March 11,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 4

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, Mr.

Speaker, I was caught up in a conversation with the Minister of Municipal

Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Mines and Energy in

answers to questions in the House told us in essence that we did not any longer

have eight months, as we had thought, to find new investors for Hibernia. In

fact he told the House, and I quote, "decisions will have to be made much sooner

than eight months." In fact he later told the press, I understand, that

decisions will have to be made probably by June. I think those are his quotes,

or at least the impression that is out there. That means we are getting mighty,

mighty close to the deadline mentioned by our dear, dear friend, Mr. Bill

Hopper, Chairman of Petro Canada, one of the partners.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's candor. We have come

to expect straight answers from this particular minister, and it is indeed a

rare quality of this particular government. But I want to ask the minister about

the kinds of questions that will have to be asked because I think the people of

this Province, because there are thousands of jobs affected, have a right to

know what is going on. So I want him to be very clear in his answer if he would

not mind. Is the minister saying now that if the gap left by Gulf is not filled

by June, then Hibernia will either have to be mothballed or else radically

changed? Are those the two options?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I said that by

June a decision will have to be made. I said I would be very concerned if by

June new partners are not found. I think that is what I said. I am very

concerned.

I have seen the headline too, and I am absolutely amazed at

the headline and how it could be written from what was said. I think we have

some time. I do not know how much time. Personally I am very optimistic about

Hibernia and the future for Hibernia, and I would rather see an optimistic

headline in the newspaper than one saying it is dead or something else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: I feel very positive about what is being

done by the consortium partners right now, the remaining partners, in their

marketing efforts.

As I said yesterday, there were meetings in Ottawa yesterday

between my officials, federal officials and company people looking at the

marketing. Those meetings are continuing today, and I talked to my deputy

minister as late as this morning and I feel good that they are making a real

effort, and I feel positive. I hope they do find somebody, and the sooner the

better. I do not like the uncertainty, and I think that is the message that I

was leaving yesterday. I do not like the uncertainty surrounding the project. I

want a partner found. I would like to have had a partner found yesterday. I feel

that every effort is going to be made, and I hope they do find someone by

summer. The quicker the better. If not, well obviously then things become very

serious and it is hypothetical, it is speculative and I do not really want to

speculate on the negatives right now, but obviously as the partners reach

certain decision points, and there are decision points in that 243 day process

which we have talked about before, there are decision points when they look at

the success and decide how to move and I would hope that at every step of the

way the decision point is going to lead to a positive answer and that we are

going to carry on with Hibernia and get it moving again on the original

schedule.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the minister

totally. We are optimistic and hopeful that the project will proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are perhaps more so, by

the way, than members opposite, let me tell you. Perhaps more so.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes we are.

MR. SIMMS: Nevertheless -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) project.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, that is neither

here nor there. What we are trying to get at are the facts and the truth, that

is all we are asking the minister, to be open with the people and tell us what

is going on because there is absolute confusion and uncertainty, that is why I

gave him the opportunity to answer the question. Did he say yesterday that if

the decision by June is made to the effect that the project may not continue -

is what I am saying - by the partners, if that decision is made by June, then is

he saying then therefore there are only two options, the project is mothballed

or that the project might be radically changed? That was the question I asked

him.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that and to the

best of my knowledge June is not a decision point. June has never been a

decision point and maybe I was speculating too much - by the beginning of summer

I would like all of this uncertainty to be over. I want it to be over. Everybody

in Newfoundland and Labrador wants the speculation to be over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Now if we are unsuccessful - well, I do not

even want to contemplate on what that means, because if we are unsuccessful,

then we have to look at the negative side and I do not want to look at the

negative side. Right now I feel positive about what is being done and I am going

to continue to feel positive as long as I get good news.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: That again is fine and dandy, but, Mr.

Speaker, you have to consider the reality. I mean the Government must be

prepared for all kinds of possibilities, surely heavens. All I am asking the

minister is, what are your plans? What do you expect? What do you intend to do?

What are the options? Those are the questions, but let me ask him something more

specific. Have the Hibernia partners indicated that one of the options available

to them for decision would be a change in the mode of development? I ask him

that question specifically. In other words, have they asked the Government, you

or the Premier or the Government to consider the possibility of changing from a

gravity base system to a floating platform system - a specific question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member very

much for that particular part of the question because that needs to be

addressed. That particular part of the question has been abused by the media

locally and nationally for some time recently. They have charged the former

Government of Newfoundland with forcing the decision of a gravity base on the

partners. That was wrong. This Government did not force that decision on the

partners either. The decision was made before the Government changed. It was

made for legitimate technical reasons - for legitimate technical reasons. The

partners have not come to us in the last few weeks and said: we want to consider

another option. They have not come to us on that. They have not suggested that.

As a matter of fact, personally as a geologist familiar with the field and

familiar with how productive the field can be, I would have great concerns about

giving a permit to anybody to high-grade the Hibernia field, and that is what

would happen in my view if it were switched to another mode of development. They

could not produce the maximum amount of oil from that field. They could not

produce it. It would not be possible if they went to a floating type system.

They would have to high-grade the field, and that would be bad for Newfoundland

resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a final supplementary I compliment the minister for

clarifying that. I would ask him in this final answer to my question at least if

he would also point out that the other reasons, other than job creation for the

GBS, was for safety and environmental reasons and that should be pointed out as

well by the minister. I would appreciate it if he would do that in answer to

this particular question. Can he confirm those others reasons were a factor?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: I would not want to say that a floating

system would not be safe and secure, but there is no question in my mind that

there are safety and security factors involved in going with the proven GBS mode

which is well known in Norway in the North Sea. There is no question about that,

but floating systems can also be safe and secure.

Another advantage of the GBS - a big advantage of the GBS

relative to productivity - is that you could store about 1.3 million barrels of

oil in that particular structure. That is another big factor that helps the

field.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just so that there is no confusion over the issue, is the

minister now saying then that the question of the potential, or possibility, of

changing the mode to a floating platform for Hibernia is not an option in the

government's eyes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, it is not an option in my mind

and it is not an option that has been suggested to us by the consortium. If, I

suppose, in the distant future someone came to us it would have to be assessed

again but, in my view, as I said in answer to my earlier question, because of

the detailed structure or complexities of the Hibernia field, the need for a lot

of gas injection, the need for well over 100 wells to maximize production from

that field, it is not the best thing to do. It would end up with a floating

system of taking out the rich pockets of oil and not taking out the maximum

amount you can. So, in my view, I would not want to see any offshore board ever

give a permit for that for Hibernia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I guess, yesterday evening we saw

the first negative fallout from the delay, or the downtime in the Hibernia field

when Kvaerner announced they were not ready to execute a deal with the

provincial government to purchase the Marystown Shipyard. The situation is very

severe. As a result of that decision, people who were classified basically as

permanent workers at the Marystown Shipyard for a number of years, now losing

their unemployment insurance, have been turned to the welfare roles of this

Province. I would like to ask the Minister of Development if he could tell the

House, and, indeed, the people of the Province, what are the strategy plans, the

marketing plans, the strategy for marketing products at the Marystown Shipyard

in terms of vessels. Are we going to sit back and wait for people to come and

ask us to bid on it or are we going to be actively out there trying to secure

job opportunities?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his

question. He is quite right, we had meetings with Kvaerner yesterday afternoon

and part of last night. We informed the public through the news media that the

agreement in principle that we had reached just prior to Christmas would not be

executed because the company, at that meeting, told us that they felt the delays

were harmful to their corporate business decisions. I was very saddened by that,

Mr. Speaker.

I also met with the union, this morning, and we had a very

good discussion. The hon. member was there and he will know that the union was

very responsible, this morning, in our discussions. They, too, want to pitch in

and help and do everything possible to secure work for the future for that yard.

During the transitory period, Mr. Speaker, we continued with our staff, the

people who prepare the bids for ship construction and ship repair. That will

continue now. There are three particular contracts that we are interested in.

One of those is a very substantial contract, that could, if we secure it, put

eighty to one hundred people to work during the life of that contract.

I should also tell the House that the Kvaerner people put

some interesting ideas and suggestions forward in our discussion yesterday. I

think some of those suggestions can form the basis of negotiations to see

whether or not Kvaerner still has a participatory role in the Shipyard,

particularly. I have instructed my negotiating team as of 12:00 p.m. today to

work with them. In fact, the principles from Norway are prepared to stay here to

talk about these ideas and suggestions that they put forward.

There are no guarantees. I can tell the hon. member that we

are doing everything in our power to aggressively pursue whatever contracts are

available. It is a very competitive industry. The people who are bidding in that

shipbuilding and ship repair industry now are walking the margins, and, in fact,

some are taking losses on bids. So I can only tell him that we are actively

pursuing the contracts as they arise.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the union at the Marystown

Shipyard, let me say to the minister, is not just responsible in this instance.

They have always been a responsible union at that facility.

I would now like to direct a question to the Minister of

Transportation. During the past several months we have heard the Premier of this

Province on the news media and in other places yelling and screaming at Ottawa,

trying to get Ottawa, the federal government, to kickstart the economy by

becoming involved in transportation initiatives. Let me ask the minister: if the

Premier is honest in what he is saying, can we anticipate he will practice what

he is preaching, that is, to see a transportation initiative started in this

Province this year, namely, the Fogo Island ferry, that has been promised on

three occasions to the people of Fogo Island?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated

yesterday, with respect to the Fogo Island ferry, or, indeed, any other capital

works projects which could be used to kickstart the economy, those decisions

will be made when the Budget is announced. We have to wait for the Budget to

determine what the government's plans are with respect to that. So, no

commitment can be made at this time with respect to the Fogo Island ferry,

although that issue is under consideration at the present time, along with all

the other issues.

I would remind the hon. member that these talks with respect

to using capital works to kickstart the economy have occurred with the federal

government, as well. I wonder where the federal government's initiative is to

kickstart the economy.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the commitment has already been

made. Last year,the Premier and the former minister said on several occasions

that the ferry for Fogo was deferred for one year. That year is now up. Let me

ask the minister, in those statements by the Premier and the former minister,

were they telling the truth, or were they telling lies?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, in the Budget Speech last year it

was announced that this particular project, the Fogo Island ferry, would be

deferred. There was no mention of a one-year period, a two-year period or a

three-year period. All we have to do is take out the Budget Speech and read it.

