October

29, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 62

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

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

Premier, who I presume is the Government House Leader.

I want to return to a question I asked of the Premier

yesterday in the House concerning the Government's plan to harmonize the RST

with the GST. In an interview following Question Period yesterday and seen on

television during the news period last night on newscasts the Premier said,

words to the effect at least, that Government would ensure that tax

harmonization would not increase the tax burden on individuals nor on business.

I would like to ask the acting Premier how the Government proposes to do that?

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

MR. BAKER: To give a complete answer, Mr. Speaker, I

would have to first of all say that no decision has been made yet. The options

that are open range from leaving things exactly as they are now, to complete or

close to complete harmonization. So, the options are still there. I would

hesitate to answer a hypothetical question as to: if the decision happens to be

this then what would you do?... because, Mr. Speaker, that kind of discussion

leads nowhere.

What I can say to the hon. Member is that the intent of our

discussions of the many options concerning RST/GST has been a revenue neutral

situation and the options range from making no change to pretty close to

complete harmonization. So, once the decision is made I can assure the hon.

Member that the public will know immediately when Government has reached a

decision as to which it feels is the best way to go.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to say that tax

reform will be revenue neutral and it is yet another thing to say that it will

not increase the tax burden on individuals and businesses, because that is what

the Premier said last night.

Let me put a situation, if I might, to the acting Premier.

One of the proposals to make tax reform neutral then is to abolish the school

tax and to increase RST to replace the school tax revenues. Since many people on

low incomes do not now pay the school tax, won't those people be paying more

taxes, if the school tax is in fact absorbed into the RST?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, again, I would be crazy to answer

hypothetical questions here in this House. All I can do is assure the hon.

Member that this Government in making its decision will take into account the

effects on the low income people particularly and will make sure that we are not

impacting on the low income people in this Province.

These things we do think about and we do consider and we do

discuss and we do analyze. It is not a matter of sitting down and throwing a

dart at a board and picking an option; we take all these things into

consideration and that is all we are saying now, and when the decision is made,

everybody will know about it and at that point in time we will be able to

discuss the details of that decision, but right now, no decision has been made.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is extremely ironic that the

acting Premier is giving the kind of answer that he is giving, when the Premier

last night himself talked about how open this has been and how people have had a

chance to participate and get answers to questions and so on. We cannot seem to

get answers.

One of the other proposals to expand the RST base, is to

collect the tax on the selling price of new homes. He would be aware of this.

The Home Builders Association estimates that as a result of the RST, the price

of an average new home in St. John's, for example, would increase from $4,000 to

$12,000, a 200 per cent increase. What will that do to the sale of new homes and

to the home construction industry? Can he answer that question?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the

existence of this position indicates to everybody the fact that we have been

open, and we have indicated to people that we are considering harmonization of

RST and GST. In the paper that was presented with the Budget, various options

were laid out by the Minister of Finance and one of these submissions that we

received, and we received it from several different directions, one of the

submissions we received was from the Home Builders Association making that

point, and we are taking all of these submissions into consideration, there is

no doubt about it. But as to the Leader of the Opposition's comment about not

getting any answers, I am simply saying that when there are answers they will be

given and that right now no decision has been made. I do not know if the Leader

of the Opposition wants us to manufacture things out of thin air that are not

there right now and throw stuff across as a sop to the Opposition, we are not

going to do that. The reason the answer cannot be given is because the decision

has not been made at this point in time, and when the decision is made the

answers will certainly be there; it will be an open process. All of the answers

will be dealt with at that point in time.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: I do not wish to debate or argue with the

acting Premier, but I still say the Premier himself has said he wants to be open

with this process and provide answers, and there should have been lots of

opportunity up till now. We are asking questions, we can't get answers. What's

the point in asking questions after the decisions have been made? It is better

to discuss it beforehand.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I could go on with other questions about

it, but obviously he is not going to give any answers that would satisfy the

people of this Province. The concerns are out there among the people about the

affect the expanded RST is going to have. He should be aware of that. And I ask

the question again that I asked yesterday. Considering the fact that this is a

poor time in terms of our economy, and not a good time perhaps to harmonize RST

with GST, would he - again I ask the question - would he postpone any action

with respect to this measure as other provinces have done recently until our

severely weakened economy improves somewhat? Would he consider that at all?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have to give the same answer -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will have to give the same

answer that was given yesterday. No, I will guarantee no such thing. The

question of the Leader of the Opposition presupposes that a decision has been

made to harmonize. I will say to him again, that decision has not been made,

therefore we can't make then the next decision to put off a decision that has

not yet been made.

I will also point out to him that all of a sudden he has

concern for tax reform and the affect on the citizens of this Province in

informing us of it as if this is the first time we have heard of it. Now I know

he is new in his job, and I know this is the first opportunity he has had to

point these things out, but I would remind him that we have had the same points

made to us by at least sixty or seventy presentations that have been made to

this Government by groups from all over the Province. Exactly the same points.

And I will repeat again, we are taking them into consideration before we make

our decision, not after.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me remind the

President of Treasury Board that we have been asking these questions now for the

past seven months. It is about time Government knew what they were doing.

Let me ask the President of Treasury Board to answer some

questions on decisions that have been made in the past. Specifically, would the

President of Treasury Board tell us, in view of the statement of the Minister of

Finance yesterday that the Minister expects to be some $17 million under Budget

in his capital account expenditure for this year, and in view of the economy,

the employment situation, and the state of the construction industry, in

particular, would the President of Treasury Board like to tell us why Government

has not spent the money that was allocated this year for the construction

industry through the Department of Public Works and Services?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose, the best way to handle

that is to say, well, give us the specific examples of amounts that are not

spent, and I will have it researched to find out what the answer is in each

specific instance. I can point out, for instance, there was one amount of money,

I believe, on the Burgeo road, that was not spent, and the reason it was not

spent there is because there was a problem with the aggregate, the quality of

the aggregate. For each project where the total money allocated this year was

not spent, there is a specific reason for that project, why there may be an

extension into next year. So, there is no one answer, because there is no great

plot, as the member seems to be implying.

MR. WINDSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted if the

minister would undertake to get that information. Would he also undertake to

check out some information that I have been given through the people in the

department that, in fact, government was well aware they are going to be well

under the Budget amount, that, in fact, the surplus will be far more than $17

million, and that there have been, indeed, numerous projects that have been

dusted off, projects that have been on the drawing boards for years, and new

projects inserted into the programme over the past number of months and

instituted without proper planning, and, in place of some of the projects that

were announced in the Budget, are subsequently announced by government. Would

the Minister care to undertake to get that information, to give us a comparison

of what was announced in the Budget, what has actually taken place, and where

all these mysterious projects came from?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I find it really interesting that

the Member for Mount Pearl gets up and makes some kind of general charges about

things being dusted off, and money that really was not intended to be spent and

all these kinds of things. I guess it is easy for him to make these statements

and to refer ominously to some information he is getting from somebody inside

the department. I say to the member, you have to do a little better than that.

Tell me what projects you are talking about. I cannot investigate some charge

like that. You really have to do better than that. The answer to what you are

suggesting, of course, is no, Government did not put things in the Budget that

we knew were not possible to be done, categorically, no.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would be delighted

to tell the minister of some specific projects. Would the minister like to tell

me why the Mount Pearl arena, a $5 million project, was delayed by the Minister

of Municipal Affairs? Plans and design were completed last spring, the city was

ready to call tenders and the Minister of Municipal Affairs deliberately

withheld the approval for more than four months. There were seventy jobs that

could be in place that would have lasted all through the winter. Not one dollar

has been spent and the construction of that arena has been delayed by one year.

Would the minister tell me why that is so?

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

MR. BAKER: As far as I know, there was no $5 million in

the Budget for Government to spend to build an arena in Mount Pearl. This may

have been an arrangement where there was a Government guaranteed loan through

Municipal Affairs or something, but there was no amount there for Government to

spend $5 million on an arena in Mount Pearl. However, I will look into the

specific point the member brings up and get back to him.

MR. WINDSOR: A final supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: A further supplementary, the hon. the Member

for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board

is quite right, there was not one cent allocated by Government, because there

was not one cent requested from Government by the City of Mount Pearl, nor a

Government guarantee, simply approval to borrow - the minister's authority has

to be given under the act - approval to borrow, so that the citizens of Mount

Pearl could build their own arena at not one penny of expense to the Provincial

Government. Perhaps the Minister of Municipal Affairs would like to tell us why

his water and sewer and road projects were delayed all year? How come tenders

were called in late September and early October for millions of dollars worth of

water and sewer, when all of those jobs could have been created and all of that

economic activity could have been created? Is this just another sham to try to

come up with a capital account surplus at the end of the year to make his

overall Budget look rosy?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear the hon.

member complain about $55 million worth of capital works, twice the amount

allocated by the previous government in their last year of operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, capital works was delayed this

year and that has been explained to the municipalities. The reason why it was

delayed is because we brought in a new Municipal Grants Program. It had to be

introduced into the communities to know whether they could afford their share of

capital works. It was done properly, Mr. Speaker, by this Government, and he

should not be complaining about capital works being allocated in record amounts

over the last three years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be to the

Minister of Mines and Energy but, in his absence and the Premier's absence,

maybe I will go to the Minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations.

The minister is undoubtedly aware of the mass of permanent

layoffs proposed in Labrador City and Wabush and, of course, he is also aware of

the shutdown proposed for next summer. He is also aware, of course, that there

is no severence pay involved for most of these unionized employees, or all the

unionized employees, and there is no mobility assistance for these affected

employees. He is also aware, of course, of the additional layoffs in 1992 which

will occur in Western Labrador.

In light of the fact that the regulation of mines is solely

under provincial jurisdiction and responsibility, will the minister introduce a

program to immediately help the hundreds of displaced workers and their families

in Western Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

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

member for his question, as well.

