March 17,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 7

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I had the distinct pleasure of

participating in the Labrador Winter Games last week, including the presentation

of medals and the closing ceremonies on Saturday and, as Minister Responsible

for Sport, I do want to extend a word of congratulations to all involved - the

athletes, the organizers and the participants. It was a first class competition

and I think everyone present was touched by the warm feelings generated by these

games.

Some 450 athletes from twenty-eight of thirty-one communities

were represented in these games which are held every third year. The four days

of competition included, among other things, Snowshoe Racing, Snowmobile Racing,

Cross Country Skiing, Snowshoe Biathlon, Speedskating, Labrathon, Dog Team

Racing, Northern Games and Target Shooting.

The traditional camaraderie that exists at such games was

certainly evident as athletes from various parts of the region came together in

Happy Valley - Goose Bay.

We witnessed tremendous displays of sportsmanship among

athletes from the many different communities; however it was evident that

something else was happening as a result of this tri-annual competition - a

sense of community identity was being developed at these games. Davis Inlet won

its first gold medal ever at the 1992 Labrador Games and it was a great source

of satisfaction to all residents of this community. Community pride was very

evident all throughout these games.

I think as well that the individual athletes gained something

special from their participation in these games.

Communities throughout Labrador spent three years preparing

for these games, and I think the 450 athletes who participated this year have

reason to feel proud of their accomplishments.

The hospitality displayed by the host town of Happy Valley -

Goose Bay was exceptional, and everybody was made to feel extremely welcome.

It is worthy of note that over 500 residents volunteered

their time and energy, and this contributed in a very meaningful way to the

overall success of the games.

An enormous amount of hard work, dedication and determination

was required on the part of the planning teams and the organizing committee, and

I want to congratulate John Baird and his team on a first class job.

As a Government $400,000 was contributed to these games, and

in my opinion it was a good example of public funds well invested.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

I want to join with the Minister also in congratulating the

committee and all the athletes who performed in the Labrador Winter Games. I

think, at the same time, I want to congratulate the four winners, Dean Burden

from Eagle River, Alf Parsons from Menihek, Ann Morris from Naskaupi and

Charlene Evans from Makkovik, added to that, Mr. Speaker, I want to give special

congratulations to a young Indian boy from Davis Inlet, a young fellow by the

name of Ben Rich, who performed above any expectations and carried away the top

honour as the top athlete in all of the Winter Games.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, it is also good to note that in

1982, the first Winter Games were held in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, under the

former administration and it is most interesting that at that time the minister

responsible and the minister who opened the Winter Games in 1982 is presently

the Leader of our party, the hon. Mr. Simms from Grand Falls -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: - so, Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that

Government at the time was thinking that this was a lot of money to spend in a

region of this Province, but I believe the Minister saw this weekend that it was

money well spent and I think from now on, regardless of which government is in

power we should continue to support financially the Winter Games in Labrador, as

long as we can. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Premier.

Unfortunately, I am not quite sure when he is coming back, hopefully he will be

here tomorrow, but it is really then for the Minister of Fisheries, but he is

not here. I could ask the Member for Port de Grave, who knows probably as much

about fishing over there as anybody on that side of the House, for sure, but I

will have to be forced to ask my question of the acting Minister of Fisheries,

whomever that may be. Mr. Speaker, we often hear this Government telling others

how to deal with the problems in the fishing industry; the Federal Government,

the unions, the industry and so on. What we do not hear is what this Government

is going to do and we all know, because of the seriousness in the declining

stocks, there are going to be thousands of jobs lost, reduced income for

thousands of others of our people and, of course, lost revenue for the

Government as a result of it. One way to offset some of those losses in part at

least, would be to increase significantly our activities and our initiatives

towards secondary processing of fish products. I want to ask the acting Minister

of Fisheries if his Government has a program and plan ready and prepared now

this year to increase initiatives towards secondary processing significantly in

this Province, so that we can get greater value both in terms of jobs and income

from our fish exports? If you do have a plan, would you be kind enough to table

the details of the plan here in this Legislature so that all of us who have a

concern in this issue can help promote whatever positive features might be

contained in such a plan?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We all know that we

are now suffering from twenty years or more of gross mismanagement in our

fishing industry and this year the chickens have come home to roost and we are

now at a point in time where we have to make some very serious decisions and

these decisions have to be taken. The basic decision, of course, is that you

cannot harvest more fish than are actually coming into the biomass each year, in

order to have a sustainable resource.

Mr. Speaker, this Government intends to get into

diversification, it intends to get into secondary processing. At the present

time in the sense of dealing with the crisis that is here now discussions have

been held with the Federal Government. The Premier has talked to the Prime

Minister and so on in terms of what is going to happen at this point in time

with regards to the fishery. We have had for a year, or more, suggestions on the

table in terms of diversification and sensible planning for the fisheries which

unfortunately last year was ignored, but let us hope that this year it will not

be ignored. As to the exact details, Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that

under advisement and get back to the hon. member.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: My greatest fears, Mr. Speaker, have now been

confirmed because it appears they do not have a program of their own. Let me ask

him another question, Mr. Speaker. Many of our so-called underutilized species

are presently being harvested by foreign fishing fleets who are licensed to fish

inside the 200-mile limit, and the question that must be asked is: if thousands

of our fishermen and fish plant workers are going to be affected and lose their

jobs from not being able to access the groundfish fishery. Does the minister

believe that another way perhaps to increase earnings from the fishery would be

to develop for our fishermen and those in our industry here in this Province a

capability to harvest and process those same so-called underutilized species, so

as to replace some of the jobs that will be lost?

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

MR. BAKER: Essentially, yes, Mr. Speaker, that is a

direction that we certainly have to look at. I commiserate with the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition. It seems that every day he gets up in Question Period

he has another 'greatest fear.' He must be going through an emotional roller

coaster with the greatest fears every day.

The member indicates that his greatest fear has now been

realized, that this government has no plans to deal with the situation on its

own. That is a direct quote from what the hon. member just said. I will say to

the hon. member, this is a situation that we would find very difficult to deal

with entirely on our own. The situation was created as a result of twenty years

or more of gross mismanagement of the fishery by the federal government that

controls that management and is supposed to have managed the fishery properly.

Because of that, they have an obligation to put a lot of

their resources into a solution to the problem, and I would say to the hon.

member, certainly we cannot deal with it on our own. We can deal with it only

with the help of the federal government.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we all understand what the

federal government should and must do. We hear about it every day. I am asking

this government what it is going to do. That is the question. Can I ask the

minister then: Do they have in mind any plans for any incentives that they are

going to offer fishermen and processors in this Province to ensure that such a

capability might be put in place, such as that I just addressed? Do they have

any ideas, suggestions or incentives that they plan to offer our people?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, all these things are under

discussion in terms of the diversification of the fishery in this Province. It

is just too bad that the hon. gentlemen did not start that process some eight or

ten years ago when they knew what was happening to the fishery. We have a

forestry industry in this Province that is managed properly. There is a

sustainable cut that is allowed. That is the proper way to manage a resource.

The federal government has refused consistently to manage our resource properly.

Hon. gentlemen opposite knew it. It is too bad they didn't have that plan in

place a number of years ago.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, whatever blame there is and

whatever responsibility has to be accepted by me as a part of a former

government or anybody else, I accept. That isn't the question. We are living in

the present now. We want to know what this government has been doing, and

obviously, the answer is, nothing.

Let me ask him this final question. We learned, later on

today, for example, at a press conference, the federal government through the

Minister of Fisheries is going to be announcing details of allocations for the

underutilized species pool. I ask the minister, did this Province make any

representation to the federal minister to have some of those allocations

ear-marked for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as, I understand, other

interests in Atlantic Canada did, specifically Nova Scotia? Did this government

make any representation?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, during the last

two-and-three-quarter years this government has attempted to have input into

every single type of decision that could possibly be made in the fisheries in

this Province. We have tried time after time after time. There have been

innumerable meetings and letters. I am sure the Minister of Fisheries could

provide the hon. gentlemen with a complete list of what has been done. There are

a couple of pages of small print here as to the kinds of efforts that we have

made to have proper input into every single decision that was made in the

fisheries, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest to members opposite that until we get

some kind of joint management of what goes on off our shores, then the situation

will never be good. Until we can get rid of all overfishing, until we can get

rid of foreign fishing period, until we can do that kind of thing, and until we

have a say in the management of the process, until we have a say in the

management of the resource, a say in what is a maximum sustainable yield for

that fish stock, then things will never be right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope government

manages the fishery better than they have managed the economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: I have a question for the Minister of

Finance, Mr. Speaker. The minister indicated some time ago that Budget Day would

be this Thursday, the 19th, and we have since been told that will not now be the

Budget Day. We would like to know when is Budget Day and why is the minister not

bringing down a budget? He is bringing down, today, an Interim Supply Bill of $1

billion - that is what he is asking for - that the Pages have just circulated.

When is the minister going to bring down his Budget so that we can deal with the

real issues and policies laid down in that document, instead of having to debate

the useless Interim Supply Bill?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't want to announce the Budget date here yet, because we

are not quite ready to do it, but it won't be long now.

MS. VERGE: You should know better than to ask.

(Inaudible) 1971.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am recognizing the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, to the Minister: Recent enhancements to the federal

transfer programs are expected to provide an additional $31 million, I think,

this year to government, and we are told that, based on the minister's own

projections, because of the low cost of servicing the provincial debt, there

should be savings last year and presumably, again next year, of some $31

million. In view of this, Mr. Speaker, is the minister still projecting a large

deficit for this year and is he still looking at wage freezes and layoffs,

perhaps, in the Public Service to try to balance his Budget?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In due time, all things will be revealed.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister is full of

information, as usual. I think, in the last three years, that is about the 400th

time he has given me that same answer, zero information.

Perhaps the minister would like to tell me this, Mr. Speaker:

In view of recent announcements relating to Hibernia and the fisheries, is that

the reason the minister is delaying? Is the Minister totally redoing his numbers

and his projections for this year? Is that going to have any impact on any

understandings that might have been reached with Labour over the past number of

months, or are we now having more meetings with Labour to try to reach an

agreement with them? Or is it, as my colleague suggested, because the Premier is

out doing his campaigning across the country trying to make amends for the mess

that he has made in Canadian unity?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the member would repeat his question?

