November

6, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 59

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

question for the Premier. I want to question the Premier on an issue that I have

raised a number of times in the House and, on Wednesday, the Member for

Ferryland raised it again in debate. It is the matter of early retirement

programs for fishermen. I am wondering can the Premier inform the House if the

Province is going to participate financially in an early retirement program for

fishermen and, if so, on what basis?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I believe the Minister of Fisheries is in

Ottawa today advising them of the Province's position. Cabinet dealt with it

finally - or completed its dealing with it last week, and we have agreed that

the Province will participate in a POWA program, under the normal POWA rules.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I guess I can deduct from that, that it is

probably on a 70-30 basis. I think that is what the former program was. Let me

ask the Premier then, would the Province be participating financially in an

early retirement program for fishermen between the ages of fifty and fifty-four?

In an earlier program, the Province refused to participate with workers in that

age category. So, will the Province be participating in the age category fifty

to fifty-four for early retirement for fishermen?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, we will not. If, as and

when, it is available for loggers as well, who are equally out of work with

fishermen; if, as and when it is available to miners, who also have lost their

jobs; then the Province will consider participating in it at that time on a

broad basis. But we have to treat everybody fairly. We can't single out one

class of persons and say: You are privileged in this Province. So we will apply

by the normal rules.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact

that the Premier has consistently said there are too many people in the fishery,

there must be rationalization and downsizing, doesn't the Premier see this as an

opportunity? Apparently, it will cost the Province about fifteen cents to the

dollar - you're talking about fifteen cent dollars. Would the Premier not see

this as an opportunity to get involved in an early retirement program when

everyone recognises that our fishing industry must be restructured? The stocks,

even when they regenerate, will not sustain processing as it did in the mid- and

late-1980s. Does the Premier not see this as one way of dealing with the issue

of giving people income and restructuring the fishery?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. We may have to do

something to help restructure the fishery. We may have to have some kind of

special program for people involved in the fisheries, but what we cannot do is

say you are different and special because you are a fisherman but, if you cut

wood for a living and you have no more opportunity because of mechanization, and

because the paper mills have cut down on their consumption of wood, and instead

of 1,800 people working for Abitibi in the woods, there are now only 750, you

1,050 or those of you who are between fifty and fifty-four, you are unfortunate;

had you been a fisherman, you would have gotten this benefit but because you are

a logger you are not going to get it. We don't treat our people that way, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I just want to reiterate the point again to

the Premier. I mean we are talking here, fifteen-cent-dollars, from what I

understand.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) federal taxes, too, boy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the question is not to the

taxman, the 'no' man, it is to the Premier. Personally, I don't think we would

ever get another opportunity to avail of fifteen-cent-dollars, I say to the

Premier. Is the Premier saying that the door is closed on that offer from the

federal government for fishermen between the ages of fifty and fifty-four? The

Province will definitely not participate? - that is the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, whether it is

fifteen-cent-dollars, or fifty-cent dollars, or one-cent dollars, the principle

is the same. The logger is still just as much out of work and would still be

just as much treated differently; the miner would be the same thing or anybody

else so you cannot treat people that way. We can't treat people that way and we

won't treat people that way.

The problem has to be addressed. I agree, it does have to be

addressed, but not in a way that singles out fishermen saying, because you fish,

you have special status in this Province, you get favoured and privileged

treatment; you are not an ordinary taxpayer like everybody else, you get

privilege. We are not prepared to do it.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, laid off loggers, forestry

workers, fall directly under the Province's jurisdiction. The Premier can do

something for those people if he wanted to. We are talking here about an issue

where the federal government, because of the crisis, is willing to put in

dollars to early retire fishermen. I mean, it seems to me that we are talking

the Premier's principles again instead of common sense, that is what it seems

like to me. We could retire about 1,000 fishermen, Mr. Speaker, under this offer

from the federal government, costing the Province, yes, some money, but

fifteen-cent-dollars. What is the alternative, I ask the Premier? Is it social

assistance, which will cost his government fifty cents on the dollar? Is that

the alternative?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If need be, Mr. Speaker, that is the

alternative. I understand that, but we cannot discriminate against people. We

are not in the business of using the taxes paid by those loggers who are between

fifty and fifty-four, when they buy something and pay retail sales tax, to take

that and give it to another group of people and say: You can't have it because

you are a logger; you can only get it if you are a fisherman. We are not

prepared to do that, so the position is very clear.

Let me address the specific point the hon. member just made.

Loggers, he said, fall within provincial jurisdiction. It is a provincial matter

- and so it is. The fishery is a federal matter. Let the federal government take

their responsibility. Stop trying to foist it off on the taxpayers of this

Province. Whose interests are you protecting, anyway - the interests of John

Crosbie and the federal Tories, or the interests of the taxpayers of this

Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: You have to think about the people of this

Province and where your real responsibility is. You sit in the Newfoundland and

Labrador Legislature. You are responsible to the taxpayers of this Province. You

have to treat the taxpayers fairly. You cannot, for your own political purposes,

attempt to foist off on the taxpayers of this Province the burden of dealing

with the fisheries, which is a federally-caused matter.

We are doing the best we can to cope with a very difficult

circumstance, but we are not about to make chalk of one taxpayer and cheese of

another to satisfy the political wishes of the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

the Minister responsible for Mines and Energy.

There has been a great deal of speculation throughout the

Province with regard to whether or not Texaco will replace Gulf as a partner in

the Hibernia project, and the speculators are suggesting it may occur this

month.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what the role of the

Province has been in the negotiations with Texaco, and have you been part of

these negotiations?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have played the appropriate

role, and we are continuously involved in any discussions that need to be at our

level with the provincial government. We have senior people in the government

who are working on this daily, and progress is being made by Texaco in its due

diligence. Most of the work, obviously, by Texaco, is with the other partners.

That is where they have to go to do the technical assessment, the financial

assessment, et cetera. Over the next few weeks I would hope that we see a

successful conclusion to that assessment.

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

MR. A. SNOW: I wonder if you could tell me if the

government of this province of Newfoundland and Labrador has been asked to make

any concessions in these negotiations, in this participation that you have

talked about?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not been asked to

make any concessions that I am aware of.

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

MR. A. SNOW: In early October the minister stated that,

'the project,' and I quote the Globe and Mail, 'is back to normal.' That is a

quote that the minister was supposed to have said to the Globe and Mail. Has

there been, in fact, a full resumption of the work at Bull Arm and at other

locations?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I haven't talked to the Globe

and Mail. I was quoted in the Globe and Mail on some other discussions that I

had, but I think that everybody in the Province is well aware that the

suspension that was placed on the contracts some months ago has been lifted and

that work is proceeding at Bull Arm right now and elsewhere. Obviously we still

have to wait for Texaco to come in and say yes before everything is totally 100

per cent full speed ahead. Otherwise contract work is moving forward on what is

called the 1997 first oil schedule.

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

MR. A. SNOW: According to Mr. Simpkins, a spokesperson

for Hibernia, he suggested that there is only a technical change in the spending

limit that had no real impact on the project. That is what Mr. Simpkins said.

Now how does the minister reconcile this obvious conflict between his statement

and Mr. Simpkins. Does he really know what is going on out there in Bull Arm?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to get

into a debate with the hon. member today on what I might have said or what Mr.

Simpkins might have said or what anyone else might have said several weeks ago.

I think he should bring himself up to date on what Mr. Simpkins would say today.

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

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

direct a question to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. The

minister stated in this House yesterday that his department made a mistake

regarding municipal operating grants, and he also stated according to Hansard,

'up to yesterday those municipalities that did experience any hardships because

of reductions in MOG grants were visited and consulted, and either the repayment

was alleviated or in some cases there was a grant issued in lieu of the

loss.

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not play with the truth, he

went beyond that. After having had time to check the facts, will the minister

now tell this House the real truth, that municipalities have not received any

alleviation from this burden?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker. If I said that I would be

telling a lie and I cannot tell a lie in the House.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, at the minister's meeting in

Ferryland, three days before the June 25th by-election with all municipalities

in my district, he said that action would be taken to correct the problem. What

has the minister done to alleviate the burden for Renews/Cappahayden, Fermeuse,

Witless Bay and every municipality in my district?

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

Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Minister.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We treated the municipalities in the hon. member's district

the same as we treated other municipalities. When they contacted the department

about the effect the callback in MOG was having on their budgetary system, they

were visited by the regional offices people and their financial position

discussed, and the financial position was treated accordingly, either by

alleviating the repayment or, in some cases, reimbursement.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with all

municipalities in my district and one municipality had a 10 per cent cut of

their entire budget. This minister informed that municipality that action would

be taken. They and other municipalities, up to last night, have not had any

response to their problem since they were consulted.

Again, would the minister say that he did mislead this House

yesterday and come clean with the facts?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I am clean as the driven snow, Mr. Speaker. I

told the House the truth yesterday and I told the truth this morning unlike the

hon. member in his first maiden address here in the House of Assembly, when he

said the Recreation Department told lies up in his district. I wonder who is

lying.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the

Premier.

In the Winter and Spring of 1989 the Premier made very

specific promises, I quote: to immediately expand the program at Grenfell

College to make it, quote: a full-fledged degree granting university as quickly

as possible, end quote.

At the same time the Premier was making effusive promises to

establish new university campuses in central Newfoundland, followed by southern

Newfoundland, northern Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously the Premier, being a

man of principle, believed the Peckford financial record was rosy enough to

support such extravagant university expansion.

It's four budgets and almost four years later and everyone

knows the Premier has done absolutely nothing to expand Grenfell College, and

long ago jettisoned his promise to build a central Newfoundland campus. Will the

Premier now admit that all he has time to do in his term of office as Premier is

make another election promise to expand Grenfell College?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. As usual it's necessary

for me to correct the gross misstatements made by the hon. member, and she's

done it again.

The position of the government and the position that we

campaigned on is that we wanted to build Grenfell College to become an

independent university on its own over a period of time. We talked about how it

would build the courses over a period of time, and would in the end become a

degree granting institution on its own. I don't know how long that would take.

It might take fifteen, twenty years before it would build up on its own. There

was no suggestion of going in and putting in a sudden $25 million or $50 million

to build a totally separate degree granting institution. That would be totally

incorrect academically anyway, and that was never part of the policy. We also

committed to the principle of providing the equivalent of Grenfell College as

the start of a campus in central Newfoundland. That was part of our commitment,

there's no question about that, and I don't deny that.

