March 6,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 4

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before going to the routine business I would like, on behalf

of hon. Members, to welcome to the galleries today thirty-two students, Level 3,

from Lester B. Pearson High School, Wesleyville - today I want to get it correct

- in the historic district of Bonavista North, accompanied by their teachers,

Mr. Don Sturge and Mr. Gerald Kean, and their bus driver, Mr. Joe Sheppard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

the hon. the Premier. I want to say to the Premier that there are reports in the

business community over the last day or so that discussions have been ongoing,

or are ongoing, with Fortis, the parent company of Newfoundland Light and Power,

which are geared towards the possible sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to

Newfoundland Light and Power. First of all, I would like to ask the Premier, is

the Government considering the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the

Premier for his short answer. We obviously accept that. Could I ask the Premier

this: have there been any discussions initiated by the Government with

Newfoundland Light and Power toward the possible - note, possible -

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. the Opposition Leader, when he

stood up and asked his first question, had a

preamble about rumours going

around, circulating in the business community. I say to him, do not pay any

attention to reports and rumours. There are no discussions initiated by the

Government and no discussions initiated by Fortis, as far as I know, with that

in mind. Every now and then somebody makes a suggestion. As a matter of fact, I

heard it this morning on CBC radio, when there were telephone responses invited

from people, comments on the economy, and they suggested this should be done.

Every now and then over the years people have suggested this

should be done, and others have suggested no, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

should take over Newfoundland Light and Power. Still others say no, that is the

wrong way to go, using Government's borrowing capability to tie it up in this

way when private enterprise is doing it, and what we should do is sell the

Government agency to private enterprise, as the radio commentator said this

morning. Mr. Speaker, people have made the suggestion off and on over the years

on a number of occasions, but I have never been involved in any, I have never

initiated any serious discussion since I have been Premier with respect to that

matter.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I would like to ask him when he will be

providing accurate information to municipalities about the effects on their

budget of the new municipal grant structure and changes in their share of debt

service costs.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, over the last few weeks - in

fact months now - the five regional offices throughout the Province have been in

constant consultation with the municipalities concerning the new grants

structure and the change in the debt subsidy, and the arrangements that are

being made to have some of the communities who before were not paying any

towards their debt, or very little, that those adjustments, including the

grants, have been discussed with the municipalities. That work is substantially

complete and discussions have been ongoing now for some two months.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister

how many of the 320 municipalities will have less money to spend next year

because of the reduction in municipal grants and the increase in debt service

costs?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. SIMMS: Good question.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, it is a good

question, and it is very difficult to answer. Because we will not know until we

see how the communities react in total to the changes in the grant structure

whether some which are being impacted on on the negative side, as we thought in

the beginning, will continue to be negatively impacted or whether it will become

positive. Because there is an incentive component in the grant structure that

they may very well take advantage of. And if they do, we may find that a lot of

the communities we thought would be impacted on on the negative side could very

well have a positive impact and, in fact, receive more from the Province than we

thought. We will not know that until we see the finalized budgets, and they are

submitted through the regional offices to the executive group.

But we do anticipate of course that some communities will be

impacted where they will be asked to contribute more from their own revenue

sources than in the past,

whereas others will be subsidized by the grants

programme. The intent of the programme was, in fact, to see a shift in dollars

from communities that were relatively self-sufficient, with a good tax base of

business and industry and so on, to communities that were in need of assistance.

So I think the grant structure has accomplished that.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, after that answer I know why the

Minister has been referred to as the `Minister of Misinformation and Confusion.'

Let me ask the Minister, will he provide special assistance to all

municipalities which face deficits caused by the changes in the Provincial

funding, as he has done for Corner Brook, Port au Choix and other places? And

will the Minister be approving municipal budgets which are submitted to him by

councils showing a deficit?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we have said, or I have

certainly said from the beginning, when we first announced the changes in the

grants program and in the debt subsidies, that we would look at special

circumstances if, in fact, they existed. And we had to be fair. Obviously these

circumstances would have to exist in other communities, as well. We would not

treat a special circumstance in one community unless we could see a need for

making that change throughout the municipalities in the Province.

So we said we would address those special circumstances if

they were presented to our regional managers, and from the regional managers, of

course, a recommendation would come up through the executive group to me.

The final part of your question was?

MR. TOBIN: About budgets that are showing a deficit.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, under The Municipalities Act

all municipalities in the Province are required to have a balanced budget. So

any that submit a budget that is not balanced, and I cannot imagine that

happening, we have not seen it happen yet, we will be insisting that the budget

is indeed balanced for the coming fiscal year. It is required by the Act.

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

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

the Minister of Finance. I would like to know whether the Minister of Finance

was aware that in addition to the substantial budget cuts announced in the

Federal Budget that there were further departmental cuts amounting to $500

million being announced by the President of Treasury Board, and that these cuts

were additional to those contained in the main estimates, including an ACOA cut

of $1.4 million; Fisheries and Oceans cuts of $22.1 million; and $4.1 million

cut from Marine Atlantic? Was he aware of these additional cuts?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we were aware of a number of

cuts that the Federal Government had made.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Finance

does not understand the question. The question is whether he was aware that

these cuts were in addition to those mentioned in the main estimates, and the

question is whether or not these additional cuts that were announced subsequent

to the Budget, including $22.1 million in the Department of Fisheries, he was

aware of in making his Budget, and whether they were taken into account?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, all

information that we have from the Federal Government is quite complete; it has

been taken into account in making the decisions that we will be announcing

tomorrow. I suggest to the hon. Member that he hold his patience until tomorrow.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the question results from a

recognition that in addition to a $24 million cut in the main Department of

Fisheries estimates for capital and operating expenditures, there was an

additional $22.1 million-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will ask the hon. Member to get into his supplementary

question -and I should hear the question.

MR. HARRIS: Has the Minister taken into account this $47

million cut in the Federal Department of Fisheries expenditures in determining

what expenditures the Provincial Department of Fisheries can have in this

Province?

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

No answer.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would

like to put a further question to the Minister of Mines and Energy and ask the

Minister of Mines and Energy, whether he, or any officials in his Department,

have had any discussions with Newfoundland Light, or any other company for that

matter, regarding the possible privatization of Newfoundland Hydro?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have

initiated no discussions considering the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

Hydro is a major arm of Government from the sense of being the electrical arm

and we are into the midst of a lot of discussions right now, for example, with

Hydro Quebec, and we have certainly given no thought to privatizing Hydro.

Relative to that, I would like to clarify some of the

confusion that is out there relative to the role of Hydro and the role of

Newfoundland Light. A lot of people seem to have the impression that they are

doing the same thing.

Hydro is primarily a producer of power; it is not much of a

distributor of power, just a small amount is distribution. Fortis, or

Newfoundland Power, Newfoundland Light and Power, is primarily a distributor of

power, they produce a small amount but there is very little overlap; there is

very little overlap between Newfoundland Hydro and Newfoundland Light. I want to

clear up some of that confusion which was again evident this morning in some of

the comments that were on the radio.

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

supplementary

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister made it clear that

he nor the Government had initiated any such discussions. Let me ask the

Minister, has Newfoundland Light attempted to initiate such a discussion with

his Department, and secondly, is the Minister and the Government considering

privatizing the power distribution districts currently held by Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro?

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

DR. GIBBONS: The last question first, Mr. Speaker. No, we

are not considering privatizing PDD. In the past when rural districts went off

diesel and onto the grid it was common practice for the Government to then hand

over these areas to Newfoundland Power. We have not considered doing any more of

that with the PDD district that we now have; we are not planning to do anymore

of that. And relative to whether or not Newfoundland Light may have approached

me, the subject was raised, and we have had no discussion on it because we are

not interested in it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order please!

The Chair has, in the past, tried to discourage points of

order during Question Period, and we would prefer that they be raised after. But

when an hon. Member stands on a point of order at least the Chair has to

recognize him and see whether the point of order is substantial enough to be

pursued in Question Period.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to add to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order please!

PREMIER WELLS: Look, if the hon. Member would be quiet he

would shorten this time a good deal. Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SIMMS: He is (inaudible) to take the House on his

shoulders.

PREMIER WELLS: I am not taking the House -

MR. SIMMS: You are!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order please!

The Chair has made its position clear and has specified what

we try to accomplish, but the Chair has not heard what the Premier has to say to

determine whether the point of order is sufficient to be dealt with in Question

Period.

Order please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the combination

of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition to me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

PREMIER WELLS: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that

this House will be misled -may well be misled - if this information is not

given, and I want to give information relative to

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) Question Period!

PREMIER WELLS: I do not mind extending the Question

Period to make up for it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

It has not been non-customary for the Chair to entertain a

point of order, even though the Chair has said that we would prefer that hon.

Members raise a point of order at the end of Question Period, and on several

occasions I have heard points of order raised by hon. Members opposite. If the

Chair can clearly be given a few seconds to listen without any interruption from

the other side, we would be able to clarify the matter. If the Premier could

please get to his point.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the point is simple -

MR. SIMMS: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of privilege, the -

Order please!

MR. SIMMS: I am on a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I just want to say a few words.

Again, hon. Members can see what can happen to Question

Period when the Chair does not get the co-operation of hon. Members. This is why

we have said that points of order and points of privilege aught to be raised at

the end, but I will listen to the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: The only point of privilege I want to raise

is: the Premier said throughout his comments there a moment ago that he is

prepared to extend Question Period by five minutes or so? Is he prepared to do

that? If that is the case we will let him go on with the point of order,

otherwise he is taking away the privileges of Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind extending

Question Period by a few minutes to make up for it. But my concern is for this

House to be fully informed - and properly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That's what you got a Minister for

(Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if hon. Members would be

quiet they might in the end learn something. Their problem is: they appear to

have a great aversion to being informed. No wonder they are where they are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the question was asked

about PDD, and the Minister answered it, strictly speaking, correctly. I want to

give additional information so there will be nobody claiming to be mislead. And

the additional information was that a year or so ago -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair just wants to listen to the Premier for another

twenty-five or thirty seconds, then I will make my decision.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel. I will sit

down. I thought the hon. Opposition House Leader agreed that he would hear the

additional information if we agreed to extend Question Period. If they have

withdrawn it, okay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: I have said we agree!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

That is the condition on which the Chair allowed the Premier

to continue. When the Opposition House Leader asked for five minutes the Premier

agreed - he agreed. He shook his head agreeing.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Premier to continue please.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that

nobody in the House can claim to have been misled. Because a year or year and a

half ago when we were looking at what would be done with PDD, we commissioned an

assessment of PDD as to whether the old practice of the former government should

be continued - of transferring parts of PDD to Newfoundland Light and Power when

they were electrified and put on the grid. Or whether it should be continued

with Hydro.

