and right up until the

House closed at the end of May, in this House and by questions on the Order

Paper, we as an Opposition have been asking for the number of positions, the

number of jobs, and the job descriptions of all those people laid off, the

positions declared redundant, or vacant positions eliminated. Several Ministers,

including the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board assured us

they would get that information. That was eight months ago, Mr. Speaker. Now I

want to ask the Premier, since eight months have passed - and surely he knows

the answer - can he tell us how many positions were actually eliminated.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me set the record

straight. The Government did not announce that it was going to eliminate 2,500

jobs or any such thing. What the Government said was, the Budget is going to be

set at this amount. We have talked to the people who run the various

departments, who run the various hospitals, and, in their estimation, it could

possibly result in a certain reduction. Now, that is exactly what we decided,

not to eliminate jobs. Mr. Speaker, we did not want to eliminate a single job,

but the realism is that if you cut the budgetary expenditures there is a real

prospect that it might eliminate a number of jobs. But the managers of the

different governmental departments and agencies of Government had to decide how

to spend the money, and we frankly admitted that it could conceivably result in

a total loss of positions totalling 2,500, so many vacant positions being

eliminated and so many jobs being actually lost, permanent and temporary.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I recall, when the questions were asked

we advised the House precisely how many were lost, let's say, in the Department

of Education. We had the precise numbers and they were tabled in the House.

There were some other areas, like hospitals and so on, where we couldn't very

easily tell what the consequences would be. Now, I do not know what has happened

since the House last sat, but I will endeavour to find out exactly what the

impact is, to the extent that we can say so and advise the House.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the

Premier. Rather interesting - when I was saying in my question that the

Government was eliminating an estimated 2,500 jobs, the Minister of Finance was

over there nodding to me behind the Premier's back, yet the Premier gets up and

starts playing with words, and says, `Oh, we did not say that.' You did say

that. The Government said they were going to eliminate an estimated 2,500 jobs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, he says that departments gave the

information. That is totally inaccurate. The departments did not give any

information. They have not provided us with any answers - none whatsoever. The

Minister of Education did not give us the final number of jobs eliminated by his

department - never did.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board told me on

May 10th - six months ago - and I quote, `I have documentation now put together

for hon. members from all departments. We will not give the names and addresses'

- because we had asked for that information, as well - `but we will give all

other information. I am now putting it together for all departments. The process

will soon be finished.' That was six months ago.

Will the Premier instruct the President of Treasury Board to

lay that information on the Table today, immediately, if he said it was just

about ready six months ago? Surely, there is something wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

should tell his researcher to research the whole of Hansard when he seeks to dig

out these kinds of questions, and look back and see the information that was

tabled by the Minister of Education, because I sat in the House when the

Minister of Education stood and provided figures. So he should tell his

researcher to look at the whole of Hansard to get all of the information before

he prepares these kinds of questions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do acknowledge that we explained to the

House at the time that we could not get information readily from hospitals, for

example, because the hospitals were manipulating and changing their position to

best suit their management, and I have no quarrel with that. There may be some

jobs that were intended to be altered and may not now be altered because they

make adjustments. So it would be some considerable time before we would see the

full effect of it. Now, in the meantime, the House closed and nobody has raised

the question in the meantime.

Now that the Leader of the Opposition has raised the question

again, I will take the question under advisement and I will ask the officials of

the departments concerned to prepare as much information as they can as to the

numbers, where they work, the different sectors they work in, and so on, and

provide the information to the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier can try to wiggle

around this all he wishes, the fact of the matter is, he went back on his word,

and his Government went back on it's word. They committed to this House back in

May to provide the information for all departments. He keeps turning around and

pointing at the Minister of Education, who, by the way, only supplied a partial

list. The Minister of Education did not give us the number of student

assistants. As a matter of fact, he said he could not tell us about the colleges

`because that would not be finalized until September' - that is what the

minister said - `and we will provide that information to the House.'

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier one final

time, can he get the information, at least from the departments, in the next day

or so? Because presumably it is all ready. He is trying to lead us to believe

that it has all been done, all the information has been provided. Check Hansard.

Can he get the information from the departments immediately, and try to get the

other ministers responsible for universities, for the colleges, for the

hospitals, to get that information for us, as well, so that we, as an

Opposition, can do our job on behalf of the taxpayers of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have now seen the

wiggling, and it is an interesting wiggle that the hon. member does. It is a

very interesting wiggle, indeed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Let me restate, Mr. Speaker, the answer I

just gave, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition, in asking his

question, either didn't listen to it or didn't want to hear what was in it. I

acknowledged the questions asked, we provided the information available to us at

the time, before the House closed.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you did not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have no hesitation. Now,

that the question has been raised again, for the very first time, I undertake to

get the information at the earliest possible opportunity. I go further, Mr.

Speaker, and I undertake, on behalf of the President of Treasury Board, that we

will provide, before this House adjourns this morning, whatever information is

readily available. It will be for different departments, whatever is available.

I cannot say to the Leader of the Opposition that it will be absolutely

perfectly detailed information this morning, but I will undertake that the

President of Treasury Board will cause to be tabled, before the House adjourns

today, whatever information is available, and to the extent that other

information that can be obtained in the next few days and is not now available,

will be obtained in the next few days. There is no problem with this, Mr.

Speaker, none at all.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister

responsible for Forestry and Agriculture. It is no secret, Mr. Speaker,

especially over the last twelve to eighteen months, that the pulp and paper

industry in Newfoundland, in Canada, and in North America, as a whole, is having

some very serious problems. There have been layoffs at the Abitibi-Price mill in

Grand Falls, thirty-nine people laid off at Corner Brook pulp and paper last

summer, and a two-week shutdown, and layoffs in the woods industry. Could the

minister tell the House when he last had discussions with Abitibi-Price or

Corner Brook pulp and paper concerning these very serious problems?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, about the middle of last week.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, could the minister inform the

House if, in his meetings with those people last week, they had requested any

help, or if they had informed the minister of any more layoffs or downtime,

especially pertaining to the Kruger operation in Corner Brook?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, as it specifically applies to

Corner Brook pulp and paper, or as he refers to it, Kruger of Corner Brook, we

have recently been informed by the management, of the severe difficulties being

experienced world-wide - certainly, Canada-wide, not only in Newfoundland -

pointing out the kinds of problems that exist and the great difficulty they have

in maintaining their position in the marketplace and speculating, possibly, on

various things the Province might be prepared to look at with them to help them

over this very severe slump in the pulp and paper industry. There has been no

specific request, as such, just a desire to inform us as to where they are and

what their problems are, making sure we are aware, and wondering whether or not

we may meet, and discuss, by way of mutual interest, what may be done for the

pulp and paper industry to get it over this very severe slump.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The

first part of my question, the minister did answer, however vague, but the

second part of my question, he did not. I will ask again, has he been informed

by the officials of Corner Brook pulp and paper of any further downtime, or

layoffs, this year?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I have not been informed of any

specific downtime and layoffs. I have been informed that, because of the

situation in the industry, all options are open and management is trying its

best to maintain the operation, maintain production, without any further cuts.

But they have retained the option, and as the member would know, the union is

aware, that if things get any worse, they may have to look at future downtime or

layoffs. But, at this point in time, I am not aware, with certainty, that there

will be any more layoffs. I will be advised, I am sure, when management makes a

definite decision on that.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Yesterday, I asked the

minister a question regarding the Labrador travel subsidy programme. In the

answer he gave me, and I quote from yesterday's Hansard, he said: `the programme

for travel subsidy for sport and culture in Labrador is administered locally in

Labrador by a committee responsible, and that committee of course saw fit to

spend and allocate all of the monies available in the first half of the fiscal

year....'

That was part of his answer. Now that the minister has had

the opportunity to reflect on that answer over the past day, could he tell this

House and the people of Labrador, if he is not aware that there is no such

committee?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker, the advice given to me was

that, in fact, there is a committee in place, and the committee decides the

allocation of the funds, based on requests for school teams, mainly, although we

do spend some money from the money allocated in the culture area. It is mostly

sports. My advice is that there is a committee that makes a decision. In case

that advice is wrong I will certainly check it out but that is what I have been

told.

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

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I don't know who gave him the

advice but it is undoubtedly wrong. I realize that the minister does have a

heavy portfolio, but this programme is not administered by a committee, it is

administered by officials of his department. When he refers to a committee, he

is talking about block funding of $75,000 to the high school athletic

federation. They administer that. That particular fund is block funded. Only

$75,000 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. gentleman is on a supplementary. Get to the

question.

MR. A. SNOW: - of the $312,000. Now, that is the correct

information.

Mr. Speaker, having been educated into how the funding is not

being available, would he now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: It might not be important to you, but it is

important to the people of Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek, please get to the question.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is:

will he now go back to the officials in his department - I repeat, the officials

in his department - and seek extra funds so that this programme can be continued

for the remainder of the year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, again I can repeat, the advice

I was given by my officials is that there is, indeed, a committee. The fact that

it is faced off, I guess, theoretically, against $75,000 for travel for the

school teams, is hypothetical, really. Because the committee is consulted on all

of the money that is spent, I am told, all of the $300,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true!

MR. GULLAGE: They are consulted and they are part of the

process. The money has been expended, as I explained yesterday in the House. All

the money has been expended in the first half of the fiscal year, Mr. Speaker,

and we do not have any other funds available at this time, we are unable to

identify any other funds, to spend on that particular programme.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Health.

The Minister of Health, in the October 20 edition of The

Evening Telegram indicated that nursing homes are not the answer for the future.

While this may be so, the requests for admission to these homes continues to

grow as our population ages. The requests for admission in personal care homes,

nursing homes and chronic care facilities continue to grow almost daily.