Both myself and the Minister of Mines and Energy have, on

recent visits and in meetings involving representatives of the companies, the

unions and the towns in Labrador West, been dealing with the issue of the

pending layoff which has now, of course, become a definite layoff, with the

workers notified in the past week or so. We indicated to them in our previous

meetings a couple of weeks ago that we would, indeed, look at anything and

everything that was possible to assist workers, first and foremost, who are

displaced. We have another meeting tomorrow morning with representatives who are

in the city now attending the Federation of Labour Convention. Also, now that it

is firmed up and finalized as to which individuals in both mines are affected,

we will be able to look at the possibilities in terms of what it is the

Provincial Government might be able to do to assist those displaced workers,

first, and secondly, we also indicated that we would look at anything that was

possible and could be helpful to assure the long-term viability of the two

mining operations in Labrador West.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question

for the President of Treasury Board, or the acting Premier, in the Premier's

absence.

The situation in Western Labrador was very serious and it

became even more serious. The Minister of Labour just pointed that maybe he

knows about the individuals being affected. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there

are going to be more layoffs in 1992 and he omitted to mention that, of course.

There are going to be more layoffs, so it is more serious that was known last

week or even yesterday. He is not aware of that yet. In light of that fact, Mr.

Speaker, can the acting Premier tell us if he would discuss it with the Premier

and have a task force appointed - not a committee of Cabinet - a task force

appointed to investigate what assistance these miners should receive and to

investigate the long term viability of the mines in western Labrador? A task

force, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I may have a faulty

impression as to what has gone on in western Labrador. My understanding is that

there has been a lot of investment by new owners, Iron Ore Company, I believe

that is correct. And that part of the problem is - some of it may be markets -

but part of the problem is modernization and a lot of new equipment that is put

in there. Now it is my understanding that is part of the problem. There is no

need to get upset about it, you can correct me if I am wrong. I understand the

plight of the people who are laid off. I understand there are about 143 laid off

now with perhaps indications that there are more to come in the new year. I

understand this is a very serious situation.

I am certain that we will be getting in Cabinet a report from

the Ministers of Mines and Energy and Employment and Labour Relations as to

exactly what the situation is, and I am sure that Cabinet will make the right

decision - unlike the decision the previous government made to throw to the

wolves the 400 miners in Daniel's Harbour.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: It's quite alright again, Mr. Speaker.

Grand Bank first, as I said yesterday. I have a question for the Minister of

Fisheries. I would just like to say to the Minister that our offices are

receiving many calls from fishermen out and about the Province, hundreds of

fishermen who are encountering problems meeting their commitments to the

Fisheries Loan Board and the chartered banks. I am wondering if the Minister has

been made aware of this situation and if he has any plans to help those

fishermen make it through these very difficult times?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I have announced publicly the

Government's position with respect to the Fisheries Loan Board as it relates to

the current crisis in the fishery and the number of people who are affected by

it. I have indicated to them that in cases where a fisherman can demonstrate his

or her inability to meet their payments to the Fisheries Loan Board that no

action will be taken by the Board to collect. I can only tell the House and the

hon. gentleman what I have said publicly, that in cases where fishermen have

tried and can demonstrate that they have tried, and through no fault of their

own just could not make it, then they will have nothing to fear from the

Fisheries Loan Board.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The other problem

here, it is not just with the Loan Board, it is with the chartered banks.

Fishermen are being hounded even though they are attempting to meet their 20 per

cent catch assignment. Even if they gave up their 20 per cent it is not enough

to satisfy their commitment to the chartered banks. So I want to say to the

Minister that what has happened to date is not satisfactory, and by postponing

interest payments and so on all that is happening is that you are really

compounding the problem for fishermen because they are never going to be able to

pay it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister this

supplementary. In light of the resource crisis experienced this year, a very,

very difficult year, and the problems experienced the last few years in that

there is no ray of light in sight for the fishery of this Province, would the

Minister consider immediate relief for those fishermen who legitimately have

attempted to make their payments but who cannot because of the crisis. Will he

initiate immediate relief with his Cabinet colleagues for those fishermen by way

of writing off, forgiving those loans to the fishermen.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if that is the

best plan in the world - to write it off. I think the Government has gone quite

far in that we have indicated a willingness to defer any payments due this year

to those fishermen who can demonstrate they have tried to make it but could not.

With respect to the larger loans that have gone through the

banks with a government guarantee, the same thing would prevail, in that we have

informed those people that if they have any problems and again can demonstrate

that they are unable to meet their payments at the Fisheries Loan Board my

officials will be happy to sit down with those people and try and make some kind

of an accommodation. I can tell him now, and I have said this publicly on many

occasions, the Fisheries Loan Board and indeed the Provincial Government, are

not in the business of repossessing vessels or having our marine service centre

lots full of vessels that have been repossessed from fishermen who, through no

fault of their own, could not make their payments this year, that will not

happen.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I almost forget the question I was about to

ask.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of Treasury

Board and it has to do with the Morgan Report that was brought into this

Legislature some two years ago dealing with compensations to the Members of the

House of Assembly.

The first part of my question is very clear to the President

of Treasury Board: would he tell this House what that report, and what it

detailed, had to do with Members of the House of Assembly employed in other

businesses or, better clarified, working on a part-time basis and receiving a

full-time salary from the House of Assembly.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as far as I can recall the Morgan

Report was done on the basis that a job in the House of Assembly was a full-time

job and that Members who were not using it or treating it as a full-time job

would so inform, I believe, His Honour, the Speaker, as to their working

conditions and the pay would then be adjusted on a prorated basis depending upon

the percent of time spent at House business and the percent of time spent at the

other business. So, the intent was by Mr. Morgan in doing the adjustments in

salaries that this would be a full-time job.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Port de Grave on a

supplementary.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary again to the President of Treasury Board. If

the Morgan Report dealt with that part of the compensation package in that a

member was responsible for reporting it to the Speaker, His Honour the Speaker,

and the President of Treasury Board being on the Internal Economy Commission and

the House deals with that, would the President of Treasury Board tell me if any

Member of this House of Assembly has reported in writing to the Commission in

regard to his working conditions and/or working as a part-time Member of the

House of Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the President of

Treasury Board, the Chair is in a bit of a quandary with respect to that

question. Not that the House would not entertain any questions with respect to

the Morgan Commission or the operation of the Internal Economy. I realize it is

a difficult situation that we are in, but the President of Treasury Board is not

responsible for the Morgan Commission or its administration.

It comes under the responsibility of the Chair and, of

course, the hon. member is not permitted to ask the Chair any questions. So

that, therefore, puts us all in a bit of a difficult position. It is a matter

that I would, I think, have the House or the Internal Economy resolve. I do not

know what the - I was going to say I do not know what the member is trying to

get at, and I do, although it is generalities, although I do not know what his

specifics are.

For the want of further consideration of the matter - and I

do not want to cut the member off - I would rule that his questioning, at this

moment, is out of order. But in this particular example, in the meantime, the

Chair is at the discretion of the House because it is a new area in terms of the

Internal Economy, and it may be something we should deal with. I do not want to

take up the time of Question Period, to the hon. the member, we will go on and

maybe after Question Period hon. members might want to make a contribution as to

which way we can resolve that, if that is satisfactory to the hon. member. We do

not want to cut off Question Period at this point in time.

I will allow the hon. member just a short comment.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have the understanding, from

where I sit as a member of this House of Assembly, that salaries paid out to all

members of the House of Assembly would go through the normal budgetary process

and have to do with all the taxpayers of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the hon. member take

his place, please?

I cannot allow that to go on into Question Period right now,

as I said, and probably it is best that we leave it to the end of Question

Period and the hon. member can then express his discontent, or whatever, at the

end of Question Period and we can then come up with some manner of resolving

this, of dealing with the Internal Economy. So, I ask the hon. member to deal

with it after Question Period.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. The Minister will

know that many householders in St. John's have houses that are on leasehold

property and have now the protection of The Leaseholds of St. John's Act which

allows them to buy out leases for a formula based on the ground rent.

I want to ask the Minister: In light of the Premier's

comments to the House Constitutional Committee last week of his support for the

property rights protection in the Charter of Rights, whether his Government is

still committed to maintaining the protection for leaseholders in St. John's

under that legislation?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier's comments to the Constitutional Committee had no

bearing whatsoever on the Government's commitment to the question of property

rights. My understanding is that the property owners in St. John's who were

lessees of lands held by estates in England, for the most part, whose heirs are

now well dispersed throughout the world, were in the position of having the

right to buy out the remainder of the term from those who owned the land and the

residue of the lease, which were often for extended periods of time.

I believe that right, in fact, may expire at the end of this

year, and the question that the Government is considering and the Province is

preparing a paper on, is whether or not that right should be extended. One of

the difficulties is the extent to which it might include areas that were

developed in the St. John's Metropolitan area, subsequent to the time period of

the great fire when these leases were originally entered into. Certainly, I see

nothing in the Premier's comments to the Constitutional Committee that have any

bearing whatsoever on Government's consideration of the question of the purchase

of the remainder of leasehold interests.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier's comments included support for a provision which

would say that the right to property also includes the right not to be deprived

of property without fair and adequate compensation. In view of the fact that the

formula, as applied to the leasehold versus the freehold, is one which is a

formula not based on the market value, can he reiterate the Government's

support, that despite those comments his Government is fully committed to making

sure that all current leaseholders have an opportunity to buy out the freehold

within the period of time that is required that the leases will run.

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier's comments with

respect to property rights have no more bearing on it than the hon. member's

comments with respect to a social charter. It seems to me he has been trying to

make an argument on the latter, rather than on the former comments that were

made before the Committee.

What I have indicated to him is that the property owners -

and there are two type property owners, those who are tenants of the freehold

interest and the freeholders; those tenants have the right to purchase a

freehold interest. That has been a long standing right. Many people,

unfortunately, for whatever reason, seem not to have exercised it either through

a lack of awareness or what have you and the Government is giving some thought

as to whether or not it should be extended beyond the expiry period, which may

be the end of this year. But certainly nothing in the Premier's comments have

any bearing whatsoever or prejudicial to a fair consideration of that issue by

Government.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my

understanding

that the salaries for the legislature go through the

Executive Council of the Provincial Government, for which the President of

Treasury Board has full responsibility. I borrowed it for a number of reasons,

first of all, that the President of Treasury Board is responsible for that area,

and, in fact, that the Morgan Report was introduced in the House of Assembly. It

is important to the people of this Province that the rules and the laws set down

by the House of Assembly are properly followed, and anybody in the House of

Assembly who does not follow those rules are breaking them, possibly in an

illegal manner. And I, as an MHA representing the people in my area and the

people of the Province, a member of this legislature, saw that the only thing to

do was to bring the information that I have to the attention of the House of

Assembly, and my only access as I understood it, because of the budgetary

process that I was used to, would be to go through the President of Treasury

Board. I guess what I am really asking for is a point of clarification on what

steps I have to follow, because I intend to pursue this much further in the

coming days in the House of Assembly.