Since we've discovered how bare the cupboard was, and since

we've run into other financial adversities, it's been impossible to move on the

central Newfoundland campus. But we are moving on Grenfell. I met a couple of

weeks ago with the President of the university, the Chairman of the Board, and

reviewed what their program was, or what their intention was, with respect to

Grenfell. Went over with them in detail what the government's objective was, to

build the academic program for third- and fourth-year level. To build up arts

and science courses to enable people to acquire full degrees in Corner Brook by

attending full-time in Corner Brook and only in Corner Brook, if that's what

they chose to do, and yet get bachelor level degrees in the normal arts and

sciences programs that one would expect.

Also, focus on building in Corner Brook other things that

would not be in St. John's. Like, for example, the School of Fine Arts. To start

looking at other opportunities to build in Corner Brook that would provide the

exclusive program for the Province, as the School of Fine Arts does in Corner

Brook, and build the university over a period of time.

I told them that the funding was not available nor did I

think it wise academically to suddenly put in all of the physical plant and

facilities and call it a degree granting institution. Because it's necessary to

ensure that you build an acceptability of the academic program over a period of

time while it's under the overall umbrella of Memorial before you suddenly cut

the tie.

So, Mr. Speaker, that's the approach that we propose to take.

That's what we intended at the time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind hon. members that I find answers

becoming a bit lengthy, but many times the answers are a reflection of the

method and way in which the questions were asked. So I ask hon. members please

to follow the rules. I just want to bring to hon. members' attention a couple of

very important points that I find hon. members wandering away from.

A question must be brief, not express an opinion,

representation, argumentation nor debate. If we get into that then it's only

fair that the other side is going to comment on the

preamble. I just want to say

the question must be brief. A

preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn

sentence, according to Beauchesne.

Now the Chair doesn't very often follow the sentence, but to

remind hon. members, if we get into long

preambles it makes it difficult for the

Chair to decide on the answer, because it's only fair that members are going to

comment on the

preamble. So I would ask hon. members to keep

preambles out of

their questions.

In any event, in a supplementary, a supplementary should need

no comment, and most of all it need not comment on the answer.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the Premier realize that the current facility at

Grenfell College was designed to accommodate 650 students? It is now housing

double that number. Does the Premier realize that this September hundreds of

applications for science courses were rejected because of a severe shortage of

resources, particularly labs? Is the Premier going to sit idly by and see the

first and second year enrolment at Grenfell cut so that a few third and fourth

year courses may be added? Isn't the Premier going to take the bull by the horns

and keep his promises - his specific promises - to immediately expand and to

make Grenfell College a full-fledged degree-granting university as quickly as

possible?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will attempt to answer all five

questions, but I alert you, Mr. Speaker, it will take a bit of time to do so. It

will take at least as much time as it took to ask the questions.

Do I realize that there are more than twice as many as the

650 for which it was designed? No, Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. There are

1,100 students. It was designed for 650 or 700 thereabouts. There are 1,100 in

fact there this year.

The only thing I can conclude from all of these is that

either the Principal of the college in Corner Brook, or somebody, must have

informed the hon. member of the discussions which I have had with the President

and the Chairman of the Board, because her questions track those discussions

pretty carefully. She knows very well what the government's position is, and she

is coming two weeks later, asking what the government is doing - as though the

meeting of two weeks ago did not occur. It did occur, Mr. Speaker. We gave the

President of the University, and the Chairman of the Board of Regents of the

University, express directions as to what the government expected and what the

government was prepared to support financially, and what we expected to see

develop in terms of Grenfell.

We recognize that additional physical facilities,

particularly science and laboratory facilities, will be necessary. We discussed

that in some detail with the President and the Chairman of the Board.

We also discussed the period of time over which this could be

phased in in an orderly manner. The university cannot do it all of a sudden. The

government does not have the funds to do it all of a sudden. It can most

properly be dealt with by phasing it in over a reasonable period of time. It may

take, I do not know, five, ten, fifteen years before the academic program will

have developed to such a degree that it would warrant creating it as a separate

degree-granting institution, but we want to do it in a sound and orderly

fashion, within the financial resources of the government.

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

West.

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

Minister of Social Services.

I think it was yesterday, or the day before yesterday, that

the Member for St. John's East asked the minister about housing. I know that the

housing component of the department has been passed over to the appropriate

authority, by the way, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, who have people to

deal with that rather than social workers; but I would like to ask the Minister

if he would confirm that money for housing for social assistance recipients,

that was transferred to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, basically ran out

somewhere around the end of June?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that in fact

the amount of money that we had budgeted ran out. I am not sure if it was the

end of June, but certainly in that vicinity - either late June or early July.

Since that time we have been able to transfer additional monies into that

particular allocation to continue on with repair work that is necessary.

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

West on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the construction season for

repairing houses for social assistance recipients, July, August and September,

there was no money available for the repairs. I know some monies have been

transferred, but has done precious little, and that again has expired.

There are people in this Province today who depend on social

assistance, who have wind blowing straight through their house. You can see

through their homes, Mr. Speaker. They are not airtight.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. Please get to the

question.

MR. TOBIN: I ask the Minister of Social Services if he

can tell me what he is going to do for these people who are exposed to the

elements of nature, with regard to repairs to their homes right now?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, all cases of which I am aware

that were held in abeyance if you like, while we were looking at the matter of

needing more funding and making sure that funding was made available, all those

cases are being revisited and looked after. I am not aware of any cases that are

not being attended to and if there are specific cases the member could let me

know about them. But certainly, as far as I know and I have been told, cases

which are of an emergency nature in particular, I think is what he is referring

to, certainly that sort of work that needs to be done immediately has been done

or is in the process of being done. If there are specific cases I should look

at, he should advise me of them.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there are cases right throughout

this Province that have not been dealt with I say to the minister, and his

social workers are aware of it and are frustrated and concerned about it. Now, I

ask the Minister of Social Services, again, if he will get together with the

minister responsible for housing and put in place a system over the next thirty

days that will provide adequate protection for the people of this province, the

men, women and children of this province who have snow and wind and rain driving

through their homes?

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

MR. GULLAGE: It is very dramatic, Mr. Speaker, but

certainly all I can say to you is that the ministers responsible do not need to

get together. Our staff is looking after the problem I can assure you, we are

well aware of emergencies that are in existence and those are being done first,

obviously on a priority basis, and if there are other cases of which we are not

aware, the member, as I say and I can only repeat myself, should let me know

about them. I can assure you that the staff is aware of this problem. If there

are cases of an emergency nature, they have been attended to or certainly are in

the process of having the work completed right now, Mr. Speaker. We are not

leaving situations unattended which need to be done on an emergency basis.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Minister of Social Services

concerning the same subject.

Will the minister tell the House how much money has in fact

been made available? We understand that the budget for this item was about $1.1

million, it was all used up in July or by the beginning of July, can he tell the

House how much additional money has been transferred or allocated to this

program and will he acknowledge that the criteria have changed, the method of

delivering this service has changed and in fact only a very limited number of

requests are now being dealt with it?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as you would do with a program

like this where we have moved it over to the jurisdiction of the Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing Corporation, and asked them to carry out the work because

they have the expertise and the staff available to do it, we are presently

reviewing that program and comparing the existing procedures to those when we

carried out the work in the various communities through private contractors and

workers, that process is ongoing now.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to do the

work that is outstanding on an emergency basis and otherwise, but certainly

emergency cases are being treated on a priority basis. The money that is

necessary has been made available. We cannot, regardless of funding, see a

situation where emergency repairs - the Member for Burin - Placentia West,

described cases of wind blowing through houses and whatever, but certainly any

kind of a situation where it is deemed an emergency, the work is being carried

out on an immediate basis.

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

a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister

of Social Services.

If he is not prepared to answer the question that I asked,

perhaps the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs can. How much money is

now allocated to this program when we know that the $1.1 million was used up in

the first four months, how much money is now allocated to this program? If the

Minister of Social Services refuses to answer that question, perhaps the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs might be willing to do so.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made myself quite

clear in that we are reviewing the program, looking at the results of the

program over the last year or so since it has been put under the jurisdiction of

the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. Monies that are necessary

will be made available. It is impossible to put a dollar figure on the amount of

work that is required to be done throughout the Province on an emergency basis,

from now through to the end of the fiscal year, but we will do whatever work is

necessary from now until the end of the fiscal year, certainly on an emergency

basis, work that has to be done. The dollars that are going to be made available

for that, Mr. Speaker, are very difficult to determine at this point in time

because we are doing the review.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, one thing I will say about the

Minister of Social Services, he is not blaming it all on the former minister

like the present Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, but the fact of

the matter is that the money expired. There was a vote, an allocation of funds

that was passed on to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing about two weeks ago

after the list built up so high in every district office in this Province; after

the wind storm on the northeast coast which basically blew the roofs off houses.

That has not been corrected yet. Let me ask the minister again to come clean

with this House, accept his responsibility and tell us how many meagre dollars

he has placed with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to correct the problem that

the people of this province are now facing. How much money have you put in?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat myself. We

are in the process now of reviewing the program, looking at the procedures that

are in place, looking at the dollars that have been spent to date in this fiscal

year and attempting to determine the amount of money we will need to take us

through to the end of the fiscal year. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we are

spending whatever dollars that are necessary to effect the repairs and the work

that needs to be done on a priority emergency basis. We may end up having to put

an amount of dollars into the budget that - I could give you a figure now and

find out the figure is entirely different. We are doing the review, Mr. Speaker.

I can only say to you when the review is complete we will know the amount of

dollars that are necessary to take us through to the end of the fiscal year.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, during the summer the 1991-1992

annual report of the Canada/Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board became public.

Because of requirements of the Atlantic Accord Act, I am required to table that

report within the first fifteen days of the session, and I am pleased to do so

now.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we do Motions 2 and 3,

please?

MR. SPEAKER: Motions 2 and 3.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Co-operative Societies Act." (Bill No. 47)

On motion, Bill No. (47) read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act."

(Bill No. 48)

On motion, Bill No. 48 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Further orders?

MR. ROBERTS: Order 1, the Committee of Supply, Sir.

On motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee of

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

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few remarks this morning. We

are here debating a supplementary supply bill, expenditure of monies and so on.