How does the Minister plan to deal with the present situation

of nursing homes, or requests for admission to nursing homes? I know his plan

for the future. What about the present? What is he intending to do?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, when the government changed a

couple of years ago, we inherited one hell of a mess in the Health department.

We have, today, nursing homes which are meant to take level 3 people. We have

level 1s in level 3s. We inherited that. We have personal care homes where they

should be all level ones; in these homes we have some level threes because the

level three beds are blocked by some people who should be in personal care

homes. It is a mess we are trying to deal with over the next few years, but I am

afraid that in the interim we might have to over billet; we cannot put people on

the street obviously. We might have to over billet for the next short while

until we deal with the mess - inappropriate placement, it is unbelievable.

It is not fair to the people themselves, it is not fair to

the system, it is not fair to the tax payer, but I can assure the hon. Member

and I can assure the people of the Province, that the whole situation is in good

hands and we are trying to deal with it in a very caring, thoughtful manner,

considering the best interests of the people who are in those homes. We

apologise to the people who are inappropriately placed, we apologise for the

mistakes that our predecessors made, but we assure them that we are trying to

deal with it in a very humane, careful, thoughtful manner, and the people can be

thankful for that.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Political rhetoric

does not solve the problem. The Minister said, and I quote: 'only those with

chronic health problems and special needs should live in these institutional

settings'. Following from this, then, it is only logical to assume that he is

looking at some kind of home support services as the

article indicates.

Let me ask the Minister this, then. Does he have a program in

place so that skilled workers can go into these homes to help these people, or

is it going to be a make work program, Department of Social Services or some

other agency, or is there going to be a training program that he is going to put

in place to help these people in the home situation?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not think Your Honour would

give me the time to fully address this question, but I will attempt to address

it.

The hon. Member is talking about what we inherited. We

inherited a system where, through the Social Services Department, unskilled

workers were given ten weeks of work to go in and deliver some home care. This

Government is in the process now of moving all home care under the Department of

Health, so that we can organize it and do it in a very rational manner.

We are in the process of putting in place five home care

boards throughout the Province, five regions: The Labrador North Region, The

West Coast Region, Central, Eastern and a St. John's Region and under the

auspices of the Department of Health, there will be a committee which will

decide the level of care that a person requires.

We are not necessarily talking about senior citizens, we are

talking about all people who need some level of care, and that Home Care Board,

with the experts, in consultation with social workers, with a medical doctor,

with the various public health nurses and the support staff, that Home Care

Board, will decide the level of care that an individual needs, be it a half hour

of service in their homes, someone who just needs help with daily living, or be

it the services that a personal care home would offer, or be it the hospital or

be it the level three nursing home. A very organized approach, Mr. Speaker, so

that we can get away from this nonsense, where, someone who is not qualified is

looking after people trying to deliver a service they cannot give. That is the

kind of thing we inherited.

Difficult, difficult in these trying times, because also, Mr.

Speaker, we are paying off $550 million worth of interest every year, which

these people ran up on their drunken sailor approach to handling the economy, we

have that to deal with. We have a recession, so it is extremely difficult to do

the good things that must be done, but we are certainly trying our best.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, on

another matter regarding health care, doctors have now given notice that they

will no longer perform some functions they previously did for free, such as

medical notes, medical examinations and so on. Since many people in Newfoundland

still need these services, especially low income people, are finding it very

difficult to come up with the money. Has the Minister given any consideration in

implementing a plan to compensate the low income workers of this Province who

will now suffer financially and possibly medically as a result of not being able

to get this medical examination for free?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I wish hon. Members would ask

the Internal Economy Commission for some help with their research, because they

are making fools of themselves in asking questions which are not adequately

researched.

The fact of the matter is that since the 1960's when Medicare

was brought into this Country by a great Liberal Government, there have been

certain services which were not insured, and medical, Mr. Speaker, has never

been insured. I have had several medicals at the Grenfell Mission Hospital in

St. Anthony. I had to pay out for them. Medicals for insurance purposes were

never insured, Mr. Speaker. There are a whole list of services which have never

been insured by Medicare, and I am not sure that they should be insured by

Medicare, Mr. Speaker. So I think the hon. Member is going to have to go to the

Internal Economy Commission and try to get some extra research help, because

they are making total fools of themselves, and they are not serving the public

of this Province adequately when they put out misleading information, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

It is obvious that the Minister's medicals did not do much

for him, but my question is to the Premier.

In the last couple of months there have been a couple of

Ministers relieved of their duties. For various reasons they have been relieved

of those duties. A straightforward question to the Premier: Has either one or

both of those Ministers continued to receive ministerial salary or benefits?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: As hon. Members know, Ms. Cowan is ill -

quite ill. She remains a Minister, and will attend -

AN HON. MEMBER: Remains a Minister?

PREMIER WELLS: Absolutely remains a Minister.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation remains a

Minister, absolutely.

AN HON. MEMBER: He resigned.

PREMIER WELLS: No, he did not resign. They remain

Ministers, Mr. Speaker, and will continue as Ministers; being relieved of the

responsibility for a temporary period. Now I would hope that will come to an end

any day now and the matter will be dealt with.

As to Ms. Cowan, I am not sure. Ms. Cowan has a fairly severe

illness. It is a peculiar kind of illness, and I do not want to get into a

detailed discussion of Ms. Cowan's illness, but she is capable of performing

certain duties as a Minister. She has other limitations that would prevent her

from fully discharging the duties in a line department.

They both remain as Ministers, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are being paid?

PREMIER WELLS: Of course they are paid.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Education. In light of the

uncertainty in the date of implementation of the new tax reform measures, I

wonder what advice the Minister has for school tax authorities who are now

trying to plan the rates for next year? Are they going to be in existence; are

they going to be able to function as usual; or are they going to continue to

flounder, the way the Minister and his Department is doing?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the School Tax Authority is

doing their duty. They are committed to education in this Province. They are

collecting every cent they can get, and I encourage them to continue in the

efficient manner in which they have performed in the past.

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

Capes on a supplementary.

MR. HEARN: Is the Minister now saying that school tax

authorities will still be in existence next year, because if not, how does he

expect the general public to support an agency that may or may not be in

existence?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying anything about

next year. The Government has indicated to the public that we are reviewing the

options with respect to the whole school tax system, in the context of the tax

review; but the public of this Province know that they have to pay for

education. They are paying, and will continue to pay. They understand the

problems with the present school tax system, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to get

into these at the present time, but I tell the public through this House, that

if the school tax system is retained, there will be major changes in the system.

We will not, as a Government, continue to finance education in a way which

discriminates against areas of this Province and people in this Province who

need more services.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister is continuing to confuse the public with his

theories that he has been spouting for years. People are looking for some

action. They want to know what is going to happen to school tax authorities. The

Premier says that he does not know when the new tax measures will be

implemented. The school tax authorities have to set up to function next year.

Are they going to be able to function, or are they not? That is the question.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, business as usual until the

Government makes it's decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

of Employment and Labour Relations. Last March the House was advised in

connection with the workers of Baie Verte Mines, who had lost their employment,

that they would receive payments available to them under

section 37 of the

Labour Standards ahead of other creditors. Can the Minister advise the House

whether or not all these workers have, in fact, been paid the maximum amount

they are entitled to under

section 37 of the act, or is there still more than

100 people who have not been paid?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon.

Member for his question. I will have to check the details of it. The only thing

I could tell you directly in the House today and report to the hon. Member is

that, in fact, there have been no complaints of non-payment that have surfaced

in my office, so therefore I work on the assumption that the agreements that

were reached and the understandings that were taken at the time are being

fulfilled.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister

should check with his deputy and other officials of his department, and I would

ask if he would undertake to do that and investigate the complaint that has been

made to his department - perhaps not to him - that in excess of 100 people have

not received the maximum of $2,000 that they were entitled to under

section 37

of the act as a priority over other creditors. The Minister appears not to be

aware of this problem. That is the case I take it. Will he undertake to look

into this immediately and see that the problem is rectified?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, most certainly I will

undertake to look into the matter and see whether or not there is a complaint

that should be dealt with immediately.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Yesterday in the Minister's

statement he said, and I quote: "It will be my intention to continue discussions

with the remaining groups of communities with a view to bringing about, by

co-operation, those ones where there is substantial agreement and where

amalgamations can be accommodated." This is a welcome change of policy. Will the

Minister confirm that that is indeed the policy, and that is a policy that will

be applied in the northeast Avalon?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the statement is entirely

correct. We have, since the process began some two years ago now, worked in

co-operation will all 113 communities involved in the amalgamation process. That

co-operation, I would think, will continue. I do not see any reason why the

municipalities would not want to co-operate. They have co-operated so far, and

certainly from our side we intend to co-operate with them.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is fooling only

himself. Would the Minister care to explain his statement of earlier this week

that the fact that the City of Mount Pearl has established a fire hall, fire

station and fire department in the City, is a danger to the people, is a safety

problem? Would the Minister like to tell us how adding fire equipment and

thirty-five or thirty-eight fire fighting people is creating a safety hazard?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity, I

can assure you.