So we commissioned an assessment jointly with Newfoundland

Light and Power, Mr. Speaker, to determine which was the least cost to the rate

payers. The conclusion was that in the circumstances it would be least costly to

leave it with Hydro, which is what we did.

But yes, the discussion on PDD took place at that time.

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

If I could comment -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) answer to the question!

MR. SPEAKER: If the Chair could dismiss this. Again, I

would suggest to the Premier that the better place to have raised this was at

the end of Question Period. Otherwise Question Period is going to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: - if Members are going to stand - Order,

please!

There is supposed to be no talking when the Chair is

speaking.

If Question Period is to be carried along smoothly we can't

have people getting up to give double answers to questions. When a question is

answered one has to assume that it is answered. And in the future we will not

entertain that. If a person has a point of order, point of privilege, it ought

to be raised at the end of the Question Period.

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

A question for the Minister of Social Services. Earlier this

year, the Minister announced his intention to close eight group homes for

severely handicapped people. Perhaps it is a sign of the times, Mr. Speaker, but

there is a suspicion around that he may have done it to save some money. My

question to the Minister is, will the Minister table the costs of running group

homes in this Province, and will he tell the House what criteria was used to

close those particular group homes?

And while he is at it, would the Minister explain why it was

he announced the closure of the group homes before the residents were placed?

Would it not have been better for the feelings of the residents and people

concerned to place the residents properly before announcing the closure of the

group homes? And, I might say, he put a date on it, which he changed afterwards.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I have

no problems in tabling the cost of the operation of any of the group homes in

the Province, or all of the group homes. The Member should know full well the

cost of operating the group homes. The approximate cost of each one is anywhere

from $90,000 to $115,000 per resident per year.

The move we are making now in moving people to a family

environment within the community has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of

operating a group home. The cost will not be determined by the full support

these people are putting in place. I should also say that we are not closing

group homes; we are moving people from a group home structure into a family

environment, whether it be a foster family or whether it be co-operative

apartments, giving those people, as all of us have in this universe, the right

to live within a community. When the group homes were established, the main

intent was that those people would be placed in group homes, but not for a

permanent period. And the Member for Port au Port knows full well that that was

the intent of the move at that particular time.

Finally, I did not at any time announce a date. That was

announced by CBC radio, and they determined it from a conversation they had had

with me as March 31. There is no planned date to close any group homes. It will

take as long as is necessary, whether it be one month, whether it be six months,

or whether it be six years. When we find the proper placement with the proper

supports in place, after all the residents are moved into the community and the

group homes are vacant and we no longer have a need for them, that is when the

closure of those particular facilities will take place.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the people on

the Northern Peninsula and the people in Gander and the people in -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member to get to his question, please. It is a

supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister tell the

House if the funding will be uniform, or will it be based on the unique needs of

each individual? Will it be adequate to purchase the highly specialized services

that many of these children need? And how much, by the way, Mr. Speaker, will

the foster parents be receiving for caring for these children?

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

MR. EFFORD: First of all, let me tell the hon. Member

that when the move was made to close institutions in the Province and move to

the group home structure there was a great fear among the parents and all of us,

and rightly so. I would be disappointed in the parents and the operators of

these group homes if they were not concerned now about the move we intend to

make. That concern will ensure that the right and proper facilities and supports

will be put in place. I will not give the hon. Member an approximate cost or an

exact cost for the foster homes, because that will be determined on the

individual, the foster family and the arrangements and supports that will be put

in place for each individual. Full cost will depend on the residents themselves,

and all support services that are necessary for each and every resident who will

be moved into the community will be put in place, whatever it takes or whatever

is necessary for that particular individual.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, you know, the Minister says

certain things, but sometimes his facts do not warrant what is happening.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question.

MR. HODDER: Now, Mr. Speaker, how will these foster

parents be chosen and trained? I would like to ask the Minister, as well, what

will happen to the children who cannot be placed in foster homes? What will

happen to those children? And would the Minister not admit that he is doing the

right thing for the wrong reasons in the wrong way, that they are saving money

on the citizens of society who least deserve it.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am totally shocked. First of

all, we are not talking about children, we are talking about adult people living

in group home structures in this Province. And I will challenge anybody in

Newfoundland and Labrador, or anybody in Canada, to deprive these people of the

right to live within the community. Nobody has that right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I will repeat once again, it is not to save

dollars and cents, it is to give these people the opportunity, and everybody

should have that opportunity, to live within the community. How will the foster

training program be done? It will be done based on the needs of the individual.

Since becoming Minister of Social Services, I have implemented several training

programs for foster parents in this community. That was never done before. We

are doing them on a continuous basis, and doing whatever it takes to provide

training and education, support services. Those people, like you and me and

everybody else, will have the right to live within the community.

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a brief

question for the Minister of Mines and Energy. The Premier in his supplementary

answer, point of order, or whatever it was, stated that last year in the

discussions related to what was to happen to the power distribution districts,

there was an assessment of the power distribution districts. Could the Minister

please tell this House, if he knows, the approximate assessed value of the

assets of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? And if he does not know that today,

has he requested recently either his officials or the officials of Newfoundland

Hydro to do an assessment of the value of the assets of Newfoundland Hydro?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that number off

the top of my head, and I have not asked my officials to do that type of

assessment. I will promise to get the numbers if the Member would like the

numbers.

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

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

the President of Treasury Board. The President of Treasury would be aware that

his Government has already a decision that a substantial number of ADMs and DMs

are about to be terminated. Numbers between ten and twenty are the numbers that

are bandied around. I have two questions for the Government House Leader. Can he

confirm that letters of termination have already been drafted and are ready to

go to these individuals? And, can he tell us when these people will be told

personally?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The allocation of Deputies and ADMs is a prerogative that the

Premier normally has. Unless the Premier himself has initiated action in the

last couple of weeks I know of no such move underway, I know of no such letters

being drafted, I know of no such decision that has been made at this point in

time.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the Premier if letters

have already been drafted to terminate a substantial number of ADMs and DMs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. The President of Treasury

Board said, and the hon. Member would know, the appointments of Deputy Ministers

and Assistant Deputy Ministers is purely a prerogative of the Premier and since

I have been in this office I have exercised that prerogative and I intend to do

so. I can say with certainty that I have not drafted any such letters, nor have

I instructed anybody else to draft any such letters.

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

MR. SIMMS: I have one short supplementary, and then a

further one after that, if I might be permitted. I would like to ask the Premier

if he intends to terminate a number of ADM positions in the next short little

while? Can he answer that question?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that they

are so desperate for intelligent questions if this is the kind of stuff they are

coming up with. The people will know, and all Members of the House will know

that the Minister of Finance will deliver his budget tomorrow. That will spell

out in detail exactly what Government intends or does not intend to do, and

these kinds of grand standing theatrics by the hon. Members opposite now are

really unworthy of parliamentarians. You know, it is really not worthy of

answer.

MR. SIMMS: A final supplementary.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we are lacking, I think, in this Question

Period are substantial answers, not questions. That is the difficulty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Honesty.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, and straight forward.

Let me ask this question then, and perhaps since he referred

it to the Minister of Finance maybe he will be willing to stand and answer this

question. Can the Minister of Finance assure this House and the people of the

Province that if, indeed, he intends to announce the termination of a number of

ADM positions tomorrow that chief among those and the first to go will be those

who are filling positions for which they are unqualified at the present time

namely Mr. Beaton Tulk, Fraser Lush, Grant Chalker, as an example?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, what the Government intends

to do, generally, will be announced in the Budget, and the Minister of Finance

will provide, to the extent that he can, substantial detail. If there is any

alteration in the executive level of the public service at the DM and ADM level,

that remains my prerogative and not that of the Minister of Finance. I have no

intention of having any discussion whatsoever about what is intended or not

intended until the Minister delivers his Budget. And then if they are any

intentions to be carried out, I will be happy to advise the House, Mr. Speaker,

of specifically what will be done.

Now, with respect to the particular question of the three

individuals who were named, those three individuals, those three individuals

were eminently qualified individuals who were appointed -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order please!

I would ask the Member for Burin - Placentia West to restrain

himself while the Premier is giving his answer.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Those three individuals were eminently

qualified individuals who were appointed to carry out these particular duties,

and, Mr. Speaker, I must again advise the House that our commitment to fairness

and balance is just that. We will not refrain from appointing to major positions

in this Province competent people merely because they have had the good sense to

support the Liberal Party in the past. We intend to take advantage of their

talents and abilities for the good of the people of this Province, and we will

not fall into this silly trap that the Members opposite are trying to set up

that you cannot ever appoint anybody because they somehow voted Liberal or

spoken in support of the Liberal Party, or participated in the Liberal Party in

the past. We will appoint the best qualified people available.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. Last March in his budget speech, the Minister announced the

construction of a new $24 million ferry for Fogo Island with some $4 million to

be spent on design work for this year. Has that design work now been completed,

and will construction proceed this year as the Minister has already announced?

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: The provision that was made in last years

Budget has, no doubt, been undertaken, and as for what is going to happen next

year, you will have to wait until the Minister reads his speech tomorrow.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you announce it tomorrow?

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, since it has already been

announced, then can I ask the Minister when will he sign the contract with the

Marystown Shipyard as he indicated in last years Budget Speech that he would do?

When will that contract be signed for the actual construction of the vessel?

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. Member is

aware that the Capital Budget for next year will be announced tomorrow when the

Minister reads his statement and at that time he will have his answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

Extern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: My question is to the Minister of

Environment and Lands. Many private companies such as soft drink companies,

MacDonalds, and indeed more specific, Newfoundland Telephone, are showing

considerable leadership in recycling programs. Can the Minister tell us of any

plans his Department has to introduce recycling programs in Government and when

is he going to show some leadership?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Hide that behind the Budget tomorrow;

wait for tomorrow (inaudible) the Minister of Finance.

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will answer the

last part first - when will I start showing leadership? That happened initially

I think about fifty-six and a half years ago when I was six months old and I

have tried to continue ever since.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Good answer.