It is there in black and white. It says, `deferred'.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister Responsible for Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. Considering the high unemployment rate in the Province

today, Mr. Speaker, and also the fact that there is quaranteed to be a capital

works program for water and sewer and roads for various municipalities in the

Province, and also taking into consideration that those projects should be

tendered for early so that municipalities can take advantage of our short

construction season - this is a concern expressed and, I suppose, believed in by

the Premier, and I quote, 'In Newfoundland and Labrador we are considering

advancing by several months the $60 million municipal capital works program.'

This a quote by the Premier at the First Ministers' Conference on the Economy.

Could the minister now tell the House when the capital works program will be

announced?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I am delighted to address that question, Mr.

Speaker. The capital works program will be coming down as close to the Budget as

possible. Other budgetary considerations have to be considered, and I would

anticipate that by the end of the month there will be an announcement on that

and other works that might come forth, also, from the Housing Department.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: Would the minister confirm and tell the

House if he will be strictly adhering to, firstly, the so-called rating sheets

that were used by the department and secondly, fiscal responsibility when

determining whether a municipality in this Province will get any capital funding

for water and sewer or the roads program.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: The usual methods of measuring the need for

capital works will determine the outcome. This year we have been probably a

little bit more innovative in that the various members of the House of Assembly

have been invited to have their input into the decision, and I think the

chairman of the board wrote each member and invited them to bring forth their

ideas, and that also would be used as a guide in making the final decision.

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

supplementary.

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

the minister be able to confirm to the House the quote by the Premier saying

that there will be a $60 million municipal capital works program this year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I cannot say with any certainty that it is

going to be $60 million. It could be $59.1 million, it could be $60.1 million.

It is geared, as members are well aware, to the other budgetary considerations,

how much is left -

MR. TOBIN: Your pork barrelling.

MR. HOGAN: If there is anybody in the House knows a pork

barrel the pork barrel is speaking now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, the real pork barrel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, the decision on that will come

forth with the Budget and other budgetary considerations in mind.

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

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

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and it concerns the changes in

federal housing policy. The minister commented recently on the loss of social

housing of eighty-six new units and 407 repair loans as a result of the federal

budget. Is the minister also concerned with the total withdrawal of support for

co-operative housing announced in that budget, and the twenty-six housing co-ops

in this Province and 424 units? Is the minister concerned about this withdrawal

of support for co-operative housing providing an alternative form of low cost

housing for residence of this Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The department and Housing

Corporation are very concerned about the measures that were announced in the

federal budget, but the announcements that were made and the literature and

information that we have so far is not that definitive in its description of

what will happen. That is under review by the Housing Corporation now, and in

fact we are consulting with the ministers responsible for housing across the

country in an approach to this particular issue. As soon as our review is

completed I will have some further information on it. I am not too certain of

the hon. member's numbers in this regard, but it is a serious situation,

particularly in the co-op housing area. As we know it now, we are very

concerned.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a supplementary.

The minister will be aware that his department, through the Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation, was to sell three buildings in Pleasantville in

St. John's East to the Eastern Edge Housing Co-op. This program is under threat

by the changes in the federal policy. Is the minister prepared to give

consideration to supporting the efforts of this co-op by perhaps asking the

government to guarantee the mortgage that has already been agreed upon by this

co-op to be able to take over those units?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not prepared to make any

such recommendation to this government at this time, but I am prepared and have

made inroads at the federal level to carry out the intended agreement that we

had with the group that the hon. member mentions. We in housing are dedicated to

addressing those needs and finishing off the agreement that we started with that

group. But if the federal government deems to pull out there is not much we can

do about it. We could probably then adopt another policy or enter into other

arrangements, but it will have to come at that time, not before.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the

minister then committing himself to that project? Is he prepared to say that the

federal guarantee - which we know will cost nothing because it is in fact a self

financing co-op - is the minister saying that he is committed to that co-op, and

if the federal scheme does not work he will consider other alternatives to see

that this project gets done?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is as astute

as he should be, I did say that. I am making a commitment to make every inroad

possible with the Federal Government to continue to live up to the deal that was

made with these people, or intended deal that was made with these people. If

that fails we will take other matters into consideration to help see it

fulfilled.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The House should

know that there are some 300 or so miners whose UI will run out probably next

week who used to work at Hope Brook. I was wondering if the Minister of Mines

and Energy could indicate the current status of the Hope Brook project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, on December 17

a company called Royal Oak signed a letter of intent with British Petroleum to

purchase the Hope Brook property, subject to a number of conditions being met.

Since that time they have had numerous meetings with Provincial and Federal

departments and agencies, and their workers. They have reached settlement on

some of the issues. For example, they have reached a new agreement with their

union, their workers. They have made good progress on a lot of other issues but

at this time they have not yet finalized their agreement.

Most recently they were in St. John's last week, at which

time they met with all the agencies located in the city. We have had further

discussions. I do not know if there is going to be an agreement finalized. I do

not know quite when. We are concerned right now about timing, the company is

very concerned about timing, because they had hoped to have had an agreement

before now to get the mine open with the start-up this summer, and everything

operating routinely before freeze up. If an agreement is not finalized I would

think in the next few weeks they may well miss that window. So there is a lot of

pressure on all of us to try to reach agreement in time to allow a summer

start-up. I hope for the best.

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

Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Would the Minister care to indicate that one

of the factors still yet unresolved is the degree of financial help requested or

required of the Province in order to make this particular project a go?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into the

details of it but one of the outstanding matters is still financial. It is not

just necessarily Provincial. Another one of the outstanding issues is

environmental. They also have to get final agreement, certificates of approval,

from Federal and Provincial agencies before they can reopen. So there are still

outstanding financial and environmental matters both Federally and Provincially.

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

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

the Minister of Labour and Employment. Because if there was ever a time for a

Minister of Employment in this Province it is now, with unemployment payments

being in the range of a billion dollars, $160 million in social assistance. The

Premier indicated last week that the Government can do nothing to help the

plight of the devastated people of this Province. Is the Minister saying the

same thing, that he has no strategy to help the unemployed in this Province?

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 as well. We have recognized already that we are probably

going to face another very difficult year from an employment point of view

within the whole Province. We also recognize that the different levels of

government will be called upon to respond in a positive fashion throughout the

year. We found ways to do that last year, both the Federal and Provincial

Governments. We have already initiated initial discussions with our Federal

counterparts and in a meeting with Minister Valcourt just a week or so ago.

We have already put some people together to try to talk about

how any approach to helping those in Newfoundland and Labrador who will need

assistance throughout the year can be coordinated through the two levels of

Government, instead of finding ourselves trying to put in place separate

programs that in some way may compete against each other or exclude each other

rather than compliment each other.

So we recognize that there will be a need which will identify

itself more clearly as the year progresses, and we have already put people to

work to ask them to do whatever they can to make sure that our efforts are

harmonized and compliment each other.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker I wonder when this administration

is going to take some initiative itself, without asking Ottawa or blaming it on

Ottawa. Does the minister not realize that there are other things besides little

make-work projects that can be done. There are all kinds of infrastructure,

environment enhancement, salmon enhancement that can be done that are

constructive projects in this Province that have to be done anyway. So why

doesn't the minister get on with doing them now instead of doing them five years

down the road as the Premier suggested to Ottawa? Why doesn't this

administration do that kind of thing now so that we can have some worthwhile

projects being done in this Province?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The types of things that the hon. member mentioned just now

in his question are exactly the kinds of things that were reflected in the

extremely worthwhile projects that were done through last fall and the early

part of this winter.

There is no question that the analysis and the reports in

terms of the efforts that were done, again in a complimentary fashion, because

we recognize that we have difficulties in the Province. Again we are not casting

blame. There are troubles across the country. We just happen to share in them.

We have indicated with the Federal Government that we are willing to compliment

their efforts - harmonize our own contribution. We are in discussions now.

Rather than us rush out and announce a program that they may or may not

participate in, we believe that there is always time for a little bit of

planning.

There is no immediate crisis at this particular day or this

particular week. We recognize the problem is going to get a little more

difficult. We are all working together to make sure that we are prepared to

handle it as the time comes. We are about ready to move into a construction

season. There will be announcements made in the Provincial Budget that all of us

will share in, and hopefully be very positive about. The other part of it is

that we will continue to address the needs as they arise. Our track record

shows, I think, that we have demonstrated that we can do that, and we intend to

show that we can do it again.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the minister that

he did not announce any program until the eleventh hour last year, in the middle

of the winter practically.

Of a budget of $3.5 billion or thereabouts certainly a little

can be found for worthwhile job creation in this Province. Has the Government

given up and is going to wait again until next December until it announces a

strategy to deal with the employment crisis? Is that the intention again this

year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Understand as well that

later this afternoon we will be debating a Private Member's motion on this very

issue of economic stimulation and what the Government plans to do and so on. I

will be participating in that debate, and will take great pleasure in spending

some twenty minutes or so outlining some of the things that the Government has

done, has in the works, plans to do; and we will let the people judge the record

as to whether or not this Government can respond effectively to difficulties

that people encounter because of a national economic recession.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker failed to look at the clock.

Question Period has expired.

Before moving on to the next item of business, on behalf of

hon. members I would like to welcome to the public galleries today Mayor Gerry

Kearley, Mayor of Milltown, head of Bay D'Espoir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: At this point, I would like to just bring to

hon. members' attention again some matters about Question Period. I am sure that

hon. members know those things, but from time to time, I think, we need to

refresh hon. members so that we keep the right focus in Question Period.

As hon. members know, Question Period is not a debating

forum. It is a forum for seeking information from the government and holding the

government accountable. To ensure that it is not a debating forum, we have

several rules and regulations. I just want to remind hon. members again, from

our own Standing Orders, of a rather important one that hon. members seem to be

drifting away from.

First of all, I want to talk about the question. As I have

said so many times in the past, when there is a rule for a question, there is

equally a similar regulation that applies to the answer. Many times, the focus

of the question, the tenor of the question, will also decide how the answer is

approached. So hon. members should keep that in mind.

There are a couple of things I want to remind hon. members

about, today, from our own Standing Orders:

Standing Order 31,

Section (c): "In putting any oral

questions, no argument or opinion is to be offered nor any facts stated except

so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such

question, the Minister is not to debate the matter to which it refers."

Finally, I want to read a quote from Beauchesne, paragraph

409, section (2). It says, "The question must be brief. A

preamble need not

exceed one carefully drawn sentence. A long

preamble on a long question takes an

unfair share of time and provokes the same sort of reply. A supplementary

question should need no

preamble." Hon. members know that that is a

long-standing precedent of this House and I want to underline that with respect

to

preambles. Sometimes the Chair is in a difficult position, because sometimes

members have their own unique way of posing a supplementary and will sometimes

put the facts before and ask the question after. So, that makes it difficult.