Mr. Speaker, we have in place now a regional fire fighting

service called the St. John's Fire Department which serves the northeast Avalon

including Mount Pearl. The fact that the council of Mount Pearl has seen fit to

man the existing station with a composite fire department, really, comprised of

full-time paid fire fighters and volunteers is beside the fact. The Government

intends, and has done so by way of resolution, to have and continue to have as

it has now, a regional fire fighting service with equipment put in place, proper

equipment that can service the needs of Mount Pearl, the needs of Paradise near

by, and whatever communities can be served from that particular station. The

equipment that is in place is not the proper equipment. The station does not

have an aerial truck, for example, which costs a quarter of a million dollars

and has to be put in place, I am told, to serve the area surrounding and

including Mount Pearl. They cannot adequately cover, as I have said, the people

of Mount Pearl, and cover for example, Donavans. Donavans is a major industrial

park that requires equipment different than the equipment that is in place right

now.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that it will be necessary on an

ongoing basis to provide service to the station in Mount Pearl when it is manned

and in operation - backup service from other stations throughout the northeast

Avalon - as in fact the existing five stations back up one another right now. So

we fully intend to ensure that Mount Pearl is protected as it is now and

protected by way of a station located in Mount Pearl with proper equipment and

manned with trained firefighters comprised of people from the St. John's Fire

Department, as in fact Mount Pearl is a party to and part of that agreement

right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Before continuing with the routine business, on behalf of

hon. Members I would like to extend a warm welcome to the members of the select

committee on the Constitution from Ontario. These members are presently seated

in the Speaker's Gallery. They are: the hon. Jenny Carter; the hon. Ernie Eves;

the hon. Charles Harnick; the hon. Margaret Harrington; the hon. Yvonne O'Neill;

and the hon. David Winninger. They are accompanied with staff members. Mr.

Harold Brown, the Clerk of the House, and Philip Kaye, the research officer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, on behalf of hon. members, we would

like to welcome twelve Grade XII students from Xavier High School in Deer Lake.

They are also the basketball team which will be playing Mount Pearl. They are

accompanied by their teachers, Bernard Ball and Charlie Barker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: In the galleries today, as well, are sixty

Grade IX students from St. Peter's Elementary School, Mount Pearl, accompanied

by their teachers, Mr. Denine and Mr. Hatch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. HOGAN: I was waiting for the rubber boot gang to

finish, Mr. Speaker.

I would like, at this time, to table the financial and

statistical report from the division of Developmental and Rehabilitative

Services in the department.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with the requirements of The Financial

Administration Act, I would like to table a pre-commitment totalling $58,475,000

against 1992-1993 appropriations, to facilitate the calling and awarding of

tenders for highway projects under the Canada-Newfoundland Economic Regional

Development Agreement, The Trans-Canada Highway Agreement, and Regional Trunk

Roads Agreement, and the Provincial Roads programme.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table

the report of the Public Tender Act exceptions for September.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN (L. Snow): Order, please!

Bill 44.

Are we ready for the question?

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like

to take a few more moments. I have already spoken to this bill on two or three

occasions. I would like to speak to it once more because I think, as I said

yesterday, I do not think this bill is indicative of the real problem. This is

an aspirin, a band aid solution; these are temporary jobs. This is funding for

make-work programmes to try to help people who are in desperate situations over

the coming months, to try to provide some employment to them so that they can

feed their families and meet their commitments to get them though the winter.

But this is not the major problem. We are extremely

concerned, obviously, about how the funds are being spent, about how they being

allocated and the priorities that are being placed on them. We are continuing

now, to have little bits of information being passed to us as to how the funds

have been distributed and to which districts. My colleague from St. Mary's - The

Capes outlined interesting facts last night, that so much - $18,000 I believe -

has been spent in his district,

whereas next door in the minister's own

district, there has been three hundred and ninety-something thousand dollars

spent.

Mr. Chairman, before the member for Lewisporte disappears - I

was interested to read in `The Telegram', last night, of some statements coming

from his own district about this programme. People of Horwood are not very happy

with the Member for Lewisporte. They are saying they cannot get access to any of

the funds that have been given to the Lewisporte area development association. I

think they say, if I could quote them, Mr. Chairman - I have a very interesting

statement here. They dealt with the minister. `A spokesman for the residents

says the MHA for Lewisporte district is just not addressing the problem and he

won't even return their calls.' It is interesting, Mr. Chairman. And we wonder

why the people of Horwood are not able to get access to any of these funds,

while people in Loon Bay and Birchy Bay, right next door, and Lewisporte,

itself, are being given employment opportunities. Why are the people of Horwood

being discriminated against? Essentially, Mr. Speaker, the people of Horwood are

the same people who were told by the previous administration that their roads

would be paved. It was not an election promise, as some hon. members opposite

would like to have it portrayed. They were given a firm commitment by Government

that roads would be paved and, of course, as soon as this Government took office

that commitment was cancelled. It was not a commitment but a project that had

been announced and the project was cancelled. Now, we see these people once

again being discriminated against. The Member for Lewisporte is not in good

stead in his district. I might say that people are having trouble finding him.

Last summer, they found him high and dry on a rock out in the middle of Notre

Dame Bay. It is now called MHAs rock, a new piece of geography in Newfoundland.

It is a rock that has been there for centuries and everybody who ever went to

Twist Chain Tickle knows where that rock is. The member found it one night and

he very nicely distributed parts of his yacht all around that rock. That is

quite a story from that area, Mr. Chairman, and people get a great kick out of

it.

Mr. Chairman, as I started to say, and as long as my throat

holds out, this piece of legislation is not, in itself, such a substantial piece

of legislation, but it is indicative of the malaise that we face in this

Province today, from an economic point of view. It shows the desperation of not

only the people, but the desperation of this Government. It is an admission of

their failure to create economic activity, and to create job opportunities. They

have brought us very quickly into one of the worst unemployment situations we

have faced in the history of this Province. Their own policy was against

creating short-term employment opportunities. That was a stated policy of this

Government and they have now had to change it out of desperation because there

are so many people out there who are facing a long, cold winter and need help. I

guess the frustrating part about it is that, even now, it is being distributed

along political lines.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we need to address the much larger

question, the state of the economy today. It is time for this Government to

realize that their fiscal and economic policies are failing badly. It is time

for them to realize we must have new initiatives and we must bring in place

programmes to help private enterprise. This was a Government who said there

would be no handouts. This is a Government who said, `We have to let private

enterprise develop the Province. We have to let private enterprise create the

jobs.' The Premier even paraphrased me one time, when he said, `It is

Government's role to create an economic climate that is attractive for private

enterprise to invest in,' a statement that I made, I would say, a hundred times

over the past few years, one that I believe in, and one that I think, perhaps,

the Premier, is finally starting to believe in. But what has this Government

done to do that? These are hollow words, Mr. Chairman, if a Government does not

put in place programmes to entice investors into this Province. How much have we

seen? Precious little.

We saw a great announcement a couple of days ago, from the

Minister of Development, in relation to the Marystown shipyard. Let me say that

we welcome that particular company into Newfoundland and Labrador. They have

tremendous strength and experience and expertise in the shipbuilding industry

world-wide. We welcome this Norwegian company. I am familiar with them, of

course, from past days dealing with them and with other similar companies, and I

have seen some of their facilities in Norway.

They are one of the largest shipbuilding companies in the

world and I think we are very fortunate to have this company invest in our

Province. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the investment, from their point of view,

was far too small. It was not an investment, but a fire sale, that we saw. I

think they paid something like $20 million - the minister can correct me - $20

million or $20.5 million to purchase a shipyard that is worth, I don't know how

many tens of millions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty.

MR. WINDSOR: - Is it worth $40 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: Cow Head (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Is that the debt that is on the shipyard now

or was that the capital cost? But, then, you have the Cow Head facility, which I

understand, was part of it, as well. We have already spent $12 million to put

the initial wharf and docking facilities there six or seven years ago, and I

believe there is $35 million or $38 million presently being spent; the contract

is not completed. So, we are talking a $50 million facility at Cow Head and a

$40 million facility, the minister says, in the existing shipyard - I would say

it would be more that $40 million. I tell the minister, I don't think he could

build that facility for $40 million today. The replacement value - what would be

the replacement value of the Marystown shipyard?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I realize it only has a value, and if nobody

wants it, it is not worth anything. I realize that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, that's right, we put it up for sale, but

we didn't want to give it away. So we managed to receive $20 million for $90

million worth of infrastructure. Maybe that is not such a bad deal. Obviously,

the minister was totally incapable of attracting enough contracts to the

shipyard to keep it operating. We are at the lowest employment level we have

been, probably in the history of the shipyard, so, out of desperation, it was

important to do something, and here was an opportunity. And I suspect that

Kvaerner actually got the best side of that deal; they came in at a time when

the minister was desperate, the shipyard was desperate, and the economy was

desperate, which is always the best time to buy something. Now is the best time

to start a business; certainly, interest rates are the most favourable we have

seen for years. But why are interest rates so favourable? It is not because the

banks and financial institutions are such great corporate citizens that they

want to give everybody a hand, you can rest assured on that. When times are

tough they make them tougher. They are acting out of desperation, as well,

because they are not doing any business now. Their level of business had

decreased drastically because of the state of the economy. So it is not out of

love for private entrepreneurs that the banks have lowered their interest rates,

Mr. Chairman, it is out of sheer desperation, themselves. They are getting

desperate. Of course, the Bank of Canada is getting desperate. They are setting

the pace, of course, and setting interest rates, as they always do. The Governor

of the Bank of Canada basically controls interest rates and the other banks

follow. They set the scene. So, the interest rates have been deliberately

lowered to try to bolster up the economy a little bit.

It is indicative, Mr. Chairman, of the problem we are faced

with, and that this Government has failed to address. As I said yesterday, I

have not seen one new initiative come from Government to create jobs, to help

private enterprise invest. In fact, programmes that we had initiated a few years

ago to entice private enterprise to invest in the Province have been eliminated.