MR. KELLAND: However, with respect to the more serious

aspect-

AN HON. MEMBER: A good answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELLAND: With respect to the more serious part of my

colleague's question, as the House may or may not know, two years ago, prior to

the present Administration taking over, the former Administration entered into

an agreement with the soft drink bottling companies to impose a two-year

moratorium on introducing new legislation with respect to recycling.

We have honoured that commitment with the anticipation that a

review and a survey and a study of the results of the recycling operation will

be done two years hence which happens to be 1991. We will be carrying out that

review. In the interim and in the meantime and in fact for the past twenty odd

months, we have been in consultation with all the companies, including the new

companies, the local juice producer, not just for the plastic recyclables and

the aluminum cans but also glass which for some reason or other the former

Administration did not consider to be an environmental problem, we do consider

it to be an environmental problem and we have convened a number of meetings with

the agencies involved and the companies involved and in fact as early as today

or as recent as today-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep going.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do believe that the Minister is taking a rather lengthy way

around the answer. Could the Minister please clue up in ten seconds? The hon.

the Minister-

AN HON. MEMBER: In collusion, in collusion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes. It is a fairly detailed

answer and I apologise if I have extended my answer-

MR. SPEAKER: Please get on with the answer.

MR. KELLAND: -beyond a reasonable time. We are taking

major steps in recycling. The results of the survey of the imposed moratorium

and the recycling efforts imposed by the former Administration will be made know

to the public as soon as possible. We are also now, currently approaching the

cities to see if we cannot initiate with them and institute with them some kind

of a more extensive -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave! By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In accordance with

the provisions of the Financial Administration Act, I am pleased to table in the

House the public accounts for the year ended March 31 1990; the accounts of

Crown Corporations, Boards and Authorities for 1990; the report of the Auditor

General to the House of Assembly for the fiscal year ended March 31 1990; and

Departmental observations on the report to the Auditor General for the same

year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present - I

think it has approximately 1,500 signatures - to the Minister of Education. It

is on behalf of the constituency associated with the Marystown Elementary

School. I want to say from the outset that the Minister has a carbon copy, I

think, of most of these petitions, the original is what I presented today. I

also want to say that the Minister of Education has given the concerned parents

of Marystown Elementary School the opportunity to meet with him and to discuss

their fears as it relates to the cutbacks in education. And I want to thank the

Minister, Mr. Speaker, for providing the opportunity, and I must say, extending

as much time as basically was necessary to listen to the concerns of the parents

and teachers and school board people and everyone else. And I am grateful to the

Minister on their behalf for that.

But having said that, Mr. Speaker, this petition outlines the

concerns of parents, students, teachers, and school board officials in this

Province as it relates to the way that this Government is handling the education

system. And I do not, nor do the people in my district, and I do not think the

people in the Province, Mr. Speaker, throw the full responsibility of this on

the shoulders of the Minister of Education. Because those of us who have been

around this Assembly now for some time realize that this Government is a one-man

show, and the Minister of Education is told by the Premier what to cut back and

what not to cut back. And the sad part about it, about what is taking place in

the education system, is you have people like the Parliamentary Assistant to the

Premier who was once a President of the NTA and an educator. You have the

Minister of Employment, Mr. Speaker. All of these people who can sit back, who

can -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I am presenting a petition on behalf of the

people of my district, 1,500, Mr. Premier, 1,500 people in my district, asking

you, sir, to increase the budget for education by the 12 per cent that is

needed. At least 12 per cent that is needed to maintain what they had this year.

By at least 12 per cent that was there to maintain what they have this year.

That is what the petition is about. And we have the Member for Exploits and

other members, the Member for Carbonear who is not here, who comes to this House

and pretends to be great friends of the educators in this Province, Mr. Speaker,

and yet they stand by a Government that is gutting the system left, right and

centre, no concern or compassion for the people of this Province who want to get

an education here. What are they doing, Mr. Speaker? What are they doing for the

students throughout this Province? What did we see in this building last week?

We saw one of the largest demonstrations ever by a group of post-secondary

students because of the actions of this Government. That is what we saw.

The Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island can laugh all he

likes about this - the fact of the matter is we know what he has already said

about the teachers and the education system of this Province. We know what he

said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: And the Member for St. John's South can nod in

agreement with the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, if he wishes, it does

not bother me. But your constituents will know what you are saying. What is

taking place here is action that should not be permitted and the Government

should not, Mr. Speaker, let this take place.

We saw the other day where Mr. Vokey, I believe, his

organization stated that it will take a 12 per cent increase in the budget for

Education to maintain the status quo. Twelve per cent. So this Minister of

Finance, Mr. Speaker, cannot bring down a Budget tomorrow that has less than a

12 per cent increase for Education without hurting the education system in this

Province. And I hope that the Minister of Education, whom I believe to be

concerned about what is taking place, no doubt in my mind he is concerned, but

he lacks support from the Premier, he lacks support from his Cabinet colleagues,

and he lacks support, Mr. Speaker, from the backbenchers over there led by the

people who profess to be supporters of the education system. They have failed

terribly, Mr. Speaker, in trying to hide behind the cloak of being a friend of

education.

What have they done? What has the Member for Exploits done?

Show one thing that he has done since he came in this House to support the

education system. Name one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing.

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Carbonear, the Member for St.

George's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: And now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Fortune -

Hermitage who voted against everything in the last session of the Assembly

dealing with supporting education in this Province, Mr. Speaker. That is what we

have seen. No wonder he is so comfortable over there, Mr. Speaker, with a group

that is ready to gut the social programs of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: No wonder he is so comfortable, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Member for St.

John's East was rising on a point of order, obviously not.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support the petition so ably presented

by my colleague to show that there is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. POWER: - I mean the Members opposite should ask

themselves a simple question. Why do we come to this House since it is being

open every day with vast numbers of names of people, parents, students, and

teachers who are very, very concerned about the educational process in this

Province? Why did we see 800 or 1,000 people here the other day protesting from

the Cabot, the Marine and the University? Why is this happening? It is not

happening because of something this Opposition has done over here.

It is not just simply being alarmists. An awful lot of people

are concerned about the quality of education in Newfoundland and Labrador. Last

night on the news there was an instructor from the Cabot Institute saying that

the anxiety caused by this administration has already affected the quality of

education. It is already doing harm to teachers, and more importantly to

students. Now, why is this happening? It is happening because in this Province

an awful lot of people seem to know what the Liberal administration does not

know, or what they very quickly forgot after they became elected, and that is

that education is really the core of our society. If we do not educate our

people properly, if we do not put our resources there, then how do we expect to

improve society? I see the Premier on TV advertising literacy, advertising that

maybe 40 per cent of Newfoundlanders cannot read or write, and we have to do

something about it. I heard the Minister of Development here the other day

saying there is a direct correlation between the amount of education our

citizens have and how we can economically diversify and develop our Province.

Now, you can have it one way or the other, but you cannot be both, Mr. Speaker.

Somewhere along the way this administration has to face up to a responsibility

to educate the people of this Province in a way the people deserve. The simple

fact is that education is a provincial jurisdiction. It really serves no purpose

for the Minister responsible for Treasury Board or the Minister of Finance to

get up every day and say the Feds are cutting back, it is their fault and not

ours. We do not have control of very much in this Province but one thing we do

have control of is education. It is our provincial responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, this administration is losing a tremendous

opportunity to do some good. When they announced the real change in 1989, and a

lot of people in Newfoundland fell for it hook, line, and sinker, unfortunately,

no real change has taken place except what is regressive. The last Liberal

administration that did something for education in this Province was Joey

Smallwood's administration back in the mid 60s when he had free tuition. When he

did enable, through free tuition and salaries, a large number of Newfoundland

people, including myself, to get access to a university and a post-secondary

education. It was a great improvement, probably the best thing that Joey

Smallwood did, the thing he will be most remembered for, with the exception,

probably, of giving away Upper Churchill. With the exception of the Upper

Churchill the thing he will be most remembered for will be his educational

policies. This administration will also be remembered for its educational

policies, Mr. Speaker, but they will be remembered in a very negative sense, for

promising to do away with school tax and now having school tax increased in most

parts of the Province, for promising that there is a relationship between

economic development and diversification and education and doing nothing for the

education side of that formula. There are a lot of people protesting in this

Province and it is not all in the minds of just the eighteen members of the

Opposition. It is in the minds of parents, it is in the minds of students, it is

in the minds of educators. As I mentioned earlier in a little comment across the

House, tomorrow the hiding will be over and this administration will either have

to own up to the fact they are not going to support education advancement in

this Province, or they will. Mr. Speaker, every person on this side of the House

hopes that there are no cutbacks tomorrow, that you do what you said you were

going to do in 1989 and give the people of this Province the quality of

education they deserve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Member

for Burin - Placentia for his kind comments. First of all, I have read the

petition and I did meet with the delegation and we had an excellent discussion.

We covered all the issues and it was one of the most interesting thoughtful

discussions that I have ever had on the issue of the possible fiscal restraints

in education. I was pleased that the hon. Member attended as well. He did not

get involved in the discussion, as he indicated he would not, but it was a good

discussion.

Secondly, I do want to correct some of the misinformation,

particularly from the second speaker in supporting the petition. On elementary

and secondary education the increase in the amount of money from 1987-88 to

1988-89 of the former administration was 3.39 per cent. This is data I got from

public accounts. There was less than a 3.5 per cent increase from 1987-88 to

1988-89.

Next year the percentage increase was 6.9 percent. The first

year that this Government was in office we increased expenditure on elementary

and secondary education by more than double the previous year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: And in 1990-1991 - these are facts, Mr.

Speaker - in 1991 the increase was 6.4 per cent. Double the increase of the last

year in which the former administration was in office, in elementary and

secondary education.

Mr. Speaker, on school tax equalization. In 1986-1987 the

former administration put $2 million in. The next year they put in $2.5 million.

The next year, the final year they were in office, they put $4.5 million into

school tax equalization. Our first year, Mr. Speaker, we increased that to $10

million -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: -and we maintained that $10 million last

year. On capital they were giving the school boards, the DEC's, $20 million. We

have increased it to $27 million.

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

It being 3:00 p.m. and Private Member's Day, we must proceed

to that particular motion. And the motion was introduced by the Member for Mount

Pearl, so we call on the Member for Mount Pearl to proceed with his resolution.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The

resolution revolves around the failure of this Government to properly address

the economic situation in our Province and to take steps to improve the economy

of our Province, and particularly to improve business opportunities and

employment in our Province. The resolution makes reference, I think, to three

successive Throne Speeches which have promised an economic plan for the

Province. And, Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to go back and to read these,

and I would like to take just a couple of moments to make some quotes from the

Throne Speeches for which I refer.

