November

7, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 66

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.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today

that two additional amalgamations affecting six separate incorporated

municipalities - are to take place within the Province.

The two new amalgamations include:

1. Centreville, Wareham and Trinity as one municipality; and

2. Badger's Quay - Valleyfield - Pool's Island with

Wesleyville and Newtown as one new and enlarged municipality.

The amalgamations will become effective as of January 1,

In both cases nomination day will be Tuesday, November 19,

1991 and municipal elections for the new and enlarged councils will be held on

Tuesday, December 10, 1991.

The new town councils will be enlarged and will be comprised

of eight councillors and a mayor. In each of the two amalgamated areas there

will be three ward councillors - each ward generally equating with the existing

town and the other five councillors and the mayor will be elected at large.

Transition teams comprising senior officials of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs have been assembled to work with the new councils and to

provide whatever assistance is required to effect the amalgamation in all three

areas.

With respect to the two amalgamations it will be up to the

new councils to decide if they want to adopt a new name. As of this time they

will be known by the combined names of the towns - the Town of

Centreville-Wareham-Trinity, and the Town of Badger's Quay-Valleyfield-Pool's

Island-Wesleyville-Newtown.

The new Town of Centreville-Wareham-Trinity will have a

combined population of 1436. Indian Bay was considered for amalgamation with

Centreville-Wareham-Trinity however the council was not in favour and we are

respecting the views of the council and the people of Indian Bay.

The new Town of Badger's Quay-Valleyfield-Pool's

Island-Wesleyville-Newtown will have a combined population in excess of

All assets and liabilities of the existing towns will be

assumed by the respective new municipalities as of January 1, 1992.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that these amalgamations will result

in a more co-ordinated approach to municipal government and in both cases I have

requested the new towns to prepare a comprehensive municipal plan which will be

compiled in consultation with the officials of my Department.

For the information of Members I will table descriptions of

the new boundaries for each of the two new municipalities.

It will be my intention, Mr. Speaker, to continue discussions

with remaining groups of communities with a view to bringing about, by

co-operation, those ones where there is substantial agreement and where

amalgamations can be accommodated.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if hon. members on both sides of

the House today consider and realize how important this particular statement is.

I am not talking from the point of view of where so many municipalities are

going to be amalgamated. I am saying that usually you go from the first, and

start coming down on a ministerial statement, or anything, when you come to

criticize it or do otherwise; but in this case I will start with the last

paragraph.

This is a complete shift, and I hope the Premier sticks to

this - the Statement by the Minister. This is something that every municipality

in this Province today, and especially the Federation of Municipalities, should

be watching and read - just the last paragraph: it will be my intention to

continue discussions with the remaining groups or communities with a view to

bringing about, by co-operation - very important, Mr. Speaker, those words -

where there is substantial agreement, and where amalgamations can be

accommodated. The very three subjects that we have been talking about since last

June, over a year ago.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Minister must have gotten through

to the Premier and the rest of the Ministers in Cabinet, and finally they are

starting to come around. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the

rest of the municipalities that are supposed to be amalgamated in this Province

are this evening going to be wiping the sweat off their brow, I can assure you.

They are going to be very happy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: If that is the case, and I notice again on

the second page, that the Minister said that Indian Bay did not want to join,

were not in favour, and he let them stay out. That is the way it should be done.

The concept was always right. The approach was wrong, Mr. Speaker. If this is

the case, this is a complete shift from what the Government has been doing up to

this point.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour tabled the

report of the Workers' Compensation Board Statutory Review Committee. This

report suggests some sweeping changes to the way the Workers' Compensation Board

is to operate.

The report seems to take particular aim at some of the most

vulnerable people in the Province, the injured worker. Since the Minister, in

his statement, said yesterday that stakeholders will only have an opportunity to

comment on the recommendations in writing, does not give much chance for input.

Is it the intention of the Minister to solve the problems of the Workers'

Compensation Board by assaulting the injured workers of this Province?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am really a little

disappointed, I guess, that the hon. Member, at the conclusion of his question,

would even suggest that we would consider doing such a thing.