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

This is not normal, but if the hon. member wants to prcis

the question.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: I would be delighted, Mr. Speaker, to repeat

that question. It is obvious the minister is very slow at learning and very slow

at listening.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: In view of announcements relating to

Hibernia and the fishing industry, will the minister confirm that this is,

indeed, one of the reasons he is now totally revising all projections of his

numbers for this year, has that had an impact on any understandings that might

have been reached with Labour over the past number of months, and are we now

having more meetings with Labour to try to get a whole new set of understandings

with them? Or is it because the Premier is out campaigning trying to make amends

for the mess he has made within Canadian unity?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Yes. No. No. No.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the new Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, and, Mr. Speaker, I hope his answers will be more definitive and

less arrogant that the answers that were given by his predecessor.

My question is very simple. Does the government believe that

the Outer Ring Road around St. John's is needed?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: As the hon. member should be aware, Mr.

Speaker, the initiatives outlined in this particular aspect of the Roads for

Rail Agreement are negotiated each fall between the federal government and the

provincial government. Both governments determine their priorities and negotiate

there from. The list for this year has been finalized. Negotiations will begin

in the fall, and, at that time, decisions will be made respecting the Outer Ring

Road.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern on a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, that is not the question I

asked the minister. I am going to ask him again, and perhaps he can answer two

at the same time. Does this government deem it necessary to build that road? Is

it needed? That is the question.

Along with that, an environmental impact study, an EIS, was

done on the Outer Ring Road about two years ago. Does the government intend to

initiate another environmental impact study?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Is the Outer Ring Road needed, Mr. Speaker?

The roads needs in this Province are enormous. The question is not whether the

Outer Ring Road is needed. The question is, how does it relate in terms of the

needs in the rest of the Province and in the rest of the projects identified in

that particular component of the Roads for Rail Agreement? Is it the number one

priority, or is it the last priority? As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, there is a

process for determining the priorities on a year-to-year basis.

With respect to the environmental assessment, my

understanding is that the current provincial assessment is good until May of

1993. Therefore, there is no need to undertake any further environmental

assessment, from the Province's point of view, until May of 1993. I understand

that the federal government is in the process of conducting an environmental

assessment on this particular project, and I await of the results of their

conclusions with respect to their assessment of the project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern on a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the federal

government are doing a study because this project was held in abeyance by the

government. If this project had been acted upon, then there would be no need for

that study. I am asking the minister again, where is this prioritized? He just

said that priority has not been given to it. How about all the sitting St.

John's members? Do they agree with the minister? Do they agree with the

government that this has no priority?

Let the minister get on his feet. The unemployment situation

is desperate here in this area now. The need of the road, he just said, there is

no doubt about it. So let's get on the ball and put that money where our mouth

is. How about the minister giving us a definite date for the start of

construction?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, it is impossible

at this time to give a definite date as to when this particular project will

start. The only assurance that can be given is that some time between right now

and the year 2002, work could begin on the Outer Ring Road.

With regard to the priority, the hon. member has to realize

that these priorities are subject to negotiation between the federal and

provincial governments. Obviously, the federal government has not deemed it a

sufficient priority up until this point in time because it has not been started

up until this point in time, so, to lay all the fault at the Province's door is

somewhat questionable.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MURPHY: You gave the railway away for nothing.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DOYLE: You should be ashamed, 'Murphy'. You should be

ashamed - a St. John's member.

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

responsible for Works, Services and Transportation.

Could the minister tell the House what amount of funding was

left under the capital program last year for transportation in the Province? How

much was left unspent last year?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: I believe the figure is around $1.5 million,

but I am not exactly certain of the figure.

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

MR. WOODFORD: I think the minister, Mr. Speaker, is going

to have to check his records. But, anyway, the supplementary is to the Minister

responsible for Municipal Affairs. Could the Minister of Municipal Affairs tell

the House how much of the allocation for capital funding under his department

last year was left unspent?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, not a jingle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: You must tell the truth in the House!

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary. Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister responsible for Municipal Affairs. According to reports that come from

fairly good sources in both departments, a total of some $40 million - $15

million in Transportation and some $26 million in Municipal Affairs - of the

allocation last year was not spent.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WOODFORD: A total of $40 million.

Isn't this reason enough to consider the capital allocation,

municipal affairs, to be put out to early tendering, so that municipalities and

construction companies in the Province - and if they are so interested in

creating jobs - can complete their construction in the construction season? Does

the minister consider this important enough for that to be done?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: If that were true, yes, Mr. Speaker, it should

be reason enough. But there are other good reasons why capital works should come

out early, and we will get it out as early as we possibly can.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) January (Inaudible)!

MR. HOGAN: I didn't say January!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Perhaps he could listen. I ask

the minister: Why doesn't Newfoundland and Labrador yet have a

federal-provincial cultural industries agreement? Other provinces have such an

agreement. Here, civil servants started negotiations two-and-a-half years ago.

Would the minister tell us what is going on? Has the Wells Government relegated

this to the back burner, as it appears, or does the minister expect to sign a

federal-provincial cultural industries agreement soon?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I don't know of anything that the provincial

government is relegating to any back burner, Mr. Speaker. As far as I am

concerned, the negotiations and discussions are ongoing and when both parties,

federal and provincial, are ready to sign an agreement, it will be signed. It is

as simple as that.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister

give us some specifics? Where are the talks, exactly? How much progress has been

made? What amount is the minister aiming for in total? What share is the

Province proposing to contribute? When does he expect to conclude the

negotiations? When does he expect to have a Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador

cultural industries agreement in place and contributing to the arts industries

in this Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: With all honesty and sincerity, Mr. Speaker, I

would advise the hon. member that the negotiations and discussions are ongoing.

They are being done as expeditiously as I can have them done, just arriving in

the post.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not fast.

MR. HOGAN: It's as fast as you are, brother.

As soon as negotiations are completed - they are not going to

be done in public, nothing about the negotiations is going to be done in public

- the member will certainly be notified.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask

the minister has he read the report of the provincial Arts Policy Committee that

was presented to his government two years ago, and if so, what does he propose

to do about the recommendations in that document?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I am sorry, I did not get the first part of

your question because of background noise. But I think you referred to the

O'Flaherty report? As a matter of fact, the other day, Mr. Speaker, I spoke to

my ADM about that and asked him to wipe the dust off it and get it out as soon

as possible. I hope to be able to do it very shortly.

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

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

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. In the capital works

expenditure, and that is the one the Province pays 100 per cent for, not

cost-shared, what criteria does the minister use to determine what roads would

get funding in any given fiscal year?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: I am surprised that the member would ask that

particular question, Mr. Speaker. As it has been stated many times in this

House, the principles the government uses to allocate funding under this

particular initiative is fairness and balance, so the principles used to

allocate money under the provincial program will be an objective assessment of

the roads needs in this Province, based upon fairness and balance, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister visited

my district this weekend to find out if that was true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, each year for the past two or

three years, the members on this side of the House, for sure, I am not sure

about the other side, have received letters from the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation asking them to prioritize roads that need capital

funding. I ask the minister, what was the purpose of this letter?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, the officials in my department do

not claim infallibility. This was an opportunity to allow the member, who is

close to his district, close to the problem, who drives over the roads and see

the condition of the roads, to write the department and have meaningful input

into the needs as he or she sees them in his or her particular district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, not just the members on the

government side, but the members on the Opposition side, have an invaluable

contribution to make to the assessment of the needs in this Province with

respect to road work. That is the reason the letter was sent, Mr. Speaker. That

is the reason why the information was requested, and that information will be

used in determining the exact configuration of the roads program on the basis of

the principles outlined, fairness and balance. If hon. members don't want to

send a letter back, they don't have to, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that I

sent the letter back on each occasion that it has been requested, and let me

further tell the minister that two of the roads I prioritized are, number one,

the road to Aspen Cove and Ladle Cove, and, number two, the road to Island

Harbour in Deep Bay. In fact, Mr. Speaker, for three years it has been number

one. If that is the case, then, your officials know it. I have told you that the

roads are number one priorities and why is it that not one nickel in capital

expenditure has taken place in the past three years? In fact, Mr. Speaker, not a

spoonful of gravel has been applied to these roads. Why would that be if that is

the case, if it is done on the basis of fairness and balance?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, why has there been no money spent in the district of

Fogo? All I can answer, Mr. Speaker, is for the period of time during which this

administration has been in power. Obviously, other districts could ask the same

question. Why were limited funds spent in the Strait of Bell Isle, in Windsor -

Buchans, in Bellevue, and in Fogo? Why was Fogo omitted for seventeen years? I

can assure you, Mr. Speaker, if there have been no funds spent in the great

district of Fogo for the last three years, there is only one reason for it, and

one reason alone, that their roads were lower on the list of priorities than the

other roads in the rest of the Province, based upon an objective assessment of

the needs, regardless of whether the member sits on that side of the House or on

this side of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

the President of Treasury Board. The minister will know that the premiums for

the Blue Cross Insurance and the benefits have decreased as a result of

discussions between the government and the involved unions. Will the minister

confirm that these deteriorations in this plan also affect the government

pensioners, in fact, imposing greater hardships on these government pensioners

who have been subjected to the ravages of inflation for the last several years

with no increase from this government. Will the minister confirm that this is

causing further hardships to those on fixed incomes, particularly those with low

fixed incomes?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, once every three years, I believe

it is, we tender for insurance. We did that a year-and-a-half ago. The tenders

received were examined by a committee made up of union, government and so on -

government, itself, does not do it - and we accepted the Blue Cross bid. At the

end of each year, the premiums are assessed based on the previous year's

experience and this assessment again, is an actuarial assessment.

This year, when the assessment was done, we were informed by

Blue Cross that the process showed that there would have to be a fairly large

increase in premiums. In discussions with the unions involved, a conclusion was

reached that there would be a change in the benefits, so that there would not be

a big jump in the premiums paid, primarily because of the freeze year and some

other considerations. Mr. Speaker, that was then implemented.

I know of no other, more democratic way involving the unions,

their total input, their total agreement - I know of no other more democratic

way to handle that problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before moving on to other routine business, I just want to

bring to hon. members' attention again, some of our rules relating to questions.

