March 16,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 7

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform hon. members that government

and the Newfoundland Medical Association have agreed to enter into a five-year

agreement respecting medical services in the Province.

The physicians of the Province, and the medical services they

provide, are a major component of our health system. Presently, the cost of

physician services totals $130 million or one-sixth of the current budget for

health care.

In recent months, government has entered into a joint

management process with the Newfoundland Medical Association to oversee a number

of important aspects of medical care in the Province. Joint management provides

an important forum by which government and the medical profession can discuss

and deal with a number of key issues. The five-year agreement will outline the

process under which a joint management committee will operate.

I would point out that the willingness of the physicians of

the Province to participate in discussions of the overall direction of medical

services is important to the ongoing development and delivery of these services.

By working co-operatively, government and the medical profession can deal

effectively with many of the issues that require the attention of both parties.

These are not simply physician issues or government issues. They require the

attention and commitment of those who provide the funding as well as the

professionals who provide the services.

One major issue that will be addressed during the joint

management process will be the development of a medical human resources plan for

the Province. This medical human resources plan will deal with the number of

physicians and the mix of general practice and the various specialities. It will

deal also with the distribution of physicians throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador. The development of the medical human resources plan jointly by

government and the profession will enable us to deploy our human and financial

resources to provide the most effective medical services to the people of the

Province.

A second important issue that will be addressed during the

joint management process is the utilization of medical services. Utilization

management is linked very closely to quality assurance and quality management.

In health care, utilization management means analyzing and managing how the

system is used by patients and by physicians.

The five-year agreement will provide for stable and

predictable changes in the medical care budget, which under the agreement is a

global, capped budget. Changes in compensation for physicians will be linked to

changes in compensation for government managers, and will take into account a

utilization formula.

In all, the five-year agreement and the joint management

process will provide for a co-operative approach to dealing with medical issues

that are of concern both to government and to the medical profession. Our mutual

objective will be to provide the people of this Province with the best possible

medical services with the resources available.

The Newfoundland Medical Association have indicated to me

that their members have approved the principles outlined in the proposed

five-year agreement. I wish to announce that government also has approved that

agreement. In the near future we shall be meeting with the Association to sign

the agreement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I haven't had time to

read the statement in any detail - I only received it a minute ago - but at

first glance it seems to be a very, very, positive statement, Mr. Speaker, and

we welcome this five-year agreement that the minister is announcing today. It

seems to be an acceptable settlement that has been worked out with medical

doctors, to oversee the delivery of our health care system. Certainly, a joint

management process to future planning for the use of medical resources and very

often limited medical resources, seems to be a very positive approach for

government to take. While I would agree with the minister that doctors should be

involved in that process because they are an integral part of the health care

system, I would wonder, as well, if other groups within the medical profession

are going to be involved and I am thinking specifically about the nurses

association and the health care administrators who work on the front lines of

the health care system. I would certainly hope that these people, as well, would

be involved in any joint management process that the minister would be thinking

about because, as I said, they are directly involved on a day-to-day basis with

the delivery of the health care system.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is a very positive statement. It

speaks about joint management, and it certainly will provide government with the

forum it needs to deal with the key issues involved in the health care system. I

think one of the good things possibly associated with this statement is the fact

that it will be done now on an ongoing basis. People within the medical

profession won't have to more or less wait for budget time to find out what is

going to happen to their funding allocations and what have you, and I think the

minister, in his statement, says that the five-year agreement will provide for

stable and predictable changes in the medical care budget so, Mr. Speaker, if it

does that it will be certainly worthwhile, and when you have very limited

resources, approaching this problem in a co-operative way can only be positive,

I believe.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

Does he have leave of the House?

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just heard the

Minister of Health speak. I didn't have an advance copy, but I have to say that

I have some concerns about what the government is doing here. I haven't seen the

agreement. I guess no members of the House have seen the agreement. The

physicians, of course, after all, is the group which probably takes the biggest

bite out of our health care budget, and hearing government say they are going

into a joint management arrangement with physicians over health care, I would be

very concerned about what aspects of government's prerogative and discretion

they intend to be giving up to this process.

As the Opposition health critic has said, there are many

other participants in the health care field who have very much to say about the

delivery of health care services in this Province. We have the nurses union, the

allied health care professionals, other professionals who have much to say about

the delivery of health care, which is very important, and I don't think that we

should have an agreement with one group of people without having all others

involved in this process. And while I have no objection whatsoever to

consultation - I hope the government will listen to all those involved in health

care and I have great respect for the professional qualifications of medical

practitioners - to give over in an agreement, if this is what the government is

doing, the responsibility for the administration of health care would be a

mistake and I would like to have a copy of the agreement so we could look very

closely at exactly what the government is doing here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before calling Oral Questions, on behalf of

hon. members we'd like to welcome a couple of special groups of students to the

public galleries today.

The first group is eight Grade VI cultural exchange students

from Buckingham Elementary School, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. They are

accompanied by eight Grade VI students from the Glovertown Elementary School.

They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Wayne Sparks from Glovertown

Elementary and Ms. Donna Brown from Buckingham Elementary. They are accompanied

by several parents and their bus driver.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also in the public galleries today are

twenty-six Air Cadets and commanding officers Captain Kenny and Captain Novak,

Lieutenant Simms, and Corporal Cameron, from Antigonish 875 Royal Canadian Air

Cadets, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions

I want to ask the Premier. I'd like to ask him about some comments made by his

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations in a speech to the Grand Falls -

Windsor Kiwanis Club last week.

In that speech the minister said that he believes government

can reduce its deficit without reducing benefits for public employees. Then he

said, and I quote: I have just made a statement that's different from what the

Premier said and different from what the President of Treasury Board has said.

I want to ask the Premier: does the government have a

position on fiscal policies, or is it everyone for himself or herself? Who are

we supposed to believe when ministers speak out like that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The government speaks with one voice.

There's no question about it. So if - if - and I say "if" the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations made that statement - and I don't necessarily

accept it just because it was reported; I'll have to wait and see - but if the

minister made that statement he certainly didn't make it as a minister. If he

made it at all it was inappropriate for him to make it as a minister. Now I

don't necessarily accept that that statement was made but I'll check with the

minister and find out.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I can only

report what people told me and what was reported. The headline certainly in the

paper was pretty glaring: Grimes has different view than Wells. So if there was

ever a comment made by a minister publicly that contradicted the Premier's

everybody assumed that that's what the minister was trying to say.

He himself has said that there are least three different

government positions on fiscal policy - now he said this - the Premier's, the

Minister of Finance's, and now we have the view of the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations. Surely if there is to be Cabinet solidarity on anything,

it ought to be on fiscal policy.

Can I ask the Premier once again: Why is there so much public

conflict and contradiction among he and his ministers on this particular issue?

Is there a government policy or not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There isn't any conflict at all between

the ministers. Now if there was a conflict, I would expect, knowing the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations as I do - a highly intelligent, highly

competent, very forthright man of great integrity, political as well as personal

integrity - so I have no doubt whatsoever that if he had a genuine conflict with

me he would have the good graces to tell me or the Minister of Finance.

Now in terms of the government's fiscal policy, more often

than not it is the Minister of Finance who speaks for it but very frequently, as

in the case of all other policies of government, the Premier may find himself in

a position where he has to speak on the government's fiscal position as well as

all others; but there has not been any difference whatsoever between the

Minister of Finance and myself on fiscal policy - none at all - none at all in

case the hon. member thinks so.

Now it does not matter how many times he stands in the House

and says it, or quotes some obscure report for it, it does not make it accurate.

I have seen the other statements attributable to the Leader of the Opposition

about this government's position and they have been totally inaccurate, so I

assume this is equally inaccurate.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier just cannot slough

this off in such a way. This is a serious public contradiction of the

government's policy as articulated by his own Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now let me ask him this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, it is not just the Grand Falls Advertiser.

It is what the people in the area and the people in the audience heard him say,

and I have no doubt he will confess he said it.

Let me ask the Premier this: Is he aware that the minister

also said at that same function that the main problem that the government had is

a lack of communication between the government and its employees? Is he aware of

those comments, and how does the Premier respond to such a statement from his

own Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that confirms everything that we

have been saying in opposition, that the public sector unions have been saying,

and that the people generally have been saying everywhere out there, that there

is absolute and total chaos among ministers of this government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have to really stretch myself to even

give the thing any credibility. It is so preposterous, Mr. Speaker, that it is

not worthy of comment.

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

MR. SIMMS: I am not least bit surprised that the Premier

will try to pass it off as easily as he can. The Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations also said that people are frustrated, uncertain and upset -

direct quotes from what the minister said at a public function out in Central

Newfoundland. And he said that his own government should have come forward with

a definitive statement of what it is going to do, Mr. Speaker, which is what we

have been trying to say. In other words, he has been saying what we have said,

that government should bring an end to the confusion, to the switching around on

positions, and to the conflicting statements from ministers. How does the

Premier respond to this kind of public criticism from one of his own ministers

for the government to get its own house in order? How does he respond to that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, to respond to the first comment, the

minister and I share the same view, there is a great deal of confusion,

uncertainty and apprehension. I have said that numerous times. Now, the Leader

of the Opposition personally is not innocent of the cause of that uncertainty

and apprehension. He has contributed significantly to it because, for his own

political reasons, he wants to see this kind of thing. Now, that is too bad. But

I agree with the minister. If, in fact, he said there is uncertainty and

apprehension about what government's position is, I agree. A great deal of

effort has been made by a significant number of people, the Leader of the

Opposition included, to cause that uncertainty to exist. Now, I have forgotten

some of the other comments he made that were attributable to the minister, but

before I am prepared to comment publicly on them, I will speak to the minister

privately, and I can tell you, unless the minister has been lying to me or

misleading me, there is no difference between my position, that of the Minister

of Finance, and the position of the minister, no matter what the hon. member

says.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier about this

statement. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations made another

statement at another public meeting, a different public meeting, with the home

and school associations, I believe, in Bishop's Falls, in his own district. At

that meeting, he is quoted, he said - or he took issue, at least, with comments

made by his Minister of Education. He said it publicly, who he said wants to do

away with the 2 per cent savings clause in the teachers' contract. Does the

Premier agree with his Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, that doing

away with that clause would have a dramatic, negative effect on education and

that there would be absolute chaos?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. If the minister said

that, I disagree and the minister is not speaking for the government position,

but I don't operate on the assumption that the minister says it merely because

the Leader of the Opposition says so. I have told the House that I will discuss

these matters with the minister and we will determine whether or not there is

any difference, and if there is a difference, the minister either speaks the

government's voice or he gives me his resignation, one or the other. It is very

simple. I am not going to deal with it on the basis of these suggestions by the

Leader of the Opposition which may or may not have any validity.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Let me ask the Premier this: The minister also

said he was disturbed and upset by comments made by the Minister of Education.