So, for the proper operation of Question Period, I remind

hon. members of these Standing Orders, rules, regulations, conventions,

traditions, whatever.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a petition, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to present on

behalf of 541 voters from the communities of Beaches, George's Cove, Rooms,

Hampden, and Bayside, in the White Bay South

section of my district:

To the hon. the House of Assembly of Newfoundland in

Legislative Session convened:

The Petition of the undersigned residents of Beaches, Georges

Cove, Rooms, Hampden and Bayside.

That we are concerned about the present safety conditions

regarding the breakwater around the shoreline of Beaches.

Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that Your hon. House

may be pleased to have a new breakwater constructed at Beaches.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

There are 541 signatures on this, Mr. Speaker, not only from

the community of Beaches, but from other surrounding communities, as well,

namely, Georges Cove, as I said, Rooms, Hampden and Bayside, supporting the

people of Beaches in their efforts to have a breakwater constructed.

I would like to inform the House of some of the history of

that particular problem, Mr. Speaker, and especially the new minister. He was

not around at the time. There was a bad storm on January 4, 1989, and, at that

time, the tides were in - there was very little ice and the tides were such that

everything came in over the community. The community of Beaches goes down over a

long shoreline, and everything came in and washed into some of the houses in the

community of Beaches, causing considerable damage to the wharves and fishermen's

nets, boats, motors, and so on.

After that, I proceeded to have an estimate done through the

Department of Transportation and in consultation with the Department of

Municipal Affairs, to see if anything could be done. But at that time, I must

admit, the people wanted nothing else, but to move; all but two or three of the

people wanted to move out of the place. And, at that very time, I recall -

because one evening, at the Deer Lake airport, the Premier came up to me and put

his hand on my shoulder and said: 'Rick, why don't you and your colleagues do

the honourable thing?' and I said: 'What would that be?' - Well, he was Leader

of the Opposition then, Premier today. And he asked, 'Why don't you move those

people?' I said, it is easier said than done, and it is rather ironic today,

when I see the Member for Stephenville, for the last two-and-a-half years,

almost three, trying to get some money for a few families who are, I think, in

the Black Duck area of his district, and it is only lately that he got it.

There is no trouble to know why some people's horns were

hauled in since then with regard to moving a community such as Beaches. Anyway,

at that time,I was not in favour of moving the people out of Beaches, and I told

the people that. The election was called in 1989 and I campaigned saying that I

would probably get an estimate done or something done with regards to

constructing a breakwater, but the Liberal candidate for the area for 1989

campaigned on the promise that they would be moved, or if not moved, then a

breakwater would be constructed. But since that, Mr. Speaker, nothing has been

done, except for the fact that the Department of Municipal Affairs - and rightly

so - sent out a letter saying it was not their concern, it was not their

jurisdiction, and that an estimate was done by the Department of Works, Services

and Transportation and I think a figure of $340,000 was arrived at for

construction of the breakwater.

But what disturbs me most - and I know the new minister, now,

will take it under consideration, especially with the upcoming Budget and so on.

There are considerable, and I suppose different rumours going around the

community, and not only that, but implications by the Premier, himself, and it

is not right; I don't think it is right for anybody to be putting that around in

that particular community.

I would like, today, to ask the minister, to clarify, once

and for all, if there are any monies available now, to do that job. Because it

is going around the community that monies had been approved to do that

particular project, and I think that is wrong. I think it should be done and I

think eventually it will be done for the safety of the people in that particular

community, and I would like the minister to stand in his place today, and if

nothing else, if he doesn't give the money today or next week or the week after,

tell me and tell the House and the people involved that there is absolutely no

money available as of today.

There is a letter going around the community from a certain

individual out there, saying that in consultation with the Premier, and other

ministers whom I will not mention, money is approved. I know that is not so. It

is not done until Budget time anyway.

So, I would like the minister today, to stand in his place

and inform the House and the people of the Beaches as to what is right. Do they

have the money or do they not, and if not, then take it into consideration in

the upcoming Budget and try to have something done for the people of Beaches.

Thank you.

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to this particular matter, I guess,

by and large, the facts are as the hon. member has stated them, that there was a

significant wave activity and it did flow in over the road and, I understand,

into the community, and at one time there was some consideration given to

relocating the residents of the local service district of Beaches, but I

understand that a certain number of people there did not wish to relocate. It is

my understanding, now, that the idea of relocation has been abandoned and the

request is for a breakwater to provide some sort of protection against the seas

which flow in that area.

Now, I don't know how common this is, how frequently it

occurs. The hon. member indicated that it occurred in January, 1989. I have not

been advised that it has occurred since then, nor have I been advised that it

occurred prior to 1989, because I am sure the hon. member would have mentioned

that if it was a regular occurrence.

In any event, as Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, my responsibility is to ensure the integrity of the road network

in that particular area. That is solely the responsibility of my department.

With respect to that, when the road was constructed, it was protected with armor

stone, and since the road was installed and protected in that manner the action

of the seas has not had a very detrimental effect on the roadway in the area.

Whatever detrimental impact it has had, we can certainly correct the problem by

dispatching a work crew to repair the damage done and maintain the integrity of

the road system. Unfortunately, my responsibility as Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation only extends to the protection of the road network and not to

the protection and safety of the community itself, which seems to be the concern

the hon. member is addressing, because he does specifically refer to the safety

of the community.

With that in mind, I have written Mr. Osmond, who, I

understand, is the chairman of the local service district of Beaches, and

advised him of the position of my department, which is that, since we have

protected the roadway, and whatever damage is done to the roadway can be

repaired fairly expeditiously, we have no program in the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation which could be used to fund this particular

initiative. Therefore, I have asked the Chairman to pursue the matter with the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. That is the situation as it stands

at this present time. However, having responded to the petition presented by the

hon. the Member for Humber Valley, I will certainly consult with the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs again on this issue to determine if anything

can be done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words in

support of the petition so ably presented by my colleague, the Member for Humber

Valley, who never ceases to amaze me with his relentless pressure on this

government to try to get them to fulfil commitments. Truly, the constituents

that he represents in Humber Valley are very much aware of that, having elected

him time and time again, and now that he is a nominated candidate, Mr. Speaker,

I am sure, in the next election, he will have just as much success.

Mr. Speaker, I know my friend from Humber Valley, when he

presented the petition, alluded to the issue here that the minister so carefully

avoided. the petition is signed by 541 people, of course, from Beaches, Georges

Cove, Rooms, Hampden, and Bayside, which is a pretty significant number of

people from those small communities. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I personally

had representation from people of Beaches, Mr. Osmond, in particular, who is

chairman of the committee, as he referred, and others who have asked me to

support the petition and do anything I could to insist that the government

fulfil the commitment or, at least, a perceived commitment given by the former

Liberal candidate in the district of Humber Valley. That is the crux of the

issue here. That is the question the member asked to have answered. When a

letter has been circulated to all the citizens of Beaches by private citizen,

Gary Gale, who happened to be the former Liberal candidate, suggesting and

attaching an enclosed letter that indicates funding will be provided through

Municipal Affairs for the construction of the storm wall.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The Minister of Municipal Affairs says it is

what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is a letter dated February 5

- three weeks ago - 1992. 'As the enclosed letter indicates, funding will be

provided through Municipal Affairs for the construction of the storm wall.' Now,

Mr. Speaker, it is rather upsetting, I would think. I would be extremely upset

if I were the Member for Humber Valley, and I am sure the Member for Bonavista

South would be extremely upset, as the elected representative of the people he

represents, to have a letter circulated by a defeated candidate in the last

election on the government side, in this case, who goes around telling the

people the funding will be provided through Municipal Affairs. Now, Mr. Speaker,

the question the member asked is, is he right or is he wrong? Who is telling the

truth? That is the question. The Minister of Transportation has washed his hands

of it. He says he has nothing to do with it, to refer it to Municipal Affairs.

Now, the Minister of Municipal Affairs from his seat, mind you, not standing,

says, as the enclosed letter indicates, funding will be provided through

Municipal Affairs for the construction of the storm wall, Mr. Speaker. Everybody

in this Legislature, I dare say Hansard will even have it recorded. I hope they

did not record the first word he used, but he certainly said categorically, that

is bull. Therefore, I say to the Member for Humber Valley, you clearly have your

answer, and you can circulate it to all the residents of the Beaches. This

gentleman, Mr. Gale, was not speaking for anybody, and he was obviously

misleading the people of the Beaches, unless the Minister of Municipal Affairs

can clarify it sometime in the future and say: Yes, indeed, the funding will be

provided, and when you said it was bull, in fact, it was not bull.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just make that submission and support the

petition presented by my colleague.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: This is Private Member's Day, and we have

the private member's resolution. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to

introduce his private member's resolution and debate it accordingly.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

This resolution, of course, is a timely one, I am sure. I

know that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has already indicated

his eagerness to participate in the debate. I would hope that other members on

both sides of the House will participate in the debate. I do not intend to read

the resolution. It is pretty clear for anybody to read on the Order Paper, but

suffice it to say it is an extremely critical issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thought about the approach to take in this

particular debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition

would permit an interruption which will not be taken out of his time.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I saw the Opposition House Leader leaving,

and I would like for him to hear this, as well.

In the interest of order and decorum, I want to ensure that

all hon members have the procedures correct in their minds when certain things

develop in the House. Hon. members should know that they cannot quote

unparliamentary utterances from their chairs, and I ask hon. members to be aware

of that, please. The Chair doesn't always hear what is going on, and I think it

is incumbent upon any member who hears an unparliamentary utterance to bring it

to the attention of the Chair. I think all hon. members will know from my own

performance of fourteen years when I was here as a debater, that I was very

strict upon observing the rules of parliamentary language, and I want to make

sure that we observe it now. I ask hon. members if they hear it and the Chair

does not hear it, the Chair regards it very seriously and hon. members should

bring it to the attention of the Chair. Without that, the Chair cannot do

anything about it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I thank him for

yielding.

MR. SIMMS: A very timely intervention, Mr. Speaker. I am

sure that in the case we are referring to - I did not want to embarrass the

minister, who was probably in the heat of discussion in the conversation, and I

am sure he didn't mean to use the term he used, but it may not even show up.

Besides, Mr. Speaker, not to debate your point, but it also should be pointed

out, the onus is on the members as well, the individuals, if they feel they have

used unparliamentary language.