I was quite taken aback this morning, in Question Period, when I raised the

matter of early retirement for fishermen with the Premier. Here we have an

opportunity, a fishery that everyone agrees we need -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The Leader of the Opposition and I apologize

to the Chair for interrupting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is too bad the mikes weren't on, Mr.

Chairman, because I don't know if it was along the lines of supplementary supply

or the fishery or early retirement, but I was -

AN HON. MEMBER: Early retirement to Woody Island.

MR. MATTHEWS: Early retirement for the Government House

Leader again, I would say, is probably what we are talking about.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, for the second time.

MR. MATTHEWS: For the second time the Government House

Leader will be retired, within the next six months.

I know, based upon what the Premier said this morning about

participating in an early retirement program for fishermen that the Government

House Leader cannot expect to get too much assistance with early retirement.

What was totally surprising this morning, Mr. Chairman, was

to hear the Premier admit that what looks like will be the situation for 1000

plus fishermen in this Province is that they will have to resort to the social

assistance rolls of the Minister of Social Services that will cost this Province

fifty cents for every dollar, when the government of this province has a

proposal in front of it from the federal government offering 70/30 which will

cost, in the final analysis, something in the order of fifteen cents to every

dollar for the province. One thousand Newfoundlanders and Labradorians involved

in the fishery, many of them for years, there is no resource for them to catch.

We know the future is looking pretty bleak. The fishery will be restructured.

There will be fewer people in the fishery than there have been and are now, and

this Premier says that it looks like the only recourse for those people will be

social assistance. Now, I find that appalling. I find it appalling, I say to the

Premier. That is what he said this morning - because of his principles.

MR. REID: He did not.

MR. MATTHEWS: He is not prepared, he said, to make a

special class, to make a special consideration for any group or class of people.

That is what the Premier said.

He not only said it here, by the way, I say to the Member for

Carbonear, he said it in meetings with representatives of the fishing industry

with a number of his own ministers present, including the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations and the Minister of Fisheries and others. In the presence

of Mr. Etchegary, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Chapman and others, he has said the same

things he said this morning. That is why I asked the Premier the question.

Now, can you imagine a Premier standing up in this

Legislature this morning and saying: I am not willing to participate in a

program that will cost the taxpayers of this Province 15 cents on a dollar

because of my principles. I would rather have to pay them social assistance

which will cost the taxpayers of this province 50 cents for every dollar we give

them. That is what the Premier of this province said this morning, and I could

tell the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Minister of ITT, that

he said it in meetings with industry representatives. He goes on and says: I

can't do that because what about the loggers and the miners?

Yes, What about the loggers and the miners? I say to the

Premier of this Province and to his ministers. The loggers and the miners are

the direct responsibility of the Premier and his Administration. The Premier and

his Administration can help and assist loggers and miners if they see fit, but

he is trying to play one off against the other and says: I can't help the

fishermen because the loggers will be upset and the miners will be upset. Well,

there is no one else responsible for loggers and miners in this Province, Mr.

Chairman, except the provincial government.

So I say to the Premier, don't try to confuse and fluff the

issue. The issue here is early retirement for fishermen, and the Province has a

good offer in front of it that it should accept. About 1,000 people could be

retired from our fishery that would cost the taxpayers of this Province some

money, but they will never get an offer like it again. If the Premier and the

Minister of Fisheries are sincere -

MR. BAKER: Is that a threat?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, that is not a threat, it is a fact, I

say to the Minister of Finance. And the Minister of Finance knows it but he

can't get his way with the Premier. He can't persuade the Premier. The Premier

says: Go away, Winston. Don't bother me on such trivial issues as trying to get

early retirement for fishermen. That is the problem. It is the Premier's

principles that are coming into play again. Well, the Premier's principles won't

put bread and butter on the tables of 1,000 fishermen who could early retire.

The Premier's principles won't do that, and I can't understand why this

government would not accept, would not enter into an arrangement that would

allow 1,000 people to come out of the fishery, which everyone recognizes is

necessary. If a restructured fishery is a must for the future it will be

restructured. Here is an opportunity for 1,000 people to have income for the

rest of their lives, and this Premier and this government will not entertain

that idea. I find it absolutely amazing. And for the Premier to stand here this

morning - everyone here witnessed him standing and saying: It looks like the

only alternative is social assistance which is going to cost the people of this

Province 50 cents on every dollar spent instead of 15 cents on every dollar

spent under the early retirement program. Now, that is what the Premier said.

On one side of his mouth he is talking about how tough it is,

how hard it is financially and economically, what a burden it is on the

taxpayers of this Province. How contradictory! How contradictory, for a Premier

of this Province to be so concerned one moment about the bottom line of the

Province, and then to stand in his place and say that he would rather have to

pay 50 cents on a dollar than 15 cents on a dollar because it satisfies and

meets his principles. That is what Clyde Wells said here this morning, and

members opposite know it. It is in writing in meetings he has had with other

people. It is recorded.

Of course, the Minister of Finance was there as well, I note,

in the meeting with the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Social Services,

the Minister of Education and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

They were all there when this discussion took place. Some interesting things

took place at that meeting, I say to the ministers, some very interesting

things, some interesting statements - not made by the ministers, but by the

Premier of the Province.

I think we are missing - I couldn't refer to it as a golden

opportunity. I couldn't say it is a golden opportunity that we are missing,

because it will cost taxpayers in this Province some money. But it is going to

cost them more, as admitted by the Premier this morning, if they end up on the

social assistance caseloads, which the Minister of Social Services admitted

earlier this week has increased by 50 per cent over the last two or three years.

For the Premier to stand here and suggest that he's willing

to increase that caseload by at least another thousand, which will cost him 50

cents per dollar, doesn't make economic sense to me, I say to the Premier, even

though principles - principles, yes, but economically, it doesn't make sense.

What other recourse is there for fishermen within this age category we are

talking about, with no fish to catch, having to come out of the industry?

There's no other recourse for them.

Mr. Chairman, I thought it necessary to get up and talk about

that. Because it bothered me somewhat to hear the answer that the Premier gave

this morning. Since the Premier is here, I say to him: You can't slough it off

on the loggers and the miners, because they are your responsibility. They are

your responsibility. You say that the fishery is a federal responsibility. Most

of us have come to recognise that most of the fishery responsibilities are

federal.

But we are talking about fishermen here who happen to be

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We are not talking this morning about the fish

that swim in the ocean, we are talking about the people who harvest, or used to

harvest, that resource. We are talking about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I

say to Mr. Premier that they certainly are his responsibility. They are

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. For him to stand in his place and say that he

is not willing to do anything for them, as far as I am concerned it is just too

bad. It is not good enough for the Premier of this Province to talk like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Before I recognise the hon. the Premier, I would like, on

behalf of hon. members this morning, to welcome to the galleries, students from

St. Kevin's Elementary School in the Goulds, accompanied by their teachers, Miss

Rose Foley and Sister Mary Tee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman, if I live to be a hundred I

will never understand how the member who just spoke could stand and so blatantly

state incorrectly the position I took. It just demonstrates how weak his

position is that he has to fabricate this kind of concocted position in order to

give him something that appears to have merit to attack.

I never suggested for a moment the only course open to people

is welfare. I said something has to be done to deal with it, but I will not

treat loggers and fishermen differently merely because one is a logger and the

other is a fisherman. We have too much respect for human dignity, for people,

which the hon. member doesn't have, obviously. He is prepared to sell his soul

to support his cohort in Ottawa, Mr. Crosbie, in order to create some political

confusion. That's exactly what you just heard here this morning - a shocking

display of abandonment of his responsibility to the people of this Province.

He couldn't care less about the taxpayers of this Province as

long as he can appear to put some political pressure on somebody - a shocking

display of abandonment of responsibility to people. The next election is going

to see that displayed for the people of this Province to see, as they attempt

day after day to pressure the Government of this Province. Don't forget he is

pressuring is the poor taxpayer of this Province to put up the money, trying to

pressure the taxpayer to take Ottawa off the hook in order to give him a

political target, a shocking display of abandonment of responsibility to the

people who elected him, to the people of Grand Bank who are paying 12 per cent

sales tax so that he can cause their money to be spent for this purpose.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: We didn't set it at 12 per cent, they did!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: We just haven't been able to get it down

yet.

Now, Mr. Chairman, clearly, the federal government has a

responsibility to deal with this issue. The Province is quite willing to help

wherever we can. We are taking on a major burden in agreeing to participate with

the federal government in the POWA program. Provided it stays by the normal

principles, and they apply the normal POWA principles, we will pay 30 per cent

of the cost. Even that is beyond our reasonable capability of doing. Recent

figures we have just gotten have indicated even that may stretch our ability to

do it. Yet they are trying to pressure us to do even more. What does he want us

to do - raise the taxes to 14 per cent to get this done? We can't do that.

The federal government have mismanaged, whether they acted on

bad advice or otherwise, but they have had exclusive control of the fisheries.

They have mismanaged the fisheries, and they have caused this problem. They have

primary responsibility for it; and for any member opposite to seek, for their

own crass political purposes, to put continuing pressure on the taxpayers of

this Province to relieve the federal government of that burden, is a shocking

abandonment of responsibility to the people of this Province, and I can't stand

in the House and see it happen without criticizing it for just what it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Maybe hon. members opposite don't know

much about principle, and I can accept that as an explanation. It is pretty darn

clear that they don't know much about principle, so that is probably somewhat of

an explanation for their complete disdain for the principle of fair and balanced

treatment for our citizens.

MR. TOBIN: Did you read the editorial in The Ottawa

Citizen about your principle?

PREMIER WELLS: I don't mind what The Ottawa Citizen says,

any more than I mind what the hon. member says. It probably has about the same

merit and is not really worthy of reading, anyway.

Mr. Chairman, I understand their disdain. I disagree with it,

but I understand their complete disdain for principle. I understand their

complete disdain for it, and that is regrettable, but the government cannot

allow itself to be browbeaten into treating people unfairly merely because the

member wants to stand on his feet in this House and say: Oh, well, in money

terms it will only cost 15-cent dollars. How can the Premier justify this? We

may have to pay 50 cents on the dollar in social assistance.

We have to pay it for the logger, too, don't forget. Then let

us get some relief from the Province by including the logger in this same

program.

This Province, with its limited resources, is trying to help

to deal with the immense problem that has been caused by federal mismanagement

of the fisheries. We are having a difficult time dealing with it, in the face of

the position being taken by the federal government on some of these issues.