The comments made by the Minister of Education were that the 2 per cent clause

in the teachers' contract was a feather-bed clause. Now, I want to ask the

Premier what is his position on those comments by his Minister of Education? Is

it a feather-bed clause or is it a necessary arrangement to help school boards

maintain a reasonable share of education programs for young children?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I would have to go back

historically to determine the reason why the 2 per cent rule was put in, then I

would know what it was. The fact that it was added to the NTA Collective

Agreement by way, I believe, of a letter, as an appendix added, that converts it

from its original purpose, education - that converts it to a different purpose,

so what its real purpose is, is a matter of judgement. The minister may view it

as a feather-bed clause and another person may not, but I would have to go back

and look at the overall history of it to see how it developed and how it got

attached to the NTA Collective Agreement in order to determine what its

character is now.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier with respect to the

employment situation in the Province, or perhaps the unemployment situation. Mr.

Speaker, every month brings more and more dismal figures about the employment

situation in the Province. In February, we lost 3,000 jobs, 8,000 within the

past year, 19,000 over the past two years, Mr. Speaker, and that doesn't include

the 20,000 plus who are not working because of the Northern cod moratorium. Let

me ask the Premier: What plans does government have to deal with this worsening

job crisis in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion, because of a

certain speech made by the Leader of the Opposition last week to the Business

Association, to check the figures, and I have discovered that in the first six

quarters, that is, a year-and-a-half, of this recession, the increase in the

jobless rate was half of what it was in 1981-1982 recession. The figures are

there and they are not mine, they are Statistics Canada's figures. In the first

nine months, the figures were still half of what they were. In that period of

time, Mr. Speaker, there are 20,000 - 25,000 more people employed during this

recession than there were in 1981-1982, even though the population was the same.

Now, the figures are there, look at it, comparable quarter

for quarter, and you will see. I know what the Leader of the Opposition tried to

do with his nebulous statement. We produced more new businesses in small

business, and we led Canada. And what does one conclude from that, that they

managed the economy better? Well, if they did, why did the unemployment rate go

up at twice what it did, during this recession? It did, the figures are there

and you can see them. Why are there 20,000 - 25,000 more people working on a

comparable quarter for quarter basis than there were in the last recession, with

exactly the same population?

Now, Mr. Speaker, we got hit hard in the last two quarters.

Why? -the fisheries moratorium. Did we cause that?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is recognizing the hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the stats don't include the

people on the Northern cod moratorium. But I asked the Premier: What plans does

the government have to deal with this worsening job crisis, now. I am not

concerned about what happened in 1985, at this point in time, I am concerned

about tomorrow. What are you going to do for these thousands of unemployed

people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Government is working,

consistent with the other governments of Canada and jointly with the Federal

Government, to deal with this major problem. We have put in place programs and

we will continue to put in place programs to deal with this major problem. What

I can tell the hon. member is what we are not going to do, we are not going to

waste our time looking to see what was done in 1981-1982, because nothing was

done.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows that the

unemployment rate in this Province now, is officially at 21.3 per cent. The real

figure, Mr. Speaker, is that about 50 per cent of the Province is unemployed, if

we include social assistance, fisheries compensation or unemployment insurance.

Mr. Speaker, these figures should be enough to call this government to action.

This is a crisis unequalled in our history. Let me ask the Premier: Are you

helpless to do anything about it or are you just indifferent to it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not indifferent to

it. I am as concerned about it, perhaps a good deal more concerned than any

other person in this Province. We have to deal with this massive problem to the

maximum extent that we have the capability of doing it, but I can't pull

miracles out of a hat. The difference between the hon. members opposite and

those on this side, is that we are honest enough to say so.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: The Premier just said that he is honest

enough to say that he can't do anything about it. Mr. Speaker, what is the

Premier suggesting? Is he hoping that if he sits around long enough and does

nothing, the problems will go away, Mr. Speaker? Is that his final solution? -

to say to the people of Newfoundland, There is nothing for you, move away. Is

that what the Premier is suggesting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, in fact, just the

opposite has been happening in the last two or three years. More people are

coming back to Newfoundland - not because there are so many jobs here but

because the circumstances in other parts of Canada are as bad or worse than they

are here and it is easier to live here. Now that is the reality of it. I just

wish we were creating the kinds of job opportunities that would attract them,

that is what I wish the situation was.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, has

developed and put in place programs to help contribute to a solution to this

problem, but the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is honest enough to

say, he cannot solve every last one of these problems.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mines and Energy.

United Steel Workers of America, local union 6285, was

informed on Thursday that Wabush mines could close its doors as early as

December 31st, 1994 unless certain actions were taken. The union was told that

Wabush mines has to cut cost of production by about $3.24 per ton. Can the

minister up date the people of this Province, but more importantly, the workers

of Wabush mines and the residents of Wabush, on what the financial situation of

this company is, and when did this government become aware of the crisis that is

in the iron ore industry in western Labrador?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I think we have all been aware

for some time about the decreasing prices in iron ore products worldwide, and

basically the crisis in the steel industry in Canada and elsewhere in the world.

This year, when prices were confirmed a couple of months ago for 1993, the

prices for iron ore concentrates and pellets had decreased by 12 per cent to 15

per cent from 1992 levels. In the last ten years the prices for these products

have gone down by at least 50 per cent. We have known that, the people who are

involved in mining in Labrador West have known that, and the companies have been

trying to do their utmost to remain competitive internationally with producers

of iron ore elsewhere in the world. That is what Wabush mines is doing, that is

what iron ore companies are doing, that is what other companies in Canada are

doing.

Back a year-and-a-half ago Wabush mines informed us and its

workers in Labrador West that it had to reduce its cost per ton by about $6.00

and they hoped to do that by the end of '94 and they hope to be able to continue

to operate after the end of '94 if it reached these objectives. To date, they

have saved about $3.00 per ton in things that they have done over the last year

or so to cut costs, now they are saying they need to save that extra $3, that

they did tell us all about a year ago.

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

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the union was told that Wabush

mines has to significantly cut their production costs and they are asking the

union to take part of this burden, and are suggesting that the union would take

a proposed reduction in pay of $4.86 an hour out of their compensation package

or, comparatively speaking, a loss of seventy-two jobs. The other two-thirds

proposed with production costs reductions will have to come from other sources.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Wabush mines pays approximately $600,000 or about

half-a-million dollars actually in payroll tax, that infamous payroll tax that

this regime instituted on the mining industry in western Labrador, now, will

this government do its part and stop imposing this tax on Wabush mines and help

the industry?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, payroll tax is only one of the

costs, one of the small cost of Wabush mines. In Newfoundland and Labrador the

rate of payroll tax is 2.0 per cent, across the border in Quebec the rate of

payroll tax is 3.75 per cent, they have costs in Quebec as well. Their

pelletizing is done in Quebec and that is just one of their costs. In order to

achieve the other two-thirds, as the hon. Member for Menihek said, the union

members are being asked -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. GIBBONS: - for $1.08 of the $3.24, the reduction that

they are looking for right now; they will be looking elsewhere for the other

two-thirds and obviously looking elsewhere for the other two-thirds, they have

to look at all their costs, payroll tax may be one of them that they may be

asking us about, but they have many other costs to look at as well.

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

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the minister should also be

aware that Wabush mines pays about a one million dollar royalty tax to this

Province, would they consider lowering that royalty tax to this Province?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, at this time we have not given

any consideration to that, but I do not know what we may have to consider in the

future.

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

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the company also pays a royalty

tax to NALCAP and I am sure, or at least I would hope, that this minister is

aware of that. They pay approximately $4.5 million a year to NALCAP.

Can the minister tell this House if he would be willing to

introduce legislation that could restrict the amount of royalties that would be

payable to NALCAP and thus be able to have the Wabush Mines, enable them, to be

able to produce more effectively and pay their employees a good, fair wage in

western Labrador, Mr. Speaker?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the

royalty that is paid to NALCAP, the owner of the land rights, is a significant

cost to Wabush Mines, and I would hope that there would be serious consideration

- serious discussion - between the companies on the level of that royalty.

At this time we have not had any discussions on that in the

last couple of years with them.

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

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, my question was not to ask the

minister what he was hoping. I asked the minister if he would bring legislation

to this House. That is what I asked the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Will he stand up in this House and help the

people in Wabush produce iron ore at a competitive price, instead of sitting

here complaining about what the company should be doing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have not been asked by the

companies to bring in any legislation. We have not had any discussion with the

companies on this, and I am not going to make proposals for legislation while I

stand on my feet in Question Period. If this is something that we should have to

give serious consideration to, we will only do it after serious consideration

with the companies.

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

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to

the minister responsible for the mining industry in this Province.

Is he aware that this government, on Friday, went to the

court in an appeal case, arguing over a $900,000 tax allowance that Wabush Mines

won in a previous court case, where the day before they were suggesting laying

off and closing a mine, this government is now appealing a tax case in court -

over a million dollar tax case? Is he aware of that - on Friday?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that was done.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to direct a question to the

Minister of Education.

About a year ago the previous Minister of Education

transferred the Marine Institute to Memorial University. Is the government now

in the process of breaking up that institute by transferring part of its

courses, its staff and its assets, to Cabot College?