I bring hon. members attention to Beauchesne's, Clause 409 and

Section 2 which

says: "The question must be brief. A long

preamble on a long question takes an

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

question should need no

preamble." I again carry on, on 410 page 121, Sections 7

and 8 in particular: "Brevity both in questions and answers is of great

importance.", and: "Preambles to questions should be brief and supplementary

questions require no

preambles." I wanted to bring that to hon. Members

attention because it sort of drags out Question Period. As the rules say, it

promotes a long answer, and sometimes it gets us into debate. The Chair did not

make the rules. The Chair's job is to try and interpret them, and I ask for hon.

members co-operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to

table the annual report, 1991 of Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services

Limited.

Petitions

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I presented a petition

on behalf of some people from my district organized by a lady from Red Harbour.

At that time I stated that I had the petition and there were more signatures

that were going to follow regarding the same petition. Basically it is an

appendix to the petition that was already presented. I have spoken to the

Government House -

MR. SIMMS: It is not a petition, it is a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Okay, a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have

spoken to the Government House Leader and the Minister of Transportation

regarding it. But in any case it is basically the same thing that the employees

of FPI International in Marystown are strongly opposed to the Department of

Highways policy on snow clearing from the Burin Peninsula. Our shift ends at the

plant at 2:30 a.m. and we feel that the roads leading from the fish plant to our

community should be cleared, salted and sanded so that we could travel home

safely.

What is happening, as I explained the other day, Mr. Speaker,

is the roads - the shift doesn't go on until two and a half hours after the

employee shift change at the fish plant and as well on the shipyard which has

created a tremendous hardship and concern, and indeed it has placed the safety

of the people who use these roads in extreme jeopardy. So I have spoken to the

minister, and as I said the other day, I am satisfied that he is working on the

project, and today I want to basically table this, Mr. Speaker, as an appendix

to the petition that I presented on Friday. There is an additional (inaudible)

1,200 names.

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: As the hon. member has indicated, Mr. Speaker,

he has discussed the matter with me. I agree with him that there is a problem

identified there in the sense of the shift changes with respect to the Marystown

Shipyard and the FPI plant at Mooring Cove, and that these employees are

experiencing some inconvenience on the highway due to the scheduling of work. I

have instructed the regional director to meet with representatives off the

shipyard and fish plant to determine if we can mutually resolve this particular

problem.

I did read the hon. members comments in Hansard of Friday

when he tabled the first part of the petition, which I was happy to receive. I

am also happy to receive the remaining portion of the petition today. I just

would note that in his remarks on Friday the hon. member indicated that these

problems were due to cutbacks instituted by this particular administration.

However, I would like to point out to the hon. member - and the hon. member is

well aware - that in the heyday, when there were no cutbacks, when money was in

abundance, when money was being spent left, right and center and led us to the

catastrophe we find ourselves in today, that the member had to write the former

Minister of Transportation under the former administration dealing with the

exact same problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: That right?

MR. GOVER: Yes, that was right.

The hon. member indicated to the hon. minister at that

particular time that: The union are not at all pleased with the performance of

the work force of your department. That was under the previous administration

when there was plenty of money and lots of resources and lot of equipment, when

there were no cutbacks, the exact same difficulty, Mr. Speaker. This is not a

new problem, but it is a problem we will endeavour to rectify.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to

rise today to support the petition presented by my colleague, the Member for

Burin - Placentia West, who presented a similar petition on Friday calling upon

Government to have a look at this serious situation, as it effects hundreds of

employees on the Burin Peninsula who travel to Marystown for employment, namely

at the FPI Plant, mostly and mainly, and the shipyard. A lot of these people,

particularly the people at the fish plant who come off work at two o'clock in

the morning, have had to wait on occasion until the highway crews went on at

four-thirty or five o'clock before they endeavoured to go home to rest after

working for most of the night.

So, that is the situation. The Minister has alluded to the

fact that he is taking initiatives to having it looked at, which I commend.

MR. TOBIN: His Deputy Minister, really.

MR. MATTHEWS: Regardless if the Minister's Department is

doing it, I think that is commendable. It is a serious problem. I say to the

Minister, he can rant and roar all he likes about problems with cutbacks. I said

on Friday that a lot of the problems, Mr. Speaker - even when the depot

superintendents and the district supervisor and the people who run the ploughs,

particularly the flyers that go back and forth the area, even a lot of times

when they are willing to go to work, they have been on the road so long that

they, themselves, have to go home and rest, I say to the Minister.

I know people very well, Mr. Speaker, who spend too long

ploughing snow. They are a hazard themselves by being on the road. They are a

hazard to themselves and to the safety of people on the highway. So, I say to

the Minister, it is a big problem. I know many of them who work too many hours

when they should not be on the road. But having said that, I think it is

something the Minister can have a look at and there could probably be some

changes or alterations made to the scheduling that can accommodate the people

who are employed, particularly at the Marystown FPI Fish Plant and at the

shipyard.

So I support the petition, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just want

to try and clarify a point with the Government House Leader. Yesterday being a

holiday, ordinarily we would have notice of what Private Members' resolution we

would be debating on Wednesday. It would have been dealt with yesterday. So I am

wondering if we can come to some agreement or if we can get notice as to what

Private Members' resolution members will be debating tomorrow so we can prepare

accordingly?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, this kind of catches me by

surprise, because I thought there was an understanding in place. However, I

wonder if the hon. gentleman could wait and, after we get into Orders of the

Day, we could have a conversation about that, and then I could inform the House.

I thought there was an understanding, and now I am beginning to wonder if there

is an understanding. So I would prefer to wait now, Mr. Speaker, until after I

have had a brief meeting with the hon. gentleman, once we get into Orders of the

Day.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to

discuss it after, but basically I was trying to get an understanding from the

Government House Leader last week, and really I did not get one, because it was

our Private Members' resolution last time. The Government has a number on. The

Member for St. John's East has one on that has been talked about for a period of

time. So, there really was not an understanding, Mr. Speaker, and I just want it

sorted out so that people can prepare themselves for whatever Private Members'

resolution we will be debating tomorrow, that is why I want to get an answer. We

can discuss it afterwards.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I would just like to add something to it. The

understanding the Government House Leader alludes to, I suspect, is the

understanding we had with respect to the resolution put forth by the Member for

St. John's East, and certainly, we had agreed on this side, to allow him to

present his resolution at the next opportunity. That would have been last week,

but he kindly gave way to us because we had a resolution dealing with the

economy and jobs. So, the reason the Opposition House Leader is asking, is that

normally, the next week's resolution would go to the government side, then back

to this side, in which case, that would be the Member for St. John's East

Extern. That's the way we were understanding it, but we didn't know if the

government is intending to forgo its opportunity tomorrow and give it to the

Member for St. John's East Extern, or not. That is the purpose of the question.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I should do this

in public, but what the Leader of the Opposition is now doing is pulling a nasty

little trick, and I think that's all I will say. Perhaps I would like to discuss

this with the House Leader, after we get into Orders of the Day. I hesitated

when I was asked the question because I sensed that something was happening, and

that there were certain arrangements made - and the hon. gentleman knows what

they were - That are now being gone back on somehow. So, I would like to discuss

this with the House Leader in private first, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will entertain one more

submission. The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to go - I mean, I

can't let the Government House Leader go unchallenged on that point, because

that is not the case at all. As a matter of fact, I am caught completely off

guard, Mr. Speaker, because I was left with the opinion that the Government

House Leader wanted to have one of his Private Member's resolutions done

tomorrow, so that is why I want to clarify it. We have no problem, we just want

clarification and we feel that this is the opportunity to clarify that, that is

all, we are not trying to pull any tricks at all, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair understands that Orders of the Day

was called; I didn't get which order or motion it was.

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4. The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you and

Members of the House, that I have received a message from His Honour, the

Lieutenant-Governor.

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

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

transmit estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for

the year ending March 31, 1993 by way of Interim Supply, and, in accordance with

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

House of Assembly.' Signed, His Honour, The Lieutenant-Governor.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message,

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

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

Supply, to consider the said bill, Mr. Speaker, left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

Bill No. 5. The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be able to introduce Bill

5, the bill that requests Interim Supply of the House. As members will note, if

you look at the bill, we are asking for an amount of $990,196,700, which, as you

see in the schedule, is roughly a third of our normal expenditures of

government. That will take us over three months or so, while we debate the main

Throne Speech, and hopefully, it will be passed before too long so that we can

have sufficient funds to operate after the new year commences. I won't read the

amounts that are there, members can read them for themselves, but I would like

to make reference to a few points. There is included in this bill, besides the

normal operating amounts that we would need, very few new items. There are

several that I would like to mention though, because it is appropriate that they

be mentioned now. One is the new current account programs and capital account

projects totalling $77.9 million. These represent the 1992-93 cash flow

requirements for new initiatives. The new initiatives comprise

federal/provincial road-bridge programs, $44.8 million; provincial road-bridge

programs, $25.5 million; and an amount of $7.6 million for the Atlantic Salmon

Management Agreement. The agreement is not yet signed but I understand that will

be the amount we will be paying off. So that leaves a total of $77.9 million in

new current account and capital account projects that would be included in the

$990 million total amount. The remainder of that amount is just the continuation

of ongoing programs.

Mr. Chairman, I have no hesitation in asking for this rather

modest amount. Last year we asked for somewhat more in our Interim Supply, but

let me have a few words about the fiscal position of the Province as we debate

Interim Supply. A few months ago, Newfoundland was highly touted by all the

people who write about the Canadian economy, as going to lead Canada out of the

recession, and the main engine for that was the expected expansion of the

Hibernia project, which would be expected to peak, not this summer, but next

summer. We were on this great road leading Canada out of the recession. And, as

you know, since that time, while Hibernia is continuing, it continues at a

slower pace, and there is some uncertainty out there in the general public about

the operation. Looking at it from the point of view of people in other countries

-in the United States and other parts of Canada - who do not know the situation

as well as we do, but whom we expect to buy our bonds. As you know, we finance

Government largely through our own taxes. That is our chief source of revenue,

and then secondary through Federal Government transfer payments, and then from

borrowings - borrowings to make up the current deficit and the capital

expenditures. Very important in that is the borrowing that we do on the market.

I might say that with the recession that Canada has been in, and the effect that

it has had on some provinces, that particular factor looms quite large as we

approach financing government.

I am pleased to say that this Province's reputation - this

Government's reputation - in the financial markets is quite firm, and we hope it

is firm enough to be able to withstand these downturns in the economy.