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

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

and perhaps provide some guidance to Your Honour in making this decision. The

fact that the question is asked is irrelevant. The question has already been

asked publicly by the media, by the press, and not too long ago, put to the

appropriate person, the Chairman of the Internal Economy Commission. The

question has already been asked publicly by the press in the past, and the

Speaker, as Chairman of the Internal Economy Commission, has responded to the

question publicly, if I recall.

Nevertheless, the question here is whether or not it is

proper to ask that kind of question during the thirty-minute Question Period.

There are all kinds of references for Your Honour to look at, not the least of

which is that questions must be of an urgent and important nature. I am not sure

this particular one fits into that category, but that would be for the judgement

of the Chair.

But, most importantly, from Beauchesne - I think the fifth

edition, probably, it has not changed much from the sixth - paragraph 357, 1

(x), `A question must not deal with an action of a Minister for which he is not

responsible to Parliament,' - and there is some doubt about - this minister is

not the Minister responsible to Parliament for the Internal Economy Commission.

But, more importantly, it says, `or with matters not within his official

knowledge.' And the minister, already, in answering earlier said - I mean it was

not for him to know, and he does not know. It is up to the Chairman of the

Internal Economy Commission, and there are other references, and I am not going

to go through them all, but clearly, the question is whether or not this kind of

question should come up in Question Period and take up the time of the House for

thirty minutes.

If the member wants to ask a question about it or say

something about it publicly, he can say it, that is no problem. My point is that

this particular question has already been asked, because I remember reading

about it, and I believe Your Honour might even remember publicly responding to

it before, by the press, so it is really an old question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, it is an old question. All you have to

do is check the press and read what the press says, but the question here is

whether or not it is an appropriate question to ask during Question Period. That

is the only point that needs to be debated, whether the question is appropriate

during Question Period; that is what we are debating, not who it is or what it

is or anything else because, I mean, the members, themselves have to respond and

answer to that.

MR. SPEAKER: I will allow the hon. member to make one

final comment. The Chair does not want to delay the procedures of the House

unnecessarily on this.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear the

Speaker's comments because of people talking on the other side, but I will

continue.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred

to the right of an individual to answer questions in the House of Assembly and

determine what the importance of that question is, and I say to the Chair,

clearly, this question that I was leading into is of utmost importance and

urgency to this hon. House of Assembly, for it represents the people of the

Province of Newfoundland. Because, if any member of this House of Assembly is

receiving monies from taxpayers, under false pretences, then it certainly is of

great urgency and importance, not only to the legislature, Mr. Speaker, but to

all the people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question is not even so much as to whether the question

aught to be asked or whether it is a matter of urgency, but the question is, Who

can answer it? I think the Leader of the Opposition quotes some very apropos

rulings, or guidance I should say, in this matter, and it is a matter of who the

question ought to be directed to. Hon. members will have to be very careful

about making a decision on this because it relates to internal economy and it

relates to our own benefits, this kind of thing, and we would not want to be

seen by the public as not wanting to address those matters, but the question is

whether or not it is a matter of order to do it during Question Period because

of the fact that there is no minister responsible for internal economy. The

member certainly has other avenues in the House to address these, and he can do

them publicly. The only question is whether or not - and I think that is what we

are addressing - it is appropriate to deal with it in Question Period. The Chair

will take that under advisement and come back with an answer as quickly as

possible.

Notices of Motion

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Urban And

Rural Planning Act."

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, "An Act To Establish The St. John's Centennial Foundation."

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, "An Act To Revise And consolidate The Law Respecting The

Prevention of Fire."

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, "An Act To Facilitate The Amalgamation Of Certain Municipal

Authorities And Municipal Services In Relation To The Northeast Avalon Region."

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further notices of motion?

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

Whereas the geography

of Newfoundland and Labrador creates undue cost to our citizens and;

whereas

many of our people must survive on seasonal employment and;

whereas present

income support programs do not have components to reflect this reality;

be it

resolved that both levels of Government work towards a new income support

program which will stimulate the work ethic and maintain a reasonable level of

income for all our citizens.

MR. SPEAKER: Before going on to the next order, I meant,

at the beginning of the day, to point out an error in our Orders of the Day, at

least what I received today. On reading them, I find out that we have two

resolutions under Motion 5 - I think that is the one I am looking at. If hon.

members would refer to their Order Paper, under Motion 5, it says, `The hon. the

Minister of Environment and Lands to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An

Act To Revise The Law Respecting Land Surveyors In The Province.' Now, I think

if we look into our second readings, we will find the same one is there, as

well. I think it is Order 14. My understanding is, that is the same one. So, if

somebody could comment on that. Maybe it is not the same one.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of two things has happened here and I will check and see

which it is. Either, it is an error in terms of when the Notices of Motion were

given out or, in fact, that particular bill, "An Act To Revise The Law

Respecting Land Surveyors In the Province," that there may have been -

AN HON. MEMBER: I checked this out.

MR. BAKER: I am told, Mr. Speaker, by the minister, that

he has checked it out, that it is exactly the same bill, and it was, in fact, an

error in terms of the Notices of Motion been given out. I was going to suggest

there could have been another reason, that there could have been a change done

and the bill that was in the House last session could have perhaps been changed

and given another number, because the numbers are different. The minister says

it is exactly the same bill, so perhaps it could be left there - I do not see

anything wrong with that - and then disappear at the end of the session, or

whatever.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture want to say something?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to remind hon. members of some of the fundamental and

elementary rules of the House, particularly, again, of the design that speakers

are not supposed to be between the Chair and the person speaking, and I found,

even today, two or three incidents where members walked between the Chair and

the member speaking. So, please, in recognition of the rules of the House and

for proper order and decorum, I ask hon. members to abide by those rules.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just in the hope that it will help clarify the situation,

yesterday afternoon I received a call from the legislative office, pointing out

that what had happened was, a motion had been read twice on the same piece of

legislation. It was purely a mistake, I think, out of the legislative office

and, in my case, as hon. members will know, the previous motion was read by the

previous Minister of Environment and Lands, and when the motion was provided for

me to read, I did not make the connection, but simply stood and read it. There

is no question it is a simple mistake.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, that is fine. What we need is to get

it off the Order Paper, I think, and the Chair's recommendation is that the

House agree to do away with Motion 5, since it is already in second reading. By

concession of the House, shall we do away with Motion 5?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in my

absence, the Premier was asked a question by the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes, the critic, with respect to the Government's intention to introduce a

schools act and the amendment to the Memorial University Act, providing for

affiliation of the Marine Institute with the University.

Mr. Speaker, it is the Government's intention to introduce

legislation shortly. I will move a motion - what is the appropriate title? First

reading will be in the next few days and it is the hope of the Government that

this legislation will be debated and approved by the legislature during this

session.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 2, Mr. Speaker.

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

"An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, 1973", carried. (Bill No. 42).

On motion, Bill No. 42, read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Geographical Names Board

Act, 1974", carried. (Bill No. 43)

On motion, Bill No. 43, read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the President of Treasury Board, to

introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Newfoundland Volunteer War Service

Medal", carried. (Bill No. 46).

On motion, Bill No. 46, read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 4, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

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

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the Committee

stage of the new Auditor General's Act. At this time, it is customary to

examine, if necessary, in detail, clause by clause, the intent and purpose of

some of the clauses in the Auditor General's Act.

First of all, I would like to say that the intent of the

bill, itself, as discussed previously, is to provide the Auditor General with

his own piece of legislation under which he or she acts. The office of the

Auditor General, if this bill passes, will operate under this particular act. It

will take the Auditor General out from under the wings of the Department of

Finance, the direct supervision, if you will, of Cabinet, and put it at arm's

length from Cabinet and from government.

It is very important in the intent, and members of the

Opposition supported the intent of this bill. It is recognized by both sides of

the House that the Auditor General should not be subject to the direct influence

of Cabinet, the direct influence of government, but should, in fact, as a

watchdog, be independent and have a certain degree of autonomy from government.

After all, the agency or the individual that looks at government spending, that

comments on government spending, that checks to see if, in fact, the spending

was done the way it was intended by this legislature, that checks and sees that

nothing went wrong in the spending of money, that there was no fraud, that there

was no overspending, that there was proper authority for every cent that was

spent, and that the money was spent in a proper way, that the agency or

individual responsible for seeing that government does all that - not only

government, of course, but the agencies of government - should not come directly

under the control of government, but should be independent and operate in an

independent manner.

There is universal agreement in this House that the principle

or idea of the bill is acceptable. We have been through second reading, which is

the stage that determines whether the principle of the bill is acceptable. Now,

we are into Committee of the Whole, where we can get into perhaps a little more

detail. This is the point in time where members, if they have a problem with any

one

section of the bill, can state their opinion and it can be discussed freely

back and forth. Amendments can be made to sections of the bill, and so on. We

can determine if we are willing to accept how the appointment of the Auditor

appointment, as set out in the bill, whether we are willing to accept the level

of responsibility given the Auditor General, and whether that, in fact, allows

the Auditor General to carry out, in an impartial manner, the job that he should

be doing.

It is very important in this particular stage of the bill

that if members do have a concern about a

section of the bill, they express

these concerns. Now is the time to express the concerns and make the changes

that are necessary to improve on the bill.

I indicated in my introduction, in second reading, of the

principle stage, that, obviously, this is not a perfect bill. We have had

submissions from many groups, inside, as well as outside the Province,

concerning this particular bill. Each group, I suppose, can find something that

they would prefer to see written in a slightly different way. It is not a

perfect bill, and I would dare suggest that if the bill passes with its current

wording, years down the road there will be amendments, because there perhaps

will be things that are thought of that should be added or things that should be

deleted or wording changes that may be made down through the years.

But, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that

whereas it is not a

perfect bill, it is a very good bill. In intent, it is perfect. In structure,

there may be some minor problems with it, but it is an excellent bill and will,

I believe, give the Auditor General the autonomy that the Auditor General's

office should have, and will ensure that there will be proper examination of

government and government spending. Of course, that is what it is all about. We

have to have accountability in the process.