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

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not in the process of

breaking up the Marine Institute.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is it not a fact that Memorial University will only keep the

research facilities and courses that can be worked into existing degree

programs, and everything else would go to Cabot College?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct

when he says that the Marine Institute was transferred to the University. The

intent was to improve the quality of education which is being offered there, and

hopefully get to the time when we can offer a degree in this Province in Marine

Sciences - a degree which will be respected worldwide because it will be given

by the University - and to make available to our young people the broadest

opportunity possible so that they can study the Marine Sciences and what have

you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it was certainly an excellent move on the part of my

predecessor, and I think he deserves to be commended for doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He did not answer the question of whether it will be

transferred. At the time, the institute staff and students and official

opposition were very concerned that the Marine Institute would lose its

integrity when it was transferred to Memorial University, and they were assured

by the former minister that this would not happen. Is the government going back

on its commitment, or was it just not being up front all along? Do I understand

that the Minister of Education is now saying that no courses and assets are

being transferred to Cabot College?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is always

concerned. Whenever this government does something which is progressive in

education or anything else, the opposition is always concerned because they

wasted seventeen years in government and did nothing only play to political

whims. That is all they did. They never had an original thought in their mind in

seventeen years, and every single branch of government is suffering for it

today. That is why the opposition is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, there is in place a process which is being

worked through by the various educators who are associated with the University,

the Marine Institute, and Cabot Institute, and it is working its way through.

All the best possible solutions will be found. So I would advise the hon.

Opposition members to keep on being concerned. Because they've only seen the tip

of the iceberg of all the good things that this administration is going to

continue to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Assurances were

given by the minister that the Marine Institute would not lose its integrity and

it would not be gobbled up by the University. They were given assurances at the

time. Today it's very important to have a facility dedicated to the fishery

during such important times in the fishery. Does the minister have any

understanding of what will be needed in terms of training in order to rebuild

the fishery or has he written off the Marine Institute like they've written off

the fishery?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, yes to the first part of the

question, no to the second part of the question.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a

question for, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries, the acting Minister

of Fisheries. I hope it's not the old wrecking ball himself there, the man who's

wrecked health care and now is wrecking education.

It's an old topic that came up in the Legislature last fall.

It's the Roddickton crab plant. I'm wondering if the acting Minister of

Fisheries could update the House and the people of Roddickton as to the status

of the Roddickton crab plant, and when the people in Roddickton might expect to

find some employment in their plant?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware that through

allegations I believe tabled in this House by the hon. member if I'm not greatly

mistaken a police investigation was caused to be done. It was found that the

allegations made by the member had no substance whatsoever and that there was no

basis for a police investigation whatsoever. Now that's my recollection of where

matters stood at that time. Then there was a dispute that is a dispute between

the town council in Roddickton, I believe, and the people who entered into a

contract with them. If I recall correctly it was Quinlan Fisheries?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Entered into a contract with them with

respect to the operation of the facility. Whatever the respective rights are are

dealt with under the terms of that contract. I would have to take the question

as notice to find out exactly what the position is right at this moment. I know

there was some dispute continuing between the company and the town council. I

believe the town council has sued the company and may in fact have regained

possession of the plant, but I'm not sure.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to the

Premier that the allegations brought to the floor of the Legislature were

allegations made by the people of Roddickton through me. They weren't my

allegations, and there was an investigation. The Premier is indeed correct.

There are still a lot of questions about the situation in

Roddickton and that's why I raise the question again today. I'm wondering if the

Premier can inform the House, or in his seeking of information, if he would come

back and let us know if there still is a licence attached to that plant? Because

it's my understanding that there are some problems there now either with funding

to reactivate the plant or licensing. So I'm wondering if the Premier could

determine as well if indeed there's still a licence attached to the Roddickton

crab plant?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know offhand, Mr. Speaker, but

I'll take the question as notice and I'll bring the answers back to the hon.

member or the minister will, very shortly.

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

West.

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

Minister of Social Services. In the past number of weeks we've heard the Premier

and the Minister of Finance make statements regarding the fact that the

government has asked Ottawa this year not to cause them to have to make payments

on the overpayment that they have with the federal government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I'm saying to the Minister of Social Services

that you and the Minister of Finance have said that you've asked the federal

government not to have to make payments this year on your overpayment because of

the financial situation the Province finds itself in. Because these people on

social assistance find themselves in equally desperate shape as the provincial

government does, and because many people on social assistance have overpayments

and they're having it deducted, a certain percentage a month, I'm asking the

minister: will he now give the same type of treatment to the people who have

these overpayments with the provincial government as this Province has requested

and received from the federal government? Defer the overpayments so they can

live until such time as the minister is prepared to put in place an increase.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, overpayments can happen to

various categories of clients. We have situations now for example with the

moratorium where we've had to help people out through the transition process

before the moratorium compensation package was announced.

We have other situations as well. From time to time

overpayments occur. Unemployment insurance is another area. Compensation

-workers' compensation - is another one.

Mr. Speaker we cannot, in all fairness to the large clientele

that we have, now approaching 31,000 cases - in all fairness to that group, and

speaking to the need for the substantial amount of dollars that are allocated in

social assistance per se, we cannot forgive these overpayments. In fact, we

would ask that in all cases where overpayments have taken place that the

recovery would take place.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Petitions

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

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition

on behalf of a number of residents of my district and the district of St. John's

East.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: The petition reads: To the hon. House of

Assembly in Parliament assembled, petition of the undersigned residents of the

district of St. John's East and Pleasantville.

Whereas the education of our children is uppermost in our

minds; and

Whereas the right to have a christian education is already

entrenched in our Constitution;

Wherefore we, the undersigned, are committed to the highest

quality education for the children of our Province, we support Roman Catholic

schools and want to keep them. In the same way, we support the rights of others

to have the schools they desire. We also support co-operation between the

churches in education, especially shared service schools where they are needed.

We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in

our Province taken away and we ask you, as our representatives, not to tamper

with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.

This petition was put together by the parish council of the

St. Joseph's parish in St. John's East. It consists of about 1,000 signatures,

Mr. Speaker, almost half of the entire parish.

I am very happy to endorse this petition. In speaking today

with the people who gathered the names, I understand that they are quite happy

with the new arrangements which have been agreed to between the government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: - and the representatives of the churches.

Those people, Mr. Speaker, want the best education for their children. They want

to save expenses where we can save expenses but they want to retain the rights

that were guaranteed in the Terms of Union. It might be appropriate just to read

that term, because a lot of people wonder about what is in it, I think.

Part of the term says: "In and for the Province of

Newfoundland the Legislature shall have exclusive authority to make laws in

relation to education, but the Legislature will not have authority to make laws

prejudicially affecting any right or privilege with respect to denominational

schools, common (amalgamated) schools, or denominational colleges, that any

class or classes of persons have by law in Newfoundland at the date of Union,

and out of public funds of the Province of Newfoundland provided for education,

(

a) all such schools shall receive their share of such funds

in accordance with scales determined on a non-discriminatory basis from time to

time by the Legislature for all schools then being conducted under authority of

the Legislature; and

(

b) all such colleges shall receive their share of any grant

from time to time voted for all colleges then being conducted under authority of

the Legislature, such grant being distributed on a non-discriminatory basis."

Mr. Speaker, a number of people who have been concerned about

what may be happening in the educational system in our Province have spoken to

me and have spoken to all members, I know, about their interest in making sure

that the children of this Province still have the opportunity to have religious

instruction within the school, to have a christian environment in the place

where they are being educated. It has been the intention of this government to

ensure that that right continues and, as we saw last Friday, we intend to carry

that out. But we have to remember that all of those people want us to save costs

where we can save them, save expenses where we can save them. They want us to

encourage the religious leaders in our Province to get together with the

educational leaders and make sure that we have the best school system, the most

efficient, most cost-effective school system we can have in this Province. And

they are going to support the government in doing that as long as they retain

their rights to make sure that their children can have the kind of instruction

they want them to have.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to present and support this

petition on behalf of the members of the congregation of St. Joseph's Parish.

Thank you very much, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the Terms of Union, 1949, in Deeds, the adherence of the

various faiths were given the constitutional right to be able to have their

children educated in the religion of their choice.

I think it is very important that government respect the

rights of parents to choose the type of education that they wish their children

to have in their specific faith.

The hon. member mentions that they are quite happy with the

arrangement that government has reached with the representatives of the various

denominations. Mr. Speaker, that is a temporary arrangement, like collective

agreements in the past were temporary arrangements and Bills 16 and 17, of

course, were also temporary arrangements until this fall.

The Premier has said that it is not our intention, and he

said it is not our objective to do away with it; and the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations said there are no plans now to do it. They haven't come

clean. They have made a temporary arrangement - one that would sit well for a

few months and allow public concern to subside - but there have been no

definitive statements about the government's position on denominational

education. They have stated what they are not doing, what is not their

intention. They have not stated what they will do or will not do specifically.

That is the biggest concern.

We respect the rights of all parents to have their children

educated in the religion of their choice. Everybody admits that there are

changes which must be made within the structure of the system. Efficiencies must

be obtained in education as well as in any government department. Nobody is

disputing that fact, but the point is that this government has not lived up to

its promise. It has broken collective agreements. It has not fooled the public.

It might have thought it did, but the public are very much aware that this

government cannot be trusted on matters of education, or any other matters, and

I think it is very important to focus there, where the real intention is, and I

am quite sure the future will bring that out.

Thank you.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to

support this petition, today, so ably presented by my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, right from day one - the very day on which the

Williams report was presented to government - government has stated that it is

not our intention to in any way take away the rights of any of our people.

What we have always stressed is that we intend to deliver for

our children and our young people, and all our people, the best possible

educational system that we can afford to deliver. That has been our position.

Now, hon. members will know that of the Williams report's 211

recommendations, 153 have already seen some work done on them, so the report is

gradually being implemented. There are somewhere between twenty and twenty-five

of these recommendations which, if they were implemented to the letter, would,

indeed, have an impact on the traditional rights held by the churches.

Mr. Speaker, government has never had any intention to hide

that fact. The very first meeting that we had with the heads of churches, it was

laid out quite clearly by the Premier that if we were to follow the letter of

the law and implement every single recommendation, then we would, indeed, be

interfering with traditional rights, so we told them we have no intention of

doing that. This is not good enough for the Opposition; this is not good enough

for some parts of the media, not all, some. Because there is nothing, Mr.

Speaker, the Opposition would rather see, than myself and Pastor King having a

fist fight or, His Grace and the Premier wrestling on the floor. The Opposition

members would love to see that, but they are not going to see it. Hon. members

should have been present last Wednesday night.

Last Wednesday night, Mr. Speaker, there was a turning point

in education in this Province, and hon. members should have been there to have

felt the dynamics of the meeting. Part of that meeting, how shall I put it, Mr.