Members will realize that the strongest province in Canada -

Ontario - last year, last fall, had its credit rating dropped by both major bond

rating agencies in the United States, Moody's and Standard and Poor's, and

Ontario was placed on credit watch because of the elaborate program of

expenditures that their Government embarked upon.

Saskatchewan also last fall had its credit rating lowered by

the Dominion Bond Rating Agency from A(low) to BBB, and by Standard and Poor's

from A to A-. Newfoundland's is A- with Standard and Poor's. Saskatchewan was

downgraded and also put on credit watch. So these bond rating agencies don't

fool around. If a province is not fiscally prudent, the credit rating gets

slashed, and that means that it is more difficult to borrow than before, and you

usually have to pay a bit more money.

In our case in Newfoundland, where we are rated in the B's by

three of the four bond rating agencies, and with A- by one only credit rating

agency, namely Standard and Poor's, if we lose that A- it is all B's and it

becomes very, very important for us, because with all B ratings many of the

financial institutions, the insurance companies who buy bonds and the pension

funds, many of these are prohibited from putting their funds into B rated bonds.

That would mean for us, if we lose that A-, greater difficulty in borrowing, and

higher rates of interest that we would have to pay. It is very important for us

to maintain that credit rating.

I might remind hon. Members that in 1984 our credit rating,

which had persisted in A with Standard and Poor's for a number of years, was

dropped to A-. We take no great pleasure in that, but it was a result of

inordinate spending by the Government of the day.

I might also remind hon. Members that - I do not need, I

guess, to remind hon. Members - what happened to this part of the world, this

Province, in 1932. So we are being carefully looked upon by the credit rating

agencies - the people who advise the bond purchasers as to whether or not they

should buy our bonds. In this period of recession it looks no longer that we may

lead the country out of recession. But the one thing that this Government has

going for it is its prudent fiscal management.

What I want to read to you briefly here now, if you do not

mind, is a comment that was written by Standard and Poor's in their Credit Week

International last November: 'Newfoundland's Liberal Government has demonstrated

its firm commitment to fiscal consolidation since its election in May 1989.

Deficits in the operating balance, prior to the 1990 economic slowdown, were

eliminated ahead of the Government's own

schedule and within its first year in

office. Recent economic difficulties however have put operating balances out of

reach. Future improvement in the overall fiscal account is expected to be

achieved over the coming three years, primarily through expenditure restraint,

the involvement of the private sector in program delivery and improved cost

recovery. Limited flexibility exists in raising own source revenue in the short

run, given that key Provincial tax rates are already high. However, municipal

tax rates are low and Newfoundland only began to collect payroll taxes and

health insurance premiums in fiscal 1991.' They go on, and so on.

But the point that I am making is that the credit rating

agencies view this Government, particularly its prudent fiscal management, as

being a major asset. In my view, given the economic times in Canada, we are on

our way out of it, thank goodness, because of low interest and low inflation

rates and other factors. Canada is out of it, is coming out of the recession

slowly, but it is coming out of it. We may not be leading the parade this year,

but we will be coming out of it. It is the strength of our fiscal management

that protects our credit rating and enables us as a province to forge ahead

through these difficult economic times and even such setbacks as what is

happening in the fishery and the slowdown in Hibernia, and some of the other

things that are also happening.

So, Mr. Chairman, we are asking now for a modest amount of

interim supply that will take us over the period until the Budget can be

presented and can be adequately debated, and hon. Members decide how much money

you are prepared to give us. Thank you.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, the first thing of course that

we can say is, as I said during Question Period, why the delay in the Budget?

Why hasn't the Minister come forward now with his Budget so that we do not have

to waste time debating interim supply. There is very little information here.

There are no policies announced here. The Minister would have us believe that it

is simply a continuation of programs for last year.

That being the case, what is the holdup with the Budget? Why

is the Minister's Budget not before the House? Why does the Minister not put the

people of this Province - particularly the financial community and people in

business - why does he not put their minds at ease? Why does he not put the

minds of labour, and particularly the public service, at ease by letting us know

what the policies of this Government are going to be for the next fiscal year?

How can there be such a holdup? Two weeks ago the Minister

and perhaps the President of Treasury Board indicated to this House Budget Day

would be the 19th. The question is, what has happened in the interim period to

change that? Yes, we had an announcement relating to Hibernia, and I can

recognize that that would cause

some adjustment, but it does not take two weeks to make that

kind of adjustment.

There has been an adjustment needed to be made because of the

fishing industry, no doubt, and I for one believe that will have a bigger impact

on us than any slowdown in Hibernia, because it effects every community in this

Province and touches the lives of tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, so that will be a problem for us. Surely, God, it does not take

that long to revise the estimates for this year. The Minister is asking here for

$1 billion. Quite, honestly, Mr. Chairman, it is a blank cheque the Minister is

asking for because there are no financial details, there are no detailed

estimates. How do we know what this money will be spent on? We do not even have

a reasonable breakdown. The Minister gave us a list of $77.9 million, in current

and capital, he said, of new programs. He does not give us a breakdown. He does

not tell us what these projects are, this $78 million he wants to spend over the

next two or three months, but he is asking this Legislature to give him carte

blanche approval to spend $1 billion. Why could we not wait? We have two weeks

yet before the end of March. Are we receiving an indirect message here that the

Budget will not come in between now and the end of March? If not, then we have

to ask, why not? What could be such a holdup? Has it something to do with the

constitutional debates? Has it something to do with the Premier spending time

out of the Province and not being here this week because he is off trotting

across the country trying to gain some public support for the fishing industry?

That is a good thing for him to be doing, if that were indeed what he was doing,

but I suspect he is making more speaking engagements on the Constitution, trying

to make up his own case for constitutional accord, a whole process which has

consumed the minds of our political and business leaders, and thousands of

Canadians across this nation for the past year and a half because our Premier

scuttled the deal that was in place. He broke his word to the other provinces of

Canada. He broke his word to the people of Newfoundland and to this Legislature

by refusing to allow it to be voted on, and he and he alone has caused this

nation millions of dollars for this whole constitutional process, millions of

dollars in his exercise of trying to reach a new accord. He has set Canadian

unity back twenty years. Certainly he has set relationships between French and

The Premier and the Premier alone can take responsibility for that. I would

suggest to you that he is spending more time now trying to make amends, and

trying to improve his image across Canada. I do not know what political agenda

he might have in the long-term. It is interesting. What political agenda could

he have? It would not have anything to do with appointing a new Minister of

Justice from outside of Cabinet. That would not indicate that the Premier is not

going to be around very long. I wonder. Maybe the new Minister of Justice is

being anointed as the new leader of the party. That must make hon. gentlemen

opposite feel good. That is an interesting concept, Mr. Chairman.

MR. NOEL: We do not deny the Premier (inaudible)

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentleman is right. I will agree

with that, Mr. Chairman. They do not anoint leaders. The Leader anoints himself

over there. The Leader does not even consult the hon. gentlemen opposite. Nobody

anoints a dictator, Mr. Chairman. A dictator takes absolute power onto himself.

So I would suggest that he is travelling across Canada trying to improve his

constitutional and political image. He is testing the political waters across

Canada to see if he can patch up his difficulties with French Canada enough that

he might be able to run for the national leadership. That will be an interesting

contest.

But let's get back to this interim supply Bill. Aside from

the fact that we should not be debating interim supply, if we had a budget

document on the table now we could pass interim supply and say to the Minister:

yes, now we see your plan, take your interim supply and carry on until the

Budget is approved. Probably be approved in the next two or three weeks anyway.

There is a limitation on how much time we can spend. We could have our Budget

estimate committees at work giving a detailed study of the Budget and asking

some questions of the officials.

But there are a few obvious things in this particular Bill. A

few things that are painfully obvious. One thing is painfully obvious is that

the Minister has sneaked out again. The Minister does not like to stay around

when his Budget is being debated. But the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation has asked for 63 per cent of their budget. Now I think that

requires some explanation. The Minister of Finance stands up and says: we have

asked for about one-third of our Budget to get us through the first four months.

Well, he must know it is not going to take four months to debate and approve the

Budget.

But that is a standard procedure - to ask for one-third of

the year in interim supply. But he is being very misleading. Because out of

consolidated fund services, which had a total bill last year of $590 million,

the Minister has only asked for 0.4 of 1 per cent. Less than half of 1 per cent

of that $580 million. So then when you look at other departments you will see

that he has asked for a percentage far more than 30 per cent. Sixty-three per

cent of Works, Services and Transportation. Perhaps the new Minister - temporary

Minister or whatever he is - can tell us what he proposed to do with $185

million over the next three or four months.

I could understand it if I thought this Government had such

control over the Department of Public Works, that the Minister had such control,

that he had the $100 million worth of highway construction projects ready to

call tender and to award when the frost comes out of the ground. But we know

that will not be the case. We know we will see the same thing we saw last year,

where highway construction - and even worse, water and sewer and municipal

affairs - contracts will be awarded in the fall when the best of the

construction season is over.

Or maybe what happened is that work was so late getting

started last year, by design.... It is a good way, by the way. The Minister made

an announcement not long ago that his capital account is down by $15 million.

That had nothing to do with the economy, with a recession. That is not something

you can blame on Ottawa. That is because this Government has not spent the money

that this Legislature approved. It is because they have not carried out the

projects that they asked to carry out and received funding to do. That is $15

million of construction activity that was not available in this Province last

year. That represents quite a number of jobs in this Province. Why did the

Government not spend the money that was allocated to them?

MR. TOBIN: They never had any intention (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is right. My hon. colleague for Burin -

Placentia West is exactly right. They had no intention of spending the money.

They put it in the budget under capital account - which is all money to be

borrowed - they project a deficit of $54 million or $57 million on current

account, which was money to be borrowed, and then last month the minister comes

and says, our borrowing is way down. Why? Because we didn't spend all the money

on capital account, and because we had a little bit of luck, you know, we

happened to get more money from Ottawa than we thought we were going to get.

Interest rates are low. The Canadian dollar is low, and so are costs of

borrowing. The cost of servicing the long-term debt is down, so we saved $30

million there.