As I indicated in the statement yesterday, over the next

couple of months - he stresses the word 'comment' which was used in my statement

- I would remind the hon. Member and all present, that everyone who had an

interest in the workers' compensation system was given an extensive and

exhaustive opportunity to present his views about everything and anything to do

with the workers' compensation system in Newfoundland, through the review

committee. The only thing they did not have an opportunity to see, say or do or

have discussion involved with it, are the direct specific recommendations in the

report; they will be given an opportunity to pass along their comments with

relation to how they react and how they consider the specific recommendations

arising from that extensive and exhaustive review committee process. So, we do

not see any need, and I have no intention of going back and trying by myself to

do again what the review committee just spent six months doing.

But we believe it is very important for them to have an

opportunity to give us and pass along their opinions as to how they feel about

the recommendations and it is by no means the intention of this Government to do

anything harmful to the workers involved in this system, but in fact to make

sure that the long term viability of the system is maintained so that there can

be a continuing benefit for injured workers in Newfoundland and Labrador for the

foreseeable future.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Let me ask the Minister: how can the

committee report be independent when the Chairman was the Deputy Minister of

Labour at the time, and furthermore, the minority report that the Minister

failed to allude to yesterday, suggests there is some $5 million reserved for

health and safety, of which only about $2.5 million was spent. Can the Minister

explain why this occurred, why only about half of the allocated money was spent,

when safety and labour practices could ultimately reduce the number of claims

that come to the Workers' Compensation Board? Why is not the total $5 million

spent?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Yes. Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

I can only answer in response to that question that in the

term of office of this Administration, what we have been doing is steadily

increasing the amount of that money that has been spent on an annual basis and

we recognize that it is allocated. When we are confident that we have

appropriate programmes to allocate and use all of that funding in a meaningful

fashion directed towards safety and prevention in the workplace, then we will

have no hesitation to use the monies.

In years previous even less monies from that pot were used on

an annual basis by the previous administration.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: My question is again to the minister. The

report also makes reference to the lack of medical expertise, especially

specialists. Has the minister any indication of how much the increased cost to

the Workers' Compensation Board has been as a result of the inefficient health

system that this administration now has in place in this Province?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: I might point out, Mr. Speaker, in response

to the question, that the system currently in place with Workers' Compensation

in this Province is not one that was put in place by this administration. We

have been continuing on with a system that has been here for a long time. Right

now, the very process - the five-year review - was required, and in the last

five-year review, I might point out that in 1986, with a review conducted while

the previous administration was in office, there were in excess of some thirty

recommendations made. The report never was tabled in the House of Assembly,

never saw the light of day, and absolutely none of the recommendations were

acted upon; because the previous administration knew that the Workers'

Compensation system was in some financial difficulty, they chose not to face up

to it, they did not make the information public, and they did absolutely nothing

about it. We are trying our best by alerting everybody, the workers, the

employers, and the people generally, that there is a problem and that we are

going to endeavour in every way possible to deal with the problems in a

meaningful fashion so that we can save the Workers' Compensation system from

further deterioration and difficulty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

This report also recommends a substantial reduction in

benefits paid to injured workers. Let me ask the minister this: would these

reductions apply across the board also to those who are presently receiving

benefits, many of whom are already tied into long-term financial commitments, or

would it only apply to those workers injured after the date of the

implementation?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there have been no decisions

taken as the hon. member opposite well knows. We will consider all of these

items, and we hope, as I mentioned in the statement yesterday, to be in a

position to make some firm decisions sometime early in the new year. We do not

want to unnecessarily delay the decisions that have to be taken, because the

report clearly shows that the Workers' Compensation system is in a serious

deficit position and that some action has to be taken. Whether or not the

reduction will occur, as indicated in the report, will be decided in due course,

and what, in effect, that will do with current claims, whether there will be any

retroactivity, and so on, will all be decided at that time.

Everyone, before then, will have an opportunity to suggest to

us whether what you just proposed in your question should or should not happen.

These suggestions also would give us some indication as to what should happen

this time, compared to the changes that were made in 1984. At that time, the

previous administration agreed that going from the old disability system to the

wage loss system, everyone on claim previous to that be changed over to the new

system, even though their benefits had been determined on the old system - one

of the things we consider to have been probably a mistake at the time. That was

one of the contributing factors to creating the rather large unfunded liability

and deficit position within the Workers' Compensation system that exists today.