Anyway, getting back to where I was before I was interrupted.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the resolution,

itself and the issue and the topic that is being debated on this Private

Member's Day, even though it is a critical issue and a critical topic, is

obviously not likely to garner much attention from the news media, nor,

unfortunately, does it garner much attention from the public, which is rather

unfortunate. I can't blame the public because they perhaps don't know what is

going on in the House today and so on. But it is a very critical issue, an issue

that encompasses the economy, in which case you can talk about just about any

undertaking or any issue that you want: the fishery, the slowdown on Hibernia

project, all the other related issues that are so important to the economy of

this Province.

Now I fear that Members opposite who will participate in the

debate will take the approach that they usually take. I fear the Minister of

Employment will probably lead the charge in using the same approach that they

always use, which is an approach to blame others. Blame the Federal Government

for this, that and the other thing; blame the Federal Government for not doing

this, not doing that; blame the Federal Government for transfer cutbacks and all

the rest of those kinds of things; blame the previous Tory administration in

this Province; blame the recession; blame the media, as the Minister often does;

blame everybody in the world without accepting any responsibility themselves.

Now, that is the approach I suspect members opposite will

use. In fact, I just heard the Minister of Fisheries lean over and whisper to

the Minister of Employment: seventeen years of Tory rule, and all this stuff. So

we know what to expect, Mr. Speaker, and that is unfortunate. Because I can tell

you out there today that the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

are sick and tired of hearing the blame. Sick and tired of hearing the excuses.

They have heard it all before. We should all share blame. Any blame that I hold

as a former minister in a former administration, I accept whatever

responsibility is there. So does the Minister of Fisheries, who was in all kinds

of administrations on both sides of the House. We all share responsibility. But

that is not the issue here.

One of the big things that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

must remember, and what this Government must remember, is it's own promise

during the 1989 election campaign of three years ago. At that time the Liberals

in that campaign promised to bring Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who had

moved away to the mainland to find jobs back to meaningful employment in this

Province. Now that was a categorical commitment and promise of the Liberal

Party. There is no getting away from it. Instead, of course, what has

transpired? Well, first of all, the number of people leaving the Province to go

away has increased. Certainly, employment opportunities have decreased, not

increased, as the Liberals had promised. We are in much worse shape today than

we were I think in 1989. That is fair to say.

One of the key reasons behind this particular turn of events

- at least I think - is the failure of this Government to live up to another key

promise that they made back in 1989 during the election campaign and that they

have repeated every year for the last three years since. That is, their promise

to put in place an economic plan. In the 1989 Throne Speech, and I want to

quote, they said - and I said it on Throne Speech day: My Government is at this

moment in the process of establishing an economic recovery plan, the details of

which will be announced shortly.

In their 1989 Budget they said: this Budget does not yet

incorporate the full economic agenda of the Wells' administration. Other

initiatives will become apparent when the recently announced economic recovery

team moves into action and when our legislative program for the fall sitting of

the House is announced. That is what they said in their 1989 Budget.

In the 1990 Throne Speech the following year the same

promises were there. Quote: My Government also feels that it is imperative for

the Province to develop a strategic economic plan that reflects the broad policy

directions referred to earlier in the Throne Speech address.

Now, what has happened? Well, nearly three years, nearly

thirty-six months have gone by, since this Government was given their mandate

back in April of 1989. It was twenty-eight months after they announced that the

economic plan would be released shortly, back last September 10, 1991, that the

Premier finally released a discussion paper. He said himself at that time: this

is a consultation paper, that is what he called it, a consultation paper. Part

of phase 2. Not the Province's final strategic economic plan. Rather, that

consultative process is part of preparation for that plan that they announced

back in May of 1989, three years ago.

In fact the discussion paper itself read, and this is rather

interesting: the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador began the process of

developing a strategic economic plan for the Province not in May of 1989, but

some sixteen months later in the fall of 1990. They said that themselves in

their own consultation paper. Of course, until the fall of last year they did

not even have the consultation paper. So the question has to be asked, why did

the Government wait two and one-half years? I hope the Minister of Employment

will tell me. When they announced in May of 1989 that they would have something

within a short period of time - we are working on it at this moment - why did it

take two and one-half years before they even put out a consultation paper for

discussion? Surely it would not have taken that long to put out a consultation

paper.

Back in 1986 many of us will recall the previous

administration released the details and the recommendations in the Report of the

Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment, chaired by Dr. Doug House, who

is now the Chairman of the Economic Recovery Commission. That report was based

on months and months of public consultation. Not only was that report received

and released by the Government, by the way, but it was acted upon. Dr. House

himself said in a letter published in The Evening Telegram - and we had a copy

of it last year, I recall - that it was incorrect to accuse the previous

administration of not acting on that paper.

What happened then? Then the Government appointed the

Economic Recovery Commission. Then what did the Premier claim? The Premier

claimed then that this was his fulfilment. This was the fulfilment of the

election plan that he had promised back in May of 1989 to put an Economic

Recovery Plan in place within thirty days of being sworn in as Premier. This was

his answer to his economic plan - the set up of the Economic Recovery

Commission. What nonsense, Mr. Speaker. What absolute nonsense and garbage. In

fact, here is what is even more humorous. If it was not so sad and sorry it

would be humorous. The mandate of the Economic Recovery Commission, stated by

the Premier here in this House of Assembly, June 5, 1989, the Premier's own

words stated, and I quote, stated in its simplest terms: The fundamental

objective of the Economic Recovery Commission is to bring the annual average

unemployment rate of Newfoundland and Labrador down below the national average.

Now that was the mandate of the Economic Recovery Commission stated by the

Premier three years ago. Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker?

MR. DOYLE: Twenty-five years (inaudible) he is going to

do it now.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I will get to that point which my

colleague from Harbour Main raises.

One of the big problems, of course, having given that bit of

background to the commitments and the promises, and the broken promises I guess

more aptly put, by this Government, is that the people of this Province are

really concerned. They have this impression - whether it is right or wrong the

Government will argue what they are doing, I suppose, aside from just casting

blame and so on maybe they will get around to telling us what they are doing -

but the perception of the people of this Province is that this is a do-nothing

Government. The Government is content to let her slide; content to throw their

hands up in the air and say, we cannot do anything. What can I do?... says the

Premier time and time again. Remember the famous quote when he approached the

people from Grand Bank: I would if I could, but I can't. This seems to have been

the approach taken by the Government, and we heard it today in Question Period

echoed by his Minister of Employment - the same old words, the same old phrases

- but the people of this Province are getting absolutely tired of it.

The election promise that I referred to was not to put out

consultation papers. It was not to do more studies. The Liberal promise was to

take some action and to show results from their actions. We have certainly seen

results of their actions or inactions. In fact, let me quote again from the

Liberal Election Campaign Platform Manual - the Premier's own words. He said -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you reading the right book?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Sir, I am reading the right book.

Mr. Speaker, here is what the Premier said. The Premier says,

after releasing the consultation paper now, two-and-a-half years later, and all

the other things, from his election manual, "We have had enough royal

commissions, studies and task forces. The state of the economy has been studied

to death." These are the Premier's own words: "The state of the economy has been

studied to death." Yet he appoints another group to carry on consultation. "What

we need now, he says, "is action. We will restore the economy of this Province

and give our people a chance to grow, train, work and live here in Newfoundland

and Labrador."

What hallow words, Mr. Speaker! What hallow words! All of

this is going to come back to haunt this party, the party that forms the

Government. They can shake their heads all they want, they can hope and pray all

they want, and they can be as cocky as they want, confident as they want -

AN HON. MEMBER: Arrogant.

MR. SIMMS: And arrogant. They can sit back and say: Let

her slide, let her go, boys and girls, let her go. They can do all that, Mr.

Speaker, but I say to you that is very unfortunate for the people of this

Province, because it is the people who are suffering because of this inaction,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that is a bit of the background, I guess, on the

broken promises which I wanted to put forth to members, hoping that they would

respond, that they would suddenly remember: Oh, yes, we made that promise, the

Premier said this, the Premier said that. We are going to do this, we are going

to do something to stimulate the economy. We are going to do something to create

jobs. I hoped that by using some of those quotes it might spark something in

their memories.

I know if Mr. Speaker wasn't in a non-partisan position there

today he would be blushing, as members opposite certainly are and should be.

Because what this turns out to be, Mr. Speaker, is more than a broken election

promise. What has occurred, in fact, is an admission of failure and incompetence

from those who are charged with the responsibility of governing this Province,

not just for the next twenty or twenty-five years as they often like to joke,

but today. That is where they are being irresponsible, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let's have a look at the situation. What are the

facts today in terms of our economy. We all know about the fishery facing one of

the worst crisis in decades, perhaps the worst crisis ever without much doubt.

Thousands of jobs and the lives of people are going to be affected by it. The

only person I can see on the Government side who is fighting either bit loudly

at all is the Member for Port de Grave. You do not see much action over there

from anybody else, Mr. Speaker, certainly nobody fighting as loudly as the

Member for Port de Grave.

What else is happening, Mr. Speaker? Well, the last two days

in this House of Assembly we have had some questions to the Minister of Mines

and Energy. The Hibernia project, whether we like it or not, as optimistic and

positive as we all want to be, as hopeful as we are, the reality, Mr. Speaker,

is what we must face, and the reality is, as the minister himself admitted today

and yesterday, that this project is under a cloud of uncertainty.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, I am sure, must be

extremely concerned by that and by everything else that is happening because,

Mr. Speaker -

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: If he can avoid just joking and carrying on

and take something serious for a change. What happens to our projections for

economic growth? Projections for our economic growth are based primarily on

Hibernia. It was only last night I saw in the paper where the Atlantic Provinces

Economic Council, I think, have downgraded their projections for economic growth

for the Province of Newfoundland now. I am not sure what it was, but it was from

4.5, leading the country or nearly leading the country, now to I think it was a

-7 or something. I am not sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Down to .07.

MR. SIMMS: Down to .07. Now, what does that do to our own

economic projections? What does that do to our revenues and all the rest of it?

Well, if you know it is going to do something - and I am sure there are some

ministers over there who are competent and intelligent. You must be aware that

there are dangers. Then what is the plan? What is your plan to overcome it? What

do you intend to do? Do you intend to just sit back and say: I cannot do

anything. We have nothing to do. We have no money. We cannot do this. We cannot

do that. Or is there going to be a plan to address the situation? That is what

we are asking, Mr. Speaker. That is what we have been asking for time and time

again. Tell us what your plan is.