Even the job-sharing programme, Mr. Chairman, which was an excellent programme -

Government may be involved in a small way - whereby the company who would hire

an additional employee would receive 50 per cent funding from Government. It

sounds like a handout, but it is not, Mr. Chairman. It is a matter of saying, we

have to support that individual through a social program or we can assist

private enterprise to create another job opportunity, to hire that person so he

or she can be gainfully employed in a useful occupation, earning a full salary

instead of social assistance. And the private enterprise, in turn, has a staff

person, an employee working for them, at half the normal wages.

Now, that makes a lot of sense, Mr. Chairman, when you have a

tremendously high unemployment rate in the Province, when you have business and

industry who need additional assistance but because of the state of the economy

are having problems finding it. That is the kind of programme that causes

private enterprise to immediately invest money into the employment situation,

and it is the kind of programme that would entice other investors into the

Province, or those from within the Province to invest money that is now sitting

in bank accounts.

I am told, Mr. Chairman, that right now, deposits in banks in

saving accounts is probably the highest in our history. That tells us a lot too,

Mr. Chairman. That tells us that there is no confidence in the economy, there is

no confidence in what is going to happen tomorrow, and there is no confidence in

those people that they can sustain themselves and their families tomorrow if

they take those dollars and invest them in new enterprises.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time has elapsed.

MR. WINDSOR: It is also, Mr. Chairman, an indication of

loss of confidence in the Government.

I will have another opportunity, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman, I am going to table some

information on the numbers of persons who have been affected by the layoff. I am

going to use a few minutes, perhaps abuse a few minutes, of the Committee's time

to provide this information, because I am sure hon. members would like to hear

some of it, some surprising figures.

We, Mr. Chairman, when the Opposition and leaders of the

Public Service Union started to make these outlandish claims about how we are

going to devastate the health care system, we are going to devastate the public

services, we had to admit that if all of the saving we put in place were to be

affected by salaries, there could be this number that could be affected. Now,

Mr. Chairman, the numbers are startlingly low, but we saved the money. All that

says to me is that there was tremendous waste in the public service and in the

public sector generally, and we have caught a good deal of it without affecting

large numbers of people.

Let me give some figures, Mr. Chairman. The grand total of

vacancies, temporary positions and full-time positions in the direct public

service, in the governmental departments, the line departments, is a total of

404. The grand total is 404. Yet, the Opposition and leaders of the public

sector unions would have had us believe, and had the people of the Province

believe -

AN HON. MEMBER: Thousands.

PREMIER WELLS: Thousands. We are going to devastate the

public service. The hon. Member for Mount Pearl kept saying it is not 2000 it is

going to be 3500. You will see when the numbers come in. I remember his roaring

speeches in the House. Mr. Chairman, the total number is 404. Let me tell you

something else, Mr. Chairman. In terms of the breakdown on the sector, of that

total, in terms of the management or non-bargaining unit there was more than

there was in the bargaining unit. There was a total of 140 in management, a

non-bargaining unit, and a total of 110 in the bargaining sector. Now, Mr.

Chairman, that is the reality of it.

Then, Mr. Chairman, there was a great hue and cry: it is

going to unfairly affect women. Women were going to be unfairly affected and

this was going to be a move against women, was the way it was argued. Remember

those great arguments that were being made, particularly by the Member for

Humber East. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, the breakdown: In the non-bargaining

sector there were forty-one male employees laid off, eleven female, and a total

of eighty-eight vacant positions eliminated. That is what happened.

In the bargaining sector, Mr. Chairman, there were a total of

sixty-one male and thirty-nine point five female, so I guess that must have been

a half time position, so forty female and sixty-one male, and twenty-six vacant

positions eliminated.

The President of Treasury Board just gives me overall general

figures, 2.4 per cent of female employees were laid off and 2.3 per cent of male

employees. We have a lot more male employees so obviously the numbers for males

would be much higher, but the percentages in each category were roughly the

same. The grand total in the public sector, Mr. Chairman, was 404. Those are the

thousands we were going to lay off.

Mr. Chairman, in the hospital sector it is more difficult. We

do not yet have the numbers because you cannot really get a handle on it. There

are people coming in for ten hours part-time instead of twenty hours part-time,

so the same numbers would be affected but there is less work available. There

are all sorts of factors, but in terms of the management positions I can give

you that. There were 58.14, whatever that means, female management positions

eliminated and 41.86 male management positions eliminated in eleven hospitals

and nursing homes throughout the Province.

In terms of the community colleges, Mr. Chairman, the former

Government had just put this structure in place and all they had was top weight.

They put in place an inordinately expensive proposition so there were

significant numbers laid off there, Mr. Chairman. The total layoffs and

redundancies were 245 in the colleges and institutes. That does not include the

university.

AN HON. MEMBER: Redundancies and layoffs?

PREMIER WELLS: Redundancies and layoffs combination, Mr.

Chairman, 245. I will table this information and I will undertake with the House

to try and get further information. It is a bit difficult to get the precise

numbers in the medical sector. It is most difficult to tie it down and get

absolute numbers. It is clear, Mr. Chairman, that there were far, far less

numbers affected than we had anticipated. We could not stand in the House and

say, no, it is only going to be these few numbers because we did not know how

the managers were going to manage the budgetary reductions, but they were

managed in such a way that there was

a far less severe effect on employment, and for that, Mr.

Chairman, I have to say we are absolutely delighted, but we point out to hon.

members Opposite and to the general public of the Province, when the Government

cut in this way, we knew what we were doing. We knew there were excess

expenditures, non-essential expenditures, a lot of money was being wasted and we

could still provide good quality public services with a good deal less money

than was being spent in the past. I might also point out, Mr. Chairman, some

interesting comments over the course of the summer.

For example, there were more hospital beds open at the

General Hospital this year than there were the year before, and I am told, but I

am going to have it checked to make sure, it has been suggested to me that in

fact there are more nurses employed this year than there were before, there were

more nursing positions, yet they saved a good many millions of dollars by the

Government being fairly tight in its budgeting, and I have no doubt, Mr.

Chairman, that we will be able to achieve further savings in this coming year

and we will be working toward that end; to try and cut out the waste that had

crept into the public service and the public sector over a large number of

years.

We still have a big task ahead of us, Mr. Chairman, to make

sure that we manage the affairs of the Province in a sound and sensible way, but

as I am sure all hon. members realize, the Government is dedicated to achieving

it. Thank you very much.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Now I think

we have seen it; we have heard the admission that the Premier was wrong all

along. First of all, he talks about not being able to lay off so many people

simply because they found out that the fat really was not there, consequently

the Budget is out of whack.

By eliminating vacant positions you certainly do not save any

money, so once again it has no effect on your Budget; oh, we have eliminated x

number of positions - but they were already vacant, so there is no savings there

and when you got down to the nuts and bolts of it, they found out that they

could not cut because cuts had already been made over the years and the public

service had been trimmed, in fact to the point in some areas where there were

not enough workers to do the jobs.

Now here we have the Premier this morning after saying that,

after admitting that he had goofed, saying: but we are going to continue to trim

the public service to save money. He was not listening to the radio this morning

when the Minister of Social Services was saying that he had to beef up his

department, so one of them does not know what is going on and it could be either

one or the other.

The Minister of Social Services this morning said: more

people are needed on the front line and he is right, he is definitely right,

social workers, social assistance people - the Minister is right. If the

Minister would research Hansard, he would find out that he was told some months

ago that he should not be eliminating positions on the front line.

Let me give the Minister an example: in his own home town of

St. Mary's, where the former minister, because they were Tories as he said here

in the House and it is in Hansard, eliminated the supervisor's position and put

all the extra work load on the people who were involved, who were left there,

the social workers, the social assistance workers, whatever.

AN HON. MEMBER: Arnold's Cove.

MR. HEARN: Arnold's Cove might have been cut also. If

that is the case I am sure they are finding what our people are finding, that

they can no longer handle the work load and the member nods his head in

approval, that the people on the front line are now overworked.

Last night we saw an example of the increase in case load,

consequently somebody has to address the ever increasing problems. Who are the

people to do it?...the front line people. You do not help people by eliminating

positions on the front line, as was done in St. Mary's. What is happening, you

have the secretary having to do the work of social assistance workers to try to

help out in the office.

The other thing I heard the Minister say this morning, with

which I agree fully, is that there are too many levels of bureaucracy in the

Department. The Minister is again right. A few months ago when the supervisor's

position was in place in the district office, certainly the one in St. Mary's, a

fair number of decisions could be made locally. There was somebody there to say

yes or no to reasonable requests. Now, over the last few months, for the

smallest of requests we must go to Harbour Grace. To get the message to Harbour

Grace and to get a reply back takes days, sometimes. Then quite often it has to

be passed on because the direction, apparently under the former Minster, had to

come from him. So it would take months sometimes to get an answer to the

simplest of requests - bureaucracy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Well, maybe it is not the Minister's fault,

but the bureaucracy has increased. So when the Minister says that he has to

eliminate lines of bureaucracy, he is right. Many simple requests have to be

dealt with at the local level in order to help people when they need help.

Just looking at the list that was supplied this morning: from

1986, 1987 to 1988 we saw a drop in the caseload. From 1988 to 1989 we saw

another drop in the caseload, down to 19,600. Then, from 1989 to l990, when this

Government came into power, we saw an increase in the caseload, up to over

20,000 again; from 1990 to 1991, up to 23,000; from 1991, last year to this

present year, the projected increase up to 24,900 in the caseload. Now, a lot of

that has to do with the economy and world-wide recession; not necessarily the

inefficiencies of Government, but certainly it adds to it. What it does point

out, forgetting the politics or the reasons, is that there are a lot of people

out there right now who require help from the Department of Social Services. In

order to be able to address these needs, the Minister needs front-line people,

and he is right when he says: we must beef up the front line. I hope his

colleagues in Government understand that, and you cannot beef up your front line

by eliminating positions. Hopefully, to cut out the bureaucracy, to cut out the

waste of time in going through these bureaucratic levels, to be able to help

people where they need help, hopefully the Minister can reinstate some of the

positions that were cut by the former Minister when he was in the Department.