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

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

Minister of Social Services. Yesterday, the minister told me that the Social

Services' caseload was up by 12 per cent. I would like to thank the minister for

giving me that figure. It was obtainable but he was good enough to give it to

me. I would just like to ask the minister if he could tell us, in real terms and

numbers, how many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians does this represent who are

presently on social assistance in the Province? What sort of a situation are we

facing?

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

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will have to take

under advisement the question that the hon. member is asking about specific

numbers. I will give him the projections he is asking for at a later time.

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

supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the minister

doesn't have the number, which I think he should have, being the Minister of

Social Services. An increase of 12 per cent is a large increase in the social

assistance caseload. I ask the minister: in light of the fact that the social

assistance caseload is up by 12 per cent, what specifically is the minister

planning to do for those people who are on social assistance in this Province?

This is a very serious situation. How does he plan to address it?

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

MR. HOGAN: I have advised the member already, Mr.

Speaker, that the caseload has increased by an estimated 12 per cent, and I told

him I would get the specific information for him at a later time. I apologize

that I do not have it for him today, as I had intended.

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

MR. HODDER: The question was, Mr. Speaker, what is the

minister going to do about the estimated 12 per cent, which possibly could be 20

per cent, increase in the caseload in Social Services.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are still several months left before

the Budget comes down and the district offices have been told that funds have

all been spent for community development projects. Now, if this is the case, how

does the minister intend to deal with those presently on the caseload and those

individuals who will shortly become part of the caseload? How does the minister

intend to deal with those thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are

going on social assistance and who are looking for work, if the community

development projects funding has run out? How does he plan to deal with that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HOGAN: The community development funding has run out,

Mr. Speaker, and the emergency response monies have also come to an end. The

department will continue to deliver social assistance services to recipients as

they have in the past.

MR. TOBIN: What are you going to do? What are you going

to do? That is the question.

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

Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My question, as well, is for the Minister of Social Services.

He just said that the funding for the community development program has run out.

I understand a directive has gone to the district offices saying that as of

November 4 - in the last few weeks there has been recognition that it is not

only those on social assistance who need some help; and the recent community

development program provided a little more flexibility and latitude. I just want

to ask the minister: what does he intend to do for those people out and about

the Province who needed employment under the program, and how does he go about

fulfilling their employment needs?

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, the program has indeed run out as

indicated and the monies, I guess, that have been spent have been directed at

developing some 1500 jobs, so far. So this -

AN HON. MEMBER: $14 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Could I have order, Mr. Speaker, please?

The projected number of jobs will be around 1800, and the

monies for community development, in this particular case, have been spent and

that is all can be done about it.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think there is more that can be done about it, Mr. Speaker.

I would hope that the Minister, by the way, intends to table the list. There

were people contacted out and about the Province, promised jobs, told to come to

work under the community development program and then were called back and told

that they could not come to work because the Department had overcommitted. In

some of these cases in some district offices, part of the condition of

employment was that the proposed workers or the called workers were supposed to

purchase rubbers and other rain gear as a condition of employment, and then were

called back a few days afterwards and told there was no job.

So, I would like to ask the Minister what he intends to do in

those situations, and would he give serious consideration to having his district

offices out and about the Province do a very quick analysis on the numbers of

people who were called and promised employment, and see if there is some way he

can come up with funding to employ those people who were given hope of

employment and later called and told they did not have a job?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HOGAN: I didn't know that any directive went out

pertaining to the purchase of rubbers and chain saws and such items as this. It

is unknown to me. It did not come from my particular office anyway, Mr. Speaker.

There was some lack of communication in the beginning because the target, at

which we were addressing the funds for employment, had broadened, and there was

a misconception and a misunderstanding out there. There was no directive

pertaining the supply of materials or head protection or rubbers or chain saws

or anything of that nature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

To the President of Treasury Board: In light of The

Supplementary Supply Bill that is being debated in the Legislature now, I am

wondering if the President of Treasury Board, in consultation with the Minister

of Social Services, would give serious consideration to increasing The

Supplementary Supply Bill, particularly the allocation to the Department of

Social Services for the community development program, by the amount sufficient

to take care of those people who were called and told they were going to have

jobs and were later called and told, there is no job for you? I am wondering if

the President of Treasury Board would give serious consideration to providing

enough funding in this Supplementary Supply Bill to take care of those people,

as well as those who have already been employed?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a rather strange question, seeing as The Supplementary

Supply Bill has been held up on the basis that they are not satisfied with us

spending this money, Mr. Speaker. That is the basis on which they have been

holding up the bill. So, it is a rather strange question.