This legislature gives authority for spending. Cabinet,

through the Finance Minister, through a Budget, determines the priorities of

spending. The government does. It comes to the House and the House gives

approval for the spending. Then, the spending occurs during the year. And, if

there were not somebody checking to see that the spending was done properly and

report back to the House of Assembly to complete the accountability cycle, then

that would most certainly not be proper.

So, this allows the Auditor General to do his or her job,

which is to complete the accountability cycle and report back to the House of

Assembly, after the people's money has been spent, as to whether that money has

been spent properly and within the intent of this hon. House.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to make the few opening

comments in the Committee of the Whole stage of this bill and look forward to

input from members on both sides of the House.

On motion, Clauses 1 through 36, carried.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Office Of The Auditor General

And The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The Province." (Bill No. 1).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 5, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 5, Bill No. 8.

On motion, Clauses 1 through 16, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement

Reciprocal Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies." (Bill No. 8).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 6, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 6, Bill No. 10.

On motion, Clauses 1 through 3, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Dealers Act." (Bill

No. 10).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 7, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 7, Bill No. 9.

On motion, Clauses 1 and 2, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Optometry Act, 1981." (Bill No.

9).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee

rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de

Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have

considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bills 1, 8,

9 and 10 carried without amendments, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to

sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 3.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of

the Whole on Supply to consider Certain Resolutions for the Granting of

Additional Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is a bill that is commonly known as a Supplementary

Supply Bill. It is used when governments, while the House is sitting, need money

that either was in excess of what was budgeted for, or is extra to what was

budgeted for. There are two ways of doing this, of course. You can get money,

extra money, through special warrants which go through Cabinet, or it can be

done through supplementary supply, which has to go through the House of

Assembly, and where possible, and by law when the House is sitting, we would

like to do it through supplementary supply, so that everybody gets a chance to

debate this particular bill.

Members will notice that there are a number of headings under

which supplementary supply is requested, and I would like to go through them one

at a time, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, under Executive Council, the Constitutional

Affairs Heading, there was $15,000 in the vote. We are planning to increase it -

we want to increase it by $185,000 - so an extra $185,000 amount is there. That

is for expenses related to constitutional affairs, and one of the expenses of

course is the Constitutional Committee. I will get the exact amount before the

afternoon is over, but it is close to the whole amount, actually, but I will get

the exact amount before the afternoon is over.

Under Environment and Lands, there is $500,000.00 requested

and this has to do with the recent program to respond to the unemployment

situation in the Province. This is extra money involved with environmental

clean-up that will create some extra jobs in the next short while in the

Province, albeit short-term jobs.

Under Fisheries, again, it is a more complicated situation

here but we need an extra $500,000 even though under Fisheries there is much

more than $500,000 going into the program known as a job creation program. This

$500,000 is needed because we were able to find the rest of the money somewhere

else. We need an extra $500,000 and this involves the cost shared arrangement

with the Federal Government I believe.

Under Forestry and Agriculture we are asking for an extra

$1.5 million related solely to the work in forestry that has to do with

silviculture, thinning, replanting, and this kind of thing, the type of work

that will reap great dividends thirty or thirty-five years in the future. I am

very pleased that so much of the response money has gone into the forestry

sector and into silviculture in particular.

Under Justice there are two headings. Under one there is an

extra $315,000 asked for, and there is an extra $225,000 asked for under the

other heading. The $225,000 comes under the Commissions of Enquiry and there are

a number of Commissions of Enquiry ongoing. This is something that could not

have been estimated. You cannot really predict ahead of time, some years you use

it all, some years you use none, and some years you need more. We need an extra

$225,000 there. The $315,000 under criminal law relates, I am fairly certain, to

the Mount Cashel enquiry. There were extra legal bills related to the Mount

Cashel enquiry that will have to be paid, so that $315,000 relates to the Mount

Cashel enquiry.

There is an extra $500,000 asked for in Municipal and

Provincial Affairs again related to the Response Program, and also another

$500,000 under Community Sports Facilities related to the Response Program.

Under Social Services we have $4.5 million and that is the

Community Development Program, an extra $4.5 million in Social Services for a

total extra amount to be voted of $8,725,000.

As you can see, Your Honour, except for a very small amount

most of that money is in connection with the Response Program to the high levels

of unemployment being experienced in this Province. Remember, Your Honour, that

the Federal Government announced a Response Program for Fisheries and we are

contributing somewhat to that, but we felt that at the same time there had to be

a Response Program that was broader than the Fisheries. Even though the fishery

situation is very serious there had to be a Response Program that took in more

than simply the fishery so we have concentrated our effort in these other areas

and hence the community development projects, the forestry money, the municipal

money, and the money put into environment and lands.

Mr. Chairman, that is the Supplementary Supply Bill and I am

sure Members opposite will have some comments on it in due time.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Before I begin can we just clarify? I have

fifteen and then it is ten and ten. Is that the understanding? Yes.

Mr. Chairman, what this piece of legislation is, first and

foremost, an admission of wrong by Government. They are admitting that they were

absolutely and totally wrong. When this Government came into power they said: we

will not use job creation projects. We will not have short-term employment

created, artificially buoying up the economy, and now they are admitting that

they have no alternative. Supplementary Supply, Mr. Chairman, as the President

of Treasury Board points out, is intended to be a mechanism for Government to

gain additional supply for Her Majesty for items that could not have been

predicted. I would submit to this hon. House that this Government should have

been able to predict that they were going to need these amounts of money to

create these jobs. It took no crystal ball to know six months ago when the

Budget was being written that a very large job creation programme would be

required unless the Government was so naive as to believe their own statements

that their great economic development plan was going to create thousands of

jobs. If they did they were the only ones in the Province who believed it.

Now it has come to pass, Mr. Chairman, that this Government

late in the game, very late in the year when thousands of Newfoundlanders are

faced with the most disastrous Winter that they have ever faced in their lives,

this Government all too late and with all too little comes forward with a

programme to create some jobs in this Province. We can see how they have chosen

to do it through the traditional mechanisms, the traditional departments, the

bulk of it going to the Department of Social Services, and I will leave the

specifics of that to some of my colleagues to deal with. The bottom line here is

that this is a job creation programme that should have been in place, or perhaps

more correctly, Mr. Chairman, a programme should have been put in place in the

Budget to create long-term jobs instead of the lip service that is being paid to

job creation and to employment stimulation by the Economic Recovery Commission

and all these other foolish groups of people who are running around creating

absolutely nothing.

It is interesting, Mr. Chairman, the Question Period today

was taken up largely with questions relating to projects that have been delayed

by this Government. The Government brought forward a Budget that indicated a

very ambitious capital works programme. This Government has shouted their own

praises loudly around this Province: Look at all the capital works programmes we

are going to undertake this year. Far more than any year in history. But we

pointed out during the Budget, of course, that most of that capital works money

is coming from Ottawa. If we did not have the great highway agreement, the Roads

for Rails Agreement, $750 million or $780 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: That they attacked (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - that they attacked the previous government

for, our government when we were in power. If they did not have that there would

be very little taking place in this Province. If we did not have construction on

the Trans-Canada Highway financed almost entirely under that Roads for Rails

Agreement there would be very few construction jobs available in this Province

this year. And this Government announced a programme of its own construction

both of highway construction, the secondary roads programme, the municipal

capital works programme, and let's be very clear, government finances very

little of the municipal capital works programme. Water and sewer programme

projects are undertaken by the municipalities. They require approval to borrow,

they require in most cases a government guarantee and loan, and yes, government

has been forces to meet some of the debt charges associated with some of the

less well to do municipalities. But many of the larger municipalities, Mr.

Chairman, are not only quite able to finance the projects themselves, they were

ready and willing to finance the projects themselves.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Chairman, in my view

has very deliberately this year delayed the calling and awarding of tenders for

construction projects throughout this Province to dozens of municipalities, the

net impact of which that money has not been spent, the municipal services have

not been provided, those jobs have not been created, and many, many people in

the construction industry who traditionally depend on that type of activity in

order to gain, unfortunately, enough unemployment stamps to see them through the

winter are now faced with a season where they do not have enough unemployment

stamps.

Many, many people have called me in recent weeks and said: I

have six or seven stamps only and I have no prospects of getting more. Thank God

people in the fishing industry, who were facing the same situation, have a

programme to help them, as they should. But how about people who traditionally

make their livelihood from the construction industry and find themselves this

year deficient in a number of stamps to see them and their families through the

winter. Hopefully that is what this programme is designed to try to deal with.

But I say to the Minister of Social Services that it is all too little and all

too late, much too late in the year, much too late. The Minister nods his head,

he agrees of course; that is why I say that this is not an unpredictable

expenditure. A program should have been in place, or a much more ambitious

program with tens of millions of dollars more creating more permanent jobs, so

that we do not have to resort to this.

We do not disagree with the Government's problem that they

have with creating short-term employment; we do not like it either, but it is

better than nothing. If that is all you have to cling to, particularly this year

where we are faced with a national recession, and the Premier can stand up and

say that people of Newfoundland have not felt the recession as badly as the rest

of Canada, he better get out and talk to some of the people of Newfoundland,

because there are tens of thousands of them who are facing starvation out there

this winter!

He is burying his head in the sand if he does not understand

that people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not only in rural Newfoundland let me

tell you, Mr. Chairman; thousands of them in urban Newfoundland, right here in

St. John's and Mount Pearl are facing very difficult situations this year;

situations that need to be addressed. These programs help. They could have been

better designed, they could have been implemented more efficiently and

effectively, had this Government faced the facts earlier in the year, that they

were going to need such a project and such a program to help thousands of people

in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, the amazing thing is that there are tens of

millions of dollars unspent in municipalities this year, tens of millions of

dollars unspent on municipal/capital works programmes that would not have cost

this Government one cent. I referred, during Question Period to the Mount Pearl

Arena, a $5 million project, financed entirely, 100 per cent by the City of

Mount Pearl, which did not require a Government guarantee, simply because the

Act says so, required the Minister to give approval tomorrow. The city could

show very clearly they could finance it; they did not need any subsidy. They

asked for no capital contribution.

You know, I point out that every arena built in this Province

has had at least a half a million dollars; most of them now, in latter years

three quarters of a million dollars contributed by the Department of Recreation.