At the same time that I say that, I want to give all of the

credit to Mr. Crosbie that he is entitled to for the effort that he has made,

and for the significant achievement that he has made in enabling an acceptable

compensation package to be put in place. I give him full credit for it, but I

will insist that he gets all the blame that he is entitled to also; and he is

entitled to a fair amount of that for his intransigent position on some of these

matters, particularly joint management of the fisheries, and for his insistence

on trying to put in place the POWA program in such a way as to treat people

unfairly in this Province and give privileged and special treatment for some

people and not for others. We are not prepared to see this Province governed in

this way. If the hon. members opposite want to be able to do that, they have to

go to the people the next time around and say: We want a mandate to be able to

give fishermen special privileges that loggers don't have, when they are put out

of work.

You see, the logger who is put out of work, the thousand

people who will not longer be able to log, have no other technical skills, the

same as fishermen have no other technical skills. No other job opportunities are

available to them. What about that logger who is fifty-two years old and POWA is

not available to him? Yet he is told he has to continue to pay 12 per cent

retail sales tax so that a privileged pension can be given to a fisherman who

was put out of work, but he cannot get it. We cannot treat people that way.

I understand, and I will explain to the people that is the

position of the Opposition, that they want to be able to treat people that way,

but we will not. If the people of the Province want us to treat them

differently, and give one a privileged position that others do not have, then I

have no doubt they will elect the Opposition to form the government the next

time around. But I am confident, Mr. Chairman, that we have taken the position

on this issue that will find full endorsement with the Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Chairman, it is no trouble to tell when the Premier is on

the defensive, no trouble to tell when he is not comfortable with the substance

of his attack. Because Hansard will show what the Premier of this Province said

this morning was that he was not willing to participate in a program with the

dollar, that the only recourse, because of the principle of not treating one

group more favourably than another, was to put them on social assistance, on

welfare, which would cost 50 cents per dollar. Now, that is what the Premier of

this Province said this morning.

He can squirm all he likes, that is what he said in Question

Period. I specifically asked him that question, and the Premier said, `That

seems to be the only alternative that we have, social assistance.' That is what

the Premier said. Fifteen cents as opposed to fifty cents. Every time the

Premier gets boxed into a corner he tries to belittle other people, he tries to

talk down to people, and he doesn't deal with the issue.

To hear him this morning talking about joint management,

when, after the failure of Meech Lake, for two years the Premier, the Minister

of Justice, the Member for Pleasantville and the Member for Humber West went

back and forth to the mainland enough times that they must have enough travel

points to go around the world ten times. With all the compromise that led up to

the Charlottetown Accord where provinces were compromising on this and that,

where aboriginal peoples got their rights through compromise, Quebec got some

concessions through compromise and others got concessions through compromise,

not once did Premier Clyde Wells address the issue of joint management of our

most important industry, the fishery. Clyde Wells did not even mention it.

If you look at the back of the Accord where the topics are

listed that were up for discussion, do you find joint management between

Newfoundland and Ottawa on the fishery? You can't find it anywhere. Do you know

why? Because Clyde Wells really didn't think it was important enough.

MS. VERGE: He didn't ask.

MR. MATTHEWS: He didn't ask.

MS. VERGE: He didn't try.

MR. MATTHEWS: He wanted the appointment of the Supreme

Court judges to be front row and center in the Charlottetown Accord. He wanted

the Triple E Senate to be front row and center in the Charlottetown Accord. But

what about the industry, the industry with the biggest impact on the livelihood

of people in this Province? Clyde Wells did not care about it. Now, he knows,

because you know what, the people of this Province are asking the question. They

asked the question before the referendum and they are asking it more since:

You'd think Clyde would have at least tried in this compromising mode that

everybody was in, to get joint management. You know something? He didn't have

the time. Clyde knows now that people are asking the question out and about this

Province, and what is he doing now? Trying to convince them that joint

management is high on his priority list. The people are finally seeing through

Clyde Wells, I say to members opposite. They don't trust him anymore and, no

more, they should.

The other thing I want to say, in the absence of the Premier,

is that the Province is already involved in a retirement program for fishermen

and fish plant workers fifty-five to sixty-five years of age. Is that making

those people a special class? This government, this Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations, is participating in a program, a Plant Worker Adjustment

Program, for plant workers over fifty-five years of age. Is the Premier now

saying that he has made a special case, a special class, of these people, as

opposed to the loggers? It is incumbent upon the Premier of this Province - we

all recognize that loggers have been laid off in this Province and they are

facing difficulties, like fish plant workers and fishermen. Well, as I said

earlier, loggers and miners are the direct responsibility of this Premier and

this government. So, if you want to assist them, devise a program to assist

them. If you want to ask for federal help, put a proposal to the federal

government asking for assistance for loggers and miners in this Province. You

can take some initiative. Why do you always sit back and wait for John Crosbie

or someone else to take the initiative and, then, maybe you will participate.

Maybe! Take some initiative yourselves, I say to the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations and to the Minister of Fisheries and to the Premier. You were

elected to run this Province, not sit back on your hands and do nothing. All you

do day in and day out is knock the federal representative here, the minister in

the federal Cabinet, Mr. Crosbie.

It is as I said before, the people in my district, a lot of

them, would be a lot hungrier this winter if it were not for John Crosbie,

because the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and the Minister of

Fisheries and the Premier are not giving them anything to get them through the

winter. That is the situation in this province, Mr. Chairman, and the Premier

stands up and says in Question Period that he would not participate in this

program because of principle.

But economically it is going to cost this province

thirty-five cents more on the dollar, thirty-five cents more on the dollar and

we are here this morning debating supplementary supply and the Premier says how

rough the financial situation is in the province, when by participating in this

program it would cost the province fifteen cents as opposed to fifty,

thirty-five cents difference. Now if that makes any economic sense to the

Premier, Mr. Chairman, it does not to me.

MR. NOEL: How do you know they are going to go on

welfare?

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, I say to the Noel force over there, the

tax man, if we had the money that was spent on the hon. member going back and

forth to the mainland over the last two years, we could probably retire a few

fishermen.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: We could probably retire them, retire a few

fishermen but that is what you are up against here, Mr. Chairman.

MR. TOBIN: And the Premier, and the Premier.

MR. MATTHEWS: - and the Premier.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Pleasantville, that the Chair

has not recognized him.

MR. MATTHEWS: You see, Mr. Chairman, you see what happens

when you strike the nerve, you see what happens when you hit the nerve. When you

hit the nerve you see what happens. The Member for Pleasantville -

MR. NOEL: When you talk nonsense.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, everyone in the Province knows how many

times you went back and forth to the mainland on the constitution discussions

and came back then and went right against your Premier and your Minister of

Justice, you went in the opposite direction. Two of them, the Member for Humber

West did the same, came back and went just the complete opposite to the Premier.

MR. NOEL: We ensured that the proper (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: What a charade, I say to the Member for

Pleasantville, what a farce, what a farce.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask him if he jumped in bed with Trudeau.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, they did not jump in bed with Pierre

Trudeau like the Premier did, no. They did not do that. The Premier was totally

governed and directed by former Prime Minister Trudeau.

MR. TOBIN: He sold his soul.

MR. MATTHEWS: He sold his soul, Yes. He sold his soul and

other things besides, I would say to Pierre.

MR. NOEL: How come you were on different sides?

MR. MATTHEWS: But I want to say, Mr. Chairman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: - that I am totally taken aback, totally

taken aback this morning -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - by the answer that I got from the Premier

on early retirement for fishermen between the ages of fifty and fifty-four. For

the Premier to stand in his place and say because of his principles, because of

his principles, he will not get involved in an early retirement program for

about 1,000 of those people in this Province, because of his principles. And

when asked the question directly: is the Premier saying that the only recourse

is social assistance, which will cost this Province fifty cents on a dollar as

opposed to fifteen, the Premier said: it looks like that will be the only

alternative for those people. That is quite staggering, Mr Chairmam, that is

quite staggering for the Premier of this Province to say that.

MR. NOEL: What a lack of faith in our fishermen?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I have no lack of faith in the

fishermen, I say to the Member for Pleasantville, and I hope he does not get up

and debate now and try to make believe he knows something about the fishery,

because all he knows about are shoes and taxes; shoes and taxes are his claim to

fame -

AN HON. MEMBER: And he fished in Rennies River.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, in a polluted river. No, it is not

that I do not have faith in the fishermen, but the resource is not there for

them to catch I say to the Member for Pleasantville. The resource is not there

for them to catch, if the resource were there, we would not have a moratorium on

our northern cod stocks, we would not need a compensation package to help our

fishermen and fishplant workers, I say to the member, because they would be out

fishing and making their living but the resource is not there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in

this debate and I recognize that while the hon. Member for Grand Bank, the

Opposition House Leader, is giving - I suppose some people would look at it as a

fine speech, because he was a little bit fiery and impassioned. I can understand

the basis of it. Because I believe that genuinely the hon. member is frustrated

by what's happening in the province now with respect to the number of people who

find themselves unemployed and out of work. Particularly in the fishery, because

that's a big issue in his district, as it is in many districts in the province.

We're all a little frustrated. I don't believe that the slant

and the twist and the spin that he tries to put on what's happening is at all

useful to the process. We're trying to deal with a very serious issue, but I

think he has very seriously misrepresented a couple of things that the province

is involved in. I'd like to take a couple of minutes to try to give the history

lesson as to what we're doing and why, and to show the consistency of the

approach.

Maybe the hon. member, and some hon. members opposite, might

have forgotten, maybe they don't remember, that there is in existence in the

country, right across the country, from British Columbia through the Territories

and here in our province, a program for older worker adjustment, commonly

referred to as the POWA program. That program is funded in every province, and

in Newfoundland, 70 per cent by the federal government and 30 per cent by the

provincial government, to provide for a retirement option for older workers who

have very little possibility of retraining, very little possibility of

re-entering the work force, and are therefore being offered a retirement

allowance. It's not a great retirement allowance but at least there is some

money available to them based upon what their unemployment insurance and their

unemployed insurable earnings would have been the last time they worked.

That's applicable to everybody, regardless of what sector or

what industry you're involved in. It's for people from the age of fifty-five to

sixty-four. It provides a bridging mechanism, because when those people turn

sixty-five they can then move into their Canada Pension benefits and old age

security, which is available to everybody in Canada.