The child welfare cases have also increased; in the first

four months, 756 versus 710 just four months ago; more work for the front-line

people. Youth corrections, which undoubtedly in some areas are dealt with

originally at the local level, are up significantly - 25 per cent in youth

correction cases - an increase. Now that, I think, says a lot more than the fact

that there is an increase in numbers. Why have we so many problems with our

youth? One of the big answers of course, is unemployment; looking for something

to do, and idle hands make light work, people say. Consequently, when you do not

have anything to do, the tendency is to do the wrong thing, to get involved with

the wrong bunch. So consequently the employment picture is extremely important

here. That is why, when we have been talking the last few days about the need to

create jobs, keeping in mind that everyone appreciates the efforts that have

been made to date, but it is only a drop in the bucket. To really zero in on the

problem we have to try to find better employment opportunities, not only for the

working people out there, but for the young people who are unemployed, because

here we can see what is happening - a 25 per cent increase over last year in

youth corrections, people in open and secure custody. That is terrible.

The other thing it points out, I suppose, or it questions, is

our educational system. The Minister of Education last night made some very good

points when he said that education is the answer to a lot of our problems. By

properly educating our people, we will avoid a lot of the economic problems we

are facing today. Sometimes we wonder. We see a lot of training programmes now

being brought in, but we wonder who really benefits from them, whether it is the

people who obtain the training, or whether it is the facilities, the

institutions, that provide the training and develop the courses, and charge

exorbitant fees for doing so; or the consultants who go out and do all the

studies to find out whether or not certain jobs should be placed in certain

areas or whatever. So I question how we are spending some of the money that is

targeted under educational headings. We have to look, I think, at getting the

dollars where the dollars are needed, and that is into the pockets of the people

who are directly affected or benefit from our educational services.

The ironic thing, I suppose, about the Minister of

Education's comments last night, as he talked about our future depending on

education, he was saying that in one breath, and on the other hand he has

completely disrupted the educational system in the Province. He has put the

educational system back about twenty years by cutting here, there and

everywhere, by cutting off relations with the field, by creating so much

uncertainty in the field of education that it is not supported any more as it

was, by affecting the operations of school boards, by cutting funding to them,

by cutting positions, by causing confusion over the dealings with teacher

assistance - teacher aides, and so on. So it is great to be able to talk about

something, but to be able to deliver is something else.

Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, in light of the horrendous facts and

figures provided over the last few days by the Minister of Social Services that

is one field at least we can address. If the Minister gets his front line people

maybe we can start addressing some of the needs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Stephenville.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: The Leader of the Opposition is giving me

a hard time already, and I have not even started speaking, Mr. Chairman. I must

say that I want to congratulate the new Leader of the Opposition and the Leader

of the Progressive Conservative Party on his new role. I wish him luck, but not

too much, in carrying out his duties - not as much he would like to have

himself. Also to the new House Leader I bring the same greeting. That is about

as nice as I am going to get this morning, Mr. Chairman.

I have heard a few things about our economic performance, and

I have heard a few things from the Opposition about getting public input into

our economic policies and so on, but I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Opposition

has missed the boat a little bit. The new PC party is now planning provincially

to have public forums on policy input - that is what I read in the paper - new

policy input plans, and they are going to go around and have these little

meetings with people around the Province and get their input on the economy. Now

we are way ahead of that, Mr. Chairman, and we decided to put a plan of action

in place to deal with the problems.

Now the only thing is I noticed that when the leader spoke

about going around he promised that the forums would be low cost with no high

registration fees or high priced meals - calling public meetings is just an

opportunity for people to give their ideas.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: And on other things too, I am sure, on

policy. That is a good idea for a party that is in Opposition because you have

to get new ideas to be a good Opposition and to present constructive ideas to

the Government in power. This is what we used to do as a matter of fact, some

very good ideas, now with the Government trying to resolve the problems that we

have. But you know, Mr. Chairman, you cannot just solve the problems by going

out and borrowing money all the time. It would be a lovely thing to be able to

do, and it is something that the former Government did many times when they got

into trouble.

I think one of the problems we have, and many of us have on

this side, is that we all have social consciences too, but the problem is even

if you wanted to go and borrow the funds you would have an extremely difficult

time in doing so. So you are really caught between the proverbial rock and a

hard place trying to figure out how you resolve the problem in the economy.

Therefore the Government is being squeezed on all sides in trying to develop and

deal with a crisis which is mostly not of our making and we are trying to come

up with some solutions. So we are trying to plan long-term for the long-term, we

are trying to deal with the short-term through some employment programmes which

the Government has brought in and developed. They are very good I might add. I

commend the Cabinet Ministers responsible for the new programmes because they

have dealt with some needs in certain areas that were never addressed in

recreation, tourism, and forestry and in other areas. These funding mechanisms

have been put in place to allow for some funds to be spent in areas that were

needed, not just going out and making work for the sake of making work. Some

things that were needed to be done we could do with the short-term projects

which are for benefit for the long-term which is again what the Provincial

Government is trying to do. I have to respond to some comments made by the

Opposition. When they talk about the economy and the recession it is almost like

they are saying this Government is responsible but the Provincial Government of

Newfoundland does not set the interest rates in Canada. Mr. Mulroney, who

appoints the governor of the Bank of Canada, sets the interest rates. The

Government of Newfoundland does not set the Canadian dollar rate, it does not

set the US dollar rate, so when Abitibi-Price is having a problem, and when

Kruger are having problems exporting to the US, or the fishing companies are

having problems because of a low Canadian dollar, or a high Canadian dollar

versus the US dollar, the Provincial Government has a hard time dealing with

that. How do you deal with that when it is not your responsibility, when it is

not in your jurisdiction? So, on those two ends we have been nailed but it is

totally out of our jurisdiction and we are trying to deal with it as best we

can. Our budgetary problems are there now in most instances because of a

recession created, and a decline in the fishery, again created and due to

something that is beyond our control, beyond this Government's control. This

Government is attempting to get some of that control and attempting to deal with

the problem. You can throw all the volleys you want but the fact of the matter

is that we are not responsible for it. We will do everything we can to resolve

it but we are not totally responsible for it. What gets me a little poisoned,

Mr. Chairman, is that the Federal Government - it does not matter what stripe

they are - but it just so happens that they are better buddies of the crowd on

the other side than they are of this side because they are of the same political

stipe. Now, the same crowd up in Ottawa are paying about as much attention to

Newfoundland these days as they are to a whole range of other groups in Canada,

as you can see by the public opinion polls. I had a press release that came to

my office the other day. It says: the Federal Government takes action to assist

farmers - again, and again, and again - Agricultural Minister, Bill McKnight

today announced an $800 million farm aid package as part of a comprehensive

strategy. The strategy includes stepping up pressure to resolve the

international trade war between the US in Europe which has drastically undercut

Canadian grain prices and exploring increasing credit for grain sales and other

products to the Soviet Union. Last week Mr. Mulroney called on his group of

strategists on farm aid to come up with other ways to help the grain sector.

The Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, is totally getting involved

in trying to help the farmers in western Canada and for that we applaud him, but

farm aid and farming is in a provincial jurisdiction. We have given them, the

off the amount of farm aid given to western Canada since 1986. In 1986, $1

billion, $1.1 billion in 1987, $850 million in 1988, $500 million in 1990, $640

million in 1991, and I think the $800 million is on top of the $640, and they

are not finished yet, they are still looking for more ways. They are working on

all the Governments in the world, they are going to GATT, and they are trying to

work out the problems with the trade war on grain. Good stuff. And what do we

have? We have a 200 mile fishing zone out there and they do not even know it

exists. The fishery around here is trying to protect the fish stocks, we have

real problems, and they do not even know it exists. Mr. Crosbie, is trying to do

his best but I am starting to get extremely disappointed with what is happening

up there concerning our fishery. Our Government is attempting and trying to give

as much attention to the issue as they can but it is very difficult when their

ears are closed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is a major, major problem but we are

not to blame. We are trying our best. I mean, you cannot - you are there working

in an environment where we hardly control any of the levers, and it is

ridiculous.

Our Minister of Fisheries and this Government have put a

number of proposals forward for aid programmes, for joint sharing of the

management of the fishery, and the response has been too negative. They haven't

been listening. So it is time that the Federal Government listened to the

Provincial Government down here so that we can attempt to deal with the

problems. But when I hear the Opposition saying, you know: `You are not doing

anything over there and you don't have a plan, and you aren't going anywhere,'

well, I say they are absolutely wrong. Because we are doing the best we can,

given the circumstances.

I would like to quote from a press release from the hon.

Government of Newfoundland, 1984, that is, the former government: `Most experts

believe the recession in Newfoundland has bottomed out, finally, but it will be

some time before we will see our revenues rebound strongly. Until then we must

be realistic and wise managers of the income that we do have. To get $25

million' - which was what the impact was then, in 1984 - `in our income tax, we

would have to raise our income tax substantially and our sales tax would have to

be raised to 14 per cent.' That was back in 1984.