So, now, at the end of the year, the minister will come in,

in the next couple of weeks, whenever he comes in with his Budget, and he will

announce proudly that we don't have a $57 million deficit, we have a $63 million

deficit. He had told us it was going to go up to $95 million. Now, he has it

back down to $63 million, but we are better off because we saved $15 million on

capital, so we are actually $9 million less on our total borrowing program than

the government had asked for. But where did that $15 million go? It wasn't

spent. How many more of those contracts, because of the lateness of the season,

are contracts that are committed, but the money will expire at the end the

fiscal year, of course - has not done so yet, so the government can't show

savings yet, but at the end of the year they will. They will project in their

Budget even greater savings on capital account, but because those commitments

are there, they will have to carry over to next year, as the President of

Treasury Board knows well.

Is that why we are asking for all of this money up front in

the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, because of commitments

from last year being carried over on work that is not completed because this

government didn't invite tenders on a timely basis? They deliberately delayed

them, knowing the work could not be done - knowing the work could not be done.

Environment and Lands has asked for 45 per cent of their

annual budget, as has Fisheries, and Forestry 40 per cent. Why do these

departments need 40 and 45 per cent of their budget for the first portion of the

year? I know full well that there are some capital expenditures up front. There

are some contracts that have to be signed. There are leases that have to be

entered into. Why are we not given such information by the minister?

What control does this House have over this $1 billion? We

don't have the detailed estimates here. We don't know which programs will

continue this year, which ones will not. We don't know where this money is

going, because we don't have any details. If we had the Budget document we could

then intelligently look at these numbers and decide whether or not this

government should be given approval. Let's not kid ourselves. They will be given

approval. They have to be given approval or the Province grinds to a halt at the

end of March. So we can debate this for two weeks if we choose, but, in the end,

government will be given this billion dollars to proceed, and, as traditionally,

the Opposition will attempt to find out when the Budget comes in what this money

is allocated for, where it is going, what the government is going to do with

this $1 billion dollars and another $2 billion or $2.5 billion that will be

included in the overall Budget.

That is the basis under which a billion dollars should be

approved to taxpayers - in the knowledge of the policies this government

proposes to follow, in the knowledge of what expenditures they are proposing to

make, and in the knowledge of what tax burden this may cause to be imposed on

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

You are asking us to say, yes, you can take $1 billion of

taxpayers money and spend it, but we don't know what the implications are. We

don't know what that does to an overall budget. We don't know what tax level you

will have to impose, in view of commitments that are there that you have no

flexibility, because hon. gentlemen may not know - I suspect a lot of hon.

gentlemen opposite don't know that 95 per cent of the Budget is committed before

you sit down, maybe even a little higher. Ninety-five per cent of your Budget is

committed, locked in, and you don't have any flexibility. So when you are

talking about balancing a budget, you are talking about very little flexibility.

Alright?

The Minister of Education nods his head. He knows what I am

talking about, that that is true. The teachers' salaries have to be paid; grants

to school boards and hospitals have to be paid; salaries to public servants have

to be paid. Now, we can freeze salaries to public servants as we did last year.

Instead of giving them the 7 per cent increase on the average that is proposed

to take effect this year for all public servants, or basically all public

servants, we could freeze that again. I am told that would save just under $80

million. That would certainly make a big dent in the projected deficit. One

hundred and fifteen million dollars, I believe the Premier was talking about a

couple of months ago. We are facing $115 million, he said. Then I believe he

revised that down to just under $100 million. That is the problem we are faced

with now. As I have said many times through the news media, and, I believe, in

this House just before we closed for Christmas, that is a lot of smoke and

mirrors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: My time is up. I will have another

opportunity, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

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

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member criticizes the

Premier for working for parliamentary reform in this country. 'What good,' he

asks, 'will constitutional change do for the economy? What good will it do for

the fishing industry? It is the same old line that the members on that side have

been using ever since the last election, ever since the Meech Lake debate began.

Remember, the former Leader of the Opposition went on endlessly about there

being no fish in Meech Lake. Just last week, the present House Leader of the

party said that he supported the Triple E Senate, but what good would it do? We

shouldn't be spending any time on it.

But, at the same time, all members of this House know that if

we are to improve economically, we have to get more control over our economy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do away with the Marketing Board.

MR. NOEL: Do away with marketing boards. This might not

be - I am glad to have the member's support in my efforts to deal with marketing

boards. Thank you. The Member for Menihek, that was. I am in the process of

recruiting a small army for this endeavour and I am glad to have him join.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: But to get back to what I was speaking about,

Mr. Chairman. If we are to improve this economy, if we are to improve our

fishery, we have to have more say in how Canada operates.

Now, what ideas do we hear from the other side of the House

about how Newfoundlanders can have more say in how this country operates? What

better ideas do we have from the other side of the House or from anywhere else

than the proposal for a Triple E Senate, which would give us an effective,

elected and equal number of senators from every province in this country? Then,

the House of Commons, which is controlled by the two provinces with two-thirds

of the population and two-thirds of the seats, will not be able to do what it

wants as easily. Then the Parliament of Canada will only be able to act when it

has more support right across the country from the ten provinces. They would

have to do what could be approved by the Senate, and they would not be able to

do what would not be approved by the Senate. Every Newfoundlander knows that we

are suffering in our fishery today because of the failure of the federal

government to properly manage the fishery, and because of their failure to act

in time, as we have seen the situation deteriorate, particularly over the past

year.

The government of our Province has advocated lowering the

catch each year in keeping with what the resource can handle. Instead, the

federal government has allocated far more than the resource can handle. We, and

all the interest groups in this Province, the fisherpeople, the fish plants, the

fish companies, the unions, everybody has been advocating that the federal

government act on overfishing, act on the sealing issue, act on persuading

countries elsewhere in the world to co-operate in proper protection of this

renewable resource. But they had failed to act, because we don't have sufficient

clout in Ottawa.

Our minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr.

Crosbie, has probably done a pretty good job in trying to draw attention to our

problems and trying to have them solved, but he is only one person in a Cabinet

of forty that is controlled by Central Canada, and Central Canada is not being

any more enlightened on this issue - it might be waking up a bit now, but it

hasn't been - than it has been throughout history. They don't understand the

extent to which the failure of the fishery in our Province will cost Central

Canadians money. But this is the reason we need to have more influence in

Ottawa, so that we can continue making that case, so that we can continue

provinces with the smaller populations. Now, some of us are making progress in

this regard. I think we are closer to having a Triple E Senate created today

than we were any time in the past.

One major step of progress we have made was at the national

Liberal convention in Ottawa, last month, when we persuaded the Liberal Party of

Canada to adopt a resolution calling for the establishment of a Triple E Senate

- the Liberal Party of Canada, a national party, the first national party to

endorse the concept of the Triple E Senate, persuaded to do so as a result of a

resolution from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, why didn't you do it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: Your leader was up earlier today, saying the

time has come to stop talking about the past. What is to be gained by talking

about the past? What is important is what we are going to do from here on. And

what is important for this Province to do is to get more say in how Canada is

governed. If somebody else has a better idea about how we can do that, then let

them suggest it and we will all work on it. But, in the meantime, the kind of

constitutional reform being considered seems, to me, most promising.

I think it is time we had more support from the Progressive

Conservative Members of Parliament from our Province, and from the Progressive

Conservative Party in our Province in this regard. Instead, we have the Member

for St. John's East participating in the deliberations of the parliamentary

committee now, but not pushing this one major item which could do so much for

our Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which is -

MR. NOEL: The creation of a Triple E Senate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: - which you said you favoured last week, and

then you said you didn't think it could accomplish anything. If you had been in

the House instead of out -

MR. TOBIN: I favour abolishing it.

MR. NOEL: Naturally, you favour abolishing it, because

you don't understand how the Canadian Government operates. If we were to abolish

the Senate, then Ontario and Quebec would have even more say in how the country

is run. You don't have any answers.

MR. TOBIN: I would still abolish it.

MR. NOEL: Yes, you would still abolish it. Too bad

somebody doesn't abolish you; that will probably happen before very long. It is

no good sitting there -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the language of the

Member for Pleasantville is parliamentary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder what the hon. member is referring

to. I didn't hear the hon. member saying anything unparliamentary. I may have

missed something.

MR. TOBIN: Basically, what he said is that the members of

this House should be abolished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair doesn't believe that what the

hon. member said is - I am not sure of the context in which he said it. I will

have to go back and see Hansard, check on it and come back later with a ruling

on that.

MR. NOEL: Just for clarification, Mr. Chairman, and your

consideration. I didn't say that the members should be abolished, I said the

member should be abolished. Of course, I didn't mean physically, I meant, as a

member of this House, and, of course, that is something that is about to happen

before too long, anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: I know I would (inaudible) if you would.

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

MR. NOEL: You will if you hope to get back here.

The problem I have with the federal MP for St. John's East is

that he is trying to intimidate his own people into playing the game that his

leader wants played in this country. He is representing the interests of his

party, his national party - and I don't necessarily mean the provincial one, to

his constituents in this Province - rather than representing the interests of

his constituents in the Parliament of Canada.

Just the other day, he was speaking to the students down at

the Cabot Institute. He must have done quite a job, I must say. The reports were

very impressive. 'Our constitutional future,' he said, 'is very bright.' He was

very optimistic about what is going to come out of the report of the

Parliamentary Commission. Well, he is the only person in the country who

believes that. Even the Prime Minister doesn't believe that, the Prime Minister,

who is now trying to co-op the provinces into the failure of his process, trying

to make sure that responsibility for what happens from here on is shared with

the provinces so that the federal government alone doesn't have to take

responsibility for the failure of the process of the past two years.

Then, the Member for St. John's East said to the students of

the Cabot Institute -

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

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to have a few words on this Supplementary Supply

bill. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to get into constitutional

debate or anything like that today, but the Member for Pleasantville sort of

touched on it; he seems to touch on a lot of things that he seems to be advising

his leader on. He was the advisor to his leader on the Constitutional debate and

the Meech Lake debate, and now he seems to be the advisor for agriculture to the

Premier and to the Minister responsible for Agriculture in the Province. On both

occasions, I might add - the Meech Lake debate failed. Now, what is going to

happen to the agricultural one with regards to the Marketing Board?

Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on one of the things with

regard to this great invention we have come up with with regard to Senate reform

and what it is going to do for the stomachs and souls and hearts of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Chairman, if someone could convince me that a Triple E

Senate or a Quadruple E Senate is going to do for this Province - granted, I am

in favour of reform, no question - but if someone can tell me what a Triple E

Senate is going to do, that it is going to be the answer to all our problems

here in this Province, then someone should get up and tell me.