Throne Speech of 1989. This is the Government's first Throne

Speech, and it was delivered on May 25, a couple of months after this Government

came to power. And I quote: "My Government's over-riding aim during its current

mandate will be to reverse these alarming trends and provide an economy that

will allow our people the opportunity to earn a good income, without having to

leave the Province in the pursuit of this goal. My Government will ensure

fairness, balance and equality of opportunity for all our people, in all regions

of the Province." Sounds good. I like this statement. It says: "provincial

governments have a responsibility to ensure that the economic climate is such

that their expectations can be met.... Government will take steps to address the

disparity in economic competence both between this Province and the Maritime

Provinces, and between this Province and the Nation as a whole." And here is the

kicker: "My Government is, at this moment, in the process of establishing an

economic recovery plan." This is May 25 of 1989. "Government is, at this moment,

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

will be announced shortly. While My Government will continue to seek advice from

experienced and knowledgeable persons inside and outside the Province," and so

forth. It says: "The economic recovery team will be mandated to work closely

with all rural development associations to identify every potential economic

opportunity" and so forth.

So here in May of 1989 Government was announcing that they

were going to develop an economic plan.

Nineteen-ninety, Mr. Speaker, Throne Speech, from March 8.

His Honour, in addressing the hon. House, says: "Government has proceeded to

establish an Economic Recovery Commission." Good, well that is very good. In one

year we established an Economic Recovery Commission. That was the great

accomplishment. "Its mandate is to identify programs and other measures that

will contribute to a sustained reduction in the chronically high unemployment

rate in the Province."

The Commission has also been mandated to identify, develop

and promote employment opportunities for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

by stimulating and fostering enterprise and economic development in all

regions."

And then they go on to talk about the Economic Recover

Commission and the Department of Development submitting new proposals and so

forth. "The intent is to provide a single agency for all local development and

business support programs." Talking about the restructuring of the Newfoundland

and Labrador Development Corporation into a New Crown Corporation which will

consolidate the existing activities of NLDC and certain functions of the

Department of Development. So, that was the great plan of a year later, Mr.

Speaker.

This years Throne Speech is earth shattering. First of all,

the Government admits that, "the Province's financial situation is quite

strained primarily as a result of certain federal and provincial factors

affecting the Province's level of revenue." And they admit that, "if this trend

is permitted to continue, it could seriously jeopardize the ability of

Government to deliver essential services to our people and to take advantage of

the many economic development opportunities which will be available to us over

the next few years."

It goes on to say, "The Government is committed to the goal

of developing a strong overall economy for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador - a goal that can be achieved by capitalizing on the right combination

of resource and non-resource based opportunities, and a supportive government

economic policy framework.

"The Government's economic vision is that of a self-reliant

society, where prosperity builds on the innovation, productivity and creativity

of its people, its distinctive culture, and the unique advantages conferred

through nature and geography." Nice words.

Then it says on page 5, "My Government intends to review its

policies so as to eliminate disincentives for enterprises to adopt more

efficient methods of production and distribution in the Province." Good. "My

Government also feels that it is imperative for the Province to develop a

strategic economic plan that reflects the broad policy directions referred to

earlier in My Address," His Honour says. This is the third year that they have

said, 'we need to develop a strategic economic plan.' Well, what was done in the

24 months intervening?

Well, they said, "Significant work has already been

undertaken in this regard, and further work on the plan will be carried out in

the coming months with adequate opportunity for public discussion."

The one sentence that I like here, Mr. Speaker: "My Ministers

will strive to ensure that the tax system contributes to a positive business

climate in the Province. To this end, My Government is committed to undertaking

a through assessment of the Province's existing tax regime and will adopt

reforms appropriate to achieve that positive business climate."

Now, Mr. Speaker, these are great words in Throne Speeches.

We all know that Throne Speeches essentially outline the general statement of

policy of Government and the direction in which Government intends to pursue

over the coming years; a general statement saying: here is the approach that we

intend to take, these are the priorities of Government, and here in very general

terms are the measures and the action that Government would propose to take to

try to bring about these general statements of policy.

These are good words, Mr. Speaker, but they lose their

meaning when you hear them year after year after year. Here are three years in a

row this Government is talking about the need to have an economic plan. How

long, Mr. Speaker, will we wait for such an economic plan? How long can we wait

for such an economic plan, or for this Government to take some firm action to

deal with the conditions that we find in this Province today, particularly as it

relates to business, Mr. Speaker?

I think that hon. Ministers opposite must know, unless they

are totally asleep, they must know that business climate in this Province today

is at an all time low. Statistics that they have available to them, that we all

have available to us, show the tremendous number of bankruptcies that have

occurred in this Province. Daily in the business community we are hearing of

companies that are folding up, that are closing down, that are declaring

insolvency. And, of course, there is a large domino effect with that, Mr.

Speaker. As one company goes bankrupt, other companies have extended credit to

that company and that hurts those companies, and so it has a domino effect all

the way down the line.

But perhaps even more alarming, Mr. Speaker, is that not only

have we seen a large number of companies declare bankruptcy but I would suggest

to you that a large percentage of the companies that are still in business are

also technically bankrupt.

AN HON. MEMBER: That would not have anything to do with

the seventeen years of mismanagement.

MR. WINDSOR: They are also technically bankrupt, Mr.

Speaker, they are just going from day to day, and I would also say this that

they are receiving very little support from the financial institutions; in fact,

as I guess is to be expected, if I were a banker, Mr. Speaker, you know, then I

would perhaps take the same position and if companies were having difficult

times, then I would tighten up, the banks have really tightened up. I believe

the President of Treasury Board knows what I am talking about.

Numerous companies have said to me, and the Minister of

Development should be concerned about this, and I am being quite serious in what

I am saying here, and I think the Government needs to step in here to save

businesses in this Province. These are all great words about an economic plan;

right now, I think we need an emergency plan.

The businesses and industries in this Province are in great

danger of folding; we have seen as I have just said, the hon. Gentleman was not

paying that much attention a couple minutes ago, we are seeing record numbers of

bankruptcies and I am saying to you that the majority of companies that are

still operating are also technically bankrupt and are just going from day to

day.

But the banks have come in, Mr. Speaker, and I have had

numerous companies say to me: we are reducing your operating line of credit by

about 40 per cent, about 40 per cent, so the banks are pulling in, they are

tightening the reins and that is - I just saw a moment ago, something here, I

think it is in the Government's - this is the Economic Review of 1990-1991,

produced by the Provincial Government. There was a sentence here somewhere where

it said that they also were aware that banks or financial institutions have

tightened up - yes, here it is: Consumer expenditures in general fell as

interest rates rose and credit was tightened. In other words, the Government is

aware and the statistics show that credit has indeed been tightened.

Mr. Speaker, the impact of that is, that a small company that

is operating on borrowed funds and borrowed lines of credit, you know, lines of

credit and borrowed operating capital, as most companies in our Province are,

and I have said many times in this Chamber, at least the former Chamber, I have

said many times that the biggest problem in business and industry in our

Province is that companies are under capitalized and do not have their own

working capital, so they are operating on borrowed money.

Businesses are basically working for the banks, and the banks

now, knowing businesses are getting tight, are really tightening the reins on

the money. The lines of credit have been reduced, the flexibility that companies

had at a time when they needed it most has been taken away from them. You know,

there is an old adage that says: When business is good you should advertise,

when business is bad you must advertise. Anybody who does any promotion will

remember that one, but I say when the economy is good you should invest, when

the economy is weak you must invest, you must try to move forward. In fact it is

a good time to do it, you can generally undertake expansion of a company,

particularly as it relates to capital works, at a lower cost at a time when the

economy is weak; generally your prices are down and companies are hungry to get

the work and so it is an ideal time to expand.

The problem is there is, there is no money out there. Mr.

Speaker, I am talking to business people every day who have tremendous ideas of

how to generate business in this Province, how to create employment in this

Province. They not only have good ideas they have opportunities, Mr. Speaker,

the opportunities are there I say to you. In Newfoundland and Labrador today,

there are numerous business opportunities waiting to be taken advantage of;

businesses are not in a position to do it, they do not have the confidence in

the economy yet. I read just a few moments ago, during the Question Period, I

was reading this Economic Review of 1990, an outlook for 1991, produced by the

Economic Research and Analysis Division of the Cabinet Secretariat under the

auspices of the present Treasury Board.

It is a good document and it gives a good outlook for this

year. Now contrary to public opinion out there, the general concept in the

public is that this is going to be a terrible year, and I say that this

Government is largely responsible for that image of this Province because of

statements they have made about their own terrible financial position. I do not

quite buy everything they are saying, by the way.

MR. EFFORD: You do not?

MR. WINDSOR: I do not quite buy everything they are

saying. I know we have some problems, but I say to you now that they are playing

the old game of let us say this is going to be a terrible Budget, everybody is

going to get taxed to death, and tomorrow when the amount of taxes that come in

are not as much as people expect, they will say, oh, thank God they only upped

taxes by 5 per cent not 20 per cent. The old game. We will see that tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: We will see that tomorrow. I can't lose on

this one. Because if I am right I have predicted it, and if I am wrong, you are

in trouble any way. I simply say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe, to a large

extent, the approach that has been taken by Government has been largely

responsible for the bad image of the economy and of the Province generally that

business has. People are afraid to invest. And I would refer them to this

publication of Government which, if you read through it, shows that things do

not look bad for this year - they are not great. Now let me make it very clear

the only reason that they are good at all is because of Hibernia. The fishing

industry will be poor. Rural Newfoundland will feel that because of quota

reductions, which we spoke about here in the House yesterday, and quite properly

so. But the fishing industry will be negatively impacted.

MR. HEARN: Our Hibernia.

MR. WINDSOR: That is right. `Our Hibernia', my colleague

for St. Mary's - The Capes reminds me, a great Tory project. Nevertheless, I do

not want to get into that. That is not what I am here to talk about today. The

fact of the matter is, I heard on the radio this morning, Mr. Speaker, the

Conference Board of Canada predicts that Newfoundland will experience about 2.8

per cent growth this year, far ahead of the rest of Canada; the rest of Canada

is expected -

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Alberta?

MR. WINDSOR: Alberta will grow, but not by 2.8 per cent.