So that's been in place for some three years now, and was

negotiated on that basis with the federal government and each of the provinces,

and is in operation in our province. There are miners who have taken advantage

of that particular circumstance. There are requests before the

federal-provincial board to look at situations with Abitibi-Price and Kruger,

where large numbers of loggers have been put out of work. There is no decision

yet as to whether or not they will qualify, because the criteria have to be

examined to see if they're met or not. But there is a consistent approach to

dealing with older workers who are put out of work right across the country in

all categories.

Two years ago, based on that model, recognising that these

older workers - fifty-five and over - have limited opportunities to retrain and

have limited opportunities to move back into the work force in other occupations

and trades and so on; recognising as well that there were particular problems in

our province, in the rest of eastern Canada and in British Columbia with the

fishery; there was a special type of older worker adjustment program agreed to

by the federal and provincial governments especially designated for plant

workers and trawlermen. Not for fishermen, not for harvesters of fish, but for

trawlermen who worked on trawlers - because a lot of the deep-sea fishery was in

decline, these people were becoming unemployed - and for plant workers who

worked in plants onshore, where because of the declining resource or structural

changes in the industry their plant was closed.

That program in Newfoundland and Labrador - it's also

available in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec north

shore for the fishery, and in British Columbia - it's available in Newfoundland

and Labrador for plant workers and trawlermen from ages fifty to sixty-four.

However, when the negotiations were being conducted we took the approach

consistently then, and we take the approach consistently now, that while the

federal government may be willing to put in extra money for people in the

fishery at aged fifty - because they recognise that that is their responsibility

- we in this province could not put in extra money for people aged fifty unless

we could renegotiate the other agreement and also provide money for aged fifty

for miners, loggers, construction workers, labourers, and all the rest of the

workers who are being displaced.

So we indicated at that time that that was the position of

the province, and we fully respect it and understood. The federal government

said: we have recognized our unique responsibility in the area of fishery, and

we will fund those people from age fifty to fifty-four, ourselves alone, just

the federal government. The provincial government did not participate, could not

participate without an agreement that that same benefit could be extended to

every displaced worker in Newfoundland over the age of fifty.

The same situation pertains right now to the new program

which is in the final stages of negotiation. It is probably going to be called

the Older Fishers Workplace Adjustment Program. So we have POWA, PWAP and now we

will have OFWAP. So we see that there are new versions, but it is all stemming

from the same principle that everybody recognizes, that older workers have

limited opportunities to retrain and re-enter the workforce, and that we have

agreed, the federal government and many provincial governments, all the

provincial governments have agreed for all sectors for age fifty-five and over.

In the fisheries related areas like our province there has

been an agreement in the Plant Worker Adjustment Program that because fisheries

is a federal responsibility that the federal government is currently paying

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians between the ages of fifty and fifty-four, 100

per cent of the money they get comes from the federal government, and they have

agreed to put that money in just for fishermen because they say we recognize we

have a responsibility to them. They would not agree to extend the other program

down to age fifty because they said: We recognize we have some joint

responsibility for loggers, miners, construction workers, labourers, but if we

offer that kind of program in Newfoundland and Labrador then we have to offer it

right across the country. And the program for age fifty to fifty-five for all

other categories was too expensive even for the coffers of the federal

government. But we indicated to them that if they could find a way to make that

program available at age fifty for all categories of workers we would

participate. That wasn't possible. They agreed that we would participate jointly

the same as we did for all other workers from ages fifty-five to sixty-four, and

the federal government, because they recognize and acknowledge that they have a

specific direct responsibility for the fishery is funding the retirement option

for plant workers and trawlermen currently in closed plants, and where there are

trawlers tied up, for workers over the age of fifty.

That same option is now available, and I don't understand why

the hon. member opposite is getting so upset about it. The same option is now

available and being discussed with respect to the moratorium area for all the

people involved in the fishery in that designated area.

We have indicated clearly and passed along the message to the

federal government that we are willing again to spend 30 per cent along with

their 70 per cent to make the retirement option available for all people in the

moratorium area between the ages of fifty-five and sixty-four. And we have

indicated just like the federal government has done in the Plant Worker

Adjustment Program that if they again want to acknowledge their responsibility

and if they want to extend that program to a younger age at age fifty, we will

not object in any way, shape or form. But we again cannot participate for one

group of workers. We are willing to participate for all workers generally if

that program could be renegotiated. It may be some day. It is very doubtful

however because it is very expensive on the basis of the federal government then

recognizing that to be fair and to be based on any kind of principle that they

would have to extend that to all categories of workers right across the country.

So the hope for that is not great, and I don't hold it out to people as being a

great possibility, but that doesn't prohibit the federal government from doing

something special for those from age fifty to fifty-four just like they have

already agreed to do for plant workers and trawlermen in places where plants

have already closed even before the moratorium was announced.

One other issue, Mr. Chairman, before I close at this point.

The hon. Member for Grand Bank, the Opposition House Leader, talks about the 15

cent dollars verses the 50 cent dollars in the social services program. That is

nice rhetoric, but it is meaningless. The program, if it is to be involved in

for the provincial government is a 70/30 program. What he is suggesting is that

with taxes and so on that might be collected it really might only cost you 15

cents, but you have to put up 30 cents to get some back maybe. It depends on how

people spend and so on. So you can call it a 15 cent program if you want, but it

is a 30 per cent contribution.

He tried to compare that to a 50 cent contribution on social

assistance and say there is a 35 cent difference. Absolute nonsense. The same

logic and argument that is used to say that a 30 cent dollar is fifteen, has to

be used to say that a fifty cent dollar is really only about thirty or

twenty-five. So there is no difference. You either have to talk about thirty

cents versus fifty cents, or you have to talk about fifteen cents versus thirty

or thirty-five cents, when the same equations for deduction of tax benefits and

so on are taken into account. You cannot mix two different arguments on the

finances. However, none of that has any relevance or meaning because of the fact

that we are clearly in the same position now as we were with older worker

packages that are available generally in the Province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was appalled this morning to hear the Premier talk about

this issue regarding the program for older workers in the fisheries as if it was

a great matter of principle and discrimination against loggers and other workers

who might want to take advantage of it.

What the Premier has done here is once again taken the

practical solutions being offered to real problems that Newfoundlanders have,

and turn them into some high, moral principle. It is a pretty thin principle

when we are looking at: What are the solutions for the problems in the fishery

of this Province?

We know, as many have said, whether they be economists or

politicians or historians or whatever, that there is going to have to be, and

there will be, a restructuring of the fisheries in this province, and that will

involve fewer people being able to make a decent living out of the fishery.

Here is an opportunity for a certain number of those people,

who may wish to take advantage of it, to participate in part of a restructuring

plan. It is a practical, realistic, opportunity to deal with a part of the

problem as part of a package to assist in the changes in the restructuring of

the fishery.

The Premier's position and the government's position is: No,

we will not do it unless you do the same thing for loggers and for miners. I

suppose they could take the position: We are not going to discriminate against

the fishermen here. You would not know but there were no special programs for

fishermen in Newfoundland or in Canada.

I think the fishermen of Newfoundland ought to be very

grateful that there was no Liberal government headed by Premier Clyde Wells at

the time that the UI was brought in for fishermen, because they would be saying:

No, no, no, we cannot have unemployment insurance for fishermen; they are not

employees. They do not go to work and get paid a salary. They have their own

capital involved in the fishery. They buy their own equipment. They buy their

own boats. They go out and catch their fish and sell their product, just as a

farmer does.

This government would have said: No, we will not have

unemployment insurance for fishermen unless you give it to farmers too; and the

for the fishermen. We are trying to help out the fisheries. We are trying to

give them some income security; and this government said: No, no, no, you cannot

do that. You cannot do that unless you help the farmers, because after all,

farmers pay for their land. They buy their seeds. They buy their tractors and

equipment. They go out and plant seeds. They harvest a crop at the end of the

season, and they give it away.

MR. NOEL: They have crop insurance.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Pleasantville talks about crop

insurance. It just shows that he knows as little about farming as he does about

the constitution. Crop insurance has to do with crop failure. It has nothing to

do with income security. It does not provide income security for fishermen in

the off-season.

This government would have said: No. And the Member for

Pleasantville, who has learned to say 'no' so well in the last several weeks,

would have said: No, we do not want unemployment insurance for fishermen unless

you give it to farmers.

That is the kind of flimsy principle that this government

comes up with as an excuse for not wanting to get involved in practical, real

solutions for the people of this Province. Are they going to say: No, unless you

do something for unemployed nurses, unemployed miners, unemployed bakery

workers, unemployed public servants - no, no, we will not allow anyone to help

fishermen. We will not participate in a program to help the fishermen, unless

that same program is offered to everybody else.

Mr. Chairman, that's not practical politics, that's not the

reality of day-to-day governing, that's not the reality of looking after the

needs of the people. I don't think the people of this Province - and not just

the fishermen - a fisherman would be upset, no doubt. But I would say that the

loggers of this Province would be upset when they realize that this government

turned down an opportunity to help the fishermen. I think the Premier can go out

and talk about discrimination all he likes, but I think the people of this

Province would realize that the government has in fact failed to help when it

had an opportunity to do so.

We're talking about interim supply. I don't see how this

House can support interim supply to the government when the Minister of Social

Services, for example, got up in the House this morning and he virtually said: I

don't know how much money we're going to spend on this emergency housing

program. I don't know. We're going to spend what we need, whatever it takes, we

don't really know. But he won't admit -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) emergencies there are going

to be.

MR. HARRIS: He won't, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of

Finance says he doesn't know how many emergencies there are going to be. All he

has to do is ask the directors how many applications are stacked on the desks

across this Province. Ask his people that. Ask them the questions that other

members have been asking the people involved. Why is it that they are now saying

- the social workers and the people in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing - that

they're only responding to a minute number of requests, because they don't have

the money? The minister hasn't given them the money. Perhaps he doesn't even

know how much money he's given them. He seemed to be unable to answer the

question this morning in the House, when he was asked it directly three or four

times.

So he didn't tell us how much new money has been transferred.

The Minister of Finance says: we don't know how many emergencies there would be.

Why did they budget $1.1 million back in the Spring? Why did they put that

figure in the Budget? Did they invent that? Did they project it? Did they have

some basis for it, or did they not? We do know that after four months, after

April, May, June and July, all that money is gone. So we do know that the

government's projections have either been -

AN HON. MEMBER: Efficient government, that's what that's

called!