The City of Mount Pearl did not request it, Mr. Chairman - why not? Because two

or three years ago, we had the Summer Games in Mount Pearl and we received

capital funding at that time to build the Provincial track and field facility,

and when we were in Government, we told the City of Mount Pearl: do not come

back looking for major capital funding for at least five years, there is not

enough to go around, do not come looking for any more, and the City of Mount

Pearl asked for nothing from the Province for this $5 million project.

It is badly needed, nobody in sports, hockey or figure

skating questions the need for that facility in Mount Pearl. There is no

question at all, it is clearly a self-sufficient project. $5 million worth of

construction activity, seventy jobs that could have been in place today. There

could have been seventy people working today on that project and working all

through the winter if the Minister of Municipal Affairs had not deliberately

delayed that project, and I say that because I know on good authority that the

approval recommended by his officials sat on his desk for more than a month.

The approval process itself took four months. The Minister,

being a representative, being one of the elected members who represent the City

of Mount Pearl, you would think he would have moved it through even more quickly

than any other, you would think he would have taken a personal interest in it.

No, just the opposite. What we have seen is another blatant example of his

contempt for the people who elected him. Absolute contempt for the people who

elected him and he takes his revenge out on the young people by delaying the

arena project and by eliminating seventy jobs over this winter when they are

sorely needed. That is only one project.

I venture to say that every one of my colleagues and many

hon. gentlemen opposite have projects in their own districts that have been

delayed and that could have moved forward and created jobs and economic activity

in this Province. The spin-off benefits are tremendous, not only the direct jobs

but the activity that takes place in and around those communities and in the

construction industry generally. It would not have cost the Province one cent,

simply approval to borrow to the municipalities, government guarantees, a

contingent liability in the case of failure to be able to pay only. It could

have created thousands of more jobs than this $8 million is creating and not

cost this Government one cent, not immediately. Yes, admittedly some of those

loans would have to be supported by the Province down the road but the majority

of them would not, and there is absolutely no excuse for that activity not

having taken place this year. There is absolutely no excuse, Mr. Chairman. What

this is, this Bill, is an admission of guilt from the Government, guilt because

they should have known that this money would be needed either for these projects

or for other projects to replace them. Without a doubt this Government should

have known it. These are not unusual things that take place during the year.

There may be one or two things, the Commissions of Enquiry, we accept the fact

that some of these things are perhaps impossible to totally estimate simply

because Commissions of Enquiry are given a blank cheque. I am not sure why

Commissions of Enquiry are great judicial bodies that are absolutely

untouchable. When you get into the courts it seems that nobody, not even

Government, can have any control over their own expenditures. Why can we not

tell a Commission of Enquiry: here is what you need and if you spend more than

that you will come back before the House of Assembly and justify why that

additional money is needed. It is about time that we stopped giving blank

cheques to Commissions of Enquiry. I have seen some pretty expensive Commissions

of Enquiry in my day. Maybe it is time we dealt with that.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to stop for now because there are

other colleagues who want to speak. My time is pretty well up anyway and I will

have another chance to speak in a few moments.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I was anxious to get to my feet

because there are a number of students in the gallery and I have always placed a

lot of importance on the youth of the Province, the youth of the country, but

especially the youth of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, because I say

without a doubt they are the greatest and the most valuable resource that we

could have for our future. It is interesting today that they are staying during

the debate and especially the debate on Supplementary Supply because it has to

do with jobs and it has to do with money paid out by your parents, the taxpayers

of the Province, and it has a lot to do with the future, a lot to do with the

future of these people. Those children, those young people, are in school trying

to get an education with the hope and having some confidence that when they

finish their education they will have some future in this Province. What is this

House of Assembly talking about today? The Opposition critic for Finance gets

up. We are talking about social services, make work programs, welfare jobs, get

your UI, get ten weeks work, get twenty weeks work so you can go on UI thirty or

forty weeks of the year. That is something to be preaching to the youth of our

Province. That is something to be arguing back and forth - what is good for the

Province today.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is important.

MR. EFFORD: No, it is not important. It should not be

discussed whatsoever. This should be the richest little Province in Canada. If

we used half our brains in using the resources that this Province has, as we do

in making make work programs, social service programs, community development

programs, picking up headstones, and cleaning garbage out of ditches. The youth

of this Province would have a better future, if we utilized the stocks and the

resources on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador. In Newfoundland and

Labrador we employ on a part-time basis some 30,000 people in the fishing

industry. We have a quota of approximately 800,000 tons of fish inside the 200

mile limit that Canada allocates every year. Do you realize that we give, each

and every year, inside our own waters, inside the 200 mile limit 350,000 tons of

fish to foreign countries? All species. I am not talking about cod. It is here

in black and white put out by the Federal Government, 350,000 tons. If we took

that amount of fish and processed just half of that extra in this Province -

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

I wonder if the hon. Member would mind me interrupting here

for a minute? I apologize for having to do this, but we have a number of

students who you have been referring to in the gallery and I would like to take

this opportunity to welcome them, just in case they might have left before you

had finished. So I would like to welcome on behalf of all Members to the gallery

nine students from Mary Simms All Grade School, Main Brook; sixteen students

from the H. G. Fillier Academy in Englee; and eleven students from the Evely

Collegiate, Roddickton. They are accompanied by their teachers Oliver Arthur,

George O'Reilly and Fraser Metcalfe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the students were not

going to leave till I was finished. I am sure they wanted to hear what I had to

say. Because it is important to their future. I know that anybody - what

surprises me, even shocks me, is knowing that the Opposition critic for

fisheries would stay in his place here in the House of Assembly today and say

that the figures that I just quoted, that the foreigners are fishing inside our

200 mile limit, is wrong.

That is the very essence of what the problem that we have

with the fishery today is. Even the people in responsible positions do not

understand what is happening on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. I wanted to

relate to those figures - whether they are exact; they might be out 1,000 pounds

or a few tons, so what? If we are talking 350,000 tons of fish. Let's take the

squid alone this year. Canada this year just gave to Japan to fish inside the

200 mile limit a quota of 32 million pounds of squid.

Now let me ask you a question: How many jobs - if those squid

were caught by the inshore fishermen of this Province around the coast of

Newfoundland - would that provide for the people of this Province? I can assure

you one thing. It would be several thousand people who would not be reduced to

going to the Social Service's office or going to a make work programme, and

being laughed at on W5 and across Canada as the joke of Newfoundland working on

10-42. Your very parents are made fun of because we are reduced to that sort of

an attitude because of the way we are being treated by the rest of Canada, and

by the central government of this Country.

But we are only talking about one species when we talk about

squid. Let's talk about tuna. Fifteen dollars a pound. What did the Federal

Government do last week in creating jobs in this Province? Gave Japan a quota

last week of 180 tons of tuna to be caught inside the 200 mile limit by the

Japanese factory-freezer trawlers while our own boats, our own fishermen, have

to beg and hide in the dark of night to try to earn a living. As a result of

that we are losing multi-millions of dollars and the parents of the young people

sitting in the gallery could be working and earning a decent living. I can go

back forty years, and I have never seen a Newfoundlander in my area who if he

could get work would refuse work, as much as people say that Newfoundlanders

only want ten weeks. It is not right. The majority of the people in this

Province are honest, hard-working people and would work with anyone in this

country if they had the opportunity. But when you have nothing else then ten

weeks then you have no other choice only to do that. It is time for people to

put their energies in the right place.

It is like the other day. I was talking to the hon. Member

for St. John's East Extern district. Went out cod-jigging this year. Let me tell

you this. There was a crew there got in trouble hauling their cod trap. Some

tide came up and they needed some help so they sung out: boys, come over, we

need help. They went aboard the boat, what happened? To help a man who was in

trouble while hauling his trap they were arrested for illegal fishing and have

to appear in court on November 7. That is the way we are treated in this

Province. People just out - two young men, out jigging cod as a pastime, went

aboard to help a man and got arrested. We wonder why we are discouraged,

demoralized, why we have the attitude we have. Talk about Quebec!

Newfoundlanders are being kicked at, stomped on and made to

suffer the plight of poverty and darkness. And (Inaudible) we stand as Members

of this House of Assembly instead of all of us fighting together, banding

together, taking our fight to Ottawa, trying to regain what is rightfully ours,

trying to make some future for the students - not only the students in the

gallery but all people in this Province, all students, all the future of our

Province. What have they got to face? Imagine telling those kids: Go get your

grade twelve. Spend your time day and night studying to get your grade twelve,

go on to vocational school, go to Memorial University, spend $40,000 or $50,000

getting your education. When you come out we will give you a community

development programme for ten weeks. We will give you a make-work programme. We

have some facilities we need built out in Port de Grave, a wharf and some beach

clean up. Just imagine telling those students that, ladies and gentlemen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) community college

(inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: You can talk all you like. Talk sense because

the students are listening to you in the gallery. But the fact remains, Mr.

Chairman, that as a Province we have to regain what was rightfully ours, and

until we all band together we are going to face nothing in the future and we

will be arguing fifty years down the road. How are we going to get our community

development or are we going to get our make-work programmes this winter? Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a few

words, if I may, to this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for Port de Grave did a fine job

with time to try to play to the students in the gallery. What the Member for

Port de Grave forgot to say was that he was part of the Government, he was in

the Cabinet as Minister of Social Services, that created in this Province today

a climate where the Minister of Employment last week had to go out and announce

job creation projects because that Government, Mr. Chairman, the Government that

we have in this Province today did not support the projects of the previous

administration. They said they were not good projects, Mr. Chairman, and the

Minister of Employment campaigned in the last election against the very thing

that he brought into this assembly this past week in terms of short-term

projects. He worked against it, he campaigned against it. So what we have to do,

Mr. Chairman, is be honest with ourselves and be honest with Newfoundlanders,

and that is what this Government is failing to participate in, that type of

honesty and to be up front.

Short-term projects are not the answer to the economic woes

of this Province, Mr. Chairman. Short-term projects are not the answer, but it

is better than nothing at all. It is better than literally the thousands of

people who are unemployed in this Province today. Thousands and thousands,

43,000 people as a matter of fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty-three thousand now.