The average in Canada will be about 1.4 per cent this year. And that is because

of Hibernia, because there are going to be 3,000 or 4,000 jobs created by the

Hibernia development, because of the millions of dollars of investment and the

business opportunities, and that is what I am talking about. And there are

business opportunities out there associated with Hibernia. I just had lunch with

a businessman and we were talking about two or three opportunities that are

there now which could be taken advantage of. But who has the money to do it? And

the banks are not financing; they are not extending the credit; they do not have

the confidence yet. Now that will change, hopefully. Hopefully, quickly.

The Budget tomorrow will have a major impact on it. And this

is why this is such a great opportunity to have this debate today, the day

before the Budget. I wish it was a week or ten days before the Budget. But if

the Government could think about whatever actions they are planning to take,

then perhaps they might redirect some of their actions, they might decide to

change some of them. Because I think the Budget document tomorrow will be the

key factor this year in dictating what happens to the economy of our Province

and what happens to business in our Province. If the wrong signals are given

tomorrow, then we could be in a terrible, terrible situation. If the right

signals are given, if the right programs are initiated, right actions taken, and

certain programs eliminated in order to do that, because I do not believe this

Government has a lot of flexibility, and I said I do not buy everything that is

being said, but I still recognize that this Government does not have a lot of

flexibility and I think there is some ruthless action that has to be taken

tomorrow, and it may be that certain programs have to be eliminated because we

cannot afford them this year. In order to direct that funding toward economic

development and to helping businesses, the first thing I say to the Minister of

Development, the first program he needs and he desperately needs on an emergency

basis, is either, if he can, if he or the Minister of Finance can convince the

banks to continue to support business in this Province. Otherwise, he has to

bring in some sort of a program to help them, because the line of credits are

being cut off; they are being reduced drastically, by 40 per cent in many, many

cases.

I know of a company with which I am associated that is a good

company, it has been around for a long period of time, and the bank has done

that to them. They have enough work ahead of them that they are looking forward

to the best year - my colleague knows of another one - they have had in ten

years. They can show the work on paper: here is what we are going to do this

year, and the bank is cutting their line of credit by 40 per cent. Technically

they are bankrupt.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. WINDSOR: Why? Because the banks are scared. And the

banks will turn tail and run chicken. The hon. the Minister of Finance was

around when the banks turned chicken on the fishing industry, about ten years

ago, and as a result of that this Province is now basically financing the

fishing industry in this Province. Because the banks know and they knew then

that Government could not afford to allow all these fish plants to close, so

they said that is it, we are going to reduce your line of credit. What did the

fish companies do? They came to Government and said, unless you help us, we are

going to have to shut down. And what did Government do? Help them, of course. We

could not have all those fish plants shut down, and that is why we have all

those guarantees. So the bank is out there with millions of dollars of money

loaned to fish plants with absolutely zero risk, because it is all guaranteed by

the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Finance.

And the same thing with fishermen and their boats. The

Province is the one that is financing this, and the banks have all that money

out there with no risk whatsoever. They are guaranteed to get their money and it

is wrong, I say. And they are doing it today to other businesses in this

Province. But, of course, the Province is not there to support those businesses.

I ask the Minister, I beg him on behalf of businesses in this Province, to call

in the head office of the banks, go to Toronto and sit down in the board rooms.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: If the Premier has met with them, I

congratulate him. Go to the board rooms in Toronto and let the banks know that

the Province is not prepared to accept this, and that the Province does have

ways and means of dealing with banks.

I am just about out of time I think, but I want to get back

at it because I am just getting into my topic. That is the message here. I am

not here today to play raw, basic politics on what this Government has done with

the economy. I have all next week to deal with that, when we get into the

Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have another

twenty minutes at the end, but I thank the hon. gentleman. Maybe the Minister of

Development would like to address this, because I think it is real problem.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the next twenty

minutes, I want to take the opportunity to respond to the resolution put forward

by the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl. To begin, I am surprised actually that

the hon. Member is not his usual self in speaking in the House of Assembly. I do

not know whether it is the flu, or whether he really does not believe in what he

has put forward here. I really believe he was doing it half-heartedly, because

he was not his usual exuberant self in putting his comments forward. He was very

laid-back and very low-key, and that is unusual. Because I take great pleasure

in sitting here in the House and listening to the hon. Member. And when he

really believes strongly about something, he really gives it his 150 per cent.

But today it was far below 150 per cent. In fact, it was far below 50 per cent.

So I firmly believe the hon. Member was forced to put forward this resolution by

his colleagues, and he really did not believe in what he was doing.

Being a former Minister of Finance, he knows full well that

the steps this new Government has taken over the last three Budgets, since 1989,

these drastic measures, we have had to take. Being Minister of Finance in the

former administration for a number of years he certainly knows what the problems

in this Province are, and to have him stand here this afternoon and blame the

Newfoundland Government of the day for the bankruptcies in Newfoundland and

Labrador and the domino effect that is having, that is crazy. Are we to blame

for the recession across Canada? Are we to blame for the recession in the world?

Well, I do not know about getting credit for something. If I am going to get

credit for causing some major catastrophe in the world, it sort of makes you

feel good that you have done something in the world anyway. But being blamed for

what is happening across Canada and across the world is a little foolish. We do

not control the economy of the world, and we certainly do not control the

economy of Canada. What we are trying to do is control the economy of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now being a former business person myself, enjoying business

administration, I started off in business from square one with no debt, no

liabilities, no assets or anything. From square one, zero base I started off a

business. I built several businesses from that beginning, from that new

beginning. And it is not difficult to do that. If you put in a few hours of work

and you use a little bit of brain, you can get a decent start. But let me tell

my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House of Assembly that it is a different

story when you take over from a former administration which totally mismanaged

the financial affairs of this Province for seventeen years - totally mismanaged

it for seventeen years. Now when a new administration moves in place you have to

take some drastic measures in order to deal with the mismanagement of the former

administration.

Now, am I telling lies? Am I misinforming the House? Am I

misleading the people of this Province in what I am about to say? Yesterday, the

hon. Member from Humber East condemned the former Liberal administration, the

hon. Joseph R. Smallwood, the only living Father of Confederation, for

mismanagement and the political way in which he ran his government. I think the

hon. Member for Ferryland made some reference to it today, knowing full well

that he actually tried to run for the hon. Joseph R. Smallwood but he would not

allow him. He would not allow him to run. He said, no, we want somebody else. I

think he is a bit upset and a bit peeved about the fact that Mr. Smallwood would

not have him in his caucus. So I can understand his dilemma when he got up today

and tried to run down the former premier, Mr. Smallwood.

But let's go back to the Smallwood days. What was the debt of

the Province when Smallwood finished his term in government, after approximately

twenty-three years? It was approximately $800 million. Now in come the Tories,

with all the great ability to administer, the great ability to change the

economy of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the great ability to bring

jobs to the Province, to encourage everything. Have not will be no more. How

many times was it said? The only have not will be no more were the cucumbers,

because they are no more. There is no question about that, Mr. Speaker.

After seventeen years of Tory mismanagement, what kind of a

debt did we incur? Five point seven billion dollars. Now just imagine going down

the street and asking a bank to lend you money to buy into a company, or to take

over a company, which has a debt of $5.7 billion. Mr. Speaker, you would have to

be totally out of your mind to even approach a bank, to think that any group of

financial people in the country of Canada or in the world would start lending

you money with a debt of $5.7 billion. They should say, well, you are no better

than the other group. You are of the same mentality as the other group that just

left. So you have to lay out some sort of a plan and some sort of a structure

to, number one, build up the confidence of the financial people of the world.

Now what could we do if we did not have that debt of $5.7

billion? Let's suppose it was only $2 billion, which is all it should be. That

would decrease about $3.7 billion debt. How much interest would we not be paying

if we only had a debt of $2 billion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Three hundred million!

MR. EFFORD: Approximately $300 million. Let me ask the

Minister of Education a question. Mr. Minister, if you had another $300 million

this year, what would you do for education in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador? Or what would the Minister of Health do for health care in this

Province if he had the $300 million we are now paying out in interest in this

Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Now! If we could take 50 per cent of the $108

million debt retirement and give it to the Minister of Development, gave him

another $54 million, Mr. Speaker, to add to his Enterprise Newfoundland, how

many more jobs would the Minister of Development be able to create in this

Province? And how many businesses could he encourage with $54 million?

Now what should a government do? Should we go out and on top

of a debt of $5.7 billion borrow another $400 million this year, another $500

million for capital, and increase the debt? Nobody in their right mind in the

financial administration of this world would even begin to talk to a government

that does not have the ability to sit down and look at the financial situation

the Province is in, and look at the future and where we are going. Let's show

that we have some ability to administer, that we have some intelligence to deal

with the problems of the past, and we have some direction in where we are going

to solve the problems in the future.

And you have to keep two things in mind: You must be

financially responsible, but you must also be responsive to the needs of the

people. And it is very difficult to do both those things after the way this

Province was administered for seventeen years. And this is the reason why, when

you sit here for thirty minutes in Question Period, the questions are very

low-key. And some of the questions had to be developed by the Leader of the

Opposition today as he kept asking the Premier what is going to happen to the

Deputy Ministers and Assistant Deputy Ministers. Here we are talking about a

Province which, according to the Opposition, is falling apart, and they cannot

develop a strong question for Question Period. It is absolutely unbelievable.

With all their knowledge of how government operates, of the debt of the

Province, of what was happening over here for seventeen years, the experience of

how to manage a government, they cannot put together a Question Period.

And I know why, Mr. Speaker. Because they know very well they

messed up the financial situation of this Province. No question about it. And

let's start giving some credit where credit is due. The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl was very low-key when he was making some strong statements - not

strong statements, some statements - towards the Minister of Development and the

Economic Recovery Commission, and Enterprise Newfoundland. And so he should be.

Because for the first time in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador people

can now go to a place in the system where they can get straightforward

information and not be led around by the tips of their fingers for six or eight

months, only to end up in total confusion and frustration, and tearing up

business applications and going home. Now Enterprise Newfoundland, under the

direction of the Minister of Development, has finally found a way to solve the

problems and make it easy for people in this Province who have genuine ideas

Province to develop some business structure with support. People do not need to

be led. People do not need their pockets filled up with subsidies, people just

need an opportunity to develop.

Have there been any jobs developed in the last two Budgets?

MR. WINDSOR: Not by the Economic Recovery Commission!

MR. EFFORD: Fifteen hundred - well, you are not

listening!