I said on Thursday last in the Throne Speech debate that if

you bring forth a plan to address not only the long-term, which is necessary - I

do not disagree with that, I agree with it - but bring in a plan to deal with

the situation now that is going to affect us for the next two or three years so

that our young people, our university graduates, post-secondary students who are

graduating in the near future, at least will have some hope and will not have to

necessarily continue to go away thereby exporting our greatest resources, Mr.

Speaker. So I am asking the minister, tell us what your plan is? Tell us what

your plan is, what you would like to do? I have some suggestions I will give to

the minister. I probably will not get a chance to do it in this part of the

debate, but I will try to do it at the end of the debate.

What else is happening? The Marystown shipyard, hundreds of

jobs potentially up in the air. Very sad and very unfortunate news, Mr. Speaker,

but nonetheless reality. That is the real world. The mining and forestry

industries, questions today about Hope Brook and 300 jobs over there up in the

air. The forestry sector, the Minister of Forestry knows full well the

difficulties being experienced by the forestry sector. Not just the newsprint

industries, but the logging industries, the lumber producers, all of the people

in that sector are having some difficult times, but particularly newsprint

operations are having difficult times dealing with markets internationally and

world wide. So it is a tough, tough (inaudible).

Then this government itself participated in creating the

problem by laying off 2,000 or 1,500 or whatever the argument is in numbers, it

is certainly hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of public servants in their own

Budget thereby creating spin-off losses of another thousand, just to be

reasonable, one on one. So a couple of thousand people affected by the

government's own decision which was rather a strange decision when you look back

on it because the first thing that happened was the minister got up three or

four months later and said his retail sales tax revenues were down or his

projections were down by $20 million. Well why wouldn't they be? You took 2,000

people out of employment in your own service, you froze the wages of everybody

else along with all the other difficulties in a recession. Why wouldn't they be?

Now, Mr. Speaker, bankruptcies are up. I said that the other

day. Social services case loads; the social services expenditures have increased

in the three years this government has been in power by 35 per cent since 1989.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is your point?

MR. SIMMS: Well, the minister wants to know my point.

Make no wonder we are facing the difficulties we face. I have just spent ten or

fifteen minutes telling him about the problems, and he looks up and says: What

is your point? What a stupid ox, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if that is

parliamentary or not. If it is not I withdraw it, but if it is I will leave it

there, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Parliamentary or not, it is true.

MR. SIMMS: Social assistance yesterday - social services;

the minister - you are not the minister. I keep forgetting.

MR. SPEAKER: One minute left.

MR. SIMMS: Eric the amalgamator yesterday -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well I do not expect him to understand anyway.

He has not understood a word the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been

telling him for the last three years, so why would he listen to me?

Eric the amalgamator just yesterday, Mr. Speaker - the

Minister of Social Services now - I do not know what we are going to call him,

but we will come up with a name. But he tabled a special warrant yesterday for

some $12 million of additional funding - $12 million. So do not say that the

situation out there is not serious. Do not laugh it off as the Minister of

Finance does. Do not joke about it, and do not interject about it. If he has

nothing constructive to say, Mr. Speaker, he should sit in his seat or go out in

his common room and have a cup of coffee or something because he is not making

any contribution. That is unforgivable, Mr. Speaker, for a Minister of Finance

in our Province to act as silly as that minister acts from time to time, and we

all know it. We all know it, and I will tell you in St. John's Centre, the

people of that district know it too, and he will get his comeuppance in due

course, let me say to him.

Mr. Speaker, the Government has failed to deliver, totally

failed to deliver on its commitments and promises, and there are suggestions, as

I said to the minister, there are suggestions we are willing to make, and others

have made. Now, unless the suggestions you make are in total and absolute

agreement with the thinking of the Premier, the Leader of Government, then I

must confess your chances of being listened to, or being heard, are pretty slim.

The unions of this Province are finding that out. I am sure the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations does not agree with the Premier when he says the

unions of this Province had their heads in the sand and did not offer any ideas.

I am sure some of their ideas were constructive. If not they were certainly

meant to be constructive and there was no need to make such comments towards the

unions. It is sad to say that unless your viewpoint, and your opinion, is one

that agrees with that of the Premier you do not have much of a chance of being

listened to anyway, because this Premier seems to have his agenda made up. I am

confident that there are strong ministers around the table who will be able to

say to the Premier: hold on now, just hold on, we have to consider people, we

have to think about the effect on people. So what if we have to take the $25,000

we gave to the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SIMMS: No. No. I say to members opposite this is only

a one day debate. I get a chance to speak again for twenty minutes at the end so

I will get back at it at the end. I will see what contribution the Minister of

Finance has to make although I am very dubious it will be any.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. member I just want to comment,

since the Leader of the Opposition gave me that opening when he referred to the

hon. member as, I believe it to be 'a stupid ox' and said he would withdraw it

if it were unparliamentary and would let it stand if it were not. I think the

Chair is obligated to say that I rule that remark to be unparliamentary so that

it does not stand.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the remark.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member of Employment and Labour

Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to see that the hon. Leader of the Opposition

withdrew the remark. Not only is it unparliamentary but it is not even true, and

he would not want something that is not true placed on the record of debates in

the House.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose all of us should say, thank you, to

the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this timely topic to our attention for

debate today. I recognize that there were a number of things in his presentation

in the first twenty minutes of his address where he only slightly fell prey to

the temptation of rhetoric rather than some of the points he wanted to make, but

even though he avoided rhetoric in the most

part in his address, I think, he

chose not to read into the record his resolution, but for the purpose of the

record I have no choice but to read some parts of it because even though he

avoided rhetoric largely in his address there is a fair bit of rhetoric in the

resolution that, I think, needs to be addressed in some way, shape, or form.

In his introduction he noted that the Government will

probably get up and blame people and all this kind of stuff, and do those kinds

of things, instead of addressing the issues. I look at it a bit differently, Mr.

Speaker. I think there is an obligation. While we are not interested in blame,

because we are all experiencing some difficulties, there is the need to compare.

For the record in my few minutes today I will make some comparisons as to what

is happening in the current recession and how we have been dealing with it

versus what happened in the last recession that we experienced in the Province

ten years ago when a previous administration was in place and how they dealt

with it - to compare those two, because I think that needs to be available for

the public record and I intend to take a few minutes to do just that today.

Another thing is they continually, in the Opposition, try to

make references and tie-ins to some promises made in an election from three

years ago. For their own purposes they continually misinterpret certain

statements that were made. There is no question, and we will never apologize for

the fact that we said our objective if elected would be to do everything

possible to try to improve economic conditions in Newfoundland and Labrador so

that Newfoundlanders would not have to do what they have always had to do and

leave, but might have the opportunity to stay for a change.

We are on that course. Now we did not know, just like no one

else knew, that there was going to be a national economic recession. I will

point out a few things relating to that as well, Mr. Speaker, in my few minutes

this afternoon.

The other part, they talk about the call from the Leader of

the Opposition for this plan that has been talked about ever since 1989. The

reality is we are very close to a very detailed and specific plan that has

already been, in draft and consultation form, taken around the Province. That

compares itself very starkly I suppose to the fact that for seventeen years we

had a group that did not plan anything. Let alone anything to do with the

economy. There was no sign that there was any planning relating to anything that

was done here for a period of seventeen years.

So the fact that we may be taking a year or two to put in

place a plan that will last us a decade or two does not surprise me at all. As a

matter of fact, I am proud to be part of it, that we are going to have a very

well thought out manageable plan that will serve the whole Province well into

the foreseeable future. We will be looking at the unveiling of that probably

before this sitting of this session of the House of Assembly concludes.

He talks about the immediate plan. The only thing I would say

about that before I get into my comments is that the Opposition and everybody

can rest assured that one component in a plan that this Government will have for

the short-term and the long-term will be to exclude the option of borrowing us

further into debt and losing our credit rating. So you can mark one thing down

in the book. That is not part of the plan. It was obviously part of the no-plan

that was there for seventeen years, because we came perilously close to getting

ourselves to the point where we could not borrow. If we did borrow it would be

at exorbitant rates and so on, that we move ourselves out of certain markets.

That will not be part of the plan. Anything immediate and direct, the next steps

will be announced in the Budget which will come in a week or so, and then we

will go on from there.

But there are a few things that I would like to address in my

time with relation to the specific resolution to try to set the record clear.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition moves that: "WHEREAS the economy of

Newfoundland and Labrador has declined and unemployment increased dramatically

since this government took office almost three years ago" in that first

preamble.

A couple of points. We acknowledge, and we do not blame

anybody, that the economy in Newfoundland has been in a period of decline, just

like it has been across the whole country. But it needs to be pointed out for

the record that up until February month, up until a month or so ago, the

Province of Newfoundland - and all of us here in Newfoundland and Labrador - we

had consistently outperformed the rest of the country through the whole

recessionary period. This Province, with this Government in control, through the

recession that has been over a year in length in the whole country, had

outperformed the rest of the country regularly and consistently until last

month. Everybody knows what happened last month. There were two major things

that happened in our Province that slowed us down a bit. The fisheries

statements and the decisions that were taken, and the uncertainty that now

surrounds the continuation and the continued growth of the Hibernia project.

But through that whole period of time, despite some things

that we had no control over - high interest rates being one of them; only now

for the last few months started to go down but now it looks like they might be

going back up - the high Canadian dollar - things that were not there, by the

way, in 1981-82. These were not factors at that point in time, during the last

recession. Problems in the fisheries, the inflationary impact that the Federal

Government predicted would occur because of the introduction of the Goods and

Services Tax. Free trade - not particularly directly impacting on the Province,

but because it has such a devastating, short-term immediate impact on central

Canada and southern Ontario in particular, it has impacted on the whole country

in terms of the national economy and anything that has to do with revenue

exchanges between the Federal and Provincial Government.

Right now we are experiencing a slowdown, no question, and a

period of uncertainty, but it should be pointed out that far from what the

resolution says that the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador has declined, it

is not true. It has declined, no doubt in the last month or so, but for that

whole period of recession before that, the record needs to show that the

Newfoundland economy outperformed the rest of the country through the whole

recession, and only because of these two latest, major negative impacts, are we

now showing the decline that the rest of the country has suffered through for

over a year.

The second part of that same

preamble, Mr. Speaker, talks

about unemployment increased dramatically since this Government took office

almost three years ago. There is where I do not want to do anything other than

compare, and I have to, for the record, put some numbers on the table. I am

going to use the unadjusted (inaudible) rates that are prepared by the analysis

group in the Cabinet Secretariat, the same group by the way, that was there

providing the same type of analysis for the previous administration in the last

recession, a decade ago.