MR. TOBIN: Forty-three thousand people unemployed in this

Province today because of the policies of this Administration. So is it better,

Mr. Chairman, to be able to give these people short-term projects where they can

go to work and do something meaningful or is it better to keep them on social

assistance or something else they do not want to be at?

I would say the Minister of Social Services who had to bring

in $5 million this year - well it is a lot less than it was previously - but $5

million was just brought in the other day, and before the Minister was able to

do anything whatsoever in terms of looking at the Province and where to allocate

the money, it was spent, it was committed. The Minister confirmed that yesterday

in the Legislature. I know the Minister would like to have $25 million, but this

Government is refusing to put in place the type of funding that was there

before. So what can the Minister do? Look at what was spent overnight. That is

what we can do.

What we have to have is a government that cares about rural

Newfoundland, a government that takes action about all of Newfoundland. We see

now travelling around the Province, Mr. Chairman, a group headed by Mr. Harold

Lundrigan going around the Province. As a matter of fact they were in my

district last night. Doing what, Mr. Chairman? An economic strategy for

twenty-five years time. Well, Mr. Chairman, there will be a lot of short-term

projects before that twenty-five years comes into place, and the students in the

gallery will all have graduated and gone on to hopefully find employment. But

what we need is a government that is going to look at creating meaningful,

long-term jobs now, not twenty-five years time, and that direction has not been

brought into place.

Immediately following the last election, what did the Premier

do? He said he was going to put in place the Economic Recovery Commission and it

was going to do wonders. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they bought a lot of computers from

American or mainland firms and created big plush offices for Doug House and a

half a dozen more.

What jobs have they created, Mr. Speaker? What jobs have they

created? I do not know of any jobs that have been created. The only jobs that

have been created in this Province in the last two and a half years are the ones

that ACOA have created.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and political pork-barrelling by this

Government here. Former members, Beaton Tulk, Mr. Speaker, a former Member of

the Legislature, and Fraser Lush, a former Provincial Campaign Manager for the

Liberal Party, and a few of them, a few of them, Mr. Speaker, found jobs. But

the people, Mr. Speaker, in this Province have not found jobs.

When this party came to power, Mr. Speaker, there were 500 to

600 people working in the Marystown Shipyard, 500 to 600 people - highly skilled

trades people - working in the Marystown Shipyard. Today, Mr. Speaker, in two

and a half years, in two and a half years, Mr. Speaker, they have brought the

work force of the Marystown Shipyard to thirty-five people. Now is that the type

of jobs that they are talking about? I had a man, Mr. Speaker, in my house the

weekend. He worked in the Marystown Shipyard for twenty-one years, twenty-one

years. Another man that everybody should know, or heard of, is Gary Brenton, the

President of the Union. Twenty years employed in the Marystown Shipyard, and Mr.

Speaker, because of this Administration, they are no longer working in the

Marystown Shipyard. They are like tens of thousands of other Newfoundlanders.

They have been, Mr. Speaker, the victim of the economic curse that the Wells'

Administration has inflicted upon the people of this Province. That is what has

happened, and it is time, Mr. Speaker, that this Government take some initiative

to create meaningful jobs.

What about the 2,500 people they fired from the Public

Service last year? Twenty-five hundred people given the boot, Mr. Speaker, given

the boot. Go to the Mainland and find jobs. What about every mothers' son that

the Premier was going to bring home in the last election campaign? Well, Mr.

Speaker, their mothers have joined their sons and their daughters on the

Mainland. That is what has happened in this Province. That is what has happened

in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Out migration.

MR. TOBIN: Out migration. A brain-drain, Mr. Speaker, of

young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. A brain-drain of young Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians to the Mainland, faster, Mr. Speaker, faster than -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can

tell you one thing. That is why they sent the Minister of Social Services back

home. But that is what we have in this Province, an uncaring Government, that

cares nothing about the youth of this Province. To hear the Member from Port de

Grave up, Mr. Speaker, talking about the youth of this Province, when he sits

over there and supports a Government, who stands up, Mr. Speaker, and votes with

the Government, who praises the Premier, who praises the Minister, who praises

his colleagues, Mr. Speaker. To see the Member from Port de Grave over there who

does all of that kind of thing, stand up and talk about his concern for the

youth of this Province.

Let the Member from Port de Grave join -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, but let him join the people

of Newfoundland in opposing the policies and programs of this Government, if he

wants to do something meaningful for the youth of this Province. If he wants to

see young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians staying home and getting involved,

Mr. Speaker, in various trades and professions, working at home, living at home,

well that can be obtained. That can be achieved, but it can only be achieved if

there is a leadership in this Province, if there is a Government in this

Province that are committed, that are committed, Mr. Speaker. But this

Government is committed to two things. They are committed to a resettlement

program within the Province, and a resettlement program outside of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: That is the basis of commitment of this

Government, a resettlement program both inside the Province and outside of the

Province.

MR. SIMMS: Big is beautiful.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, big is beautiful. We are

seeing how they are trying to turn everything, Mr. Speaker, into larger centres,

we are seeing how they want to take the northeast Avalon and put it into one big

centre, we are seeing how they want to amalgamate the smaller communities in

this Province that do not want to be amalgamated, Mr. Speaker. Why should the

people of Lewin's Cove in my district become citizens of Burin if they do not

want to? Why should they be forced to be part of it?

MR. SIMMS: A good question!

AN HON. MEMBER: They could be saving money.

MR. SIMMS: Closing hospitals.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, closing hospitals in this Province. The

Minister of Health should hang his head in shame. As a matter of fact, the

Minister of Health should not even come into this legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave! No leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just a few

short comments. Because how could you sit in your place and listen to the

rhetoric, the gobbledegook, the whatever, from the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, when deep down in his own heart he knows every single solitary

word the Member for Port de Grave said to be the truth? The truth.

We have watched in the last ten years - I suppose the biggest

impact on what this Province and this Government has been able to do has been

the reduction of transfer payments to the tune of somewhere in the vicinity of

$782 million. We see no help from our friends opposite and their counterparts in

Ottawa, absolutely no help. They have let the fishery go to a point where there

is a good possibility that within another three or four years left - and the

hon. the Member for Grand Bank knows what I am saying to be fact. He has watched

the demise of 3PS to the point where there is hardly a fish left. And we are

seeing it on the Grand Banks, the Nose and the Tail of the Banks.

Now, this Province has no jurisdiction over the fishing

industry, absolutely none. We have tried, their administration tried, to put

some kind of sense into Ottawa saying: Look, we cannot protect the fishery. The

only thing the other government had was the Norma and Gladys and three water

bombers. Now, for the life of me, I do not know how we are going to get out and

look after our own fishery. We depend wholly and solely on the Federal

Government to ensure that foreign overfishing does not take place on the Grand

Banks. And what happens? Every time there seems to be - now, I do not know,

perhaps this might be a statement that I will have to retract some time - but

every time there seems to be a trade deal between Ottawa and Europe or Asia or

somewhere else, whether it is tractors or whatever it is out of the Golden

Triangle, we see another little piece of a licence sliding off to that country

and another bit of fish going, whether it is utilized, under-utilized, or

whatever. Slowly but surely we have watched Ottawa, a very highly paid bunch of

bureaucrats who understand nothing about the Newfoundland fishery, dishing it

away hand over fist, day in and day out.

Now, nobody in this House can deny that. Absolutely nobody

can deny it. Hon. members opposite know that it is time, and the time has come,

for every member in this House to bring in a Private Member's resolution

addressing the unilateral approach to our fishery. We are not going to be left

with much else.

Now, my hon. colleague for Burin - Placentia West - and I

have to get back to him. I am talking a little bit too much about what we

already know, I guess, but a lot of us don't seem to find the courage to be able

to address. He talks about the layoffs that are taking place throughout the

Province. The hon. member well knows there are layoffs taking place all across

Canada, all over the United States. We are in a recession that is very slow to

climb out of. He can point and rant and rave and shout and blame this

Administration, this Government, when deep down, he knows that a colleague

and/or a party that he supports, obviously, for the first time in Canadian

history, or the first time in a long time, when Mr. Wilson was the Finance

Minister, created a self-made Canadian recession and never waited for our

friends down South.

So what happened? The poorest province in this country took a

double whammy from Mr. Mulroney and his colleagues - and among his colleagues

are two members from this Province - who caused all kinds of devastation for

this Government and the administration of funding that we needed to apply to not

only pay off a Provincial deficit - and I want these young people to understand

the tax burden that is around your neck before you get into the workplace - in

excess of $4 billion. Each and every Newfoundlander is responsible for that

debt. The interest on that debt is approximately $613 million per annum.

The first thing this Government has to find every single

solitary year, year in and year out, up to 1991, is $613 million, of which 74

per cent was borrowed by our friends opposite. So we know, and you should know,

who has put the yoke and the anchor around the people of this Province. But we

hear rhetoric from over on that side. They do not want to talk about yesterday,

they want to talk about now. Well, this Government opened a set of books - it is

like getting a store or buying a house - and as soon as we opened them up, we

found out that we had a responsibility on behalf of the people of this Province

to handle all of this, the deficit, the interest payments, the responsibility of

$900 million a year for health care. We hear all kinds of people talking about

how health care has gone downhill. Well, find $900 million to look after 600,000

people spread out from Nain to LaPoile to St. John's. It takes an awful lot of

hard work by, I would suggest to you and to the people of this Province, the

best Government that this Province has ever had, without question.

I also say to you that your bill, the bill for educating the

young people in grammar, post-secondary, high school and university is almost

$700 million a year. So you need to understand. The hon. the Member for LaPoile

knows what I am saying is right. You need to understand the tremendous budget

that is needed to at least fulfil what we have today, with a tax base so very,

very limited.

Now, we can get up and bawl and shout. The hon. the Member

for Burin - Placentia West and hon. members on this side and that side remember

his advice only - the old shrimp boat sinker, do you remember that story? Now,

all of a sudden, the workers down at the Newfoundland Dockyard come in with a

no-strike clause. But there is no advice turned away the Marystown Shipyard

workers. They took the $450,000 worth of work as fast as they could get their

hands on it, and rightfully so, because work opportunity is not that available

today.