Speaker? It seemed that we were not totally opening up with each other - the two

groups - it almost looked like we were not fully trusting each other, but last

Wednesday night, everything was laid on the table, and I can understand why hon.

members opposite are upset, because they were going to make a great, big,

political football out of the Williams report, but they had the mat pulled out

from under them.

We saw what happened in this Chamber last Friday morning,

when the heads of all the churches came and shared in a joint statement. The

hon. the Premier was only the mouthpiece, so when hon. members opposite talk

about the integrity of that statement, it is the integrity of the churches the

hon. members are talking about, not just the integrity of this government.

I tell hon. members opposite and I tell my colleague who

presented this petition today, to go back to his constituents and tell them that

as a result of what was done on Wednesday night in this Province, the turning

point took place, and we are on the brink of seeing the best educational system

in North America, right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The turning point took place last Wednesday night and it will

go down in the history of this Province as, indeed, 'Wonderful Wednesday'. It

was Wonderful Wednesday, the turning point of education. So, my colleague, go

back to your constituents and tell them that they have a government here which

is not concerned about taking away people's rights, we are concerned with

educating children, and the partnership which was welded together last Wednesday

night, will see church and state working together to bring in the best possible

education that any province could ever hope to have, Mr. Speaker, and

Newfoundland and Labrador will have it.

Orders of the Day

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

Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we go on to deal with

the Interim Supply motion, I think there has been an understanding that we can

deal briefly with Orders 2, 3 and 4, which are at Committee stage on three

bills. And I would say, if hon. members wish to debate them, we would propose

not to go ahead at this time, but if members are prepared to let them go without

much further ado, we will deal with these at the Committee stage - the three

bills that stand, Orders, 2, 3 and 4, and then we will go on to Interim Supply

where everybody can have at it as they wish.

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

a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, referring to Friday's Hansard

and speech, it was indicated that we would be having the Interim Supply bill

today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker, that I hope we can

give a brief (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps I didn't hear over the hubbub, Mr.

Speaker, but I assumed we were going to start talking about other bills. If we

are going to Interim Supply, fine.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that my voice

didn't carry sufficiently and I am sorry for that, but what I had said was that

on the understanding we could deal briefly with Orders 2, 3 and 4, which are at

Committee stage on three bills - it didn't attract, I think it is fair to say, a

lot of comment in the House -we could deal with those and then go on to do

Interim Supply. But the plan is still to do Interim Supply and I will say again,

if members wish to debate either Order 2, Order 3 or Order 4 at any length, we

will put them off to another time, because we want to make the major business of

the day to be the Interim Supply bill. If that is agreed, we will go into

Committee.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on certain bills, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

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

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the following

bills without amendment, carried:

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Reduction Of The Impact Of

Packaging On The Environment," (Bill No. 2).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Government-Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper Limited Agreements Act," (Bill No. 10).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fisheries Loan Act," (Bill No.

4).

MR. ROBERTS: Could we rise the Committee and ask leave to

sit again, please?

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have

considered the matters to it referred, and have directed me to report Bills No.

2, 10 and 4 carried without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, the following bills, read a third time, ordered

passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

"An Act Respecting The Reduction Of The Impact Of Packaging

On The Environment," (Bill No. 2).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Government-Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper Limited Agreements Act," (Bill No. 10).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fisheries Loan Act," (Bill No.

4).

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 3.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from

His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

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

"I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland,

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

the year ending March 31, 1994. By way of interim supply and in accordance with

the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the

House of Assembly."

Sgd.:____________________________

Frederick A. Russell, Lieutenant-Governor.

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

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

with a bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Interim Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole on Interim Supply

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

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is a fairly normal procedure every year, where sometime

in March of each year, the Minister of Finance rises in his place and introduces

an Interim Supply bill. The purpose of Interim Supply, obviously, is to provide

a certain segment of expenditure, a certain segment of the money that government

is going to ask for in the Budget, to provide that certain segment of money for

a period of three months to allow government to operate while the main supply

bill, which is the Budget, is being debated.

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, this is for a sum of

$1,016,202,000. Now, members might extrapolate, if they would like and say, if

this is for three months - if this is to keep government going for April, May

and June, the maximum - if this is for three months, how come the amount is over

$1 billion? Does this mean we are going to expend $4 billion in the coming year?

Now, the answer, Mr. Chairman, is obvious: Quite often, after a Budget has been

presented, there is a waiting of expenditures in the first quarter of the fiscal

year, so this allows for more than one quarter of the total expenditure that

hon. members will see in the Budget on Thursday, a little bit more than one

quarter. However, Mr. Chairman, it is enough to keep us going until the Budget

has been presented, debated, and passed in the House, or until any other events

that might happen might overtake us. It is enough to keep us going for that

period of three months. I am certain, Mr. Chairman, that at the end of that

three months, there will be a Budget that will go through this hon. House,

sometime in that period.

Mr. Chairman, the

schedule attached shows the heads of

expenditure and breaks down for hon. members exactly where this money is going,

although, I must admit that the details of this expenditure have yet to be

divulged to this hon. House.

Mr. Chairman, I would just simply like to introduce the

Interim Supply Bill and I look forward to informed debate by members opposite. I

would really like to have some informed and constructive debate on this Interim

Supply bill, and hopefully, we can get it through this House rather quickly.

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

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

The Minister of Finance tries to make believe that this is

usual, routine. Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record right from the outset and

say that this is highly unusual, most inappropriate, most abnormal, I say to the

Minister of Finance, because I don't know if ever before a government has

brought an Interim Supply bill to this Legislature before the Budget was brought

down.

AN HON. MEMBER: We did it once.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, that must have been back in the

Moores days, before my time, not in my time, I say to the members. It is highly

unusual. The minister, of course, had to allude to it and say that you cannot

extrapolate too much because you have not seen the contents of the Budget. Well,

that is a good point, I say to the Minister of Finance, that we should not be

here today debating a bill by this government looking for over $1 billion. What

does it tell members opposite? Does it give them any great comfort to see their

Minister of Finance coming in today looking for approval from this House for $1

billion when we don't know where they are going to spend it? We do not know

where the Premier and the Minister of Finance are going to spend the $1 billion.

You don't know if they are going to do away with severance pay for public

servants, you don't know if they are going to roll back wages, you don't know if

they are going to tamper with the pension fund for the various units, yet

government is here asking us today to approve $1 billion. At least we should see

the Budget, scrutinize the Budget and know what's in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll see it (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, I say to the Member for Eagle River,

yes I might see it but I would say it will be more vague -

AN HON. MEMBER: Than this is.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, more vague than the Bill. Very vague,

I say to the Member for Eagle River, what's going to come down on Thursday.

Because there will be no specifics. Because you're trying to hoodwink the people

of the Province again. Hoodwink them! Like you've tried to do with the churches,

and you're trying to do with the public service of the Province. Hoodwink them,

trying to hoodwink them, Mr. Chairman.

If there's ever one thing that this government will be

remembered for it is being the government of hoodwinks. Hoodwinks! They're

trying now to bring in the Budget Thursday without any specifics whatsoever for

the public servants of the Province, without any specifics, hoping that they're

going to forget about it for another five or six weeks -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the Member for Eagle River, I

don't need anyone running interference for me. I don't run interference for

anybody else. The only time I ever ran interference for anybody, Mr. Chairman,

was going after a ball. When someone interfered with me then there was only one

thing left, and it usually wasn't the person who was interfering, I say to the

Member for Eagle River.

This is a very serious situation. A billion dollars. The

Minister of Finance expects that we're going to just give blank approval to

this. I can tell members opposite we're not. You're going to have a big job to

get this through this House. You want it to do you for four months, the Minister

of Finance says. No specifics of what he wants it for, no specifics whatsoever.

I can assure you this is going to receive a lot of debate. We look forward to

the Budget on Thursday. Lot of questions. We look forward to the minister's

Budget on Thursday. He should not have come looking for this interim supply

until he had tabled the Budget Speech in this Legislature, so that we at least

would have some idea of where the government plans to spend money this year,

where it plans to get its revenues. Most interesting, where it plans to spend.

Or where it plans to cut spending, I should say to members opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: All over the Province.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, he plans to cut all over the Province.

I say that's a very accurate statement by the Minister of Finance. He's going to

cut all over the Province. Here he is today with two of the largest unions in

the Province now calling for a strike mandate from its membership as of 1:00

p.m. today, and the minister comes in here looking for $1 billion. Doesn't know

how he's going to deal with them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: A billion - $16 million. He doesn't know

how he's going to spend it. He doesn't know what he's got in store for those

unions. Doesn't know what he's got in store for the Newfoundland Teachers'

Association. Doesn't know what he's got in store for the nurses. Doesn't know

what the capital budget is. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has

been threatening to resign since the last of December if he didn't have his

capital works budget approved. He still can't stand in this House today and tell

us how much money, Mr. Chairman, he has for capital works. He can't tell us.

Here's the Minister of Finance looking for $1 billion, and he

can't stand here today and tell us how much municipalities in this Province can

expect this year to be spent on capital works for municipalities. That's what we

have going on. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation can't stand in

his place today and tell us how much is going to be spent on road construction,

upgrading and paving in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

MR. MATTHEWS: Absolutely, shame. Of course, that will be

dealt with very quickly, by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,

I'm sure. Be dealt -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) pitiful.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is pitiful, I say to the Minister

of Municipal Affairs. For a man to go public in this Province, in front of the

leaders of the municipalities at the convention, the municipalities convention,

and tell them that if he did not have his capital works budget completed by the

end of December that he would resign. That he would resign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Announced!

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible). Here he is, Mr. Chairman, he

stood in this House on Friday on a question from the Member for Fogo, and he

even forgot the question. He forget the question. If I was the minister I would

forget the question as well. When the minister had no choice, if he had answered

the question, to say he didn't know.

MR. SIMMS: You meant next Christmas.

MR. TOBIN: He never said what Christmas.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes he did. He meant December 31 1992. The

minister made the statement at the municipalities convention.

MR. TOBIN: Why didn't you resign?

MR. MATTHEWS: There he is today - he does not know how

much money he is going to have in capital expenditure this year - capital works.