MR. WINDSOR: Not a one by the Economic Recovery

Commission!

MR. EFFORD: No, you are not listening.

MR. WINDSOR: Not one by the Economic Recovery Commission.

MR. EFFORD: Let me give you some figures on what has

happened.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) money out of it than out of a

blank sheet.

MR. EFFORD: One thousand five hundred and thirty-five

jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's lies! Direct, absolute lies!

MR. EFFORD: One thousand five hundred and thirty-five

jobs, Mr. Speaker, less one hundred and fifty jobs by - this is lies, this is

false stuff, Mr. Speaker. That is the only thing the hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl believes in, what happened out here. But when we give some concrete

evidence of 1,535 jobs, he does not want to believe. Do you know why? Because,

Mr. Speaker, something good is happening in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador; people are being shown and given confidence that there is a future for

this Province.

MR. SIMMS: You gave away Churchill Falls!

MR. EFFORD: Continue with the debt of this Province and

there will be no future. There will be no future for your children or your

grandchildren. And that is what we need, Mr. Speaker, we need a future for this

Province, we need some direction. And look at the polls, 66 per cent -

confidence is placed back in the people of this Province. People now believe

there is a future. People are not interested in the Tory philosophy. How many

times did I hear my poor old father say, "Tory times are hard times"? Thank God

for the common sense of these people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: We will see after tomorrow. We must say

something right. Can you imagine? After all the press coverage of the Budget, of

the possible cutbacks in the Budget, after all the negative things said in this

Province, after all the negative things about health care and education, when

the polls were done what did the polls show? Sixty-six per cent. Do you know

why? Because people realize the mess the Tories created in seventeen years and

they know it cannot continue - it cannot continue and it will not continue.

MR. SIMMS: We were at 60 per cent, too, in April, of 1989

(inaudible)!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I know how far they went down in

1989, and how glad we were. The people of this Province know full well that they

must depend on some common sense, the common sense of this Government.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Now my little friend down there in the

corner, my little NDP - what should I call him? - my little NDP socialist, down

there with all the great ideas, who brought back all the leaps and bounds of

riches from Ottawa when he was up there in Ottawa for a year. We really

prospered in Newfoundland and Labrador when you were up there. So you be very

careful now how you approach what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. I

will be very interested in answering and dealing with the hon. Member in

Question Period some time in the year. When he gets up the courage to ask a few

questions, I will enjoy answering them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the worsening economic situation

has severely affected the ability - how can anybody with any ability or any

intelligence write down the `worsening economic situation'? How can it be

worsening?

MR. SIMMS: How can it?

MR. EFFORD: How can it possibly be worsening? With a $5.7

billion debt, and this Government is ready to make moves in order to deal with

it and have shown that over the last two years, that it is worsening? It would

only worsen if we were irresponsible like the former administration. That is the

only way in which it would worsen.

But you are not realizing, Mr. Speaker, that there are

changes to take place. And the "three successive Speeches from the Throne have

promised an economic plan for the Province and no such plan has yet been

produced." Wake up and smell the roses. There is a plan in place. The plan, Mr.

Speaker, is in place -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Pardon?

MS. VERGE: Tell us about single mother on social

assistance.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, I will tell you. I will tell you a lot of

things over the next several months. Ask me questions in Question Period and I

will tell you any day. The next several months, just ask me all the questions

you want to ask and you will get all your answers. But, Mr. Speaker, the

successive Speeches from the Throne have promised an economic plan for the

Province - and no such plan. Open your eyes. There has been a plan since 1989, a

plan to deal with the massive debt that had been incurred and we took over from

the former administration. That is the first thing. Can you continue to develop

unless you deal with the debt load you have? That would be stupid.

You have to look at what the debt of the Province is now.

Now, "and

whereas the Government has shown a total lack of both economic

leadership of a clear positive vision of the future." What a vision to take

over. We took over a Tory vision, a Tory vision with development. Can my

honourable colleagues name me some things that were developed in the last

seventeen years by the Tory administration. What was developed in seventeen

years?

MR. GILBERT: Sprung.

MR. EFFORD: Besides that. I am coming to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: The action group, the action group.

MR. EFFORD: The Action group, what was the Action group?

MR. GILBERT: Bob Cole.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, yes, that is the guy who announces the

hockey, isn't he?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Oh, that was a good investment. That was a

real good investment. Do you mean to tell me that I have to have thirty men,

thirty of my hon. colleagues, after seventeen years to name some development

that the Tories initiated in this Province, and nobody can give me one answer?

MR. GILBERT: That is right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Are we saying after seventeen years the only

thing we come down with is cucumber recipes?

MR. GILBERT: And Bob Cole.

MR. EFFORD: Is that the only thing that they can be proud

of after seventeen years? Mr. Speaker, make no wonder you shake your head, Sir,

you must shake it every time you look in the mirror. Because if I operated a

business for a number of years and ended up with a total failure - nobody in

this Province can tell me about one development -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. GILBERT: At least there is some initiative.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would need at least another

three hours to tell you about all the good things that the hon. Joseph R.

Smallwood brought to this Province. I know all about anti-confederates. I know

all about the time he marched on St. John's, against Confederation. I know all

about the hon. Member and where you would have Newfoundland and Labrador to be

today. I wonder why. I wonder why. Was it for his own personal gain or was it

his interest in Newfoundland and Labrador? We all know about when you went

against the flag, we all know about your thoughts towards Canada. So the hon.

Member should smile. Your hon. Member should talk about Confederation and what

would have taken place if you had your way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: There are about 25,000 children hungry in the

Province today, Mr. Speaker, because of the former administration. But if it was

up to the former Member, and we had not joined Canada, there would be a lot more

than 25,00 children hungry in this Province today. The merchant in the community

would be the big boss and the truck operators would be the big boss, and the

poor people would be suffering. Kick people, Mr. Speaker, kick some people.

And, Mr. Speaker, I would see after another twenty-five years

of Liberal government, when my young friend over there is still sitting in this

House of Assembly, his hair turned silver and grey, that this Province is going

to reap many, many benefits. The financial future is absolutely looking great,

the education system is going to be where it should be in the Province, the

Department of Development, Forestry and Agriculture is going to go ahead by

leaps and bounds over the next decade. And the hon. Minister is probably now

looking out for a walking stick that he will be using when, two or three decades

down the road, he will be going around looking at the farmers in this Province.

Good things are going to happen, Mr. Speaker, because why?

Because there is going to be some common sense put in place. Why? Because we are

going to deal with the former administration's mess. Why? Because we are going

to deal with the $5.7 billion debt. Why? Because we are going to deal with the

misinformation that was given to the people. The main thing that is going to be

done over the next term of office, before the next election, is that confidence

is going to be restored to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. GILBERT: That's right.

MR. EFFORD: Confidence that business will grow,

development will grow, and that is all people need: confidence in the Government

that it lost with those people, Mr. Speaker, but now is restored.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is really amazing that when it comes time to

defend the Government's economic record in this House the person they put up to

defend it, the lead off speaker for the Government, is the Member for Port de

Grave, the Minister of Social Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: A great man.

MR. SIMMS: In his own mind. Yes, a legend in his own

mind.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is like Andy Wells said last night, 'now,

you speak for yourself and I will speak for me.'

Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the Minister while he was

speaking. In fact, I sat and listened to the Minister while he was speaking, Mr.

Speaker.

But when the Government wants to defend the indefensible -

this Government - we noticed it in previous Sessions - the Government puts forth

first the old muck rucker, the old pickle mongerer. They put forward the old

night crawler, the fellow, Mr. Speaker, who got the mandate to get up and try to

pump up the troops, psych up the troops - psych us up before everything breaks

loose tomorrow.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a resolution on the lack of Government

economic leadership: imagine putting up the Minister of Social Services to

defend it. Now, I can see the Minister of Development or the Minister of

Finance, or the President of Treasury Board, even some of the more enlightened

members in the back bench, but the Minister of Social Services to get up and to

defend the Government economic record, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, what a joke.

MR. RIDEOUT: I mean it has become so monotonous, and it

has become so repetitious particularly for those of us who have been - the

Member for St. John's East may find it entertaining. I do not know. This is his

first few days in the House. But for those of us who have been here for the last

two or three Sessions, we can almost leave and go to the common room, turn off

the speaker while we are out there, and come back and repeat verbatim every word

that the Minister will say in his speech.

MR. SIMMS: That is the absolute truth.

MR. RIDEOUT: I mean there is no more imagination, there

is no more vision, there is no more creative ability, Mr. Speaker, in the mind

of that Minister than there is in the mind of a cucumber. He will get as far as

the cucumber, and he gets as far as the public debt, and then he gets right

excited, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know what happens to him after that, but I

mean he certainly loses any ability to keep his thoughts collected and to

articulate a position. We have come to know the Minister, not only as a

Minister, but as a Member in previous Houses.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to make some reference to some of the

comments, the tired old comments, made by the Minister of Social Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, that is exactly what I want to do, Mr.

Speaker. I want to tell the Minister a few facts about the $5.7 billion public

debt that he trots out every single time he gets to his feet. Every time,

without question, that is one of the things the Minister trots out, and I want

to tell him a few things about it. It is a large debt, Mr. Speaker, for a half a

million people, but is there anything to show for the public debt in this

Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. RIDEOUT: There are no schools to show for it, there

are no hospitals to show for it, there are no community colleges to show for it,

there is not one kilometre of pavement in the Province to show for it, there are

no public buildings to show for it, there is no investment in the fishery to

show for it, there is no investment in agriculture, there is no investment in

the mining industry, there is no investment in anything to show for the $5.7

billion public debt, that is what they would have you believe, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is how all the capital expenditures

were met, that is how the desks in this House were paid for, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), either.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well why didn't you stop it, why didn't you

stop it?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the ones up in the other

House? They were paid for in the same way.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind others over

there, but I want to say again, Mr. Speaker, for the second time, I did not

interrupt the Minister when he was speaking. I did not like a lot of what he had

to say, but I listened to him.

MR. EFFORD: Well that is up to yourself.

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is one point I want

to make on the public debt. We have a lot to show in this Province for the debt

that the public owes, a lot to show, in all parts of the Province. The Minister

then gets up, talking about Canada. Where was he the other day, when his two

colleagues, who introduced the Throne Speech, the Member for Pleasantville and

the Member for Bonavista South, were decrying and degrading what comes to

Newfoundland from Canada-

MR. SIMMS: Anti-confederates.