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Finance calls that "efficient

government." That's really efficient to me. That your entire Budget allocation

for the whole year is spent in four months. That's pretty efficient. I find that

very amusing. I think the people who are suffering from a need for housing

repairs being done before the Winter sets in full force are also going to be

very amused to hear that the government is very efficient, that it spent all

this money and now has none to deal with this problem, and the Minister of

Social Services is unable to tell the House how much he has even transferred to

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I see the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

housing looking over. Maybe he knows the answer, maybe he'll get up and tell us

how much money he has.

Mr. Chairman, that situation that's taken place in housing is

a result of the government changing its policies and changing its approach. The

minister talks about re-evaluating it. What they've done is they've taken away

the opportunity for these inspections to be done, for a proper evaluation to be

done, till the regional director knows about it. We are told that a very minute

number of the requests are being filled. Only the most dire emergencies.

Now the Minister of Social Services can get up and say: we

are dealing with the emergencies. What's an emergency? Is it an emergency

because the minister says we'll help? Is that what makes it an emergency? He

says: we'll help if there's an emergency, and then we'll only know if there's an

emergency if we've already helped. That's the kind of circular logic that the

minister is getting on with in his speech. We'll help those real emergencies.

The real emergencies are out there piled up in stacks on the desks of social

workers around this Province and they're not being dealt with because there's no

money. That's what is being said.

They're not saying there are no emergencies. What the social

workers are saying is there's no money. What the people from Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation saying that there is no money, that we can't look

after these problems because the money is not there. That is what we are being

told - not that there are no emergencies.

Mr. Chairman, we have to hear from the Minister of Social

Services as to how much money is being made available; and the Minister of

Finance perhaps will get up and say how much of this allocation being requested

is going toward this program. Tell us that. That is the kind of information we

need to have before we can vote on this motion.

The government has failed to come up -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, I can't believe the nonsense we

have been hearing in the House this past few days from the NDP and the PC

parties. What a fantasy world they are living in. They seem to think that we can

retire everybody. Who do they expect to finance the government? They come in

here saying that we should spend more money on all kinds of programs, on housing

for people who are living in government housing, repairing their houses. We

should increase wages for teachers and other government employees. We should

reduce taxes for businesses. We should reduce taxes for individuals. Have they

ever heard of economics? Do they not realize the state this country is in today?

- and that it is in this state because of the kind of policies that the federal

government is pursuing now with these early pensions?

How many people in our society do you think we can retire at

fifty years of age and keep functioning, and keep competitive, and keep a

sensible, stable, political system? How many people, do you think, are going to

tolerate watching people in certain sectors of our economy being retired early,

being given particular economic assistance, just because they work in a

particular segment of the economy? That is not democratic, it is not fair, and

it is not something that our people are going to put up with. We have to deal

with the economy as a whole. We can't be showing favouritism.

I have people in Pleasantville who have lost their jobs from

retail stores and wholesale businesses, who have lost their jobs with

government. Do they not have as much justification for being looked after as a

person who is in the fishing industry? How much money can we spend on the

fishing industry? How much money can we put down that endless hole that the

fishing industry has become in this Province?

Now you are looking for the government to pick up the loans

that fishermen have for boats. Do they pick up loans for people in other

businesses who go out of business, who are having a hard time? One of the

problems we have in the fishery is that we have too many people fishing, too

many fishing boats, too many fish plants, and we have it because we have a

Fisheries Loan Board that we should not have today, in my view. We do not need

to encourage people to invest more in the fishery. We haven't needed to in

recent years at all. We don't need to subsidize that sort of thing. It has

proven to be a waste of money for the whole Province.

This whole country is at the precipice of disaster. We have

doubled the debt since Mulroney took office in 1984. We have one of the highest

debts per capita in the world - one of the highest debts as a percentage of the

gross domestic product in the world.

We have a relatively decent standard of living today because

the government has been willing to go head over heals in debt, but that is

coming to an end. We can't continue doing it. That is why our society has become

so uncompetitive; why we are losing jobs by the thousands - because we have

ruined our economy. We are one of the most favoured peoples in the world. We

have tremendous resources per capita. We have a great trading relationship with

the United States, the greatest market in the world, and we still can't make a

go of it because of financial and economic mismanagement.

We see the young people in the galleries today. The

Opposition would have us retire everybody at fifty years of age; have us throw

money at all kinds of problems. Who is going to have to pay for it but the young

people in the galleries today? They want us to mortgage your futures so that you

won't have an opportunity to earn a decent standard of living yourselves, and to

look after yourselves in your older years. They want to say what is popular

today, these PC and NDP politicians, who go out and ask your parents, and will

be asking you people, in a few years time, for your support.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: The rules of our House clearly state that you

are not allowed to speak to people in the gallery, which the Member for

Pleasantville is doing, but probably while he is at it, and talking about the

'thirty-and-out'. Tell us if he supports the teachers' thirty-and-out program

when he is talking about the retirement package. Let the teachers in the gallery

know your position on that.

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

MR. NOEL: The point I am making is that we have to

reconsider just what we can afford. What kind of competitive society can we have

if we are going to be retiring people at fifty years of age? You can't do it

today and compete, you just can't do it. There are too few people producing in

our society, too few people paying taxes and you can't do it by throwing dollars

at the problem today and putting the burden on future generations. That is why

we have gotten into the mess we are in today and that is why you people are on

that side of the House instead of this side of the House today, because people

eventually saw through what you were doing. They saw through the mess that you

were making and have made of our Province.

You know that we have a debt today - that Newfoundlanders are

responsible for a debt of about $40,000 per capita. Everyone of these young

people in the gallery today face paying off a debt of about $40,000 each caused

by irresponsible politicians and their responsible governments like you people,

coming here and trying to say that we could just keep throwing money at every

problem that comes up without being realistic, without being businesslike about

it -

MR. MURPHY: A band-aid philosophy.

MR. TOBIN: Why should I (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: - what do you expect to happen to this society

if we follow the kinds of prescriptions you people have - if we follow those

kinds of fantasy, retiring people at fifty years of age. I mean, you must be

crazy to think we can do that. Your own federal government is saying, the big

problem we face in our world today for Canadians is to become more competitive.

They have just put out a recent study of competitiveness in the country. They

are saying we have to become more competitive, more productive, and now, you

say, and they are saying also, because it is their program; in my view there was

a much better way to deal with the fisheries problem, than the kind of

moratorium program they brought in. But how can they say that we have to become

more competitive and more productive, at the same time as they bring in programs

paying people for doing nothing, or else paying people to be educated for jobs

that are not available.

Everybody has gotten into the habit these days of talking

about education as being the solution to our problems. Well, everybody should

get the best education they can get but don't think that it is going to be a

guarantee for a job, because every few days I have people coming to see me,

looking for jobs, who have good education, who have good experience, who have

university degrees and can't get jobs. The prime reason they can't get jobs is

because our economy has been messed up; we have become uncompetitive, we don't

have proper training relationships, we don't have the proper kind of political

relationships in this country, the kind that we tried to cure through the recent

constitutional negotiations. Our Province tried to get more say in how this

country is governed so that it would be run more in the interest of the people

in our Province instead of being run by the kind of fantasy economic principles

that the Progressive Conservatives have imposed on Canadians over the past eight

years or so and which are about to come to an end, just as my time, I think, is

about to come to an end.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to have a few words in this debate, but

first of all, I want to welcome personally the students in the gallery from St.

Kevin's Elementary School, two classes of Grade VI, I believe. I just want to

say that I had the opportunity over the last couple of weeks to go to St.

Kevin's School and speak to the same Grade VI and Grade VII in that school, and,

Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased with the students, the questions they asked

with the knowledge they had of our Legislative activities here in this country,

and I can't wait, to tell you the truth, until some of those students are in

here speaking on the issues of the Province. Because, Mr. Chairman, they will

make more sense than half of those in here now. They would do that today, but

when they get in here, they probably will do a better job of governing our

Province.

I just listened to the Member for Pleasantville talking about

people who retire early as if they are a drag on society from that day on. Now,

he is assuming that because a person retires at fifty, fifty-five or sixty-five,

that he becomes an unproductive citizen for the rest of his life. Now, that is

the biggest heap of garbage I have ever heard. People who can get a pension,

large or small, and retire when they have energy enough to do something, are the

people who take bigger risks and start up newer businesses, in case the hon.

member doesn't know. They will start up businesses that take a bigger risk

because they have some security. They don't have to work ten, fifteen hours a

day to put bread on the table. They have some security. So then they go out and

take risks and start other businesses. The hon. Member for Pleasantville

considers someone who's retired as becoming a complete burden on society from

that day on. It is a shame that he should think that way. No wonder our Province

is in such a mess, when people across the floor think in such terms.

The Member for St. John's South, in a bit of banter with the

Member for Burin - Placentia West, said he does not agree with the package that

is in place now for fishermen. I am ashamed of him - I am surprised that he

would say it. Because he worked fairly hard to get a good package in place for

the National Sea workers. John Crosbie put it there, but he worked hard to try

to get it, and now he doesn't like the package that is in place. He doesn't

agree with the package in place now. I don't understand that at all. That is a

shame.

The issue this morning that started off with the Premier and

the Member for Grand Bank was about early retirement for fishermen, whether we

should support the retirement of fishermen between fifty and fifty-four, before

the POWA plan kicks in. What the Premier said was: No, we can't do that, because

we have loggers that are losing their jobs in this Province too, so we can't

treat the fishermen one way and the loggers another.

Now, by saying that, the Premier is admitting that there are

two - we try to do this based on a little bit of logic, just using those two

examples. We have two problems in this Province that the Premier identified. We

have fishermen who are out of work right now, but we have too many fishermen

going after too few fish; and we have loggers who are losing their jobs because

of mechanization, because of the downturn in the industry. So we have the two

problems now and there is an offer on the table to solve one of those problems.

The federal government will give us 15-cent dollars to help solve one of those

problems.

Now, what is the Premier's solution? Ignore both of the

problems. So we still have, from the examples that the Premier gave us, two

problems in this Province that will not be addressed. We have more than that -

there are construction workers, there are a lot more people who have those

problems. But from what the Premier said, we have a potential solution to one of

the problems.