Mr. Chairman, I wish the minister, instead of debating across

the House from his seat, that he has a chance to get up and tell the House now,

of this billion dollars, how much the municipalities in the Province can expect

from the minister's department.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: You do happen to be the minister? You have

not forgotten that? You have not forgotten that you are the minister?

Mr. Chairman, this is a major expenditure. One quarter of the

Budget, $1 billion, the government is asking for in Interim Supply to enable

them to run the Province for the next three or four months. We are going to be

very, very reluctant to give approval for this, particularly in light that the

government did not have the decency to wait until after Thursday when they

brought down the Budget. Then, with people having the documents to peruse -

having the Budget document, the Estimates - we could then see how this

government proposes to spend $3 or $4 billion dollars. So until we see that, Mr.

Chairman, we are going to continue to debate the Bill for the rest of the day,

no doubt, and we look forward to Thursday's Budget so then we can debate this

Interim Supply Bill and the Budget in greater detail.

We need to let the people of the Province know exactly what

is going to be in that Budget because if past performance of this government is

anything to go on, it is going to take a number of weeks to get the message out

to the people of the Province, because this government is pretty sneaky, pretty

tricky, covers things up, does not announce the details, so it is going to take

some time for us to expose what is in the Budget and to get the word out.

I see the Member for Port de Grave now over there chomping at

the bit, trying to get up, so maybe he would suggest we approve the billion

dollars; but we are not going to do that in short order, I can assure him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, my colleagues.

I assume, Mr. Chairman, that we have - I just want direction

- ten minutes, is it? Ten and ten?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, ten and ten.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to take ten minutes, possibly longer if I am given

leave, to speak about one of the most important issues facing the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador today. I spoke about it so many, many times in this

House of Assembly and right across the Province of Newfoundland, and I intend to

keep speaking until at least someone in authority listens to what members like

myself have the opportunity of saying and the rights that this Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador deserve.

It has to do with the Bill just put before this House of

Assembly by the Minister of Finance. It has to do with finances - the need for

the money that is needed to be spent and give the essential services that this

government must provide to the people of this Province.

In order for any government to get money, you must have a

source of revenue. You must have a source of revenue where you can depend from

year to year that you can at least get sufficient funds that are needed to keep

the people in this Province going in their essential needs, whether it is

education, health, jobs, or whatever the services are; but it all comes down to

one thing. What does a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador need to survive

economically, to provide the economy where a government can sustain at least a

reasonable amount of financial income through its own revenue sources?

Leave out for the minute the federal government transfer and

equalization payments, what does Newfoundland and Labrador need? We have said

it. Every member in this House of Assembly, I suspect, has said it on one

occasion or another, and that is what is most important to the Province is the

fishery - the backbone of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have come through many, many difficult times - many, many

devastating hardships in the fishery. We have seen it stopped. We have seen

weather conditions, environmental conditions. We have seen foreign fishermen on

the Grand Banks. We have seen Newfoundlanders themselves display no respect for

conservation measures. We have seen dragger fleets come from time to time. All

over the years we have come through a difficult situation, and there has always

been a glimmer of hope on the horizon that one day we wake up and we will

respect the means by which to protect our fishery and to bring back, that

Newfoundland and Labrador would have the legitimate rights and its adjacent

rights and its first access to the cod stocks that it could at least sustain a

viable economy and take care of the needs of the people of this Province, the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, it is with that belief and that encouragement

that I felt all my life we could do that. We would ask the reason why we keep

arguing, we keep fighting, we keep making presentations and proposals,

hopefully, that at some day in the near future we would be able to get the

management of the fishery that we need to sustain a reasonable fishery in this

Province for the people. But, Mr. Chairman, what I saw happen last week is one

of the most unimaginable things. If anybody here would have told me a year ago

or two years ago or three years ago, that this was going to happen, I would not

have, in my wildest imagination believed that anybody in the country of Canada,

let alone a Newfoundlander, could ever think, could ever dream of doing such a

thing to this Province. There is absolutely no way that anybody could justify to

me that this man has a clear thinking in his mind of what is important to the

Province of Newfoundland and what is of the best advantage to Newfoundland and

Labrador, for the survival of the future.

When he made the decision to take that strong position to

bring in those boards, the Atlantic Board and the Pacific Board, to give

somebody else, groups of people, people outside of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador, the right to make decisions that are going to affect the lives of

every individual in this Province, there is absolutely no way anybody could tell

me that that man was using any sort of logic whatsoever. It is absolutely

atrocious to know that he would even consider doing it, yet, without any

consultation with anybody in this Province, absolutely nobody involved in the

fishery whatsoever, nobody from the provincial government, no business

community, no plant owners, only his second right-hand man, who is always in his

back pocket the only thing you can see are the heels of his shoes, Richard

Cashin. That is the only person that there was any consultation with, whom I

accused of being a Judas -

AN HON. MEMBER: A what?

MR. EFFORD: Who I accused publicly of being a Judas to

the people of this Province and now the proof is there -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

MR. EFFORD: Richard Cashin, to agree with the federal

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, that he would sell out the right of every

Newfoundlander and Labradorian in this Province and give the right to the people

of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI and Quebec to make decisions affecting the

fishery of this Province, and what is more unbelievable is that there is no

outcry from the people of the Province. I attended a church service in my

district on Sunday night, where they talked about the movement among the

religious orders, the movement among the religious people of the Province. What

you need is a movement. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, if there was any movement or

anybody in this Province who could stir up the people of this Province there was

never a greater need for a movement among the people of this Province to protect

their future, because if people do not wake up and realize themselves that what

happened last week is the complete, this is the final nail in the coffin of this

Province, that there in no one who could have driven a harder nail or a stronger

nail to do away with any possibility of getting back the fishery, so that people

could come back and have at least some sustainable future where they could find

some jobs in the fishery and related matters.

We worry about the foreign fishery, we worry about the seals

on the Grand Banks, we worry about the Nova Scotians coming in fishing, now,

that becomes a minor thing, because we will not be able to play a role in any

decision-making in the future, in relationship as to who gets access to the fish

if and when they are renewed, to a renewable resource or (inaudible) the

commercial resource in the Grand Banks -

MR. MURPHY: A Newfoundlander depending on somebody from

Quebec to get a fishing license.

MR. EFFORD: Yes. Mr. Chairman, this is how it's going to

be. There are five provinces on the board.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the federal government.

MR. EFFORD: And the federal government being the superior

decision maker. It's a case of the five provinces having representatives on

those boards. Two people from each province. Two from Newfoundland, two from

Nova Scotia, two from PEI, two from New Brunswick and two from Quebec. The

normal rule is that the majority rules in any decision making. Do we honestly

think that the people from the four other provinces are going to rule in favour

of Newfoundland's access to those stocks first? Absolutely not. I cannot believe

that Minister Crosbie, a fellow Newfoundlander, would even contemplate putting

together such a board, let alone doing it, but just to even think about doing

it.

Let's use our logic. Why would a minister of fisheries do it?

There has to be a reason. I'm going to be accused again of making false

accusations, or making assumptions, and I've thought about this a great deal.

I've talked about it with my colleagues on many an occasion. Why would the

federal Minister of Fisheries make such a decision that would devastate the

future of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Let's go back a few months, let's go back to last July at the

Radisson Plaza Hotel. I was there that night when Minister Crosbie brought in

the compensation package for the fishermen of this Province. Some twenty-odd

thousand fishermen and plant workers. The one question I asked: how could one

minister go up to Ottawa with such a large Cabinet and so many needs from other

people all over the country, and to be able to talk his fellow colleagues so

quickly into giving us $500 million to compensate for the loss of the fishery in

this Province? How could a minister do it so easily?

I said to myself: I was in cabinet myself for two years. I

knew if I had to get anything through Cabinet I had to convince a number of my

Cabinet colleagues to support me in order to get consensus. That is the normal

process. So how does a federal minister like John Crosbie - does he have that

kind of power? Is he able to go up and tell the Prime Minister and all of the

ministers up there representing all those four other provinces,: give me $500

million because we have a major problem in Newfoundland?

Unbelievable. I couldn't believe it. Make no wonder people

said he's the greatest thing that ever came to Newfoundland when they got the

money. You can't blame people for saying that. But then there has to be a reason

for how he got it through. I'm telling you, with every ounce of energy that

flows though my veins, I believe now and I understand now why he did it. Because

they wanted the agreement. They wanted the agreement to put this board together

because it would be to their advantage for the future of the fishery on the

Grand Banks - they would get access to it. The only condition that they gave in

$500 million would be -

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

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. EFFORD: By leave, Mr. Chairman? One minute in

conclusion?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

MR. EFFORD: The only reason that he gave the consent to

put that board together was because they had already pre-committed it to get the

$500 million dollars and that was the reason why his Cabinet colleagues gave him

that money. So that in the end he would agree to putting the Atlantic board

together which was to their advantage forever and ever on into the future. He

sold out every person in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador by doing

that. John Crosbie, the Minister of Fisheries. There was no other reason. Why

did they give him $500 million? Very simply: get the Atlantic board. It's a

cheap price. Once again, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Chairman, got

sold out.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I most certainly want to get

into what we're going to be debating here today, and that is the fact that

government has asked this House to approve $1 billion, and they're not prepared

to tell us what they want the $1 billion for.

I'd like to make a very brief comment on what the Member for

Port de Grave said. Number one, I disagree with him constantly attacking Richard

Cashin in this Legislature when the man is not here to defend himself. Whether

what he's saying about Cashin is right or whether's it's wrong is not important

at this stage in the game, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. Whether what he says is right or wrong. At least he should go out

into a forum where Mr. Cashin is and then attack him.

Number two, I'd say to the Member for Port de Grave, and the

Member for Eagle River in particular, is that I happened to serve in a position

as parliamentary assistant to the premier - a great position. As a matter of

fact, the first parliamentary assistant to a premier in this Province happened

to be the present Minister of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The first parliamentary assistant to a premier

in this Province was the present Minister of Justice.

During the period that I was parliamentary assistant to the

Premier there were a lot of things happened and I had access to a lot of files.