So, what we are saying there is, we have to be wise managers

of our money, and they were saying that in 1984. They were saying we had a major

problem then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just

conclude by saying that I look forward to hearing some constructive ideas from

the other side. But we are doing the best we can over here. We are not going to

do everything right, but we are trying to do the best we can, and I look forward

to many positive measures coming forward that we have already initiated. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I don't

know if it will be constructive criticism or not, but that will be left for the

members of this House to judge. However, in the next few minutes, I want to

discuss my last twenty-four hours or so that I spent up in Labrador.

Back in September, the Premier announced an advisory

committee on the economy, led by Mr. Harold Lundrigan. During the last two days,

this committee went to Labrador West and had public meetings. In Goose Bay,

yesterday, they accepted briefs. Last night there was a round table discussion.

My hon. colleague from Stephenville said, `Let's hear something concrete,

something serious.

I would like to say to my hon. colleague that each and every

person who spoke to this group that the Premier announced back in September gave

a loud and clear message. That message was that if the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador doesn't pull up its socks and better treat the people

of Labrador, then the possibility exists that they will be asking for

alternatives. It is serious. Every person who spoke - Peter Woodward, the

President of the Chamber of Commerce, Dr. Sparkes, the President of the Labrador

Community College, Carol Brice-Bennett, Memorial University, Tom Paddon, with

the combined councils - the same message was there, loud and clear: If the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador continue to treat us as second-class

citizens, then we want something else. And I said, in my remarks, that if,

today, the people in Labrador were given a choice by secret ballot, it would be

most interesting to know what the final tally would be. I do not think it would

be in favour of remaining part of the Province of Newfoundland. That is the

unfortunate, sad part about it, that governments since 1949 have looked at

Labrador as second-class citizens. Back in September, when interviewed by The

Labradorian, in response to the question, `Mr. Premier, do you not think that

Labrador is something special? Do you not think that Labrador is unique?' the

Premier had the gall to say, `Labrador is no different from the Burin

Peninsula.'

Labrador is a lot different from the Burin Peninsula, a lot

different from the Avalon and Bonavista Peninsulas. It is unique, Mr. Chairman.

Yesterday, it was said by the LIA and by everybody else that it is unique and it

definitely needs attention. Roughly 30,000 people are there. Look at all the

monies coming out but actually not put back there. Most interesting was what

Peter Woodward said yesterday. Now, I am sure a lot of my colleagues opposite

know who Peter Woodward is. He said, in two years time, when the Trans-Labrador

Highway is completed to Goose Bay, except for probably milk products that are

controlled by boards in our Province, practically 85 per cent or 90 per cent of

the goods needed in Labrador will be trucked from Quebec over to Goose Bay, and

the only goods that the people of Labrador will be buying from the Province will

be those controlled by marketing boards.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with the bill?

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, that has a lot to do with the

spending. I say to my hon. colleague, who spent some time in Labrador over the

years, that I am sure he had the same feeling then as is up there now, except

that it has mushroomed - the feeling is increasing, because the Premier has

continuously said Labrador is no different from any other part of our Province.

That is not correct.

This Government has gone now for the last four months without

anybody from Labrador in the Cabinet. My colleague from Eagle River is capable

of being in Cabinet; he should have been in Cabinet a long time ago.

MR. SIMMS: Let's see if we're successful getting `Aubrey'

in first, then we will work on `Danny'.

MR. WARREN: No, Mr. Chairman, I say to my hon. Leader

that I would like to see the Member for Labrador in there first. He should have

been in Cabinet a number of weeks ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: That's the difference over here, we're allowed

to speak our minds. It's not like that over there!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, at the meetings yesterday, the

message was loud and clear to Mr. Lundrigan. Because I understand the way this

system works is that Harold Marshall is called with some kind of a problem, he

calls Susan Sherk, who, in turn, calls Harold Lundrigan with the problem, and

Harold Lundrigan then goes to the Premier. That's what is happening in Labrador.

MR. SIMMS: What about the Minister of Development?

MR. WARREN: The Minister of Development is way out of the

picture altogether.

MR. SIMMS: What?

MR. WARREN: The Minister of Development is completely out

of the picture. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I understand that an employee who

recently resigned in Labrador is taking the department, is taking Government, to

court, with legal action over unlawful dismissal, apparently, just to show the

incompetence of the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: His logic is shattered (inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, let me say to my hon.

colleague, the hon. the minister's logic in keeping a Government report -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARREN: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe, the hon.

the minister, knows that he has had a report on the Government stores for the

last nine months, and he will not release the report to the public.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Why do you respond? They are really upset over

there now.

MR. WARREN: The hon. gentleman has the report of the

Government stores and will not release it to the public. Well, I had to go ahead

and release it, and he is very upset.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he embarrassed?

MR. SIMMS: No, not one bit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: He has really got you going.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know why the hon. the

Member for St. Barbe is upset.

MR. SIMMS: The House Leader should talk to him and try to

settle him down. He has gone right off the head over there this morning.

MR. WARREN: He gets upset as soon as I mention his

department. Knowing he doesn't have any credibility, he gets upset. None of the

employees in his department look upon him as a very strong minister. They have

more respect for Harold Marshall and Susan Sherk.

Mr. Chairman, my hon. colleague from Eagle River phoned all

the councils in my district and said, I want to advise you that you have $20,000

approved for this or $15,000 approved for this. I must say, the member did a

good thing. By the way, I am quite pleased with the number of projects ongoing

in my district this past year through emergency programming. I compliment the

Department of Social Services and the Department of Fisheries. My hon.

colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, announced six projects, one in each

community, in my district a few days ago. But these are things that should be

done, not because it is a Liberal or a Tory district, but because the need was

there. I am quite pleased that the minister did see fit to announce them.

But my colleague, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, will

want to hear this before he gets too carried away: I want to give one example of

how competent the minister's department is in Labrador, and let the minister

know about an incident that happened in Rigolet.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with the bill?

MR. WARREN: It has a lot to do with the bill, because the

money has been spent from his department.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Exactly. Let me just tell the minister what

happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: What department are you talking about?

MR. WARREN: The Department of Development.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're saying there is money in

(inaudible)?

MR. WARREN: Well, there are monies in the bill to be

spent.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the Town Clerk from Rigolet was told by

the Member for Eagle River -

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

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WARREN: By leave, Mr. Chairman!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was worried there for a second, I thought the Chairman had

forgotten the district that I represent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was going to say `minister'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: The old floorwalker should stay here and

listen for a few minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to be political at all, this

morning. I have to take a couple of minutes of the time of the House of Assembly

to make some comments, not political comments, but just common sense, some

comments that need to be made this morning in answer to some of the accusations

that were made by the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl and the floorwalker from

Torngat Mountains just a second ago, and the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

AN HON. MEMBER: The phantom!

MR. EFFORD: The phantom! From where?

AN HON. MEMBER: From George Street.

MR. EFFORD: The phantom from George Street. But you know,

you can't keep standing up in the House of Assembly, making accusations without

any foundation, just for the sake of making them. I have to stand in defence -

it is not very often I stand in defence of anybody, because I am usually

attacking - of the hon. the Minister of Development.

The Member for Torngat Mountains just commented that the

minister is not a strong minister, that he is not in control of his department.

The job-sharing Member for Mount Pearl, stated that what the Minister of

Development did in Marystown in the last couple of weeks, with the sale of the

Marystown shipyard, was not close to what he was going to sell it for.

MR. MURPHY: A dollar. He is right.

MR. EFFORD: One dollar, he was right on that. I have to

comment, he was certainly right on that. But let me say, if what they are saying

is true, that the minister is not a strong minister, not in control of the

department, and they are judging according to the ministers they had over

seventeen years, what would you call those ministers? - Non-existent?

MR. MURPHY: A good question.

MR. EFFORD: A good question - I don't know, according to

that, if there is a word in the dictionary that could describe it. Because the

former Minister of Development who spoke, (inaudible) the hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl, said that -

MR. MURPHY: `Barrett' - he spent more time on airplanes

than he did in the House.

MR. EFFORD: More times outside of Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: More points than Wilt Chamberlain.

MR. EFFORD: That is a good comparison, more points than

Wilt Chamberlain. Yes, that is a fact! But nonetheless, let us get down to some

facts.

In the twenty-four years since the Marystown Shipyard was

founded, how many dollars did the former government put into it? One question,

very simple, how many dollars did the former administration put into the

Marystown Shipyard in all of its existence? Would you believe $105 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. EFFORD: $105 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: That cannot be right.

MR. EFFORD: - in the twenty-four years the former

administration put $105 million into the Marystown Shipyard. Now listen, they

intended selling it and the Member for Mount Pearl was a part of that

Government, I believe he was then the Minister, and he went out and advertised

with all of the ability and expertise that they had in the Government, they put

it up for sale. A very reasonable decision to make, to try and sell the

Marystown Shipyard; something that was costing the tax payers a lot of money,

and Government should not be involved in that sort of business, yet they put it

up for sale. Do you know what they were offered for it, for a $105 million

investment? One dollar. And by putting up that one dollar they were still

requested to put up working capital. One dollar for a $105 million investment -

and we wonder why they built the cucumber farm? We wonder why, with their

expertise, they tried to sell a shipyard for one dollar.

AN HON. MEMBER: They would not sell it, they (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Now what did our - as the Member for Torngat

Mountains just said earlier - our weak Minister of Development do today? Not a

strong Minister he said. His ministers could not sell it or only tried to and

had an offer of one dollar - what our present Minister of Development, who is

not in control of the Department, who does not understand business at all, what

has he done? Just recently, it was announced last week - with a debt load of $36

million - he went and he attracted a firm from Norway, a world wide, world

renowned firm from Norway which has all kinds of manufacturing expertise right

around the world. He sat down, a man who has no ability, sat down and sold the

same firm that they could not sell for one dollar, for $20.5 million. Now

everybody in this Province should be aware of that. $20.5 million.