Now, one of the problems in the fishing industry is too many

people after too few fish. I have heard the Premier say that a thousand times

since he became Premier of this Province. Now, he has been offered a partial

solution to that problem. We need to get some people out of the fishery so that

there will be a professional fishery left in place so that people can make a

reasonable living. Now he has been offered a potential solution to that problem

- a partial solution, I should say. And what is our Premier going to do about

it? He said no to that partial solution, but he said, if need be, they can go on

social assistance.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't say (inaudible)!

AN HON. MEMBER: He did so, say it!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Now, that is shameful for a Premier of

our Province, the Province of Newfoundland. When the former Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, the Member for Conception Bay South, said that

about people in Fogo, I believe, she said: 'I guess they should go on social

assistance,' I thought that was bad enough. But when we have a Premier of our

Province saying that the solution is to go on social assistance, that is washing

his hands, giving up on what he should be doing. He was elected to govern this

Province, not to put everyone on social assistance. From 1989 to 1992 the social

assistance rolls in this Province have increased by 50 per cent, I understand.

MR. TOBIN: That is what the minister said.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I think the minister told us last week,

they increased by 50 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Minister of Social Services!

MR. R. AYLWARD: That is drastic.

MR. TOBIN: You're wrong, you're wrong.

MR. R. AYLWARD: That is insulting. It shows that the

government of the Province -

MR. TOBIN: That's a lie!

MR. R. AYLWARD: - of this day are not doing their job.

They are not governing, they are not trying to create jobs. All they want to do

is shut down hospitals, make class sizes bigger in the schools, cut back. The

Member for Pleasantville again says we should be cutting back more - not trying

to create jobs, that's not a problem. Don't invest in the Province, just cut

back and shut down - that is the philosophy of this government. It comes from

the Premier, the same ultraconservative philosophy the Premier had since day

one, when he got elected.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if we have an option - we have two

problems, as the Premier identified today, between loggers and fishermen. They

are the two problems and we have a partial solution for one of them. So why do

we ignore both of them? Why are we going to still have two problems after the

federal government says: Alright, if you don't want it, we will walk away from

it. We are still going to have the two problems, where we could possibly have

one of them partially solved by accepting the offer by the federal government,

or revise it somehow, try to work it out so that our Province can live with it.

Don't just ignore it, don't just walk away from it because there is potential

for other problems in the future. There are going to be problems forever. There

will be problems in this Province for a long time to come, and if you have to

worry about twenty other problems in order to solve one, you will always have

twenty-one problems, and you won't solve any of them.

MR. TOBIN: The age group is from fifty-five to sixty-four

to participate in the program, and it is for the fishermen, but not the loggers,

so are they making a special class that way?

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Province participated somewhat in the

plant workers program a little while ago. That was a special deal, a different

deal from the one the construction workers in my district got. They never got

any deal like that that the Province participated in. Construction workers in my

district are having a tough time to exist, to get work, to find work. The

government won't go ahead with the arterial roads, both the Outer Ring and the

Goulds by-pass road. The government is sitting on, I don't know, $10 million,

$12 million or $15 million that is all federal money. They won't spend it. They

won't create jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: You wouldn't register - I asked the

Minister of Transportation to register the Goulds by-pass road over a year ago,

and he kept delaying it so that he knew when he did finally register it, we

would have an environmental process to go through, and he would get into the

next election, or at least the next federal election.

The plan for this government is to take the money for the

Goulds by-pass road and the money for the Outer Ring road, and spend it in other

regions of the Province - not the Avalon region.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Member for Eagle River is going to

vote against the Outer Ring road. I heard him say that on the radio. Where is he

going to get to vote on it? I don't think it comes to this House where we would

vote on it. He is going to vote against his next budget, if it goes. He is

trying to fool his constituents again, saying he's going to vote against the

arterial road. How stupid! Talk about immature! The Premier was dead on when he

called the hon. the Member for Eagle River immature, because he is going to vote

against $20 million of federal money spent in this Province on an Outer Ring

road, when we won't get an opportunity to vote on it. It won't come before this

House to be voted on, unless you want to vote against the budget. It might be

included in next year's budget. So if you're going to vote against - I will bet

money today that if there is a budget next spring, and I probably won't be

around when the budget comes, because I'll be retired before the budget comes

next year - but if there is a budget in this House next spring that includes the

St. John's Outer Ring road, the Member for Eagle River will not vote against it.

Now, that's a prediction I will make, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, he won't be here, he won't be here!

MR. R. AYLWARD: He might not be here either. I say he

will, yes, he's fairly secure in his district. Now, Mr. Chairman, he will not

vote against next year's budget. Thank you.

MR. TOBIN: I will vote against it.

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

Labour Relations.

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

take a couple of minutes of time again to try to again straighten out a couple

of the misconceptions that these members opposite seem to be labouring under. My

real feeling is that they absolutely know the difference, but for their own

political reasons they want to present it as something that they know it is not.

That is unfortunate because that doesn't contribute to helping solve the

problem.

I also know as well, Mr. Chairman, that there are members on

this side who are eager to participate in this debate, and I wouldn't want to

deprive them of an opportunity. But to point out the matter again about the

province's participation in the retirement option for older fishermen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: We have, Mr. Chairman, before us -

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind hon. members that I

have recognized the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. If there are

other people who wish to speak in the debate, they can rise and I will recognize

them after the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is finished.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recognize again

that despite what members opposite would like to represent it as, there are some

clear facts before us that nobody should take the liberty to twist or to try to

present as otherwise. That is that the provincial government has indicated to

the federal government that we are absolutely willing to participate in a

retirement option for older fisherpersons involved in the moratorium area. Let

no one try to misrepresent that. That is a fact. People are trying to say that

there have been special deals already for people in the fishery. That is not a

fact. They know the difference, and I can understand now why some people have

less than a great impression of some politicians because members opposite for

years have not at all hesitated to use partial truths, half truths and sometimes

I would even go as far as to say no truths to represent information that they

know is completely different.

What we have in terms of retirement in the province is that

any worker in any sector in the province where there has been a major downturn

in the industry and significant layoffs, can qualify under a certain set of

criteria for a retirement pension of a certain amount beginning at age

fifty-five. That program is participated in by the federal and provincial

governments: 70 per cent by the federal government, and 30 per cent by the

provincial government.

We are saying to the federal government now that if we want

to extend that option as part of the difficulties that we are experiencing in

the moratorium area, by all means let's do so. Never mind saying we have part of

a solution here and we won't use it. We do have part of a solution. One of the

parts of the solution is to offer a retirement option to some of these people.

That is one part of it. But we are saying let's be consistent. At least let's

have some modicum of consistency about it that if we are going to call it

retirement let's make sure that the same retirement we are offering to fishermen

in the moratorium area is the same retirement we are offering to fishermen in

other parts of the province not included in the moratorium, and the same

retirement we are offering to anybody else in any other sector. That is what we

are presenting to the federal government. Let's be consistent.

Now what we have said, as I tried to point out a few minutes

before, is that with plant workers and trawlermen, when a plant closes down

completely, forever, with no future and no prospect of re-opening there has been

another arrangement. It says when that applies there will be a retirement option

for workers fifty-five and over. But the federal government, because it was the

fishery and because they recognized responsibility, says: We will also pay for

people from age fifty to fifty-four because we recognize it is our

responsibility. We will put up the money and we will let those people have at

least some income stream to tide them over.

We are saying if the federal government wants to recognize

that that special circumstance also applies throughout the whole area of the

moratorium, by all means go ahead and do exactly the same as you are doing in

the rest of the province. They can pay for it. But don't expect the provincial

government to put scarce dollars from this province into a special arrangement

for some fishermen, some plant workers in some areas, not even consistent for

all people in the fishery and all areas, and certainly not even consistent with

other sectors of the workforce. We are the only ones being consistent.

Maybe that is the difficulty, that members opposite when they

made decisions in the past would grasp at any little straw and go around and try

to excuse the fact that: Oh, this is different than that. This is different.

Let's do this. Let's do that because there are a few dollars available now.

Never mind if it makes any sense or not, do not dare ask that question, let us

just say there are a few dollars around, somebody else is willing to put in some

of the money so never mind if we are being fair to people or not, grab the

money, put it in place and worry about fixing the rest of it after. We have

never operated like that, we will not operate like that, we do not intend to

operate like that, you will not see it. There will be a consistent approach.

What we recognize and what we have been in discussions with

the federal government on is that in the fishery, in the moratorium area now and

throughout the rest of the Province, there are likely to be fewer opportunities

for employment even when the moratorium is over. There will probably be fewer

opportunities, and if the federal government is going to recognize that and take

the lead role and responsibility for it and if they want to create and design

some special program to deal with how we are going to recognize the fact that

there are going to be fewer opportunities, do not tie it into retirement, if you

are going to do retirement, let us do retirement on a consistent basis.

Now if we want to talk about how we are going to deal with

the fact that there will be fewer opportunities in the future, then that does

not have to be linked to our retirement program. The retirement program can be

consistent for everybody. If there are special circumstances that will pertain

to the fishery, even when the moratorium is lifted a year or so down the road,

then let us deal with that special circumstance. Let us not, just because

somebody in Ottawa said: offer them some money and they will grab it, and

therefore you put an opportunity in place for some people in the fishery between

the ages of fifty and fifty-four, that is not there for anybody else.

But it is not only the fifty to fifty-four in the fishery who

are going to have a problem. It is the twenty-year-olds and the twenty-five-year

olds and the forty-year olds, so there is a problem generally in the fishery

with the fact that there are likely to be fewer opportunities and if the federal

government wants to discuss in any framework, any way, shape or form with the

province, as to what kind of a program can be put in place to deal with the

reality that there will be fewer employment opportunities, we are willing to

discuss it, but we are saying to them: please, and we are saying to members

opposite, please, let us not grab at something that you think is there and use

the view that the hon. Member for St. John's East would say, that the money is

available, now we can fix part of the problem and worry about the rest of it

after.

We will fix any part of the problem that we can as long as it

makes some sense to do it a particular way and as long as we are not giving

preference and preferential treatment to any one worker and taxpayer in

Newfoundland over any other, so the consistency approach is something I

understand that members opposite do not understand. That is perfectly clear

because they have never operated on the basis of consistency, they have never

operated on the basis of principle, they have obviously operated the way the

hon. Member for St. John's East would propose and we better hope that they do

not become the official opposition because they are declaring themselves to be

just as bad or worse than the present opposition.