One of the things that interested me, as well as the members I just referred to

opposite, was the fishery. I sat down with Brian Peckford and we talked about

it. We went through a lot of files, we were doing some research. Brian Peckford

started the battle I say to the Member for Port de Grave. Brian Peckford started

the war basically in 1979 but it escalated in 1981-82 for joint jurisdiction of

the fishery. He went to Ottawa and the Minister of Fisheries, Pierre DeBane was

there at that time, and one of the things Brian did was try to lobby with the

Newfoundland members of the Liberal caucus, the government at the time, namely

Bill Rompkey, Rodger Simmons, Dave Rooney, Brian Tobin and George Baker. Those

were the five members of the Liberal caucus at that time that Brian Peckford

went and met with. Now, where was the Member for Port de Grave? Where was the

Member for St. John's South, the Member for Eagle River and the Premier of this

Province when Brian Peckford was fighting with the three gentlemen I mentioned

in the Liberal government in Ottawa to get exactly the same as this Premier

fought for? The door was slammed.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you saying?

MR. TOBIN: I am saying that when Brian Peckford asked to

meet with the Liberal caucus in Newfoundland -

AN HON. MEMBER: They should have met with them.

MR. TOBIN: Well, they did not. They would not support

joint management of the fisheries and at the same time the offshore was an

issue. The offshore oil and gas was an issue at the same time. I say to the

Member for Windsor - Buchans that he should listen. At the same time the

offshore was an issue and Brian Peckford, with his determination and with the

support of his Cabinet and caucus decided, with legal advice, that we had a case

in the court for ownership under the water of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.

Now, the fish might be in the water but offshore oil and gas was under the

water. We went to court to fight for Newfoundland's rights on the Grand Banks of

Newfoundland, to have ownership of the resources that are out there on the Grand

Banks. And, Mr. Chairman, do you know who Trudeau paid handsomely to go to court

and say Newfoundland did not own the offshore, did not own what is on the Grand

Banks of Newfoundland? One Clyde Kirby Wells was paid, I would suggest, hundreds

of thousands of dollars.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what happened all of a sudden? In March

1993 this Premier has now decided, all of a sudden, that we should have shared

jurisdiction, we should have control, we should have a veto over the Grand Banks

of Newfoundland I say to the Member for Eagle River. Now, what happened to the

Premier when he was getting paid and being made filthy rich by Pierre Trudeau,

to say that we should have no rights, no say, no jurisdiction over what is ours

on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland? What has changed in March 1993 to make him

finally come around to the way of thinking that Brian Peckford had in 1979 and

the Conservative Caucus did in '79? What has caused the Premier to change his

mind? Probably I am a bit presumptuous, probably it was the Member for Eagle

River and St. John's South. St. John's South and others that caused him to

change his mind but the question that remains to be answered is, why now, Clyde?

Why, in March of 1993, what you sold your soul for, what you were prepared to

sell out Newfoundland for in 1981-82, whenever he went to court for Trudeau, why

now Clyde? I would say to the Member for Windsor - Buchans that our position as

a party has not changed since 1979 and I am delighted that in 1993 your leader

and your party and your government has now come to support our position. I would

say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: All of us share that. I would suspect, Mr.

Speaker, that every Conservative in this Province are delighted that the Premier

has now come to support our position, that is very important. Well, Mr. Speaker,

I wish he had said, me too - if the member had said, me too, in 1982, he would

not have been knocking on doors trying to sell insurance policies from 1982-85,

I would say to him. I would say he missed his shot, he missed his chance. Why,

Mr. Speaker, why has it taken this member so long to come to support the

policies and platforms of the Progressive Conservative Party in this Province?

Why now, Clyde? Why did it take you four years to come to support the principles

and policies of the Conservative Party in this Province? Why did the Premier

wait four years? Why did he wait four years to come to supporting the policies

of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador? That is the

question which has to be answered? Why did the Premier sell his soul to deny

Newfoundlanders the right to the jurisdiction of the offshore oil and gas and

minerals on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland?

MR. DUMARESQUE: We do not want jurisdiction.

MR. MATTHEWS: Why don't you want jurisdiction, afraid you

would have protection?

MR. TOBIN: Why don't you want jurisdiction? Why? Why

would you not want jurisdiction? What are you afraid of? Why would you not want

it, I say to the Member for Eagle River? Why? Why would you not want it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: $700 million why.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, so you do not want to put up any money as

a party. Now, there is the answer, we cannot afford it, is what he is saying.

Mr. Chairman, I submit that you cannot afford not to have it, I say to the

Member for Eagle River.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I will not sit down, I say to the Member

for Placentia, but there is one other thing I would say to members opposite, all

of a sudden they all know everything about the fisheries, the Member for Eagle

River, you will hear him up talking about the fisheries. Mr. Speaker, if the

Member for Eagle River ever seen a cod (inaudible) untied he would not know what

was happening. You should probably talk to the Member for St. John's South -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, if I could have a minute to clue

up, as I granted my colleague for Port de Grave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of

Finance, to bring this Bill before the legislature today, to ask for $1 billion

dollars and tell us that he cannot say what he wants it for because the Budget

is not brought in, warrants every member in this Legislature to speak against

their request.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Hear, hear! Now we will hear the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Now, Mr. Chairman, it is nice to hear the

hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West with his history lesson. He talks about

what took place ten or twelve years ago, with concern over the fishery and

rightfully so, the government of the day should have went to Ottawa and should

have tried to persuade the government of the day not to give Newfoundland

jurisdiction over the offshore fishery, because Premier Peckford at that time,

if he was going to protect the offshore fishery, if he was going to keep the

foreigners off the grounds, if he was going to do what needed to be done, the

only things he had at his disposal, if memory serves me right, was the Norma and

Gladys and three water bombers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five.

MR. MURPHY: Five, the hon. member says - five water

members - four of them ready for mothballing. Now I do not know how Mr. Peckford

at that time could possibly, in his own mind, think that he could look after the

Grand Banks and that vast ocean and keep the foreigners off the grounds. He

could not do it.

Had he used his head, what he should have done is what this

Premier is now prepared to do - sit down with the federal government and

negotiate joint management whereby the licensing, and what is taking place on

the grounds itself, the inshore grounds and what have you, could have been

identified through the fishermen, the fishermen's union, hon. members, et

cetera, so that the scientists in Ottawa would have some idea of what is going

on off the adjacent grounds of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Now that has been said before, I say to the

hon. Member for Placentia.

Now the problem is not who owns or who has the right. I think

we, as Newfoundlanders, all recognize that in order for this Province to sustain

itself - the Minister of Finance today would not be looking for the amount that

he is looking for, this Province would not have the horrendous financial problem

that faces it today, had somebody had the foresight and the wisdom and the

courage, and other parts, to stand up to the situation as well as the Minister

of Finance does.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The hon. member knows only full well. Let me

remind the hon. member of this. All the federal governments, Liberal, Tory,

Liberal, Tory, et cetera, have had a hand to play in the devastation that has

taken place, in the negative results of the downsizing of the fishing industry,

and they have all had it; but no federal government has had an opportunity to

save the fishery as much as the present Tory government in Ottawa. They have

neglected their responsibility.

We have seen total allowable catches up 266,000 metric tons,

and the inshore fishermen were saying loud and clear, screaming: Please do not

do it. You will destroy what is left of the fishery. We had all kinds of

so-called 'experts' come in from Ottawa, saying: Oh, no, do not worry. No

problem. Our grounds can sustain 266,000 metric tons. It was the biggest lie; it

was the biggest falsehood ever perpetrated on the people of this Province, and

we all went along, and people clapped their hands and we went out and not only

did we over catch the stocks, not only did we take an excessive amount of cod

that destroyed the inshore fishery, we also destroyed what is commonly known as

the flatfish industry, with grey-sole, flounder, yellow-tail flounder - we

destroyed it. There is still a quota out there now and it is just not feasible

for the offshore companies to go out and harvest flatfish the size of saucers.

There is no yield in them. There is no count in them. There is not market for

it; but even worse than that, what they did not realize when they gave the

offshore allocation, was that they were destroying the environment with it.

The technology associated with offshore fishing today is

beyond the capability of the resource itself to sustain itself. Therein lies the

problem, and we used technology and we tore up the grounds. We tore up the

environment.

If all members in this House found ourselves having to come

in here tomorrow with no lights on, and try to grope our way around and find

where we were sitting, we could have the misfortune of ending up with some

members opposite over on this side.

Let me say this to you, Mr. Chairman. What took place was, is

that the fish stocks now are devastated. I don't know but they're devastated

beyond. Newfoundlanders, from the north of Labrador right to the southern tip of

Cape St. Francis, all the south coast, have now got to depend on the decision of

the Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa, a Newfoundlander, this staunch

Newfoundlander, who brought in the moratorium package, who turned around last

Wednesday - and the hon. Member for Grand Bank, I pitied him.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes. Oh, it was shameful.

MR. MURPHY: I pitied him. He couldn't have been more

devastated if he had to - he talks about soccer all the time because he was a

good soccer player. He would not be more devastated if he got a red card. He sat

in his place and while he was trying to defend the position of that side his

colleague, Mr. Crosbie, the Minister of Fisheries, was somewhere else, down at

the Radisson - he always goes to the Radisson. Every time he goes down there he

gets in trouble. Perhaps he should try the King's Bridge Hotel sometime.

He was down there scuttling the hon. Member for Grand Bank.

Tearing him apart, tore him apart. Not only did he tear the Member for Grand

Bank apart but he tore the people of this Province apart. When the day has to

come that somebody in Nain, St. Anthony, Bonavista or Fogo, I say to the hon.

member, has to depend on two representatives on a board from Quebec, two from

PEI, two from New Brunswick and two from Nova Scotia to find out if he has an

opportunity to make a living off the coast of Fogo, then the hon. member should

hang his head, stand up in his place and renounce Mr. Crosbie's plan. He's put

the last nail in the coffin.

When I suggested to hon. members opposite that the fifty-two

members of this House should have been on the steps in Ottawa I was kind of

sneered at. But now, if the fifty-two - without a partisan face - No, the hon.

Member for Menihek waves his hand because he has one thing on his mind: survival

in western Labrador at any cost. That's why he waves his hand. He couldn't care

anything about the fishery. He doesn't know anything about the fishery. Couldn't

care anything about the fishery. He's concerned about himself. So he shouldn't

wave his hand at me. He should stand in his place also with some courage and

some conviction, stand up and be counted. Tell Mr. Crosbie, and the resigning

federal ministers up there, okay, that before they leave that this have not

Province is only asking for its 450 years of common right to survive.