MR. RIDEOUT: - anti-confederates if I ever heard them-

they talk about the Member for St. John's East Extern. Where was the Minister of

Social Services then, that he sat and listened to it. Now I want to make another

couple of comments on the public debt since the Minister always wants to raise

the issue of the public debt in this Province, he tied it into -

AN HON. MEMBER: Sh, sh, be quiet!

MR. RIDEOUT: - there was some rebuttal across the House -

I believe he raised it himself - about the Upper Churchill contract, Mr.

Speaker. He made the accusation that when we came to office, or this Party came

to office, the public debt was about $800 million or so and that now it is $5.7

billion. Well if the Minister wants to continue to live in the past, Mr.

Speaker, if he wants to continue to live in the past, the figure shows that

Newfoundland is losing about $800 million a year on that infamous Upper

Churchill contract-

MR. SIMMS: That is right, a year.

MR. RIDEOUT: - a year, and if you want to multiply $800

million a year by seventeen years of Tory Government, we lost over $13 billion

dollars to the taxpayers of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, let me ask the Minister of Education a

question as the Minister of Social Services did. If, Sir, you were a Minister in

a government today that had not given away the equivalent of $13.6 billion in

public revenue, who therefore would have no public debt, what would you do for

Education in Newfoundland and Labrador today; what would previous Governments

over the last seventeen years have been able to do for Education and Health and

Social Services and every other public service that the people - if you want to

live in the past, if you want to be a past mongerer, then you will have to

consider it all, Mr. Speaker, you have to consider it all, you cannot just get

up and make that kind of foolish, nonsense statement without considering what

other Governments have done to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Just relax, just relax, just relax, just

relax.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, you see. You beat them into the ground

on the public debt, you give them a smack in the chops on what that crowd gave

away when they were last in power on an economic contract, you beat them on the

side of the chops and the next thing: The Atlantic Accord. Would you like to

talk about the Atlantic Accord?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Talk about a retreat.

MR. RIDEOUT: You talk about the mother of retreats, Mr.

Speaker. You talk about the mother of retreats.

AN HON. MEMBER: Old Saddam himself.

MR. SIMMS: Old Saddam Efford.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I suppose there are no water or

sewer assets in this Province to account for some of the public debt. I suppose

there is none of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is none any more.

MR. RIDEOUT: I mean there are $5.6 billion in public debt

in Newfoundland and there is not one iota to show for it, that is what the

Minister is saying.

MR. EFFORD: Tell us about the Atlantic Accord.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister wants to have

a debate on the Atlantic Accord, introduce a resolution.

MR. EFFORD: Ah, ha, chicken!

MR. RIDEOUT: Chicken my eyeball. Mr. Speaker, the

Atlantic Accord gave that hon. crowd the right to be at the table to negotiate a

deal - the final deal for Newfoundland and Labrador. Without the Atlantic Accord

you would not even have had your pencil at the table, Mr. Speaker, that is what

the Atlantic Accord gave this Province. And if you did not negotiate the best

possible deal for Newfoundland and Labrador, then that hangs on your head

because you had the Constitutional legislative authority to do so, because of

the Atlantic Accord.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is what it gave you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: You did not even want us to have control of

our resources. Clyde fought it like hell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister in debating

an economic resolution, which he did not touch on at all, he said: make some

reference to the second

WHEREAS, and he said:

WHEREAS this worsening economic situation, and he made great

fun of 'worsening economic situation.'

MR. SIMMS: It is not worsening, he said.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is not worsening, he said. What are they

talking about? What kind of foolishness is coming from the Member who introduced

the resolution.

MR. SIMMS: What world do you live in?

MR. RIDEOUT: But, Mr. Speaker, where has the hon.

Minister been for the last twelve months? If we are not in a worsening economic

situation, where has he been? It is only twelve months ago -

MR. SIMMS: He talks about the future.

MR. RIDEOUT: - that the Government of which the Minister

is a part, his colleague the Minister of Finance, introduced a Budget to this

House telling all of Newfoundland and Labrador that we were going to run a

modest $10 million surplus on current account this year. That was twelve months

ago. By September, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister of Finance had

redone the figures, and said no, no no, we were totally wrong. We are now

running $120 million deficit. Now that was a change, Mr. Speaker, of $130

million, do not forget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: He cannot take it.

MR. RIDEOUT: Do not forget that was a change of $130

million. You lost your $10 million surplus, you are now running a $120 million

deficit, so that is a difference of $130 million. That was in September. As we

got into the first part of 1991, there were indications from the Premier and the

President of Treasury Board that if nothing was done that surplus of $10 million

would now be a $200 million deficit on current account.

MR. SIMMS: The arse was gone out of it, he said.

MR. RIDEOUT: I could not care less. I would just as soon

look at the Minister's back as look at his face.

Mr. Speaker, then lo and behold, last week, -

MR. SIMMS: That is the best part of him.

MR. RIDEOUT: - in the final weeks of this present fiscal

year -

MR. SIMMS: He cannot take the heat.

MR. RIDEOUT: - for which a $10 million surplus was

projected, the final weeks, the President of Treasury Board said, no, no, no, it

is not a $10 million surplus anymore, it is not a $120 million deficit anymore,

it is not a $200 million deficit anymore, but it is a minimum, if we do nothing,

of $215 million deficit, which means that having lost the $10 million surplus,

it is actually a total change of $225 million. That is what it means, and the

Minister of Social Services has the gall to get on his feet and try to hoodwink

people into believing that our economic situation is not worsening, right?

MR. SIMMS: How stunned is he at all!

MR. RIDEOUT: If you do not want to take any other

indicator, take the indicator of the Government's budgetary deficit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Your own Premier, your own Minister.

MR. RIDEOUT: The Minister said: we have moved to solve

all the economic ills of this Province by establishing the ERC, the Economic

Recovery Commission.

MR. SIMMS: Ask Walter Noel about that.

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier last Thursday

made reference to the ERC and he also made reference to the SEP, which is

another animal, another creature which has crept into -

MR. SIMMS: What is that?

MR. RIDEOUT: It is almost like collateral damage and some

of that stuff that we have all picked up over the last few days, a few months.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The Premier now is talking about SEP, not

the ERC, but SEP -

MR. SIMMS: And E and L, Enterprise -

MR. RIDEOUT: And ENL, the Strategic Economic Plan now,

the SEP.

MR. SIMMS: SEP.

MR. RIDEOUT: And the Minister said the plan was in place.

The plan was up and running. The plan was the ERC.

Well listen to what his boss had to say last Thursday. I do

not know, was the Minister here last Thursday for the Throne Speech?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. SIMMS: No, I think he missed it all, I believe. He

was down in Florida no doubt.

MR. RIDEOUT: Listen to what his boss had to say. In the

motion to set up a Committee to draft an Address in Reply, he said: If you think

in terms of corporations and the way they operate, a strategic economic plan,

that is the SEP, that is what we are in the process of developing for this

Province - process of developing. This is what he went on to say, this is what

his boss went on to say. A group of officials of the Government started last

September, when the Throne Speech of May of 1989 said it would be ready to be

announced shortly, was the word in the Throne Speech of 1989. The Premier

admitted in this House last Thursday that officials only started last September,

a year gone by. Anyway, he went on to say a group of officials of the Government

started last September to work on the detail of this. The Minister says it is in

place. They have produced so far a couple of drafts of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, is there anything in Beauchesne

that you could use to cut off the hon. gentleman?

MR. SIMMS: Put a sock in his mouth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: He says, we have advice from outside groups

and very shortly - now it is shortly again. On the 25th of May 1989 it was going

to be produced shortly, and now two years later the Premier uses the same word -

shortly we will be able to submit it for public scrutiny and public comment. Mr.

Speaker, what we want to do is plan the orderly long-term development of the

economy and the public service sector of this Province. And the Minister of

Social Services gets up here today trying to defend the lack of economic

leadership by Government and says it is all done. My, oh my, Mr. Speaker, where

has the Minister been? Where has he been? What hole has he had his head dug

into? It is unbelievable! And that is what the Government puts up to defend its

economic performance. Every time there is a resolution on economic matters, up

jumps the Minister of Social Services to lead off for the Government. There is

no worsening situation in the Province, he says. He says the economic plan is in

place.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Tory days.

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with the

Tory days. He switched again. We have dealt with the public debt. We have dealt

with the Atlantic Accord. What does the Minister want to deal with next? Does he

want to talk about chocolate bar factories? Does he want to talk about hockey

stick factories? Does he want to talk about rubber boot factories? Does he want

to talk about sheep on the Southside Hills of St. John's? Does he want to talk

about the Flying L Ranch down on the Burin Peninsula? Does he want to talk about

seal organs for South Korea? What does he want to talk about? Everything the

Minister wanted to talk about and threw out today has been flung back at him,

Mr. Speaker, with the intensity of a cruise missile.

MR. SIMMS: Right on! Right on!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: SCUD. SCUD.

MR. RIDEOUT: A SCUD attack. Now we know the Minister has

a hide like anything, and we know he has a face like a robber's horse when it

comes to taking it, but perhaps he should scud on while he still has some of his

hide left.

MR. SIMMS: Retreat. The mother of retreat. Get out!

MR. RIDEOUT: The mother of retreat. I am sure some other

Minister speaking on behalf of the Government shortly will make some sense, but

the lead-off speaker for the Government has not made one iota of contribution to

this debate at all. In fact, Mr. Speaker, anybody at all - all you had to do was

just listen to the Minister and count them off one by one as he got up. The

Minister of Social Services, Mr. Speaker, in saying that the economy was getting

better in Newfoundland and Labrador, when he said things were not worsening -

MR. EFFORD: (inaudible) Economic Council of Canada.

MR. RIDEOUT: Here she goes again.

MR. SIMMS: What is the next thing?