Do we put up any working capital? No; no working capital

whatsoever. Will they maintain the same employees benefits? Yes, absolutely.

Will all the agreements that are in place now, be the same for the employees?

Yes. In fact, I will take it one step further, even beyond the information, I

would say that, with this company who has the world reputation for manufacturing

and some 18,000 employees, I would say, over the years when they get their feet

in and become established, it would be even better than it is today for the

workers in Marystown. Even better than it is today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Will all the training be in place? Yes, and

improvements. Will all the jobs be in place under the present agreement? Yes,

and as they build up and as they increase and as they pick up more contracts,

there will be more jobs no doubt. What are they going to do with the Marystown

Shipyard as far as it concerns the rest of North America? They are going to use

it as a leading company for manufacturing and fabrication for the rest of North

America. Just imagine, Newfoundland, little old Marystown, little old

Newfoundland, a company with 18,000 employees has been brought into the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador and for a change, instead of giving away everything

as we did for the last eighteen years, with the former administration giving

away everything, we are finally getting something based with some solid

foundation, some world expertise, expertise and knowledge gained all over the

world is going to happen right here in Marystown.

Now I ask you, does that say that the Department of

Development is under the leadership of a weak Minister? Absolutely not. There is

a lot of difference between one dollar and $20.5 million. I am accused of being

the richest man in Newfoundland, the richest man in the system. I wish I had the

difference between one dollar and $20.5 million in my bank account. I would not

worry about what I was going to do next year.

AN HON. MEMBER: In addition to what you have.

MR. EFFORD: In addition to what I have, yes. I wish that

we had the difference between that one dollar and the sale to put in the pockets

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians all over the years to create jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Same as Sprung.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, it is very evident that the

sale of the Marystown Shipyard is not only beneficial to the workers in

Marystown, but it is beneficial to every taxpayer in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the key. Not only to the workers and the good

people in that area, which is of vital importance. Because there are enough

people working in doubt of their jobs and in fear of losing their jobs. Now

there is some solid foundation put back into that Shipyard that should have been

put there many years ago. And that the protection and the future of the

Marystown Shipyard is not a worry with those people any more.

I can tell you, with a company that has 18,000 employees

worldwide, you can say nothing else but there has to be confidence placed in the

minds of every person. The business group. I saw some business people on CBC

television the other night, worried about the future of their own personal

business, like Home Hardware, like the restaurants, like the small hotels and

stuff up there. I mean, they must have a tremendous uplift now over the fact

that this agreement has been signed. It is not talk any more, it is not lip

service any more, it is a reality.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: One hundred and fifty. I wonder could I get

on there, and get a trip to Norway? One hundred and fifty employees, just

imagine. One hundred and fifty employees going to Norway next year for a

training programme. Just imagine the expertise that they will bring back and

pass on to other employees and other people in the area.

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

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now put the

question. Question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave, by leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member by leave.

MR. EFFORD: Well, I will just take another minute, Mr.

Chairman, to clue up. Because I do want to pass along not only congratulations

to the Minister of Development and his Department for doing such an excellent

job, but we have to congratulate and pass a few comments along to the people in

Marystown for their expertise, that they have kept that going over the years. It

was not their fault that the former administration bungled everything that was

within there, and never put any sound administration to deal with the debt load

and everything.

But the fact is now there is a future, there is a bright

light at the end of the tunnel, and there is a future for the people in the

Marystown Shipyard and Cow Head. That is the good, positive thing for the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will not have the burden of paying out the

taxpayers' money. We can put it into other areas where it is needed, in health,

education, to educate and train our young people - we are going to get some

positive feedback in the future.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, congratulations to the strong

Minister of Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to

have a few comments pertaining to Bill 44. I guess a lot has been said over the

last number of days pertaining to different problems around the Province. Very

little, I suppose, when you talk about the very Bill itself. One of the things

that strikes me in the Bill, one that comes to mind and the one that I would

like to have a few comments on, is the one pertaining to forestry and

agriculture.

I am not even going to allude and talk about the actual

funding itself pertaining to different projects under this particular part of

supplementary supply. But I would like to talk about industry in itself in

general across the Province, and more specifically as it pertains to the

district of Humber Valley.

Over the last couple of years for different reasons - I will

not say, and I would be the first to say, it is not all because of a government;

whether it is Provincial or Federal - some of the problems associated with the

closing of industries in this Province, no doubt, are the responsibility of the

Provincial Government as well as the Federal Government.

But, Mr. Chairman, when you look back over the past couple of

years, and see the industries, and take note of the industries that have closed

in this Province, it is just staggering; and we are not finished, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. Member just got up and mentioned about the Minister of Development and

the Marystown Shipyard. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind hon. Members that

it was not too long ago when each year forty or fifty people from Marystown were

going off to Norway, training in welding and in other industries as well,

bringing back the expertise to be used on the Hibernia development specifically.

It was the right thing to do, and it still is, as far as I am concerned, the

right thing to do. The only difference, Mr. Chairman, is that I hope this time

when they come back they will be able to put their expertise to use.

You talk about times and circumstances making a difference in

an industry in the Province. When they went before and came back, like I said,

it was based primarily on the Hibernia development; this time, Mr. Chairman,

when they come back, they have a 95 per cent chance of putting their expertise

to work, because the project is started. That is why the Minister was so

successful in selling the Marystown operation to Kvaerner of Norway. They have

been in the industry for a lifetime, and when I say lifetime, I do not know

exactly, but I would say they started in shipbuilding and all, over 100 years

ago, if I am not mistaken. I believe they operated out of Stavanger or Stord, in

Norway, operating all over Europe, started to get into North America, and have

operations in the North Sea. They are a very reputable company, and I am sure

that if it is any way possible, they will make a difference to the Marystown

operation. But, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to go on record as saying this,

it all depends on tenders. When the tender is called is one thing; when the

tender is let is another. I have a company very close to my area of the

Province, namely Lundrigans, who put millions and millions and millions into

work on the Hibernia development, in getting ready for it. Mr. Chairman, they

lost their shirts on getting ready for Hibernia. They did not get the tenders,

or some of the tenders that were involved. Mr. Chairman, when you have the hon.

Member for St. John's South talking about promises - now you had better not

start bringing up about promises - because a lot of that can be sort of-

AN HON. MEMBER: The refrigerator list.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, the refrigerator list, I could start

with that. That is promises, Mr. Chairman, not only were the promises made, and

still are being made today, but those were private companies, and the same

people are there today. The Premier and his Administration have all kinds of

confidence in them, because Mr. Lundrigan is chairing the Advisory Council

today, going around the Province, asking the people to give him some ideas on

what they should do to create jobs in this Province.

I would say, Mr. Chairman, that according to the numbers that

are showing up at those meetings, I do not think there are going to be very many

ideas come back. People do not have time to go to the meetings for one thing.

They probably do not even have the resources unless they live close to the

meeting hall, very close to the meeting hall, because they are too busy trying

to fill their stomachs and look after their families. They just do not have the

time, and the ideas are just not there.

When I see the Vice-Chairman of the Advisory Council, in an

interview with CBC, saying that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should depend

more on themselves, and should show more initiative, and not be coming to

Government looking for handouts, then I question the validity of that statement.

When that same individual, only a few short years ago, took something like $200

and some odd million out of the coffers of this Province to modernize the pulp

and paper industry in this Province. Then they come back and tell the ordinary

taxpayer that they should not come looking to Government for help. That is a

representative of Kruger.

Mr. Chairman, I have to touch on something that is becoming

very dear to my heart, especially lately, and that is the fishery. The fishery

over the last couple of years, especially, has taken a beating. I go on record

as agreeing with most of the speakers who spoke last night and during the last

week or so, on both sides of the House, with regard to overfishing. I for one,

as far as I am concerned, would go on record and would request and state that

not one pound of what can be allocated strictly under the Canadian Government,

under the Department of Fisheries, should be allocated to a foreign country

unless we get something in return. Give us something. Either when it is caught

bring it into our plants or forget it. When I look at a company in my district

that has to beg for 1000 tons of squid, from the offshore quota for squid and

wait twelve to eighteen months to get a permit, and when I see someone being

offered and given permits to harvest 31 million tons of squid offshore that to

me, Mr. Chairman, is wrong. That is a travesty and that is an injustice that

should not be put up with regardless. I do not care who is in Ottawa, whether it

is Mr. Mulroney, whether it was Mr. Trudeau, Ms McLaughlin, or whoever goes

there, I will be the first one to say get off your butts and do something about

it. It is about time.

Mr. Chairman, we have ten or twelve tuna fishermen in this

Province with a commercial license, begging to get out and hook a few tuna, good

prices, guaranteed sale, and what do they have to do to get the twelve licenses?

Here we go the other day and give ten or twelve licenses to Japanese vessels

just off the coast. That to me is wrong and that is the type of thing that we

have to address, but we have to do it collectively. You are not going to gain

anything by getting up in this House and tearing strips off anybody, whether

they are here or whether they are outside this Province, namely the Feds. Do it

in a constructive manner and we may be able to accomplish something, but if we

are going to get up here for our own personal egos and try to gain political

points we are not going to win. Once election time is called we are answerable

to the people in our districts. I am answerable to the people in the district of

Humber Valley and if I cannot answer in a positive and constructive way what I

have done for the previous three and a half to four years then I should not be

the candidate and I should not be elected. We are there to work on behalf of

each and every constituent in this Province and not just in our districts, and

if we have to take on somebody else to do it then we will do it. Our

administration took them on before, the same political stripe and political

strip opposite, both federally and provincially, and out of that came some

positive results for the Province as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, the forestry industry in the Province is at an

all time low.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.