If the federal Minister of Fisheries, who happens to be a

Newfoundlander, cannot -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, the Member for Port de Grave was 150 per

cent dead on. When he sat down in the Radisson Hotel and put the compensation

package in place he knew then that he had made a deal with the thirteen Cabinet

ministers from the Province of Quebec to make a deal to scuttle every

Newfoundland fishermen who ever wants to get back on the grounds again, if they

ever get back again.

So what we have seen in the last eight years of Tory

government federally is cause this Province, cause this minister, cause this

government the anguish and the problems of trying to find the dollars to look

after teachers, nurses, civil servants. Trying to pay the bills of misguided,

adventurous poppycock. Look, $100 million. Premier Moores spent $100 million,

borrowed it, to make a simultaneous explosion on either side of the Straits. We

were going to have this great Lower Churchill project. One hundred million

dollars later, gone. The one that nobody talks about was the BRINCO buy-back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: One minute, Bob. I gave your buddy one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Okay, that's alright.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: You're getting louder. I don't want your

leave. I can speak here till the House closes if I want to. Ten minutes every

now and then. He'll have his turn again. I don't know what's the matter with the

hon. member. He's getting louder than Gordon Seabright, and that's something to

say.

Mr. Chairman, I'll just change the subject a little now, a

little for a while -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Pardon? Yes, it could be a bit of

fertilizer came out of that that time. There wasn't much substance to it, I

realize, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, today in the House of Assembly I was kind of

intrigued about the line of questioning that the Leader of the Opposition had

for the Premier. Before I start I just want to say good-bye to Roger and wish

him well. Because I guess between now and 5:00, or between 5:00 and tonight,

he'll be looking for a seat back there by John and Tom and all the boys in the

back. He'll be looking for another job or he'll have to turn in the keys to the

Blazer or whatever he'll have to do at 5:00. Keys to the private elevator are

gone today at 5:00, I'd say. Poor old Roger is gone.

That kind of intrigues me. Because with a job opening coming

there in the front benches if I put myself in the Premier's position, what is he

going to do to fill that job? He has a few people on the back benches there who

he'll have to have a serious look at, no doubt. I would imagine the first one he

would have to look at would be the Member for Stephenville. He certainly

deserves the job. I don't know if the Premier forgives him yet for not allowing

the Premier to run in that seat some time ago. I'm not sure if that little burr

in the Premier's saddle has gone, but hopefully it is and the Member for

Stephenville will get the job.

If he doesn't, if the person who deserves the job doesn't get

it, I wonder what happens then. You'd have to move along the line to our present

Speaker, or Chairman of Committees, who is sitting there now, who would be a

very competent Cabinet minister, I'd say. I don't know why he wasn't considered

before. I'd say he'd probably do a good job in Cabinet. He'd be my number one

choice had I been the Premier.

If he doesn't take the Chairman of Committees here now he'd

have to look at the Member for Bellevue, I guess. The Member for Bellevue I

don't think, from his actions here in the House and when he's sitting in the

Chair, could handle the pressure. I guess the Premier would also consider that.

I don't imagine the Member for Bellevue will get it. He could look at the Member

for Pleasantville I guess, if he wanted to, if he was going to look at a new

Cabinet minister. I think because of the Member for Pleasantville's actions on

the "No" side of the Yes and No vote I would imagine the Member for

Pleasantville is probably out of line for that position too.

So he'd have to move along to maybe the Member for Eagle

River. Now he had the opportunity to put the Member for Eagle River in Cabinet

as the member for Labrador at one time. That was only a few months ago. He

couldn't at the time because he needed a constitutional lawyer and Paul Dicks

wasn't good enough, is what the Premier said. So I guess he had to, with the

Member now for Naskaupi in Cabinet to look after the Constitution, because he

had nobody else over there who could do it. So the Member for Eagle River, maybe

he would be considered, but then the Premier did say in the House of Assembly

that he is immature, so I can't see how he matured so quickly. He would be my

choice, by the way. I would pick him.

He certainly would be a good political choice, but I don't

know how competent he would be to run a department, especially the dingbat -

what was it Steve called him? 'Bring back Decker,' was it, bring him back? Was

he talking about 'bring back Decker,' I believe. I don't know where he thought

you were going. He must have figured you were going somewhere. I heard him on

television one day say: bring back Decker. Now I don't know why Steve Neary

would have so much against the Member for the Strait of Belle Isle. I can't

understand what the problem would be for him to be so upset with that man. As

far as I know, Steve Neary is on that panel to represent the Liberal Party. I

don't know why he would attack a very distinguished member of the Cabinet, the

Member for the Strait of Belle Isle, as he did. So he couldn't have been saying

'Dingbat Decker,' he had to be saying 'bring back Decker,' I suppose. They must

have wanted to question him. That's all I could figure.

Anyway, I had a couple of calls in to Steve Neary to ask him

why. Every time he called back I was out, and he was out. But I'll find out

eventually why he was upset, or was he really saying 'bring back Decker.' Maybe

that's it.

Then if he moved along a little further he'd have to come to

the Member for Bay- D'Espoir. He was in Cabinet already so he's not going to get

another shot at it. He's gone, he's out of here, I'd say. He's not going in

Cabinet any more. Then he would have to move along again to the Member for

Fortune - Hermitage, now he gave the pledge of allegiance, the semi-annual or

the annual pledge of allegiance last week for the Premier. So that may help a

little bit but, Mr. Speaker, that pledge of allegiance was heard before several

times over. He gave that pledge of allegiance at one time to Leo Barry, I

believe it was. He gave that pledge of allegiance to Leo Barry, than to Brian

Peckford and Tom Rideout and now he is back to the Premier again, so I do not

say the Premier will pick him because his pledge of allegiance - although it

sounded great the other day in the House of Assembly - it did ring a little

hollow, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, then we would move along to the Member for

Trinity North. The Member for Trinity North, the Premier would look at him - and

maybe it was because of the deal he made with the Minister of Forestry when he

said he would not present a petition that was given to him by the Save Our

Forest Group in his district. Maybe because he did not try to embarrass the

Government and present that petition, he may have a shot at it but, Mr. Speaker,

I do not know that a person who will not present petitions on behalf of his

constituents would be a great fellow to get in Cabinet. Probably the Premier may

consider passing and going along to the next seat.

The next seat, Mr. Speaker, would be my candidate for the

most likeable over on that side at least and most sensible too, he is living in

the District of Kilbride, occasionally he lives in the District of Kilbride but,

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Premier will pick him for Cabinet unfortunately,

because I hear that the Premier has him set up for a knock off, like what

happened to the Member for St. George's District. I believe it is a fellow Gus

someone or other, being set up to get the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay. It

is unfortunate too because I would say that he has a lot to offer in this House

of Assembly. He is a genuine person coming into this House of Assembly but I

think the Premier has him set up to get knocked off. So, that is unfortunate but

I think it is coming. I am sure, I have every confidence in him that he is

working fairly hard in his district and I do not think the Premier's tactics are

going to work. I think he is going to win that nomination but then he has big

trouble after he wins it. He will have real big trouble with a young man named

Paul Shelley (?), Mr. Speaker, I think that will be his undoing. So, it would be

good for him if the Premier did take him today, when the Member for Exploits is

kicked out of Cabinet, if he did take him and show him around the Cabinet Table

for a week or so anyway before the election is called.

Well, if he does not take the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay, then he comes down around the corner to the Member for Harbour Grace. Now,

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Harbour Grace is not going to get into Cabinet. That

is my prediction -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: - the Member for Harbour Grace will not

get into Cabinet because of -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to take away the time

from any member in this hon. House who is speaking but listening to the hon.

member speaking for the last seven or eight minutes - we are on a Bill where the

Minister of Finance is requesting $1 billion for expenditures in the Province

and I know the Bill is wide ranging when you are talking about financial means

but the hon. member has completely gone on with a lot of old nonsense. Make no

wonder, when I looked up I saw a number of people in the gallery shaking their

head in disgust, it would make you ashamed to be a politician or be part of this

House of Assembly with such a display by any politician talking about such

nonsense when the Province is falling apart. When the Province is falling apart,

going on with such nonsense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by the hon. member, he is quite

right when he says that the debate is wide ranging, we are on a money bill here,

however I want to tell the hon. Member for Kilbride that he was straying

somewhat and I ask him to keep his comments relevant.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I have been in this House long enough to know

the rules and not to know the rules. Maybe the Member for Port de Grave will

listen every now and then to what the rules are. When you are debating a finance

bill, it is rather wide ranging. I am surprised that the hon. member even got up

out of his seat today because ever since he and the Member for Harbour Grace

made their little speeches to the teachers out in their districts, out around

Conception Bay North, I have not heard a sound from either one of them, Mr.

Speaker, and that is the reason -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to

rise and follow lame duck Bob, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Kilbride.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River knows that he must refer

to hon. members of this House by the district that they represent.

MR. MURPHY: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's South on

a point of order.

MR. MURPHY: I totally agree with what the Chair is saying

and I know exactly where the Chair is coming from. However, just to remind the

Chair, the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West referred to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations as Rog as did the Member for Kilbride. I just

say that in defence of my colleague.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by the Member for St. John's

South. Again, all hon. members should be aware of the rules, the procedures, and

the Standing Orders so I ask them to please follow these rules and help the

Chair to enforce these rules.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and

follow the lame duck Member for Kilbride. Obviously he has decided to throw in

the towel. Obviously he has decided he has nothing more to contribute to this

Province. Obviously he has decided that his only aspect of public life is the

Sprung greenhouse, one he is not proud to leave here with, when he was

previously the Minister for Rural Development. With a legacy like that, make no

wonder, I would not offer myself to the public in this Province anymore, Mr.

Chairman. I think if the hon. member is going to rise in this House in the dying

days of his tenure as a member of the hon. House of Assembly, that he would deal

with the issues, and that he would deal with the economic difficulties that we

find in this Province today, and give the people of this Province his ideas as

to how this Province can recover, how we can meet the demands of our people for

services, but at the same time be responsible with the taxpayer's money.