MR. RIDEOUT: And what did the Economic Council of Canada

say? If it had not been for the Hibernia agreement, there would not be enough

activity down here to put a patch on many of us, Mr. Speaker. But the Minister,

in trying to convince the House that everything was rosy and there was nothing

wrong with the economy in the Province, did not say that in May 1989, when this

Government came into office, the unemployment rate in the Province was 15.8 per

cent and that one year later, in May 1990, it was 18.8 per cent. He did not say

that, did he? Is that a sign of an improving economy? Is that a sign of an

economy that is getting better? He did not say that in January 1989 the

unemployment rate in the Province was 17 per cent and by January of 1991 it was

18.7 per cent. Did the Minister say any of that, Mr. Speaker? No. He got up and

he tried to defend a two year economic malaise in this Province by talking about

seventeen years ago, twenty-three years ago, and forty years ago, going back to

before Confederation. That is what he had to do. Now, for God sake, Mr. Speaker,

I know my time is up, but for heaven's sake will the Government try to do

something better? Will the Government put up a Minister who has some idea of

what it is the Government has in store to restore economic confidence in the

entrepreneur in Newfoundland and Labrador? Don't put up that old fluff anymore,

don't put up that old political yesterday's news anymore, put up somebody with

some vision, some intuition, some innovation, who has some ideas to uplift the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the responsibility of the

government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure

for me to rise and speak in this debate. It will be a pleasure for me over the

next 20 minutes to outline what the causes of our economic situation are here

today, and I would like to illustrate what the reality is in Eagle River. I

would like to also spend a few minutes talking about the future economic

situation in this Province and also in my district.

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to all of the rhetoric that has

been coming from the other side, over the last 20 minutes in particular, I

cannot help but think that for some unknown reason, while this House has been in

recess, there has been some kind of amnesia take place within the Leader of the

Opposition, some kind of gross amnesia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Selective.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, selective I would certainly think,

because as we talk about the economic situation, Mr. Speaker, surely we cannot

forget the man who said, `I am not afraid to inflict prosperity on Newfoundland

and Labrador'; surely we cannot forget Brian Mulroney and his Tories in Ottawa;

surely we cannot forget the man who brought in the last Budget and took nine

months to develop the word depression, who took nine months to say recession,

who took nine months, and after six years, Mr. Speaker, of the economic policies

of the Federal Tory Government, put us in the worst situation we have been in

since the 1930's. Surely he cannot forget the interest rate policy that this

present Government in Ottawa is perpetrating on this country. Surely he cannot

forget the cap on the equalization program that has been put in place. Surely,

Mr. Speaker, he cannot forget that after the last six years of economic growth

in this country, after the six most prosperous years that we have seen, we have

now come to the point where we are taking 33 per cent of our product to pay the

interest on the debt. Surely he cannot be forgetting that.

And, Mr. Speaker, as another great demonstration of their

economic strategy and their ability to stimulate the economy, they came up with

the GST. Surely, Mr. Speaker, he is not forgetting the GST and how it stimulated

the economy. I can just see it as the GST was announced in Ottawa: the people

were opening up new stores, they were hiring new people and they were saying to

the rest of the country, `what a policy! What a policy to stimulate the economic

growth of this country, this GST.'

Mr. Speaker, surely he cannot stand up there and forget what

it caused the inflation rate within three weeks after it was put in place.

Surely he cannot forget what it has done to the unemployment roles. I mean,

these things, Mr. Speaker, have to be understood. Our economic situation,

unfortunately, is tied directly to the policies of the Federal Government. And

is he obviously forgetting that last year when we brought down our Budget we

were not told that you can no longer expect this kind of treatment from Ottawa,

we were not told that you cannot expect the same money that you have been

getting for years and years for education and health? Surely he is not

forgetting that. At the end of last year we were looking at $90 million less

from Ottawa than we had had the previous year. And they have the audacity, Mr.

Speaker, to come in here and stand up and blame this on this present

Administration.

This Administration was elected with a program of real

change. This Administration came in with a plan to look at the problem and deal

with the problem. They said to the people of this Province, we are not going to

be fuzzy, we are not going to go and hide our heads in the sand and just let the

economy of this Province fall down around our ears, we are going to put in place

a plan that will see the economic recovery of this Province. And, certainly,

from my point of view, I have had the experience of working with this Government

for the people of Eagle River.

Now when this Government came into office in 1989 we saw, Mr.

Speaker, a number of things happening on the Coast of Labrador. We saw our

inshore fishery being depleted, we saw a number of our plants having to close

down, and we saw a number of our people, as a matter of fact, over the last

three years hundreds of our people, having to go and get any kind of work just

to qualify for unemployment insurance.

But what did this Government do? Did this Government say to

the people of Eagle River we are going to forget you, we are going to dismiss

any possibilities for economic development, we are going to say to you that you

have no future? Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. This Government took the initiative

and it went out there and dealt with the problem. And that is why we have been

happy to announce on a number of occasions different projects of a very

meaningful nature for the people of Labrador and for the economy of this

particular district.

That is why we were happy to be able to look at diversifying

our economy and diversifying within the fishery. And that is why when the

Minister of Development rose here last year, in December, and announced that the

Department of Development was sponsoring a $1.4 million investment into the

shrimp plant in L'anse-au-Loup for the creation of seventy jobs, Mr. Speaker,

that was the commitment, that was the kind of policy, the kind of planning and

the kind of progress that we have been able to illustrate just for that one

community alone.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to historical development,

historical development is a form of being able to diversify your economy and

gather tourist dollars from all over this country and, indeed, the United

States. When it came to trying to diversify in the Labrador Straits, again, Mr.

Speaker, this Province was quick to come out and support the Historical

Development Corporation and see that some new dollars, to the tune of $600,000,

was put into play so that we could get the kind of meaningful jobs from our

tourism industry that we obviously very much need. That is another example of

the kind of concrete planning, the kind of demonstrated initiative that can take

place and has taken place in this district.

Mr. Speaker, when we looked at Cartwright, another community

that lost an American base a number of years ago, it did not have much hope. It

had very high unemployment, and a lot of social and economic problems. When this

Government came to power, did it look at Cartwright and say you have no future?

Did it look to the 900 people in that community and say forget it, move away,

you have no future? No, Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Fisheries said we are going

to develop a crab plant in the community of Cartwright, and we are going to put

125 new jobs into that community. That is the kind of initiative, that is the

kind of commitment this Government is giving the people of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: These are not pie-in-the-sky ideas, Mr.

Speaker. This is acknowledging reality, this is addressing the problems, bearing

in mind our resources we have at our disposal. This is the kind of mentality

that has pervaded this administration, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that over the

next couple of years we will again see this kind of demonstrated initiative and

certainly greater economic prosperity for the people in my riding.

Now, Mr. Speaker, another initiative that cannot go

unnoticed, and I am sure it is one that Members opposite will not raise and

promote, because they are not promoters, they are not acknowledgers of progress,

they are not acknowledgers of any great initiatives that can take place because

of their political persuasion and their, I guess, total preoccupation with

partisan politics. But, Mr. Speaker, one of the newest most innovative, most

progressive things this Government has done since we came into office was to put

in place Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador.

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is the

most exciting initiative that any Government has put in place in this Province

since 1949. You talk to the business community, you go out and talk to the small

business person or the entrepreneur who is looking around and saying, where are

the alternatives? Where are the ideas? Where is the Government that is going to

help me do something? I know, Mr. Speaker, from working with a number of people

in my district what I can say to them. For once a Government has taken the

initiative to put all economic development programs under one roof so we do not

have people running all over the place. We do not have programs that are set up

in a square box, and if they do not happen to fit into a rural community you

have to be dismissed. This is the kind of initiative, Mr. Speaker, that has

turned out hundreds of applications for new ideas, for new jobs since this

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador opened in the last number of weeks.

I point to the Labrador region. They have received

twenty-nine applications, Mr. Speaker, in the last five weeks, twenty-nine

applications which are going to determine a meaningful and progressive exercise

in employment creation on the coast of Labrador. We now have $171,000 spent in

Eagle River, and also throughout the four other ridings in Labrador, and we have

seen eight new jobs created and twenty additional jobs have been maintained.

That is the kind of small but very, very beneficial exercises that are taking

place all over this Island.

We look at the western region, in Corner Brook. We have seen

175 enquiries made up to this point in time. We have seen up to sixty projects

worked on, and now there is $900,000 of new money into that economy which has

created 131 permanent jobs and possibly the same number in seasonal opportunity.

I mean, that is fact, Mr. Speaker. That is not pie in the sky, Mr. Speaker, that

is not rhetoric, that is fact.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever we have seen a

Government that is committed to rural Newfoundland and Labrador and giving the

local people an opportunity to decide on their future; giving the local

committees a chance to be able to say to this person in the local community, You

have a good idea? Well, welcome aboard. We are going to design a program for

you. We are going to see that it works. We are going to continue to support you

after you have been off the ground and after you have been working. That is the

kind of initiative this Government has been taking, and that is the kind of

commitment that was unheard of before - unheard of, Mr. Speaker. It was a total

centralist Government that was there for the last 17 years, and now we see this

breath of fresh air through Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation.

In the Gander region, Mr. Speaker, we have seen 250 initial

contracts so far being applied in that area, and we have seen twelve of them

materialize to $212,000 of new investment. Mr. Speaker, we go through different

regions of Newfoundland. In Clarenville, 145 applications in the last five

weeks, with forty-five more applications in progress. We have seen this kind of

response that is spontaneous coming back from the people of Newfoundland in

response to the one light, the one hope that has been generated, certainly from

the Department of Development since its inception in this particular Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what can we hope for in the future? We can

hope for, Mr. Speaker, and I know that the people are responding to good

responsible Government, good responsible Government that is acknowledging that

we have the problem, that is acknowledging that we have to deal with it in a

concerted and constructive fashion, but we have to deal with it with programs

that can fit the need. You are going to see, Mr. Speaker, over these coming

months, as you have seen up to this point in time, a renewed effort on the Lower

Churchill and it is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition made such

fanfare of the deal that was made on the Upper Churchill.

Of course nobody disputes the fact that the agreement was

made, nobody disputes that at all, and nobody disputes what it would mean to the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador if it had been in place the way we would

have all liked it to be. I imagine if any Member of this House had the

opportunity to roll back time that they would indeed put their lives in

different order.

But, Mr. Speaker, I mean, in this particular area, let us

make sure again that we do not put facts out there that will mislead people. Let

us make sure again that we have pin-pointed exactly where the stooges were when

they rose in this House. The Mr. Ottenheimer; I do not know who he is, I suppose

he is a Member of the House, representing some riding in St. John's, I would not

want to say that he is of any political persuasion but he was proud to stand up

in the House of Assembly and support the Churchill deal, and here was the

Minister of Energy of the day, a Mr. John C. Crosbie, I do recall, who proudly

signed the Churchill deal and said what a glorious day for Newfoundland and

Labrador-

MR. DUMARESQUE: - what a great day for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now they want him for a leader.

MR. DUMARESQUE: - I am proud that I am able to, he said,

I am proud to be able to signature this document he said, because it is the best