With the former administration, in the period of decline and

the period of recession in 1981-1982, which we came out off in 1983, in February

of 1981, so the record is clear, the previous administration had an unemployment

rate in Newfoundland and Labrador of 14.4 per cent. I might point out as well by

the way, just for the record, that when the government changed in the early

1970s, up to the time that the previous Liberal Government had reigned in

Newfoundland and Labrador, the unemployment rate in the Province had never

reached double digits, it had never gotten to even 10 per cent under the

previous administration. But by 1981, it was 14.4 per cent in February, then

came the 1981-1982 recession, a year later it was up to 16.5 per cent in

February and in 1983, when we were supposed to be coming out of the recession,

but everybody understands there was a bit of a lag in our Province, it had gone

from 14.4 per cent to 20.8 per cent, an increase of 6.4 per cent over that two

year period, now that is pretty dramatic, as this particular resolution says.

By comparison, this Government handling this current

recession, and I will give you a quote in a second which indicates that this

recession is worse than the 1981-1982 recession, this administration, in

February of 1990, the unemployment rate was 17.7 per cent, a year ago it was

19.2 per cent and this year it is 20.1 per cent and I will tell you how dramatic

that is. In the worst recession we have had, even worse than the one ten years

ago, the unemployment rate in Newfoundland has increased by 2.4 per cent, during

that period of recession. Now they might want to select numbers saying it has

gone up 4 per cent and so on, dramatic increase, the resolution says. The

dramatic increase was in 1981, 1982 and 1983, when it went from 14.4 per cent to

20.8 per cent, as the previous administration tried to handle a recession. This

group, through our efforts, have kept it down to 20.1 per cent from 17.7 per

cent, an increase of 2.4 per cent versus 6.4 per cent when the previous group

was trying to handle a similar type of recession. I point out those numbers and,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote from the analysis done - Newfoundland

and Labrador Economic Review of 1991, an outlook for 1992 - and it is published

by the Economic Research and Analysis Division of the Cabinet Secretariat.

'On a quarter over quarter basis, average employment in this

Province declined by 1.4 per cent over the first six quarters of the 1991

recession, compare with a much larger decline of 3 per cent during the first six

quarters of the 1981-1982 recession. This suggests that even though the economic

fundamentals such as the Canada/US exchange rate, real interest rates and

conditions in the Province's fishery were much less favourable during the 1991

recession than in 1981-1982, labour markets were less severely affected than

they were in the recession ten years ago'.

So this dramatic increase that the resolution talks about has

not reflected itself to the degree at all during this recession, under the

management and the effort of this administration, as to what it did ten years

ago when the previous administration was trying to handle a similar economic

recession across the whole country.

So we have had much worse circumstances to deal with and we

have done it with much better results and the record needs to show that. There

is nobody here who should try to misconstrue that information, nobody here

should apologize for what we have been doing. We are on course. We have been

derailed slightly by a national recession, just like the whole country has been

derailed slightly by a national recession.

Now why is it that we outperformed the previous

administration by a full 4 percentage points when dealing with a recession?

Because here is what the previous administration did to try and handle the

recession in 1981. During the 1981 recession the Province did one thing. It

looked to the Federal Government to fund job creation. Their only direct

involvement was through the employment enhancement program of Social Services

where their stated objective was to make sure that they could move people from

social assistance to the Federal UI program. That was their answer to dealing

with a recession ten years ago.

It is the only thing they did. Then the same people, now,

because they end up on the other side of the House feel that they can stand up

and say: oh no, do not blame anybody, do not even make comparisons, don't say

anything about what we are saying. We are allowed to get over here and act as if

we have never experienced anything like this. We are going to ask you people

what you did. Well, certainly one of the things - we will do something a lot

more than suggest that we go to the Federal Government and find a way to take

people from the social assistance roles and put them on the UI roles. We

demonstrated that last fall and we will demonstrate it again in cooperation with

the Federal Government as we work through another year.

So there is no doubt that in the

preamble there has been some

decline recently. We have outperformed the Federal economy for the whole period

of recession except for the last month or so. There has been an increase in

unemployment. But the rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition's resolution that

it is dramatic.... He must have forgotten to look at what happened ten years ago

when he was a Cabinet Minster in the previous administration that saw the

unemployment rate increase by 6.4 per cent versus 2.4 per cent with the efforts

of this administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he Minister of Social Services then?

MR. GRIMES: He must have been, I guess. The second

preamble, Mr. Speaker, talks about: "AND

WHEREAS the government has failed to

keep its much repeated promise to stimulate economic growth and to significantly

reduce the unacceptably high unemployment rate...." There is no doubt that that

is still the objective of this Government. If it were not for the national

recession we would already be well on course, because the things we have put in

place already are on a firm foundation and are going to give those kinds of

results.

We have stimulated economic growth. The Minister of

Development repeatedly gives reports as to the long-term jobs created through

the efforts of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador and the Economic Recovery

Commission. The maintenance of existing jobs that were jeopardized because of

the recession but kept in place because of the efforts of this Government. We

have had in excess of 1,400 jobs created. Hundreds of others maintained through

those efforts.

Then the Government itself, when we saw that Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians who normally would have gotten work of their own efforts except

for the recession last year, except for the crisis in the fishery, then for the

first time since we have been in office we did resort to an emergency employment

response program.

With those people, we ended up with 4,014 jobs provided to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who found that they could not find the jobs

themselves; provided over 75,000 weeks of work; and put $13.5 million into the

pockets of people. Because as much as the Leader of the Opposition would like to

go around now and try to corner the Liberal philosophy and say that he as the

Leader of the Conservatives in Newfoundland wants to put people first, that is a

Liberal policy, a Liberal philosophy, and we continually demonstrate that we

always put people first. That is what we showed again last fall. On a long-term

basis through the employment generation program, over the last two years in

excess of 1,600 jobs have been created through the private sector by some $9

million in supplements provided through this Provincial Government.

So we have done some things certainly to stimulate the

economy. It should not go unnoticed, by the way, that over the same period of

time this Government, through the Budgets introduced by the Minister of Finance,

has in each of the last two years undertaken a more expansive capital works

program in this Province than has ever been witnessed before. So we have

continually done our part to stimulate economic growth. We have not been able to

attain the second effect of reducing the unemployment rate, but without a

national recession, we are confident it would have happened. One other thing I

would like to read into the record, Mr. Speaker, if I could, with respect to

this resolution: one of the objectives of this government, as well, is to turn

its attention in job creation to full-time year-round employment instead of

short-term part-time employment. We have been having measurable, noticeable

success, even in the face of the recession.

Just again, to give some numbers for the record: With the

former administration - not to blame here, but comparison needs to be made - in

1982, of all the people working in Newfoundland and Labrador, wage earners

working, 71.7 per cent of them were working at full-time year-round positions.

That was in 1982. By 1988, just before they were turfed out of office, that

number had shrunk so that all the jobs in Newfoundland, the 71.7 per cent used

to be full-time, were now down to 63.9 per cent because the previous

administration was committed to just putting them to work for a couple of weeks

and get them on UI. That is good, but it doesn't do anything for the long-term

economic stimulus of the Province.

By 1990, that number of 63.9, this government has committed

to making full-time year-round employment possible for people. From the 63.9 per

cent that we inherited through our efforts, it is already up to 66.5 again, and

rising again this year. Part-time, on the other hand, for the previous

administration had been down to 28.3 per cent in 1982 and by 1988 it was up to

36.1, so they didn't care if the people worked all year long or not. Put them to

work for a few weeks and let them draw unemployment, that was fine with the

previous administration. Our economic planning talks about full year, full-time

employment wherever and whenever possible. The part-time group that had been up

to 36.1 is now back down to 33.5 and indicators are that, even in spite of a

recession, it is still declining. The balance we are looking for in terms of

full-time work whenever and wherever possible, we are meeting our objectives and

we are on target despite the recession.

In terms of the economic plan, Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to

conclude, there has been widespread consultation and the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition even recognized on the opening day, in the comments that were made,

he knows that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians across the Island and throughout

Labrador have applauded the efforts of the Liberal Government. He is getting

ready to jump onside. He is already saying, 'This sounds like a wonderful plan.

If you people can make it work I will support it.' Because he has done his own

consultations, he knows that people are telling him, yes, this will work, it is

a good plan, and he is already getting ready to jump onside and say, I am with

Clyde Wells, I am with the Liberals because they are doing the right thing. He

knows he is not going to be able to criticize it so he has already planted the

seed in the opening day in this Legislature to make it possible for every member

on the opposite side to jump on the bandwagon with this government and say, you

people finally did plan something right. It makes sense, it is going to work, it

is going to be in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we

want everybody to know that we support it. I think all of you should jump up en

masse some day, cross the floor of the Legislature, sit here and support the

efforts, and all of us together will make sure that we do something that is in

the best long-term interest of all the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the hon. the Leader of

the Opposition for putting the topic before us for debate and I look forward to

the rest of the debate today.

Thank you, very much.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations said that the

Leader of the Opposition avoided rhetoric when he spoke but I think we just

heard it all then. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations saved it all

for himself. Mr. Speaker, anyone can play with statistics. The minister quoted

some statistics as to what happened back in 1981 and 1983. Now, I don't know how

much food that put on the table in my district. I don't know how many jobs it

created by quoting these statistics. The minister failed to quote, though - he

said that in February, this year, the actual rate was 20.1, to use his figures,

but the actual rate in December was 15.7. So, if you want to look at increases,

Mr. Speaker, 5 per cent in three months is what it went up. He said that in 1982

it was an increase of some 6.4 per cent over three years. This jumped 5 per cent

in three months without figuring in what just happened in the economy,

particularly with respect to the fishery last month.

He spoke for twenty minutes. I think he mentioned for all of

two words that the fishery was in decline. Those were the words he said, the

fishery prospects were not good. We have a very serious issue facing a number of

communities in this Province today, a very serious issue. On television the

other night, we saw that in Arnold's Cove, in the district of my friend, the

hon. the Member for Bellevue, a large fish plant faces a pretty uncertain

future, shut down now and maybe for the rest of the year if the review in

September indicates that the TAC has to be reduced even more substantially than

it has been already. Fish plants in Catalina, in Marystown, and in numerous

other communities throughout this Province are in the same peril. What has been

the government's response? They say, 'We are going to study it.'