I will give you an example, Mr. Chairman, of what is going to

happen. We are talking about our representation in Parliament and how we only

have seven seats in this small Province of ours. Yes, and we have no say, I

agree, absolutely none, as far as I am concerned. It is a good thing, Mr.

Chairman, that we do have a strong minister such as Mr. Crosbie to try to stand

up for us. Granted, he is not going to get it all, but at least stand up and be

counted. Mr. Chairman, if we do get a Triple E Senate tonight, if it was

announced tonight when we left the House that we had a Triple E Senate, what is

it going to do? It can become equal, it possibly can become more effective, and,

yes, it will be elected. Now, if someone can give me some names of people in

Newfoundland and Labrador who are going to run for the Senate who do you think

is going to run?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WOODFORD: That is true, that is true enough. Who do

you think is going to run for the Senate in this Province?

MR. SMALL: (Inaudible)

MR. WOODFORD: That is right, the Member for Baie Verte -

White Bay said, himself. Probably so, probably other members on this side of the

House right now, and probably some members included in the House here this

evening. Who is going to run for the Senate to make it equal in Ontario, Quebec,

Alberta, British Columbia and so on? Who is going to run? If we had ten from

each Province for argument sake who do you think is going to run for the Senate?

We could quite possibly end up with eight Liberals elected from Newfoundland,

ten PCs from Quebec, six NDPs from Ontario, and when they all get in the Senate,

elected, equal and supposedly effective, how are you going to make it effective

when the vote comes to that? It is in their blood, it is in their system, what

they were before they were ever elected to go to that Senate. How do you think

they are going to vote?... along with their brothers and sisters that are in the

Parliament of Canada?...or are they going to vote along the lines that will give

them equal representation and be fair to the Province which they represent? They

are not going to do it.

MR. NOEL: They will vote to represent their constituents.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, you hope. That is what we hope when we

send people to Ottawa, and that is what we hope when we send people to the House

of Assembly, but the hon. Member knows as well as I do that there is no way in

the world - they have not come up with it in the past, they have not come up

with it today, and they will not come up with it tomorrow, to make the Senate,

or the Parliament of Canada, effective. You will have them elected, you will

have them equal, but if you can get them effective, I guarantee you, whoever

does it will get elected forevermore.

Mr. Chairman, the past is a wonderful place to visit but I do

not think any of us would want to live there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you agree with provincial equality?

MR. WOODFORD: I agree with provincial equality, but does

the hon. Member know where we are going to get it under Senate reform? Tell me

where we are going to get it under Senate reform? We are not going to get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)

MR. WOODFORD: There is no question. Like I said to the

hon. Member just now I agree with Senate reform but I am questioning the

effectiveness of it, how it is going to be effective. If someone can come up

with the answer to do just that then I will be on the bandwagon tomorrow

morning, but it is not so.

Mr. Chairman, getting back to the Bill on Supplementary

Supply. The economy is another example of how we stray and get carried away by

the constitutional debate. We have been for the last three years now talking

about Constitution, Constitution, Constitution. The only constitution we should

be talking about today, and I sincerely believe that, is the constitution of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the one they have to sleep with every night,

the one they have on their minds and in their hearts when they wake up in the

morning, and the hurt that I see every day as a member, every day of the week. I

have spent ten years, Mr. Chairman, in municipal politics and seven now, come

April 2, in provincial politics, and it is the worst year I ever spent as a

member in public life, the very worst. I have never been so frustrated, I have

never had so many calls, I have never been called on to do so much since I have

been in office these seventeen years in public life. Now, granted all the blame

is not from members opposite, it is a sign of the times as well, but a lot of

it, Mr. Chairman, is attributed to some policies that were instituted in 1989

and continued on in 1990. I will tell you one of the biggest things, and I do

not think there is a member of the House today that would not agree with me, is

the negativity that seems to come - well, naturally it is going to come every

time you turn on television, pick up a paper, or turn on the radio, but members

opposite, especially cabinet ministers and the Premier, are just going to have

to be more positive because perception is reality. You are going to have to be

more positive and more optimistic, you can try to be, as a member, no matter

what side of the House you are on, but there is only so far that can go when you

are preaching policy.

Mr. Speaker, I see it every day of the week, and members

opposite see it with children in the morning going to school with empty

stomachs, not because the parents do not want to work, it is because the parents

cannot get work. Calls everyday from people who will not go to Social Services.

There are certain people who will not go to Social Services, period. They have

to be down pretty, pretty low. They will not go and that is it.

Mr. Speaker, only for I heard a lot of members over the years

on the other side of the House complaining about the ACOA program, any members

on this side ever hear that complaint?... the ACOA program was no good. I heard

it from the Premier himself. Mr. Speaker, if you pick up the paper or turn on

the television or turn on a radio and hear about all the grants and funding that

is coming out through ACOA and other Federal/Provincial agreements, and this one

is federal.

Only yesterday I looked at the picture of the hon. Member for

Stephenville, a great thing coming with the Holiday Inn construction job or

hotel in Stephenville. Great stuff. I am not knocking any of it. We need it. The

more, the better. I do not care if it is in Stephenville, Port aux Basques, Deer

Lake, or wherever it is, we need it. God knows today. As the old fellow said to

me the other day, maybe members heard, he said: We have 90 people working with

ACOA giving out money and grants, and we have 262 over at Enterprise

Newfoundland taking the credit for it. So this Administration is going to have

to start putting some money into something. You are not going to have all

permanent jobs. You cannot have it. You have to start somewhere and try to put

some money in. Go back to what we had a couple of years ago with regards to

make-work projects or whatever they may be and give it to some communities to

try to let people keep their own self esteem, keep them working and keep their

pride because that is the last thing they have. Whether it is a federal problem,

a provincial problem or a municipal problem we are all here to make sure that

those individuals in our constituencies can -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: - at least keep their pride because that is

the last thing they have, Mr. Speaker.

The fishery is one of the greatest travesties that ever

happened to this Province as far as I am concerned. Now we can go on casting

blame forevermore. We can go back five years, ten years, fifteen years, twenty

years or what have you, but we have to address that problem whether it is us as

a province or the feds as a Federal Government and responsible for the

management of that stock. But this is the time, as far as I am concerned, when

you come to the crossroads. Something has to be done now. There is no tomorrow

when it comes to the fishery. None. And if all hands don't work together now we

are going to miss the only opportunity we ever had to address this problem once

and for all in this country.

The hon. Member mentioned that it is not important in Ottawa.

That is right. You are dead on. Do you know why? One per cent of the GNP in this

country comes to fish. One per cent. Make no wonder we have no clout in Ottawa.

But to bring it back in relativity with the Province pertaining to agriculture

that the hon. Member talks about, the same thing is applicable to this Province

when it comes to agriculture. That is why it is always behind. That is why it

has never gotten up on the top rung of the ladder in this Province. We have the

same thing happening to the fishery nationally as we have to agriculture in this

Province provincially. And we are not going to have it unless we can convince

the rest of Canada - not only Canada now, but certainly North America and the

EEC members who are over there sitting pretty getting the biggest kind of

subsidies. I was just looking the other day, and just the twelve EEC members

alone when it comes to Agriculture, $48 billion last year just on programs not

counting export subsidies.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Never mind about Canada. We can go on to

the U.S. The hon. Member gets up and talks about the fishery. How much is going

to the fishery? We could use that for everything.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Ask the hon. Member for Stephenville how

much of a grant ACOA will be putting in to try to put a hotel in Stephenville?

How much money was put into Abitibi-Price to try to keep it alive, and Kruger in

Corner Brook? How much money is going to be put in through ACOA to put an 80

megawatt mini hydro generating station in Stephenville to keep the mill going?

Does the hon. Member want us to keep talking about subsidies?

Take any member from that side of the House today and take out the guts of the

industrial sector in his community, and take it and see that it has no subsidy

and brother you are going to be some mad if there is nothing in it. Just about

everything we have in this Province today - just about everything we have in

this country today - is subsidized somehow or else has some protectionist

element in it. That is even doctors; that is even lawyers. You cannot practice

in this Province unless you are admitted to the Bar or write an exam in this

Province. You can keep on going. You have protection. So the hon. Member, if he

is going to start plucking straws out of a basket, he had better start getting

his facts straight, because if you want to use that analogy, sir, we won't do

anything in this Province - absolutely nothing. It can always be produced

somewhere else. Just remember that. The one that comes to mind most is

especially our paper mills. If you wanted to use that analogy and say that we

could not do it here because it costs too much, we are in trouble. We are in

real, real trouble.

Pertaining to the Supplementary Bill again, I can go on to

the fishery especially. The fishery, especially in the White Bay area of the

Province, in my particular district, is very, very important. So members might

look over sometimes and say, what does it do for you? It does a lot. It means

the life or death of communities in my district. It means the life or death of

communities in districts on both sides of this House. It has to be addressed,

and it has to be done in consultation and communication with whoever is speaking

for us in Ottawa, whether it be John Crosbie, whether it be Brian Tobin or

anybody else. We have to get off this thing about blame. Every time we get up -

blame. We are going to have to put our heads together and do something about it

in that particular sector of our economy. Now there are other particular sectors

of the economy that we can do something about. We certainly can.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. NOEL: I don't know what case the hon. Member was

trying to make. Is he trying to say that we have to build our economy on

subsidies? That is what we have to realize in Canada - that you cannot build a

country on subsidies. That is what got the country in the state that it is in.

We have such a fabricated economy in Canada, such a subsidized economy, that we

are not competitive with the world. That is being demonstrated by what is

happening in Ontario today. The manufacturing industry in Ontario has been

decimated because it is not competitive. It cannot even sell to its own people

who are going across the border to buy goods in the United States, which is not

one of the cheapest countries in the world either. We have a Free Trade

Agreement with the United States, and free trade is a good thing in lots of

ways, but I would like to see it with countries that produce more competitively,

more cheaply than the United States does. So Canada has to be looking at getting

away from subsidies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you stay up in Labrador for

another couple of days, boy?