They will all prostitute themselves in any way, shape or form

to grab at any little amount of money that may be available now and then work at

how to justify that to the people. You can make up any excuse to take the money

if you want to, but there has to be some sound, sane, rational, consistent

reasoning and approach as to what you are doing and why, and that is the kind of

thing that we want to be involved in, that is the kind of thing that we have

expressed willingness to be involved in, and the retirement option, as we have

now entered into the discussion with the federal representatives, is certainly

part of that but we will do it on a proper, consistent basis.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I get into the few remarks that I want to make, I want

to remind the hon. Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, that there are

people on this side with just as much principle, as lies within his chest, I am

sure, and I am speaking for myself.

You talk about principle. I think there is a lot of principle

all through the members of this House, not on one side or the other and I wish

that ministers of the Crown would be more responsible when they talk about

principle.

I hope the minister is not leaving because my few remarks are

directed towards him. I believe this morning that we have flogged this issue

enough, back and forth, whether or not fishermen from fifty to fifty-four

receive a retirement package. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we have problems

outside of that area as well. This cannot be, and I say to the minister, this is

within your jurisdiction, within the Minister of Finance's jurisdiction, of why

we're here this morning talking about supply, which is a money need for the

Province.

I say to the minister now that there are many other people

out there that that $11 million - and the minister conceded that perhaps a third

of that, in excess of $3 million, went for materials or supplies or whatever -

so I say to the minister that that $11 million didn't scratch the surface of the

need that's out there today. I want to remind the minister that even in the

confined area of St. John's in this past week I know of three instances -

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, twenty people laid off; the bakery in here,

and those are ordinary people without any real professions, sixteen laid off.

Yesterday afternoon I was told that there is another small company here in St.

John's, a small technical company, where half its employees were laid off.

Now what I want to say to the minister is: what's in the

economic plan to bring the economy up to where it was when those people were all

working? Is there any such thing? Is it possible? Is it feasible? Or are those

people now left in the doldrums of unemployment?

Mr. Chairman, I want again to emphasize to the minister: tell

the people out there if there's going to be other monies available, if there's

monies available for training those people who are laid off. We're in a state of

shock in many areas in this Province. We've dealt with the fishery problem this

morning, and there is a problem out there, but there are problems in other parts

of our economy just as grave. I had a caller the other night, a gentleman who

came in who was a labourer. He had worked with this company for fourteen years.

His company had gone bankrupt and he was laid off. He has four children. He

asked me where was his program. How was I, through my perhaps urging government,

to help him out, and his family?

He is one. There are thousands out there who don't have the

unions to come to them in their plight. They don't have the mouthpieces. There's

a lot of people hurting out there. This government has a responsibility to those

people. The Premier talked this morning about the loggers and about the miners.

Yes. But that falls within the jurisdiction of the province, if there are grave

problems in the logging industry, and if there are grave problems as it pertains

to layoffs in the mining industry. I heard the hon. Member for Humber Valley say

yesterday that the loggers in the woods in his district cannot sell their

pulpwood until January. This falls within the jurisdiction of the provincial

government. If there is a problem out there with the loggers then the onus is on

this government to do something about it. I again go back to the minister and

say: you're going to have to go to your colleagues, you're going to have to come

up with programs, training or otherwise, to get those people over the winter.

There's a lot of people out there hurting. I think that the onus again is on

government.

I heard the hon. Member for Pleasantville when he rose today

and in one particular instance he said: what are we going to do, patch up all

the houses? If the houses are leaky are we going to spend money on them? I know

the Minister of Social Services quite well and I am sure that minister would not

stand by and see snow blowing into anyone's house - no one's house. I think that

the Member for Pleasantville, if he is assuming that he is speaking for the rest

of that government, then I think he is all wet, because I am sure he is not.

I had a situation in my district only a couple of weeks ago -

and I am going to do this publicly - I thought that the situation needed

attention. It was a situation of dire straits. I contacted the Minister of

Social Services, and I want to thank him publicly this morning on behalf of that

family. The situation was resolved and again the people are quite happy, and I

want to thank him for that.

In the same token, the point I am making is very simple. For

a man who would do that - and then you hear the Member for Pleasantville get up

and say: Let the snow blow through the house. I do not think he is capable of

that type of performance, and I am sure he is not.

Mr. Chairman, I am certainly not going to flog a dead issue,

but I again want to remind hon. members across, especially the Minister of

Finance - the Minister of Finance today who is looking for this extra money - I

say to the Minister of Finance that even in the programs that were instituted by

the Minister of Manpower, there was nothing there for the people who do not have

any stamps - the people who needed twenty stamps. That program helped people in

need of three, four, or five stamps; but we have a great number of people out

there, new entries into the workforce, with nothing, and they are being set

aside from even those programs.

We are going to have to come up with another program overall

to address the issues of the many out there who have no representation and have

no one to intercede on their own behalf. I think the time has come for us to set

up programs that would help all people, especially those who are entering the

workforce; especially those people who are in need; and especially those people

who are being laid off labour-wise in industry and whatever.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to stand after

the Member for St. John's East Extern because he does have a lot of common

sense. He applied himself to the fishery and other things over the years, and he

is a man of principle. I do not think any side of this House has the monopoly on

principle, and I totally agree with what the hon. member said.

The moratorium is obviously extremely important at this point

in time to the fishermen of Newfoundland; that those dollars come down to the

fishermen and plant workers; they are spent out in the stores; so in essence it

spreads itself around and gives everybody a piece of the action, so to speak.

But I have a great fear, and I want to express this to hon. members, that this

moratorium very well may get into the fibre of the people of this Province. I do

not disagree with the moratorium, but I do not think that we have spent enough

time looking at the social ramifications of what this moratorium could bring

upon the people.

Now Newfoundlanders are known far and wide as being honest,

hardworking individuals, and that reputation did not come easy. It came because

of experience. I have a fear, and I am sure other hon. members have a fear, that

what this moratorium, under the present structure, is going to do is set a

system in place that is going to be extremely difficult when the moratorium

ends, and hopefully that will be as soon as possible, so we can get our people

back into productive, meaningful work. It is going to be tough, because there is

going to be a social impact that we are going to have to knock down to get a lot

of those young men and women working, and get them out and get them productive.

Talking about fifty years of age - now the hon. Member for

Grand Bank, the Opposition House Leader, I don't know how old he is, he is not

quite fifty yet, I don't think.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? Oh, come on!

MR. MURPHY: There's a lot of juice left in him yet, a lot

of juice left in that hon. member. And the Member for Humber Valley, I know he

is only a whippersnapper, he is in his mid-thirties and what have you. But I

suggest to the hon. Member for Grand Bank, there is no possible way that he

would want to put on his slippers and take his karaoke, or whatever, and sit

back and relax.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, I don't think so. I think I know the hon.

member well enough to know that he would want to keep on going.

So we have to be very, very, careful about pensioning people

alright, because, you know, the fishery - and my colleague from Port de Grave

says, the most important thing in Newfoundland is the fishery, and he is right,

because everything spins from it.

The industry, trade and commerce that goes on this city

depends on the fishery, greatly so. And what was really upsetting was hearing

other hon. members getting up this morning, throwing stuff over at different

ministers, jumping on the Premier, accusing the Premier of saying something he

didn't say, and blaming the provincial government of walking away from

responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: It is too bad the hon. member only stands up

and talks to whomever, then he leaves and goes out and puts up his feet, and

again - now, there is the difference. I would suggest to the hon. the Member for

Grand Bank, now you have a man who wants to put his slippers on! There's a man

who wants to put his slippers on. He just walked in. He can't wait to get out -

the critic at-large. Another man over here, wants to put his mukluks on - not

his slippers. He wants the mukluks, he has to get them on and he is going to sit

back and live in the lap of luxury.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I don't disagree with the moratorium, I agree

with it but not under its present structure -

AN HON. MEMBER: You said you disagreed with it.

MR. MURPHY: No, I didn't, I said the moratorium is, right

now, salvation. The Member for Pleasantville made some excellent points here

this morning, excellent points, because there are people in St. John's calling

me and calling other members and saying, if I hear anything more about the

moratorium and any more about the fishery, and I cannot find work. Do you know

what I say to them? I said the Minister of Finance in this government doesn't

have the same options that the previous administration had - and the Member for

Green Bay knows only too well - when they would hop on the plane and shoot down

and get another $100 million. The Member for Burin - Placentia West got on the

entourage after a while. He jumped on the plane and they all jumped on the plane

and they would go down and sign a bond and they would rush back with the money

and throw it out to the people.

The Member for Menihek got up yesterday and he grabbed hold

of the twenty-five year plan and he dumped all over it. Now, it is too bad that

hon. members opposite didn't sit down and say to the people of this Province, we

have a long-term plan in place for the people of this Province. No, what did he

do? Beach rocks up, beach rocks over, beach rocks down! Now, I am going to give

you a prime example of what you can do when people don't have opportunity; it is

to take the few dollars you have - the Minister of Manpower and Labour and his

colleagues turned around with $11 million and where could they spread it, where

could they spread it? People jumping up and saying, 'I never got any'; and the

Member for Mount Pearl, 'I got nothing'. If you guys didn't live like drunken

sailors, if you didn't go down and borrow yourselves to death and keep

yourselves up - you had no long-term approach, and now you have the gall to

stand up in this House and blame it on this Administration because we are trying

to put patches on patches for the terrible mismanagement that you people carried

on. And that's a fact. That's not a lie, it's a fact. It's the truth. The hon.

the Member for Kilbride can get up and get on with his grandiose - and the tail

end of all this is seventeen years of Tory mismanagement. Seventy-four per cent

of the provincial debt - 74 per cent - was incurred by your party. And when you

look at the length of time you were in power, versus the length of time the

Liberals were in power, then you figure it out. You ran down and signed

everything, took the money, paid top interest, came back and threw it out to the

people. What a wonderful government we are! What a wonderful government we are!

You ran all over the world and borrowed, borrowed, borrowed. Who is paying for

it now? Then you have the gall - we can't borrow anymore, and you are standing

up and blaming it on this Administration. You are nothing short of unadulterated

gall! You should hide. You should go out around -

Now, this hon. member will be working until he is sixty or

seventy, and working hard.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The Member for Grand Bank, I have no doubt.

The Leader of the Opposition got up yesterday and asked the

Premier about the Lower Churchill. I worked with Techmont. One hundred million

dollars - Mr. Moores and company - $100 million in that day which today would be

$500 milli