The minister spoke of the response program that came about

last year. That response program came months and months and months after we had

been calling for one, and while we recognize -

Mr. Speaker, send the Minister of Forestry back to his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINSOR: While we recognize the merits of that program

- it was good - you have to also recognize that it was pretty late in coming,

too. There were many cases - I know, in my own district, for example, they were

using pick and shovel to dig frozen ground because the projects were so late in

coming. The people appreciated having the project - no question about it - but

look at the timing; putting water and sewer in the ground in December, by hand.

Is that the kind of response we are going to find again this year, that the

minister doesn't have anything ready?

The minister talks about the great success of the Employment

Generation Program. We found, late last year, there was some extra money for

some community projects because the business community did not like - did not

avail of the money in the employment generation program. There was some slippage

as they referred to; money was not used up so they rechanneled it. That was a

year after the previous minister had announced, in estimates committee that the

project was under review because they weren't sure of its success or failure

rate. I think last fall's project confirmed for everyone that the program has

not worked.

AN HON. MEMBER: Employers wouldn't take advantage of it.

MR. WINSOR: Employers wouldn't take advantage of it -

that is another way of saying it didn't work. Mr. Speaker, a rose is a rose by

any name. Employers didn't take advantage, or it didn't work.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: One way or the other, it didn't work.

Throughout this Province, people are looking for direction.

There is no question that the government cannot do it all, but it has to be a

leader. It has to provide the right economic stimulus for the business community

to get on with the process of creating jobs. This government has never done

that. It continues to place a damper on the business community with its payroll

tax, its corporate increase in taxes, and a whole variety of things that this

administration has done to suggest that this Province has no economic plan. It

hasn't had one for the past three years, and it continues to flounder.

We hear the Premier going to First Ministers and to the

Atlantic Premiers and suggesting that one way to kickstart the economy is to

spend now for money that you are going to spend anyway. He is saying, Call

projects. You are going to spend it two or three years down the road, let's do

it now so that we can get a start to the economy. The question is, why doesn't

the Premier do the same thing for this Province? Why doesn't he use the same

technique to kickstart the Newfoundland economy that he wants the federal

government to use to kickstart the federal economy.

I speak specifically, Mr. Speaker, of the Fogo Island ferry.

There is no question that the ferry has to be built, whether we build it today,

next week or next year, or in two years time. The boat has to be built. The

present boat is inadequate. Seven days this winter the ferry couldn't complete a

run.

MR. BAKER: They don't want the causeway completed?

MR. WINSOR: The causeway? Mr. Speaker, the President of

Treasury Board should know that if the causeway is completed, as is being

proposed, from Fogo Island to Change Islands, you still need a ferry. The boat

still has to run, Mr. Speaker. It is a long distance from Change Islands to the

ferry terminal in Man of War Cove. So whether we complete the causeway or not,

the boat can't run from Change Islands without icebreaker assistance.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) causeway to the mainland.

MR. WINSOR: That proposal has been shelved, as far as I

know. The one I think the President of Treasury Board is referring to is a

request for a study to be done on the cost of a causeway from Fogo Island to

Change Islands, not including the connecting link to the mainland, so you still

need a ferry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Resettle them.

MR. WINSOR: Resettle them, the minister says. The only

thing that should be resettled there is the Minister of Finance.

So, Mr. Speaker, if we have to build a ferry down the road,

why not do it today? And in so doing we would possibly give the Marystown

Shipyard a new lease on life. Mr. Speaker, isn't that the same kind of thing

that the Premier is suggesting the federal government do? To spend money now

that you are going to have to spend down the road? Isn't that the same type of

spending that he proposes?

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Finance is laughing at the

idea of giving Fogo a new ferry.

MR. WINSOR: The Minister of Finance laughs at anything

because he has a good sense of humour. A poor Finance minister, but a good sense

of humour. In Shakespeare's time he would have made a good court jester, Mr.

Speaker.

So if the Province is serious about asking the federal

government to do these things, why doesn't the Premier do likewise? Why doesn't

he engage in the same type of activity. The Minister of Social Services is

interjecting there. Why can't he do the same thing? If we are going to have

water and sewer projects announced in a months time, let's do them now, announce

them, so that the construction can be done next summer and not be delayed until

MR. TOBIN: They were sent back.

MR. WINSOR: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: They were sent back.

MR. WINSOR: They were sent back the minister said.

Anyway, that is the kind of thing the Premier needs to look

at.

MR. TOBIN: The minister just said they were sent back.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk about the stadium, 'Sam'.

MR. WINSOR: Talk about the stadium. What about the

stadium?

AN HON. MEMBER: Spent the entire program (inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: The Minister of Municipal Affairs is awaiting

a meeting with the Fogo Island Stadium Committee, and we are going to discuss

the stadium then in a sensible fashion with a minister who I think has some

compassion and understanding for rural Newfoundland. He realizes what it is like

to live in a rural Newfoundland community, to be deprived of recreational

facilities that other communities take for granted. So, Mr. Speaker, I expect

when we meet with the minister in a few days time that the minister will address

adequately the needs and concerns of the residents of Fogo Island with respect

to their stadium.

MR. TOBIN: That's why he is the minister and the

(inaudible) is in the back benches.

MR. WINSOR: That is exactly right. That is why the

minister became the minister, and the Member for Carbonear continues to sit in

the back benches.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, that is the reason that came

about, because the Minister of Municipal Affairs has some understanding of the

needs of rural Newfoundland.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour spoke for twenty

minutes, and in the twenty minutes, he failed to mention one thing that he was

going to do to create an economic climate in this Province where we can find

jobs. Mr. Speaker, perhaps one of the most appalling things, if one looks at the

statistics that came out, the last ones in February, was age group fifteen to

twenty-four showing 32 per cent unemployed. Thirty-two per cent of the youth of

this Province between fifteen and twenty-four were unemployed. Mr. Speaker, many

of them are university graduates, college graduates, post-secondary. Many of

them fall into that category because many of the other ones would not be

registered to show up as statistics.

Mr. Speaker, in this Province we have spent millions of

dollars on post-secondary education, millions. I think the budget of Memorial

University was something like $91 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: More than that.

MR. WINSOR: More than that. Over $100 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: We give them over $100 million.

MR. WINSOR: We give them over $100 million. Now, Mr.

Speaker, what are we doing taking people - we have said that if we are ever to

prosper and get ahead as a Province it must be through education. It now appears

that we are educating many of these people to go to other provinces and perhaps

other countries to find jobs. Mr. Speaker, that is a serious indictment of the

Province, and governments of all stripes have to take some blame, that we have

such a situation in this Province where we have over 30 per cent of our youth

unemployed and the number continuing to grow.

I had occasion last year to write a letter of recommendation

for a student who had just finished at the School of Nursing. Out of, I think,

fifty-four students in her class, not one of the fifty-four graduating nurses

had found employment in this Province at the time of graduation. I have spoken

to her since and she managed to find a part-time job. She doesn't know if any of

the others of the fifty-four were able to find a full-time job in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, if that was true of one nursing school, we would

logically assume that it is true of the others, particularly in view of the fact

that last year many of the nurses who were already in the profession lost their

jobs and there was a freeze on hiring for most of them. What does that tell you?

That tells us we have a pretty serious problem. Perhaps it tells us we might be

training too many nurses. That is a possibility. We might be training too many

nurses if we cannot find employment for them. Perhaps that needs to be looked

at, and we have to redirect our efforts.

The fact of the matter is that we are spending millions of

dollars in post-secondary education. To do what? To send them away so some other

province can take them. Mr. Speaker, if that is the legacy that we are going to

leave, then we have a terrible future for our Province. Because what we are

doing is training our best people to ship them out. The brain drain that has

occurred in Third World Countries for years will continue here.

Mr. Speaker, recently much of the economic performance of

this Province was going to depend on Hibernia. Well, Mr. Speaker, that bubble

has burst, if only temporarily. If only temporarily, Mr. Speaker, that bubble

has burst. We were to lead the country in economic growth this year. With the

failure of the fishery, with the failure now, of Hibernia, if only for a short

time, then it makes it even more imperative that government come up with some

initiatives of its own.

I told the Member for St. John's South what we could do. The

Marystown Shipyard is about to go down. Fogo Island desperately needs a new

ice-breaking ferry.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know, you might have that in

the next month.

MR. WINSOR: Oh, we are going to have that in the next

month, are we? Well, you see, I happen to have heard the Premier on an Open Line

Show within the last two or three weeks indicate fairly definitively that the

ferry would not be built this year. Maybe circumstances in the last two or three

or four days might have changed.

MR. MATTHEWS: Do you know the other thing he said? That

Hibernia uncertainty would not affect the sale of the shipyard.

MR. WINSOR: Yes. He also said that Hibernia uncertainty

would not affect the sale of the shipyard. We know that did not really happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's let the young teacher talk now,

then you can have the floor.

MR. WINSOR: Well, some of the young people who are

leaving - I happen to have two former students of mine who worked at the

Marystown Shipyard, both under the age of twenty-five, one had done naval

architecture, the other had done mechanical engineering or electrical

engineering, both of them were employees at the Marystown Shipyard, both bright,

young men, both of them are out of work. If we do that now, we save these jobs -

because we are going to have to build the boat anyway. The Premier has said that

the way Ottawa can stimulate the economy is to spend now on projects that they

were going to do in three years time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your colleague from Mount Pearl said

(inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: My colleague from Mount Pearl did not say

that at all.

He said -

AN HON. MEMBER: He did.

MR. WINSOR: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes he did.

MR. WINSOR: My colleague from Mount Pearl said we have to

borrow responsibly.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. WINSOR: Yes, he said we had to borrow responsibly and

to borrow responsibly (inaudible) because you are going to borrow it anyway. The

Member for St. John's South does not understand that in two or three years time

you are going to have to borrow it anyway because you are going to have to build

a new boat or you are going to send them across from Fogo Island on a raft. It

is one or the other. Perhaps we need the second ferry for the Member for Bell

Island, for that run as well and perhaps that would double the employment in the

shipyard, if the run needs a second boat. For the Fogo Island run, it is a

pretty obvious solution, we can create some jobs as well as provide an

invaluable service to the people of Fogo Island. This administration now has the

opportunity to do it, and I call upon them to act. Mr. Speaker, the last number

of months, and I told the minister in December, when the unemployment rate for

the first time in a number of months showed a slight dip, and it did in

December. The actual rate in December was 15.7 per cent and the adjusted was

16.7 per cent, the lowest time it had been for a number of months and I told the

minister that it was a result of the few million dollars they spent last fall on

make work programs.