MR. NOEL: We want to build our economy. We want to create

a better standard of living for Canadians. We have to realize that in the world

that is developing today, we have to get away from subsidies. That is why I have

gotten into this debate over agriculture, because the mouthpiece for marketing

boards from Kilbride a couple of weeks ago, in the interest of the

agribusinesses in this country, the big agribusinesses who are trying to

away from reaching a new agreement in Geneva, a new general agreement on tariffs

and trade, are threatening to make it impossible to reach a new agreement in

order to protect the farmers of Canada - the overly subsidized farmers of Canada

- the $22 billion industry, half of which is accounted for by subsidies and

fabricated prices - what are essentially consumption taxes being imposed on the

consumers of this country so that a few wealthy farmers can get even wealthier.

I know that there are farmers who have a bad time - have a difficult time - and

I know there are different kinds of farmers in different segments of the

industry, but the fact is that we are living in a world that is becoming more

competitive. The fact is that Canadians will be better off if we have increased

access to cheaper imports -

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you think of Free Trade?

MR. NOEL: - and if we have increased access to export

markets for our products and it was interesting that the Leader of the

Opposition today, brought up the question of: what are we doing to ensure that

our fish can be shipped out of the Province, more fully processed?... and that

is a very important thing for this country to be doing. That is where the jobs

are and that is where the profits are, but the reason we have not been able to

do much of that is because we do not have access to markets for these products.

We have not had access to the markets in the United States

because of tariffs they have against our fish exports. We had to ship most of

our fish over the years out in blocks, shipping away jobs from this Province and

jobs from our people. We are pretty well closed out of access to the European

Community altogether for our fish export, closed out altogether -

MR. PARSONS: Go way out of that; there was more shipped

to the United Kingdom last year than (inaudible), about half as much as there

was to the United States.

MR. NOEL: The hon. Member does not know what he is

talking about when he uses those figures. We ship a certain amount but none of

it processed to the extent it could be. We cannot ship processed fish to the

United Kingdom or to anywhere in Europe, and that is why we need to have a new

International Trading Agreement in order to open up markets for our exports and

that is why we cannot stick with these subsidies that the agricultural industry

They put out a report last year saying that the agricultural

industry has to move more in the orientation of market competition. We have to

get away from subsidies. The GATT team put out a report saying that last year.

Our own agricultural task force, in its report last year, said that we have to

get a more market oriented agricultural industry and that is what we have to do,

members of the Opposition who have been speaking lately, the Provincial

Conservative Party is pretending that they are supporting the farmers saying: we

are going to fight like hell to ensure that marketing boards and supply

management are preserved, at the same time, hoping, hoping that the GATT talks

will do away with it, because they know that is the only way we can survive in

the world of the future. It is the only way we can survive but they will not

come out and say that because they are intimidated by politics.

They are intimidated by the fact that 40 per cent of the

dairy industry in Canada is located in Quebec, they are trying to appease Quebec

again. They are intimidated by the fact that commentators believe that up to

twenty-five of the seventy-five federal seats in Quebec are determined by the

farming industry. The outcome, the results, who is elected in twenty-five of the

seventy-five seats in Quebec can be largely influenced by the agricultural

industry. So because they do not have the guts to stand up to these interests,

all Canadians are being forced to pay the price and our people cannot afford it

today.

Our people are having trouble putting food on the table. Just

yesterday a new report indicated that there are now seventeen food banks in this

Province. Imagine, seventeen food banks where people have to go out and beg for

food in order to keep their families together. We had one food bank a year ago,

we have seventeen today. 40 per cent they say, of the people who use the food

banks are children, one in nine children in Canada depends on food banks, they

cannot afford to put food on the table and one of the reasons they cannot afford

is because the price of lots of foods in this country is much higher than it

needs to be, than it would be if we do away with a lot of these subsidies. The

price of milk, butter, eggs, poultry, and cheese is twice as much in Canada as

it is in the United States, twice as much! Why are we putting up with that?

Now this is what we have to do something about. One way to do

is why I cannot understand why the hon. Member says he cannot see how an

effective Senate would do us any good. Well, the four Atlantic provinces are

interested in the fishery, for instance. The four Atlantic provinces now

probably have about 7 or 8 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. If we

had an equal Senate we would have 40 per cent of the seats in the Senate. Forty

per cent of the seats in a reformed Senate. Don't you think you would have more

influence if you had 40 per cent of the seats in the House than if you have 7

per cent? Can't you understand that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Why not?

They have an effective Senate in the United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: No they don't!

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said?

MR. NOEL: You do not think the Senate is effective? You

guys have to get your act together. One of the arguments you have been making

against an effective Senate is that it would stagnate Government because it

would be too effective, it would not allow Government to operate, like in the

United States. That is what you people said in the Meech Lake debate a couple of

years ago. That is what some speakers for your side said.

The fact is, they have an effective Senate in the United

States and they do not vote along party lines all the time. And in other

countries. In Germany, Switzerland, and in Australia. Because we all respond to

our constituents before we respond to our Party, or we should do so. My first

responsibility as a Member of this House is to represent the interests of my

constituents in Pleasantville, before the interests of our political party or

any other political party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find it

interesting to note that the hon. Member for Pleasantville said that the primary

purpose of an elected Member in this House of Assembly is to protect the rights

of the electorate whom he was elected to represent, mainly those in

Pleasantville. I find it passing strange that he was one of the advocates of

foisting the huge municipal tax increases, because of the downloading of the

Provincial Government, upon the residents who now live and own property in his

district.

MR. NOEL: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Pleasantville on a

point of order.

MR. NOEL: The reason that taxes have gone up in St.

John's this year is not because of the amalgamation reform. It is because of the

poor administration of the St. John's Municipal Council. Once we get

amalgamation done properly we will make sure that the residents of Pleasantville

get the kind of fair municipal taxation that they deserve.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Good ruling, Mr. Chairman. There is no doubt

that there is no point of order. The hon. Member very seldom makes any sense

when he stands, anyway. Of course, we all know that if the tax increase that

came about this year was not because of the amalgamation bungling by this

administration, then next year it will be because of that. Because we know that

that is what he was articulating for months.

Now we see that the Member, this former socialist, has now

gone so far to the right that he has become a right-wing zealot. The man now is

going to do away with the subsidies. He wants to shut down the breweries, shut

down the farms, throw out the chicken and hog farmers - there will not be a

person left in this Province who is in any of these industries. And the fishery.

He is to the right of Ronald Reagan, George Bush, you name them and he is over

there.

MR. MATTHEWS: He's right in Clyde's pocket, that's where

he is.

MR. NOEL: Who do you think pays for subsidies now? Do you

think (Inaudible)?

MR. A. SNOW: Ah. So now he is saying that the huge tax

increases that this Administration brought in were all because of the subsidies.

Sure, you are taking away the subsidies from people, this Administration is.

(Inaudible) votes it. And he talks about doing away with party line politics in

an effective, elected and equal Senate. Here is a prime example of what people

are against when they say politicians should change - that we should reform our

political process. He stands up when the economy of this Province - some people

have been suggesting that they use the common phrase, 'the arse is out of her',

and he is up talking about reforming the Senate. Can you imagine? With the

unemployment in this Province, he is going to solve the problems by this

electoral reform, or this reformation of the federal institutions in Ottawa? How

ludicrous. How silly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I do not have all the solutions, but I know

that some of the things that have been proposed by the hon. Member are wrong. I

do not believe that the breweries here should be shut down because they cannot

compete with the big breweries in the central United States. I do not believe in

that. I do not think that we should shut down the breweries, and I am glad that

we have this Minister of Development against that too, and that the hon. Member

for Pleasantville is not the Minister of Development, because the Minister of

Development agrees with me when I say the breweries should not be shut down. And

the Minister of Agriculture does not believe that all of the hog farmers should

be shut down, or at least I don't think he does. I don't think he does. I think

he has a bit more compassion than that.

It is strange, when the economy is so rough in this Province,

that the hon. Member gets up and talks about how we can change things in Ottawa

just by having an equal number of senators in the Senate. I am not necessarily

against having a Triple E Senate. What I do believe though is that I do not

believe it will answer all the economic woes of this Province, as this hon.

Member seems to think.

I think it is wrong to be misleading the people of

Pleasantville and the people of this Province, and the people in this House,

that all our economic woes are going to be solved - all the economic woes of

this Province will not be solved. So we should not be just guided over from

attempting to solve the problems ourselves by saying we are going to reform the

process in Ottawa. Why don't we start reforming some of the processes here in

this Province where we have a direct opportunity to do things?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) election now?

MR. A. SNOW: One of the things that one of the hon.

members over there, I believe, from St. John's South, asked about some of the

things I would do if I had the opportunity of being able to propose something

within Cabinet rather than what is happening now. I believe I could come up with

some things that could help our economy.

I live in the district of Menihek, Labrador City and Wabush,

and we are attempting now to stave off the attack of this Administration on the

consumers of electricity in western Labrador. I think it is fundamentally wrong

to guide a Crown Corporation - Newfoundland Hydro - to the benefit of the tax

coffers of this Province, and that is exactly what is going on in Menihek now.

We are seeing this Government direct a Crown corporation for a public policy

purpose. That is not particularly strange. A lot of governments direct their

Crown Corporations for public policy purposes. Witness the Province of Quebec.

The Province of Quebec directs Quebec Hydro to sell - make contracts - with

multinational aluminum companies and establishes long term rates for electricity

at a stable and cheap price in selected areas of that province, to attract the

aluminum industry to the Province of Quebec.

We saw Ontario Hydro, after the election of the NDP

Government, establish a multimillion dollar diversification fund to ease the

burden of the massive layoffs in the mining industry in northern Ontario. Why

did they do it? What was the policy function that this Crown Corporation was

going to be administering, or delivering to the people of northern Ontario? They

were going to be diversifying the economy in northern Ontario. That is what that

fund was going to do.

What do we see in this Province? We see our Crown

Corporation, Newfoundland Hydro, attacking the people of western Labrador and

increasing the rates by 300 per cent - 300 per cent, Mr. Chairman - that is what

they are going to do. We are talking about shutting down the Physiotherapy

Department in our hospital because they cannot afford to pay the electricity

when these rates go up.

MR. NOEL: You want more subsidies for Menihek, is it?

MR. A. SNOW: No, Mr. Chairman, the people of Menihek do

not want subsidies. The people of Menihek have been the cash cow for this

Province. Unlike some of the people from other districts. The people of Menihek

have been paying handsomely over the years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, they pay more per capita than

any other electoral district. They are tired of being the cash cow. They are

tired of this Administration making hamburger meat out of this cash cow, because

that is what they are doing to them.