It has been extremely interesting over the last couple of

days and last night to hear hon. Members on both sides of the House debating

this Interim Supply Bill in conjunction with funding that is needed to provide

employment for Newfoundlanders throughout the Province. I find it extremely

difficult, Mr. Chairman, to watch the constant, as my friend for Humber Valley

said, the constant political rhetoric that goes on, but I suppose when one hon.

member gets up and says something it beckons another hon. member to get up and

respond. I guess that is the nature of debate. I think we have beaten this down

pretty well. We have beaten it to death, as such. I do not think, for one

minute, that the Member for Grand Bank, the hon. the Opposition House Leader, or

any members in this House want to interfere with funding that is associated with

providing the employment that is needed by so, so many Newfoundlanders.

You know, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Member for Port de Grave

talked about the Marystown deal. Well, an awful lot of things that were said in

the last couple of days in this House of Assembly, whether you want to or you do

not want to, you must associate them with the problems that this Government and

other provincial governments are having with the Federal Government in Ottawa. I

mean, you cannot lose $728 million in transfer payments and not have an impact

in the Province of Newfoundland. You cannot have the horrendous amount of

dollars required by this Government to service debts and what have you, and when

you get into a circumstance where our fishery was such a disaster last summer, a

total disaster, and through no fault really of anybody - the cold water and so

forth and so on, the scientists tell us. The reality - and the Member for Humber

Valley must know this - is that we can wait no longer to address our concerns

for our fishery with those who control our fishery, namely the Federal

Government. We have to do something. We all understand that, and I look forward

to seeing a much more concerted effort in the next year in telling Ottawa that

we can no longer put up with it.

Now, in my district, Mr. Chairman, again talking about what

has taken place with the Minister of Development in Marystown, it is obviously a

very positive step when we can at least see a possibility in the Marystown

Shipyard and the Cow Head area, of 600 or 700 jobs in the next couple of years.

That is positive when we have negatives going on in Labrador West where the

steel industry is crumbling, where forest products and paper are obviously

having some problems. All of these things are negatives and it is good to see a

positive.

The Newfoundland Dockyard has been down there, historically,

putting out fine quality work under archaic circumstances for years and years

and years. I would love for hon. members to come down and look at the equipment

that the competent tradesmen have to try and work with. It should be in a

museum. It should be in the Smithsonian Institute, the drill presses and the

rolling mills and the other equipment that is down there. We have begged and

pleaded with our friends in Ottawa for them to come and at least do one or the

other, change the face of the Newfoundland Dockyard. It only needs a paltry - I

know it sounds like a lot of money - $20 million to put that yard, strategically

where it is, in a very competitive position to get involved with some of the

topside work that is going to take place on the GBS that is going to go

offshore, and hopefully the other production platforms. To see that dockyard

just crumble and fall to pieces is a shame, a pure shame. Mr. Crosbie, Marine

Atlantic and the feds owe the workforce of that yard.

We hear the Member for Burin - Placentia West, day in and day

out -now, the Minister over here, the creditable Minister of Development, has

delivered for him, has delivered for the Member for Burin - Placentia West. He

is going around smiling now since last Tuesday, beaming, cannot wait to get on

the airplane and join me, cannot wait to get up to White Horse and tell me about

how good all his constituents feel.

But you know, Mr. Chairman, again the Feds, just on UI alone

- I mean it is a tragedy in this Town today when you look at three regional

offices that were in the City that are all now - that anybody who has anything

to do with CEIC or UIC has to go to Water Street, an extremely congested area,

and line up like cattle to try and get some information from placement officers

and to file UIC claims. Now is that what Newfoundland has become?

Mr. Valcourt, of course we remember that particular gentleman

when he was Minister of Fisheries and what he did for this Province - absolutely

nothing. Now he is the man who looks after the UIC office. What has he done to

the students at Memorial University who for years and years had their own little

UI office up there where they could go in and discuss their problems and what

have you? In the spring of this year, Mr. Valcourt is shutting that down and

forcing the students from the university to go down to the congestion of Water

Street and try to get their problems solved. These are the shameful things that

are going on.

Again we have to ask ourselves, Mr. Chairman, of the

sincerity of the Tory Government in Ottawa. No jurisdiction over the Prairies,

absolutely no jurisdiction over the Prairies whatsoever, but because the

Prairies suffer the consequences of having a drought or whatever happened

through no fault of their own, and so the farmers should be helped. I am not

standing here saying that the farmers should not be helped, but I ask hon.

Members is it fair that the Federal Tories turn around and subsidize the farmers

where they have no jurisdiction as such, only on the finished product, to the

tune of $800 million, then they turn around and the Atlantic region - we are

like Lazarus at the table waiting for crumbs to fall down - and give us a paltry

$38 million through the whole Atlantic region.

Mr. Chairman, as hon. Members we all know that cannot be

rationalized; there is no way in the world to rationalize it. I would like to

remind hon. Members opposite that it is not so long ago that the previous

administration under the leadership of Mr. Peckford had a terrible time, and

they took on the Federal Tories. Now if we say anything about the Federal Tories

they scowl at us, but Mr. Peckford was raising his arms: They sold the shop!..

and he went on and on and on and on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: And on and on. But I have asked the new

Leader of the Opposition on two occasions now to tell us how he feels about the

Federal administration in Ottawa and what decisions they are making that impact

the Newfoundland people. Does he align himself with the Mulroney Government?

Does he align himself with the Mulroney policies? Does he align himself?

AN HON. MEMBER: Jean Chretien!

MR. MURPHY: He has not answered. It is time for the

Leader of the Opposition to stand up and talk about GST, and talk about Free

Trade, and talk about the impact that certain Mulroney policies have brought

down around the shoulders of this Province and the Atlantic region in general.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop this debating and

getting up and down, and it is time for the Opposition to give the people of

Newfoundland the funding required so we can get them to work next Monday or

Tuesday. As little as it is, it is better than nothing, and that particular

programme is the initiative of a very poor government; the initiative of the

Minister of Social Services, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations,

and the Premier himself recognizing the necessity and responding to the

necessity. That is what it is, it is a government that cares; it is a government

that is doing its best when you consider the yoke of financial burden that was

thrown around this government and thrown around our necks. We came in here and

opened the books, and they were the same colour as this party, extremely red -

extremely red.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: Oh, I have only just started. I will be back.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

Okay, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to give him leave to table

the questions provided it does not come out of my ten minutes. Is that

agreeable? Is that okay, Government House Leader, is that okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: I thank the hon. Member for deferring to me

for a moment; it will only take a moment, Mr. Chairman, as the House will know,

as you will know -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: As the hon. House will know and as you will

know yesterday I tabled a list of projects that the Department of Forestry and

Agriculture had developed, Emergency Employment Projects, and the hon.

Opposition had some difficulty with it as I had neglected to list the number of

employees per project and the number of work weeks, so I instructed my staff

yesterday to do just that and what they have done now is, taken each individual

specific project, identified the number of work weeks that will be involved and

the number of employees, and, Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to table

this list, and I hope this satisfies the Opposition. I cannot sit without saying

that this is the kind of information that I never would have expected to have

gotten from the previous Government during my seventeen years in opposition.

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

West.

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

I would like to say that it is obvious somebody is showing the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture what to do because he does not know how to do it

himself. When I look over there and see the Minister of Social Services and the

Member for St. John's South sitting together, just after listening to the Member

for St. John's South wondering whether or not we supported Mr. Mulroney, it was

my colleague for Grand Bank who reminded me that it was the Minister of Social

Services and the Member for St. John's South who were going to support Sheila

Cobbs for the leadership of the Liberal Party and we wondered what changed their

minds. I mean the Member for St. John's South made no secret of his wish to see

Sheila Cobbs as the Leader of the Federal Liberal Party, he made no secret of

that as did the Minister of Social Services; what changed their minds from the

time they were telling us that they were going to support Sheila Copps for the

Leadership?

AN HON. MEMBER: Copps, Copps!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I am still going to say Sheila

Cobb.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Sheila Cobb, Mr. Chairman, and I wonder

why the Minister of Social Services - it was in the papers, he had his picture

in the papers, he was going to be the co-ordinator for Sheila Cobb, in

Newfoundland; or Sheila Copps, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. What changed his mind

from supporting Ms. Copps to go with Mr. Chretien? We have his picture in the

papers supporting - Mr. Chairman, if I had been a Liberal, God forbid, I would

probably have supported Ms. Copps as well because I think she would have been a

lot better for the Liberal Party than Mr. Chretien, but when the Member for St.

John's South gets up and wonders whom we are going to support, whether we

support Mulroney or Joe Clark whatever the case may be, why does he not get up

and tell us why he decided to change to Mr. Chretien from Ms. Copps, why does he

not tell us? That is the question.

I would suspect that had something to do with more than that

and had something to do with a promise that was made probably to somebody else

if Chretien was elected, and they had a greater commitment to Mr. Chretien, to

the person, than they had to either one or the other, that is the problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is. I have to say, Mr.

Chairman, that for thirteen days we have been asking questions as to the lists

of jobs, and it did not take the Minister of Social Services very long before he

had his list. It was a good job, a very thorough list despite the pork

barrelling. The Minister of Social Services, who had the largest Department

going, who had the largest Department of any of them could get that list and put

it on the table of the House in detail. Yet the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture could not do it and he has been around Cabinet two and a half years

in a little small Department, a very junior Department compared to what the

Minister of Social Services has, yet he could not get his list tabled until I

gave him leave a couple of minutes ago. I just had to give him leave to do it.

The Minister of Employment did it first. Th