A few million dollars brought it down a couple of points.

Perhaps it was ill-timed in that it was late and the projects were not as good

as they could have been. Mr. Speaker, I saw some good projects getting done,

some excellent projects getting done in my own district. A community, by using

that project was able to install about 1,000 feet or so of waterline, taking up

1,000 feet and replacing another 1,000. Good projects, Mr. Speaker, which needed

to be done in a small community with a local service district that would not be

able to do it at any other time, yet they all need water and some time down the

road we are going to have to spend it and they are good make work projects.

In the community in which I live, a project to make some

major renovations to a recreation hall and a council hall, good projects, Mr.

Speaker. The people were employed, we had a good carpenter who taught some young

people some skills that could be of good use to them later in life. There are

numerous things that we can do.

The project which comes to mind is not in my district but in

the Speaker's district, the hon. Member for Bonavista North. They have done a

tremendous amount of work in the Indian Bay area with stream enhancement; they

are trying to restock some of the famous Indian Bay rivers. That work could

begin next month. We could start to put some hatcheries in, some control, we can

do all kinds of environmental projects with a small amount of money that will

have to be done eventually, there is no question that these things have to be

done. We have to supply municipal services, we have to supply water and sewer to

communities, we must have buildings and we can do these now and kickstart the

economy by locally adding several thousands of dollars to every small community

in the Province and they in turn spend it in the larger centres.

If the Member for Gander, would talk to the business

community he will know that Gander goes as the area known as the Loop, goes. I

think it is something like 60 per cent of all dollars spent come from the

outlying areas, and, Mr. Speaker, when these economies thrive, so does the

economy of Gander. With the few make work projects that were in place last fall,

if you talk to the local business community they will tell you their sales were

the best for the year during that period of time. So, the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations cannot get on his feet and spend twenty minutes comparing

statistics in 1981-1982 to what is happening now. The problem that we -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. WINSOR: Because it is meaningless, what has it

accomplished? How many jobs does that create? A research assistant -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHORT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is with pleasure

today that I rise to speak in debate on this particular motion introduced by the

Leader of the Opposition. It is not very often that I stand and get involved in

the debate, but I felt compelled to today because of some of the statements in

the motion. I was certainly struck by the opening sentence of the resolution,

and people opposite might not want to hear some statistics, but I am going to

give them some more before the day is over.

The opening statement talks about the dramatic increase since

our Government took office. I suppose it would not be fair to simply say that it

is not true. But the fact of the matter is that it is not true. The Minister of

Employment talked about some figures, and I want to mention the average

unadjusted figures for the year. In 1989, the first year that we took office,

the unadjusted average for the entire year was 15.8 per cent; 17.1 per cent in

1990; and 18.4 per cent in 1991.

However, if we are to accept the motion which says that those

figures were a dramatic increase over the previous administration, then

obviously the figures before 1989 should reflect that the figures were much

lower. However, what does the labour force survey really show? I have gone back

to 1982 and had a look at the figures. In 1982 the average for the year was 16.7

per cent; 1983, the entire average was 18.7 per cent; 1984, 20.2 per cent, and

20.8 per cent in 1985.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SHORT: Nineteen point 2 per cent (19.2) in 1987. So I

have to say to the Member for Grand Falls, where is the dramatic increase that

he talks about, and what government was in power when those so-called low

averages were being recorded in the 1980s? I ask the Member.

Mr. Speaker, you might also want to consider this point.

During the years from 1982 to 1988 the Federal Government - it has been

mentioned already today - the Federal Government was pumping millions and

millions of dollars into this Province in make-work projects. And the rate was

still around 20 per cent. Can you imagine what would happen if in those years

they had been dealing with the economic climate that we are now dealing with

today? Where would the figures be then?

I just want to give one example, talking about the make-work

projects from earlier years. As most people know I was a very active member of

the rural development movement before I got elected. For eight years I was

involved with a development association where I personally was involved with

interviewing I would say hundreds of people for make-work projects. There were

five or six projects in my area every year. There would probably be another five

or six in the Codroy Valley in my district, and another five or six in the St.

George's - Stephenville Crossing area.

Since I got elected, in the last three years there has been

one regular project, one, for the whole district, for three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHORT: It's not. But I want to tell you one other

thing. This has come about in just the last few days since the Federal

Government brought down its last Budget. They have cut over $2 billion in the

last Federal Budget. One hundred and seventy-seven million dollars has been cut

out of job creation projects by the Federal Government this year, $177 million.

The motion goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, that we failed to

keep our promise of stimulating economic growth. So I want to look at that and

see what has happened since we took office. I remember very well getting up in

this House the first year that I was elected. The first motion that I ever put

to the floor, or put on the order paper as a private Member, had to deal with

the signing of a new rural development subsidiary agreement. When we took office

I put in a motion saying that we should call upon the Federal Government to sign

a new agreement that had been overdue for a full year.

Within three months of us taking office - as a matter of

fact, on July 12 - the hon. Minister of Development signed an agreement with the

Federal Government for a new subsidiary agreement. The total amount of that

agreement was $29.575 million, for five years. Of that amount, $8.575 million

was the Provincial commitment. I would dare anyone to say that this agreement

does not show our commitment to rural Newfoundland or to the economic growth of

this Province.

Nearly sixty development associations throughout this

Province are using those funds to contribute to the economy of the Province. As

well, there are funds that being used by the Credit Union council, the

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Cooperatives, the Newfoundland and

Labrador Craft Development Association, and the Labrador Craft Producers'

Association. All of these groups contribute to our economic growth

significantly.

We talk about the fishery, but one of our other major areas

is in forestry, in forest management. A very significant area for economic

growth in this Province. On March 4, 1991, just a little less than two years

after we took office, the Minister of Forestry, as the Government

representative, signed a new Canada/Newfoundland Cooperative Agreement for

Forestry Development with the Federal Government. The agreement, which runs from

April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1995, a five year agreement, has a total monetary

value of $64 million. Of that, $20 million is being provided by the Province.

So don't let anyone tell you that this Liberal Government is

not committed to stimulating economic activity and growth in the Province. For

example, in my own district, in 1991 alone, $1.5 million out of that agreement

was spent in my district on silviculture projects and so on. So the people in my

district certainly benefited from that type of work.

I want to mention one other area as it relates to this

motion, the second

WHEREAS, and the false accusations of the commitment to

economic growth. Everyone in this Chamber is quite aware of how important

tourism development is to the Province. I am sure that everyone agrees that

tourism has the potential for major growth in the Province. On May 17, 1991 -

just shortly after the forestry agreement - the Minister of Tourism, along with

the Federal Government, signed a $20 million Tourism and Historic Resources

Co-operative Agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: A big agreement. It was a good agreement.

MR. SHORT: $20 million to further develop the Province's

tourism potential over the next four years. Yet when we look at this resolution,

it keeps saying that we have failed to keep our promise to stimulate economic

growth - not true. All of these agreements and initiatives are creating

employment opportunities for our people.

AN HON. MEMBER: For the long-term.

MR. SHORT: Long-term, yes.

The third

WHEREAS in resolution talks about our failure to

produce an economic plan; however the Throne Speech read last week by His Honour

the Lieutenant-Governor stated that the strategic economic plan would be

released to the public in the first half of 1992 - the first half of 1992. So

that is within the next two or three months.

The Opposition talks about three years - we have not produced

an economic plan in three years. I have to concur with my colleague who spoke

before, when he was talking about looking at the plan of the previous

administration. In getting ready, preparing for this debate, I went looking, and

what do you think I found? Absolutely nothing. Seventeen years, and no economic

plan of any type. I say to the members Opposite that our plan is just about

ready, but it is not the kind of plan that you produce overnight or the type of

plan that you produce without consultation.

As the Speech from the Throne stated, over 11,000 copies of

the discussion paper were distributed to the public; thirty-six formal public

meetings were held. In excess of 1,300 people came out to those meetings, and

over 240 written briefs were given. So the public were involved.

We are going to fulfil our promise made to the people of the

Province, but we are going to do it right, and we are not going to do it the way

that those people would want us to do it, or are saying we are not doing it at

all.

In terms of the economic plan there is also one other thing

that I would like to mention. I do not believe it has been mentioned, certainly

by the people opposite today. When we took over the Government, there was a

change that took place within the Department of Development - a restructuring

program that saw put in place Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, commonly

referred to as ENL, with five regional offices throughout the Province. We have

a very competent staff in each of those offices, and very competent field staff

that deal with the general public on a daily basis outside of those five

offices. To date nearly 600 requests for funding have been received by those

five offices. I want to give you some other more specific figures on those 600

requests - or nearly 600.

Of the 586 requests that have been received, 408 have been

approved. Of those, 159 new businesses have been assisted; 116 other businesses

have been expanded or modernized; 81 stabilized; 9 buy outs; and 42 have been

given business working capital - a total of 408. I might add, of those 408

businesses that have received funding, the total funding by the Province has

been $26,555,000; $26 million. Not only that, but the ENL funding has also

leveraged other funding. For example, ACOA grants, nearly $6 million because of

our $26 million; terms from the bank, $1.7 million; operating money from the

bank, $2 million; private investment, $7.7 million; and other funding, $5.8

million. So, in total, the $26 million that we have generated through ENL has

actually brought up the total to $49.9 million - nearly $50 million because of

the efforts of ENL.

One other interesting statistic, and this one I think the

Minister of Employment alluded to earlier, 1,437 new jobs created - 1,437. I

think it is fair to say that those figures indicate that we have been successful

in creating a very positive economic climate in this Province.

I would be the first to admit, and I am sure every member

here would, that we are going through some very difficult times economically.

There is no doubt about that. Coupled with the recession, there are certainly

problems in mining, in the fishery, some uncertainty in the Hibernia project,

and I guess the list is even longer than that. However, I do feel confident that

we will continue to address these issues. We are not going to try to brush them

under the carpet or anything like that. However, I think it is also fair to say

that there is a massive infusion of money needed, and we are certainly not able

financially to deal with it on our own. We are going to have to ask for and

receive the co-operation of Ottawa on some of these issues.

Finally, in closing, I would like to say that on some of

these issues today that have been raised, maybe we should have waited. Perhaps

this motion would have been better after the budgetary process because we are

almost trying to second-guess or say that there are not going to be any plans

put in place; that we are not going to do anything to stimulate the economy. We

have not heard the