So, Mr. Chairman, all the rhetoric about what this Government

has done and what it has not done and what it is doing and how it is putting the

people through all this persecution, and whatever! The hon. member knows full

well, after the tasks and the deeds of previous administrations, that this

Government has finally grabbed the bull by the horns and put in a policy whereby

the young people of this Province, when they get ready to go into the workplace,

will have a better opportunity without a tax burden around them, without a bill

that they inherited the minute they were born, all because of poor management by

our friends opposite.

When you consider that the Liberal Government has been in

power now, I think, somewhere close to twenty-six years since we joined

Confederation, and the Tory Party for seventeen years, and of the provincial

debt incurred, over $4 billion, 74 per cent, was incurred by our friends

opposite on such wonderful ventures as cucumbers, and I do not want to get into

that, I vowed I would never bring that up again -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - to bring it close to $30 million that we

could provide the pious member for Mount Pearl -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - who got up today and talked -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MURPHY: Oh, and I am in full flight! A few closing

remarks, Mr. Chairman.

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

Extern.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is the best contribution.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I did not

really mean to say anything today, but, with the rhetoric from the other side, I

just could not stay in my seat.

When I looked up - and I cannot see those young people up

there in the gallery. Hearing the Member for St. John's South and the Member for

Port de Grave making what comments they had, which were without any body

whatsoever, I say, of all the rhetoric I have heard in the years I have been

here, this was it!

What I want to say to the young people up there is that there

is a future in this Province, but you are the people who will play a major role

in our reaching that future. The future is bright. This is the best Province in

Canada and Canada is a great country.

Let me go back to the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

Every time he rises in his seat, he bashes the feds. This is his philosophy. But

I want to go on record today, and say to the hon. gentleman, after what has

happened in his district with the close-down of the plant on the Southside, and

the near extinction of the dry dock, that only for the hon. John Crosbie and

help from the Federal Government, he would have been lynched! He would have been

lynched, except for those people having come to his rescue.

What has the Province done for those people? They were going

to put a million dollars into a fund to help the people on the Southside who

were laid off. Tell me about it. Tell me where that million dollars went which

was to have helped the people on the Southside. Was there any money spent?

MR. MURPHY: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: Where was it?

MR. MURPHY: It was given to NatSea to extended, for a

year-and-a-half, the life of the fish plant (inaudible) the Member for Grand

Bank.

MR. PARSONS: What fish plant - what is over there now?

There is as much work done in some of the stages around the Avalon Peninsula, as

is done in that plant at the Southside.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Tell the truth about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He does not know about it.

MR. PARSONS: You don't about it, that's what is wrong.

You don't know about it, and you get up telling those young people in the

gallery that it was all the fault of the previous Government. Your Government

inherited 74 per cent - but that 74 per cent was caused by the previous

Government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Apples and oranges.

MR. PARSONS: Apples and oranges, that is not true,

either. That is not right.

MR. SIMMS: That was paying the interest on (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That was paying the interest on the boot

factories, on the battery factories and all the other schemes that the Liberal

Government came up with from 1949 to 1972. That was paying the money back. We,

on this side, had to reach out and get the money to pay off the debts owed by

the previous Liberal regime.

Now, I want to have a few comments about the Member for Port

de Grave. He spoke about the fathers and the mothers who do not have the monies

necessary for their children to attend school and after that, college or

whatever. And I say to him, yes, I suppose there are people out there who are

having problems as it pertains to financing education, and I am sure that the

Minister of Education will readily agree that there are problems within his

department.

Anyway, the point is that there is no easy solution, nor has

there been over a number of years. But I heard the statistics today, on my way

home to lunch, and apparently, we are getting better over the long haul. It

didn't come easy. It is very hard to compare the schools that I remember with

those we have today. There is no comparison. We have come a long way, and I

think, most of the time now, we are our own worst enemies. We are always out

there saying, Oh, Newfoundlanders, we know nothing. We are all a stunned bunch

and we have no education. We are not up to the national average. I say,

poppycock. It is those people who want to put themselves on a pedestal who are

coming on with this type of rhetoric. We have come a long way, and we have a

great number of educated Newfoundlanders. We can go to any part of the world -

any part of the mainland or the United States, this part of the world or any

other, and find Newfoundlanders working in responsible positions, educated here

in Newfoundland. I don't think we should take one step backwards in saying that

our children are not as good and do not have greater potential, perhaps, than

many other people in this hemisphere. Where do they get their ability? They have

inherited a lot of their ability from their ancestors, a lot of it, natural

ability, and with the training we have at hand now, and our expertise, I take no

step backwards. I do not shudder a moment when I hear all this old stuff going

on, that our education system is being downtrodden, and we don't have this and

we don't have that.

We have good facilities, but we need improvements. I have

spoken to the Minister of Education on several occasions. We talked at length

about sharing facilities, and I agree with the minister, that this has to come

about. I think we would have a much better system if we shared the facilities we

have, and if new facilities were to be built, then sharing, again, would be the

order of the day. I have no misgivings about that.

I think there is a bright future for our young people but we

all have to work at it. I think that, in working, we will find the solutions to

the problems that exist today. I had the privilege on Saturday of going out to

Mosquito Cove and Bull Arm to see the development taking place there. I would

love to have seen the place before this construction started, but I could see

readily that there was a lot of technology that we did not have years ago that

went into the building of that site as it is today. I am sure that within the

next couple of years, people like me will be flabbergasted. We will hardly be

able to comprehend the depth of what is going to transpire in that particular

area, the infrastructure that will be there to encourage other consortiums to

come in and perhaps do the same thing that Mobil, and those people, MCDC, are

doing now, at the Bull Arm site. Again, we will be, perhaps, first with the

capabilities needed for projects to be carried out in this Province.

The Member for Port de Grave also spoke about 3NO, and tuna,

and what the feds were doing with respect to offshore rights, and in some

instances, I have no quarrel with what he was saying. I think there is a lot of

fish out there that perhaps could go to Newfoundlanders and be processed in

Newfoundland. I think, after what has happened this year, that perhaps there

will be changes made in the Department of Fisheries next year, and an allocation

of cod should be made to Newfoundland fishermen from 3NO. I hope there will be,

because I think they have a right to some of the fish that is out there. Now, we

can get up an use all kinds of tactics and rhetoric and say, every time a trade

agreement is made, Newfoundland fish is traded off, but we have to be realistic

in saying that is a way of life.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is gone somewhere.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, it is, but Canada is a country, and we

are part of that country. We are not out here alone in the Atlantic, we are part

of a country. I do n't condone the breaking of the law in 3NO but I can also see

the plight of the fishermen out there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Could I have a minute to clue up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! By leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, there are several other topics

that I would like to touch on, and I will at a later date, but my hon. friend

wishes to have his say, and I will take my seat.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

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

I wish to speak for a few minutes to Bill 39, referring to

the raising of monies (Mr. Ramsay's mike was not turned on and a portion of what

he said was inaudible).

This, in relation to my own district, is of great concern to

me, of course. A situation that I understand occurred earlier this morning, by

virtue of a news report that I was listening to on the radio this morning before

coming in here to work, concerned the Emergency Fishery Response Program which

the Federal Government has seen fit to introduce here in the Province. Last

year, in the provincial District of LaPoile, the local organizations along with

the efforts and support of the Premier of the Province, the Minister of

Fisheries, myself and others, made a very strong case to the Federal Government

for a special Emergency Fishery Response Package for LaPoile District to counter

the devastating fishery we have had there over the last number of years. It is

possibly the first place in the Province where a long-term problem was

identified with the fish stocks, thereby creating a situation where fishermen

and plant workers throughout my provincial district were, of course, suffering

greatly in the lack of catch and, thereby, in the amount of work they had

available to them. Due to no fault of their own, they, in turn, were affected as

such and the Federal Government were convinced, through representations made,

that they had to react to this.

This year we see a program which the Federal Government,

through the encouragement of the Provincial Government, has seen fit to extend

to the whole Province, the various areas where the problems occur. Labrador is,

I understand, having a very difficult time, but the problem is no less difficult

in the LaPoile District. I would also include in that parts of St. George's

District, up into the Stephenville area, some individuals who live there, the

area served by a certain employment center in the Stephenville regional area.

What has happened is they have now seen fit, accordingly,

that they say there is no problem. I was informed by union representatives that

the Federal Government have now seen that there is a winter fishery, they say,

in the LaPoile area and, therefore, unless we can really demonstrate a need - in

other words, if we do not make a good push or make a good effort in identifying

this as a specific problem again this year - they will refuse to fund any

emergency fishery response projects in the LaPoile area.

Mr. Chairman, this really concerns me because work last year

which was done and carried out through the offices of the Community Futures

Committee and through the local Canada Employment Center Office, now seems like

it is going to fall on our plate. Now, granted we will put together the work,

this is standard work that should normally be done by the employment centers

concerned and we have to again turn ourselves inside out in proving to the

Federal Government bureaucrats who have seen fit to suggest that some of these

people have to be weaned away from their dependency on make work projects - I

fully agree that some people may be hanging on. There may be some people who are

on the project, as it is often said, just for the sake of qualifying and getting

along to the next year and that, but that makes a very small percentage of the

situation. That would make up probably 10 to 15 per cent of the total and in

some cases much less than that.

These people, this other eighty-five to ninety per cent we

have in the district will be left out because of the suggestion by these

bureaucrats that ten to fifteen per cent of the people do not need it so

therefore we are going to cut the whole thing adrift. Now this is infuriating,

Mr. Chairman, and we have to now double our efforts to make these approaches to

the Federal Government officials and see to it through Mr. Crosbie, who I am

certain has made on the Fisheries Broadcast - if was listening to it and it was

not some kind of mistake on my part - he said that no one would be left out.

Everyone in need with regards to the fishery, that can be a demonstrated need,

will be looked after. And if this is allowed to continue, then that statement of

Mr. Crosbie was indeed false. So I want to get that on the record, Mr. Chairman.

I also wanted to mention the problem with my area as being so

real. I was home on Friday past just before the weekend and I received a phone

call from a fisherman. This fisherman stated to me that he had never called an

elected Member of the House of Assembly, his MP, ever before, for anything. And

this gentleman was lucky enough to qualify, he was lucky enough to get his ten

weeks work. He had no other source of income, no other way of maintaining his

family. His wife was having difficulty getting work at the local plant because

they were working to a certain amount, but not enough to keep their third shift

on, so he had nothing. They went over fishing off of Nova Scotia, not fishing

for stamps but fishing for fish, out fishing trying to a make a living for their

families and the whole lot of them had to come back home with nothing. The trip

probably cost them each $200 or $300 after the cost of the boat was taken out of

it, and this fisherman had nothing.