MR. NOEL: You shouldn't have gone up there and exploited

them. Why didn't you leave it to the natives?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: Oh, my! When I presented my brief to the

Public Utilities Board it was on behalf of the consumers in Menihek. I was not

up there attempting to suggest that they shut down the brewing industry or shut

down the dairy farms, like the hon. Member from Pleasantville wants to do.

But that is one of the things that I would ask. If I were in

Government I would not be suggesting that the Crown Corporation would be taking

huge tax increases. Because that is basically what they are, when they ask the

consumer to pay 300 per cent more than what they are paying today, rather than

using that - the cheap electricity that is generated by Churchill Falls, now

given to Hydro Quebec, with practically no gain whatsoever to this Province,

what do we do? We allow that to continue on. We can take it back. We can get 100

megawatts of power back. We should be using that to influence industry to come

to our Province.

We shouldn't be just saying: leave that aside for the

Province of Quebec. We should not do it. We should take that 100 megawatts of

power back and offer it to an industry to locate probably somewhere close to the

resource. Which might be to some people's gall -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Humber Valley was wont to

mention about the negativity. I can understand that, of course, with the

preponderance of news, both Provincially and Federally, that espouses the

negative aspects of everything. Also with the course that has been undertaken by

many a different news media, that the sensationalism of negativity seems to be

the part that sells newspapers, that attracts listeners and viewers to the

airwaves, both radio and television. So with that in mind I would want to bring

forward, in response to Bill No. 5, and what initiatives the Government is

undertaking, some of the positive initiatives that have been undertaken by this

Government, and some general positive initiatives that have sprung forth from a

variety of groups, associations and organizations throughout the Province that I

am associated with as a representative of the district of LaPoile.

One thing I noticed when I first was involved in activities

in the Port aux Basques area and throughout LaPoile district was the initiative

to do with business planning. I found that when constituents would come to you

requesting information, they wanted to know: how do I do a business plan? I want

to start this up but I just have this big problem with trying to develop a

business plan that will be appreciated by those who have to look at it, be it a

bank or a financial or lending institution of the Provincial or Federal

Governments. So I need some information on how to do this.

Now, as far as the business planning and that went, I

undertook to get a computer program and offer this to my constituents through my

own computer, a business planning program. This was a bit of a help to some,

although not with the resources that were available at the time. It did not work

out as well as I would have liked, not having all of the time to spend on

helping people develop businesses.

So I am very pleased to note that the Minister of

Development's Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador has worked extremely hard in

this area, and now is offering to the entrepreneurs and budding entrepreneurs of

the Province business planning assistance.

So they would sit down with a person who would come in with

the interest in starting a business, they would sit down with that individual,

assist them in developing the business plan, researching some of the component

parts that needed to be researched, finding out just what is necessary for them

to develop their business plan in order to get financing either from Enterprise

or some other agency, bank, or other financial agency. This has been extremely

successful to date. As well, Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of thing that will

help us develop an entrepreneurial culture here in the Province.

Now you would speak of an entrepreneurial culture. Well, we

have a bit of an advantage over some of the other -

AN HON. MEMBER: What about (Inaudible)?

MR. RAMSAY: You just wait. The other part that we are

looking at is in an entrepreneurial culture. What do we have that other areas do

not have?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Clear of noise from the Opposition, we do

have a certain element of creativity. Newfoundlanders, by virtue of our

geography, weather, and the adversity that we have faced over the years are

possibly some of the most adaptive individuals. They can adapt to the situation,

they rise to the occasion, they can find their way home in a storm when others

may not be able to. It is through this initiative and ability, inherent in the

background and history of most Newfoundlanders, that will allow us to develop a

very strong, solid entrepreneurial culture for the future.

Now, in looking at entrepreneurs and those who are successful

in business throughout the world, often we think of Japan and how Japan has

managed, with the assistance I might add of the Americans, assistance through

the war effort and following the war, the infrastructure that was put in place

by the US government following World War II. Drawing also on the American

expertise in developing their automobile industry and other manufacturing

industries to what they are today.

Now the disadvantage of Japanese society is the fact that in

Japan they are a very rigid, structured type of society that functioned with

very little in the way of initiative and entrepreneurial spirit. It is done

along a very solid framework. This has assisted them in getting where they are

today. But for new ideas it is often that the world turns to America, Canada,

for the new ideas. We are the ones the new ideas develop from, and this is the

kind of thing that Newfoundland can take a very strong pride in, I guess.

Because we know, if we think really hard about it, that we can do it.

Now how has Japan gotten to where they are and how can we get

to where we want to be? Well, Japan, as a point, they have gotten into very

strong quality improvement initiatives, something that all of us should take

note of and try to determine that the best possible way of improving our

fortunes as Government, improving our fortunes as anyone involved with business

or associated, is in improving the quality of not only the product but the

quality of the service that is offered to the public. Also, in improving the

quality of the overall approach to business. The approach, the method of

business operation. This quality improvement can mean the bottom line

improvements that we speak of.

Now the hon. Member for Pleasantville speaks of ways to cut

costs. Well, there are many different ways for businesses to cut costs. Through

a quality enhancement program of any business activity that is supported and

developed through the efforts of Enterprise Newfoundland, in assisting the

individual business people, and also through the business people themselves, in

undertaking quality initiatives, developing a product at a lower cost, that is

more cost competitive in the world market.

Another thing I wanted to draw on. if we wanted to use

examples of quality initiatives, we only have to look as far as the local

McDonalds hamburger restaurant. A fast-food chain where the constant idea to

improve the bottom line is based on: how can we better serve the customer? How

can we improve the bottom line? Every day these initiatives are undertaken by

management of the individual stores and by the corporate management of the

company involved.

These are the kinds of things that will allow that company to

survive, as their is less money as sales may decrease, to improve the bottom

line situation, so that essentially that enterprise will succeed. Now, that

might be a large type business idea and not something that the average

Newfoundlander may draw on. But, of course, it sits as an example of what can be

achieved by an idea of an individual who is interested in getting involved in

business, something that can be achieved by someone who has the initiative and

drive, as an individual, to take the bull by the horns, start something off and

eventually work it into a very successful enterprise.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I note Hospitality Newfoundland and

Labrador; I remember looking through a document that they prepared just a number

of months ago that was a quality program for the improvement of quality in the

hospitality industry. It was a very interesting document and it was an

initiative that they had undertaken that is one of the first initiatives of its

kind across the country. I understand that that program they developed is now

being used province-wide and also nation-wide to assist the hospitality industry

across Canada in developing a quality program for its service industries, and

that is very important. Possibly it will grow internationally if it has not

already.

This is the kind of thing that this Government has tried to

support and encourage through Enterprise Newfoundland, through the establishment

in the Department of Education of quality initiatives and entrepreneurial

initiatives. It is very exciting when you get a group of students who are so

enthused about going to school because of the entrepreneurial program in a given

school. That is the kind of thing - the positive approach. You know, get rid of

the noise, get rid of the constant criticism and just go ahead with a positive

initiative. That is the way that we, I think, as people who are the custodians

of Government, who are the trustees who look after the public's interest in

Government -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say a few words in this debate as well, or on this

Bill that was introduced today by the Government. I have listened, Mr. Chairman,

to most of what was said here this afternoon, and I listened in particular to my

colleagues from Menihek and Humber Valley, and I believe that if anyone in this

House was listening, they would come to the conclusion -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you saying that (inaudible) get our

attention?

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Chairman, I am not saying anything

about your attention. As a matter of fact, I know that your attention span is

not that great.

In any case, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words on this

particular issue as to how it affects my own district and the money that has

been borrowed. When I heard the Member for Humber Valley today asking questions

in this Legislature about how much capital funding was not spent last year, Mr.

Chairman, and when I think of the hardships of people throughout Newfoundland

and Labrador, the people who have no water and sewer, people in my own district,

in several communities, but in particular in the community that we mentioned,

the Community of Port au Bras, for example, where last year they tried to dig a

well, an artesian well - there was no money - and in the end Government saw the

need, the critical situation that existed there so they went down and they tried

to dig an artesian well. They went 300 feet below sea level and still could not

find any water. There is not a well in the community that does not go dry in the

summertime.

Mr. Chairman, all of that is the problem. It is a problem for

the people of Port au Bras and it is not to be laughed at by the Acting Premier,

the Member for Gander. It is a serious problem that has been experienced in the

community of Port au Bras and, I am sure, in many, many other communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) could not reach (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Three hundred feet below sea level and they

couldn't reach water, and this government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: In municipal affairs - $20-odd million

announced and not spent, and yet, the people of Port au Bras had to do without

drinking water as a result of the government playing a charade game, a PR game.

Transportation again, $15 million not spent, and roads in my

own district and in this Province are not fit to drive over. What is the

government trying to prove when they come out with the grandiose Budget and say

we are going to spend all this money on water and sewer, X millions of dollars

in roads, and today we find out that there are $26 million not spent in water

and sewer and $15 million not spent in road construction in this Province. What

a charade!

Then, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs gets

up and says he dusted off reports in his department. What an insult to his

former colleague, his predecessor, saying he dusted off reports.

MR. R. AYLWARD: 'Glen', 'Eric' could be on the radio

tomorrow saying there is no dust on that report.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that would not surprise me. You know what

happened a few weeks ago, when they tried to take credit for which one of them

decided there was going to be no amalgamation in certain towns, yet the present

minister is calling out: 'Look, what I did since I became minister,' and the

former minister is denying that the new minister had anything to do with it, he

did it all. Mr. Chairman, I don't care who does it, but I hope this minister is

more effective than the former minister. I really do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whatever is not parliamentary.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Chairman, but that is about the extent

of the vocabulary of the hon. member and you wouldn't expect much more from him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come over here and advise him.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and you probably would be a good person

to advise him, because there is not much difference in either one of you.

Mr. Chairman, there were millions and millions and millions

of dollars in capital funding last year not spent in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a lie.

MR. TOBIN: Does the Member for Trinity North support

that? Does the Member for Lewisporte support it? Does the Member for Bellevue

support it? - the Member for Fortune - Hermitage? when the roads could be done

now. I know that area fairly well and I know there is a need to spend billions

of dollars, but what did the government do? they turned back $15 million in one

department, $26 million in another department and not a squeak from the Member

for Fo