The reason I wanted to rise today in support of the

minister's request for this money is to ask the people of this Province to

consider the alternatives, consider the alternatives that are being put forth by

the Leader of the Opposition, in particular on his economic plan because not too

much longer, in a couple of months hopefully at the outside, I would like to see

it called next week, but hopefully within the next couple of months we will have

a chance to go back to the electorate and ask them for approval for another four

years. Now, Mr. Chairman, when we do that we must show them our plan but I think

it is also contingent on us to be forthcoming with the view of other people.

I think the people of this Province must know what the Leader

of the Opposition is offering for an economic plan for the people of this

Province. Now, about March 11 of this year the hon. Leader of the Opposition, a

couple of days before that, went and laid out the economic plan for the future

of the people of this Province. I guess that was his first platform statement to

the electorate. He was going to propose that there would have to be some changes

to the way the economy is run and how we are going to prosper in the future in

this Province. One of the first things he talked about, Mr. Chairman, is to have

a realignment of the tax structure and to talk about how we could provide

incentive to the small business community in particular.

I do not know where the hon. Leader of the Opposition has

been but in the December 4 statement of the Minister of Finance he did exactly

that. It took him two or three months to catch up with the hon. Minister of

Finance but the manufacturing tax cut back to 7.5 per cent and corporate income

tax down by another percentage point, Mr. Chairman. The kind of meaningful

changes that had to be made in the tax system were in fact put in place. The

other things that the Leader of the Opposition had to say about the state of the

finances was that we can borrow. He said, do not mind people saying you cannot

borrow, go on, we can borrow another $50 to $100 million, Mr. Chairman. That is

not practical. At this stage in the game we are $6 billion in debt. On the two

credit ratings in this country today, Standard and Poor's and Moody's we are the

lowest of all the ten provinces, one more notch and we will go down to the point

where we will be barred from certain lending institutions in the world. We will

not be able to go and be able to get money to meet the needs that we have to

meet, and the priorities that we have established, and obviously things that we

cannot change - the $502 million a year that we are paying now on interest on

the debt.

Mr. Chairman, one of the reference points that we have, of

course, as Liberals, is to go back to the hon. Joseph R. Smallwood. When he left

office in 1972, the public debt of this Province, after twenty-three years of

government - after twenty-three years of growth and investment and building

roads, schools, hospitals, and all kinds of electrical facilities, the

universities - after that hon. Premier left office, the public debt of this

Province was at $300-$400 million - $300-$400 million after twenty-three years

of building and prospering.

Now, seventeen years after, what has happened? When it was

all built, when the schools were built, when the hospitals were built, when the

roads were built, when people's services were put there for them, what did they

do? Did they still keep us at an even keel? They did not come back, after

seventeen years, with a $500 million deficit. They did not even come back with a

billion dollar deficit - $5.1 billion after seventeen years. That is the record.

MR. FLIGHT: And what do they have to show for it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Exactly right - what do we have to show

for it today?

At a time when we were expecting the leaders of our Province

to have a strong hand on the tiller of our finances, when we were getting 7 and

8 per cent increases in the equalization payments from Ottawa, we were spending

10, 12 and 15 per cent. It was unbelievable the splurge that they had at the

taxpayers expense, and what we are doing today - what this hon. Minister of

Finance is doing - is to try to bring back some order to things, to try to live

within our means, and we are doing it by not trying to tax people to death. We

are trying to also not borrow our way out of this because it is just impossible.

Can you imagine what would happen if every year we have to

borrow something like $400 million? Can you imagine what would happen if we went

to the Asian markets, or even the American markets, and we were not able to

borrow just that minimum requirement to meet our social assistance payments, to

meet our hospital payments, to meet our basic payments to teachers and others in

this Province? If we could not borrow that basic amount of money, do you know

what would happen? We would obviously see drastic layoffs, cutbacks, and

closures of many of our hospitals and schools in this Province. There would be

no other recourse.

So for people to come into this House, on the opposite side,

and just advocate that we should ignore reality, that we should just turn away

from the economic reality of this Province as we fit into this country, it is

just an absolute, fundamental -

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Shameful display of irresponsibility, Mr.

Chairman, and the people of this Province do not deserve that.

The people of this Province have elected all hon. members,

knowing that they were going to go in there and fight to see that their

districts were well represented, but at the basics to ensure that there is

stability in the country, to ensure that we are acting responsibly with the

taxpayer's money, and not to have a situation where today we are paying more,

twice as much, on our interest on the loan as Joey Smallwood built up in

twenty-three years.

In twenty-three years Joey Smallwood only built up half as

much as we have to pay on the debt today. What a legacy. No wonder the Member

for Kilbride will not run. No wonder the Member for Harbour Main will not run.

No wonder the Member for St. John's East Extern will not run. No wonder Torngat

Mountains threw in the towel. No wonder none of the members over there want to

come back to the electorate tomorrow and say: Give me another chance. You were

given your chance and you failed miserably and that is why the people of this

Province still have confidence and will have confidence in this Premier and this

government. Because, as hard as it is to make some of those decisions, as hard

as it is to say to people, You cannot have those increases, as hard as it is to

say that we have to rationalize services and as hard as it is to try to bring in

regionalized hospital boards and regionalized facilities, people know in the

back of their minds and in their hearts that we are doing it only because we

know that this has to be done for the sake of the future generations of this

Province. There is no political crassness alive today like there was in the

previous ten years prior to our government being elected. I can say that with

all honesty, and I am sure that is exactly why the people of this Province are

responding as they are doing today.

So, yes, I am quite pleased today to stand up and support and

to ask all hon. members to give a speedy approval to the Minister of Finance's

request for this money, because we want to be able to know were we are going

from one hour to the next and not abdicate our responsibilities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I listened with some interest to the Member for Eagle River

talking about something that apparently had happened last week. He didn't

mention the bill once, Mr. Chairman, but, 'Show us our plan,' he challenged the

Leader of the Opposition - the plan that he was going to put to the paper. I

remind the member of the plan that was put forth in 1989, too, when someone

promised that he was going to create jobs and bring every mother's son home and

all of these things that were supposed to have happened.

MR. WALSH: Yes, you promised (inaudible) water and sewer.

MR. WINSOR: If the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island

wants to leave the Chamber, he can because he doesn't contribute anything when

he is in here on his feet, so he won't contribute from his seat.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind the member of some of the things

that the Premier had promised, he was going to bring every mother's son home,

the Premier was going to have a water and sewer corporation, that was all a part

of the plan. He was going to reinstate meaningful collective bargaining. In

fact, here is what he said - it is worth reading, especially in light of what

has happened the last two or three days; it is worth reading what was going to

happen.

'The record of the Tory Government in dealing with labour has

been dismal. Its adversarial approach has created some of the worst moments in

this Province's trade union history'. Mr. Chairman, I wonder, can we say the

same thing today about the performance of this government, as it has dealt with

labour in this Province - and so on in the list. If we want to look at the plan,

how free collective bargaining was going to be restored, how cuts in health care

wouldn't come at the expense of the public, that would always take priority;

health care needs would always take priority, we were told. Mr. Chairman, that

plan soon changed.

I want to speak more specifically on the bill, because it is

an Interim Supply bill, where we look at certain sums of money. I unfortunately

had to leave when the Member for Port de Grave was going to speak, and I would

assume, knowing the member, the former minister - would like to be the minister,

the Minister of Fisheries, I suspect; he would love to be. I suspect that he

spoke something about the fishery. I would almost bet my last dollar that the

gist of his remarks was probably -

MR. R. AYLWARD: He just supported Richard Cashin.

MR. WINSOR: No, he wasn't supporting Richard Cashin, I

suspect he wasn't supporting Richard Cashin or John Crosbie, neither would he

have been supporting the present Minister of Fisheries. I doubt very much if he

said anything complimentary about the present Minister of Fisheries either, Mr.

Chairman.

I note that the minister was looking for $12,647,000 in this

particular Interim Supply for fisheries. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would be really

curious as to how the minister is going to spend that $12.6 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do you not ask him that?

MR. WINSOR: Asking him is just like asking the minister -

by the time you have the answer you have forgotten the question.

I am curious about how that $12.6 million is going to be

spent. Is some of that money going to be now - what we have been waiting for,

the interest relief that we couldn't get approved in the last fiscal year, and

this money is now going to be spent in the 1993-1994 fiscal year? Is that why we

have waited since October, when fishermen throughout this Province have - in

fact, last week had to come to the minister himself and ask: When are you going

to announce it? What are you going to do? The member indicated, fishermen from

the Speaker's district had to come to see when the minister was going to approve

the funding. Is that where that $12 million is going to be? I hope so. I hope

some of it is going to be spent there.

One of the previous speakers - I am sure the Member for Port

de Grave, expressed some grave concerns about the ability of the fish to come

back in the period of time we have been given. I don't care what kind of

management scheme we have, we have to have a resource to manage. Because all

this is academic, totally academic, at this point, as to who is going to manage

the fishery, because I don't believe there is one fish out there. I don't

believe there is a fish out there to manage. Hopefully, in three or four or five

years, we will have some resource, but I believe we have caught just about every

one.

I am somewhat amazed. I was watching the news last night

where the ship went down off Nova Scotia, and there were thirty-two men in the

water, on the surface, maybe, I would suspect. Knowing that the ship was going

down, most of them wore life jackets or flotation devices. With all the

technology we had, we couldn't find these men, and yet we have managed to catch

every fish in the ocean. Two hundred, 300, 400 fathoms beneath the surface, and

we have managed to catch just about every one - not very many left at all.

As the Member for Port de Grave always says, he doesn't think

we should be talking about closing fish plants. He thinks we should be talking

about having more people involved in the fishery. I would like to say the same

thing, but I fear the reality of the present is that if it ever can come back

and the moratorium ends - if it can end; I am not sure we can even do that, at

this point in time. The latest surveys indicate that the stock is even worse

than we feared. We know that we are never going back to 220,000 and 230,000 and

180,000.

MR. EFFORD: Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sometime we are.

MR. WINSOR: Not in the foreseeable future. Sometime. But

in the interim, Mr. Chairman, we are perhaps looking at much smaller TACs,

something in the range of 70,000 to 80,000,for the next five or six years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Chairman, I don't care what the minister

says, about who is going to get it. I question whether we have that much

resource out there to catch at this point in time. I question whether there is

that much there to catch.

MR. EFFORD: If you're only talking about cod, you're

right. (Inaudible) other fish besides.

MR. WINSOR: No, I am talkin