Mr. Chairman, I was on the phone speaking to him and trying

to explain to him that the Province was hopefully going to be able to fund some

non-fishery related projects in the area and that the Federal Government would,

as we had been told, look after the fishermen and fish plant workers who did not

qualify. This left him out because he, of course, had the stamps as we call it

to qualify for UI starting the fifteenth of November.

People have to understand that on the southwest coast we have

fishermen who have to qualify twice a year. They need twenty weeks of work every

year unlike anywhere else in the Province, as I understand it, in which they

only need ten. But they have two fisheries, they work in the summer, and they

also work in the winter, and they require ten weeks work one part of the year,

up until November fifteenth they can file a claim, and then on May fifteenth

they have to re-qualify again. So they must have ten weeks work in each of those

two periods which makes it that much more difficult for them.

Granted, if you look at the problem over the past five years

with the devastating fishery on the southwest coast, and this gentleman, of

course, was telling me about his plight. The man when he called me on the phone

was telling me this and he wanted to know what he could do. He was driven to

tears on the phone, and it was very, very touching and very difficult for me, of

course, because he was embarrassed by this. He was embarrassed by having to go

to a point where he was driven to tears when talking to his MHA, he was somewhat

embarrassed. And of course his only place now to turn is to the Department of

Social Services. He has nowhere to turn. He's had a difficult time over the last

number of years, and if anyone doubts within the federal bureaucracy the

sincerity of these individuals who require the Federal Government's assistance

because of the mismanagement of the fish stocks, who requires the Federal

Government's assistance because there is an emergency response required. It is

an emergency for these people. It is not simply to say that these people are

dependent upon the fishery response grants year after year, after year, that in

and of itself shows a lack of understanding for the problem that these people

face. The problem being that the fish are simply not there, that these people do

not have the wherewithal to manage from unemployment cheque until such time as

they can get their next unemployment cheque. They have a need and this gentleman

expressed it to me. It was upsetting to me that this man had to do that in his

conversation. It was to the point when my wife walked into the room and noticed

that I was a bit upset about this and it brought tears to my eyes as well to

have this person brought to their knees because of mismanagement by somebody, I

would assume the Federal bureaucracy, in managing the fish stocks. It was

something that I have carried with me ever since. It certainly is a point that I

want to get on the record because the Federal Government will certainly have to

continue to be responsive as they have at times in the past. Mr. Speaker, I want

to get it on the record.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

I would like to spend a few minutes also on this particular

piece of housekeeping, Bill No. 44. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that

here we are deciding on the spending of Her Majesty's money and I noticed that

there are only six of the Cabinet Ministers present when we are discussing

financial matters as pertaining to this Government. I notice one of the

Ministers just came in. In fact it is interesting that that particular Minister

just came in because I want to address a couple of my remarks to the Minister

responsible for Municipal Affairs.

Earlier today in Question Period my colleague from Mount

Pearl brought up some issues concerning monies not spent in Municipal Affairs

and the President of Treasury Board then said name some and we will check into

it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is most interesting to note, and the

Minister of Municipal Affairs is aware of this, that the $1.3 million that was

in the Budget for this year to be spent in the community of Hopedale on the

water and sewage project - which by the way is funded 70/30 by the Federal

Government and which would have only cost this Government roughly about

$300,000. The Minister said a year ago that he would ensure that the project

would be advertised early in the year so that we can get the construction under

way.

Now, I notice when I am looking across the room here at our

newest Member, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, is listening very

attentively because I listened to his comments on election night. I do not know

if I have the comments in the exact context of what he said but I think he left

the impression with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that if he does not

get some of his questions and some of his promises and some of his concerns

answered that he may not be here as long as he would want to be here. I

understand from the hon. Member that is what he said, we had better get some of

those things done, but I should say to my hon. colleague beware of the Minister

of Municipal Affairs, because if there was ever a wolf in sheep's clothing I

would compare the Minister of Municipal Affairs to that. I assure you, Mr.

Chairman, that this person, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, will promise

things today but he will not produce them when he says he will. For example, Mr.

Chairman, out of the $1.3 million that was allotted in the budget this year for

the Town of Hopedale, only about $350,000 will be spent, and it is carried over

into the next year. It is all because of the attitude of this Government and the

Minister of Municipal Affairs. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest the same thing

is happening all throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to bring up a subject, but I did not

want to bring it up in the absence of the Minister, but now I am quite pleased

that the Minister of Development - I know the Minister of Development now is

speaking to the backbencher from Pleasantville, but at the same time I would

like for him to listen to what I am going to say, because it is most important

to the Minister. Mr. Chairman, in the Spring sitting of the Legislature I asked

the Minister a question concerning a report on the Government stores in the

District of Torngat Mountains. The Government operates those five stores, and I

understand that the Minister had a report compiled by a consultant from Halifax

which cost the taxpayers about $70,000.

Now, I would like to know from the Minister, Mr. Chairman, in

this debate - Mr. Chairman, I want the attention of the Minister. I am willing

to sit down and let the Minister answer the question. I am serious, I could

probably take my seat and come back again, Mr. Chairman. Would the Minister

advise me when he intends to release to the public the report that was

commissioned by his Department concerning the Government stores. I am willing to

let the Minister answer that question now if he wants to.

MR. FUREY: Ask me in Question Period.

MR. WARREN: Do you want to answer it now?

MR. FUREY: No.

MR. WARREN: You do not want to answer it now? Okay. I

thank the Minister for that, because I am going to release it today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: No, I am going to release it today. I have

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has it.

MR. WARREN: Yes, I have the same report. I have given you

seven months now to release it and you will not do it. So, therefore, as of

today I will release the report. I have it here. The Minister is refusing to

release it to the public.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister just said: ask me the question in

question period. Mr. Chairman, I have had this report now for five months and

the Minister has had it for seven months and he will not release it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, I have the report.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did you get it.

MR. WARREN: I have the report, Mr. Chairman, and it is

going to be released to the public tomorrow, because you will not release it,

that is why. It is going to be released tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did you get it?

MR. WARREN: Now, where I got it, I will not tell you,

Sir. The media can ask me that question tomorrow and I will answer them.

Mr. Chairman, that report will be released to the public

tomorrow because you are refusing to release it, something that you have been

asked to do. You have had it for seven months and you will not release the

report. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this report does condemn this Government

and also, at the same time, it does give some answers, some reasons, and also

some avenues for this Government to approach. This Government has been sitting

back on this report since last February, Mr. Chairman.

MR. TOBIN: You have had it seven months, you cannot be

able to read and write either.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have the goods on him now.

MR. SIMMS: Haul in your executive.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, let me go through some parts of

it here, if I can find it, some of the recommendations. Not only that, Mr.

Chairman, but let me remind the Minister of his comments back in late May and

early June when the Minister said, in a paper, that the report will be going to

Cabinet shortly. At the same time the Minister arranged with his staff in

Postville, Makkovik and Hopedale to move the stocks off one shelf and put it all

on another shelf, and then get a picture and send it to The Evening Telegram.

They moved the stock from one side of the shelf to put on another side of the

shelf and then send the picture to The Evening Telegram. At the same time The

Evening Telegram got the real pictures over there but they will not print the

pictures of the real stores in the same condition.

Now, and I will tell the Minister that at the same time in

the last two years since he became Minister he is turning a deaf ear on the

requests by the people in Labrador. Let me just give you an example of what

happened this past weekend in the Government store in Makkovik. Let me tell the

Minister what happened. And my hon. colleague for Eagle River was in Makkovik

this weekend, and I must say he did a super job, a good job. But meanwhile the

people in Makkovik knew that there was going to be fifty-seven other people

coming into Makkovik the past weekend for the combined councils. Now, what did

the Minister's Department do?

Forgetting about the Government store that was servicing the

people in Makkovik. Now, instead of doing that they chartered a plane to bring

in turkey, roast beef, chicken and everything else for all the visitors who were

going into Makkovik. Yes, they chartered a plane to bring in turkeys, chicken,

roast beef and other commodities and fruits and vegetables for the (Inaudible) -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. WARREN: - (Inaudible) at the time of the combined

councils.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave?

MR. WARREN: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I'm only just started.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just a few brief

comments. I cannot let the opportunity pass to rebut a few of the comments of

the hon. Member. With reference once again to the hon. Member for Mount Pearl's

comments about the arena. I happened to hear the tail end of it when I was

outside in the Common Room. About my supposedly holding up approval. I guess, I

would suppose that was what he was alluding to. He did not really expand on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: No, I was not speaking of you, I was talking

of the Member for Torngat. But certainly this Minister did not hold up any

approval. I do not know where the Member for Mount Pearl is getting the

impression or who he was talking to. Supposedly earlier comments saying that I

held up approval. Mr. Chairman, Mount Pearl is no different than any one of the

other 500 communities in the Province and the council has to follow a process.

If they make -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: They are stuck with you in a real big way, I

would say. In a very large way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) one year left!

MR. GULLAGE: It ain't over till it's over.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Don't bet on it.

MR. WINDSOR: I will bet anything on it (Inaudible). Your

seat against mine (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: We'll see.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him to behave himself. Decorum!

Decorum!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Chairman, I was about to say before I

was rudely interrupted by the Member for Mount Pearl that a process has to be

followed, and it was followed for the Mount Pearl arena like it is for any other

request that comes into my Department. Approval to borrow $5 million is not just

a paltry sum that you would quickly sign, and it was not quickly signed. It was

examined and looked at. As every other request that comes into my Department.

The fact that I represent a portion of Mount Pearl - a very sizable portion I

might say - would certainly suggest that I am not going to delay any approval of

a project unnecessarily. And the Member is being ludicrous to even suggest it.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. Proof is in the pudding. (Inaudible)

proof is there. Construction could have begun in June. You deliberately delayed

it.

MR. GULLAGE: So, Mr. Chairman, I do not think any more

needs to be said about that particular item. I think obviously the people of

Mount Pearl are a little more sensible than the Member who represents a piece of

their town, and time will tell who is correct on this item.

The other item mentioned by the Member for Torngat was the

Labrador Agreements. Most of the Labrador work that