My answer is very simple, Mr. Speaker, that this is not some

kind of a game we are playing in this Institution. It is not simply a matter of

putting your hand up in the air and plucking an extra $10 million here and an

extra $10 million there and putting it here, there and everywhere else. That is

not what we are into. This is a very serious situation and a very serious

problem that we find ourselves in at this point in our history. So, it is not as

simple as all that.

Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that we are in the mess we are

in now, if that was the attitude in the previous Cabinet that ran this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the President of

Treasury Board might think it is a game but those people on social assistance do

not think it is very funny at all.

Let me ask another question to the Minister of Social

Services, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware or would he tell us what the policy

of the Department is when a person who is on social assistance, who is totally

dependent on funding from the Minister's Department for their existence, has a

physical problem that justifies, that qualifies him, basically, for special

assistance, special funding for special equipment? Would the Minister tell us

what the policy is in requiring that person to have a medical certification of

that and who would pay for that medical certification?

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

MR. HOGAN: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, from my

knowledge of it, each case is treated specifically and there is no set policy.

Where there are specific needs under specific circumstances, the Department is

most sympathetic in providing whatever assistance can be provided.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister is accurate on that, but that was not the

question. There is indeed funding available for special needs. My question is:

How does a person qualify for that funding? Let me tell the Minister that his

Department requires a person to have a letter from a doctor saying that: Mrs.

Smith needs such and such an item. On the strength of a medical examiner or a

doctor's letter, then the social worker does have a fund that he or she can

access to provide it. The thing is if that person is on social assistance we all

know that they have very basic amounts of money to spend. How does that person

find the money to pay for the medical examination that is required by the

Department to certify to them that this person needs special assistance?

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

MR. HOGAN: If I am not misunderstanding the hon. Member

the particular recipient of social services in consultation with their worker

goes to the Department with the specific need for that specific occasion. I do

not think there is any set policy to say that because you are such and such you

get such and such. I think each case is treated individually on the particular

needs of the individual case.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, probably I am not expressing

myself well to the Minister. Let me tell the Minister this, if I might, Mr.

Speaker, that I am speaking of a specific example of a constituent of mine,

obviously I will not use the name, but I would be happy to give the Minister the

name in private if he wants to check it out. I have a lady who has some medical

problems, well documented that the Department is well aware of, and this lady

needs a special bed. She now has a bed that was provided by the Department which

is the cheapest that can be bought in Newfoundland, basically. Because of her

physical problems she needs a bed that provides much better support. There is no

disagreement on it. In order for the social worker to provide the special

funding to buy that bed this lady needs a letter from her doctor. Her doctor

says pay me $25.00 dollars and I will give you the letter you require. The lady

is on social assistance. She is destitute and she does not have $25.00. The

Minister's Department does not have a policy of paying the $25.00, and MCP

cannot pay it because it is a referral by a third party and the MCP Act clearly

says that MCP cannot pay for that medical examination, the results of which go

to the Department of Health, who certified to the welfare worker that this

medical case qualifies for special consideration. How does this poor lady who is

living on a starvation amount of money from social services find the $25.00 to

pay her doctor to give her a letter to take to social services so she can get a

bed that is fit for her to sleep on?

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

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would be delighted to talk about the specific case to the

Member. Again I would say and reiterate, where there is a specific hardship I am

sure there are discretionary powers for either the social worker or the social

worker's supervisor to address this particular item.

If the hon. Member is trying to get me to commit myself to

him, I will commit myself to him, and I will consult on this particular and

specific case. My sympathy would be with the lady - on the information that he

has given so far - who has a particular hardship, and we would address it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, one final, very quick

supplementary. Let me say that I am not at all being critical of the social

worker. The particular social worker in this case has gone out of his way to

help this lady. He has no mechanism. My final question to the Minister or to the

Government: would you please put in place a policy that allows your social

workers to pay the twenty-five dollars so this poor lady can get her bed and two

or three other things that she would qualify for? That is all. A very small

amount of money.

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

MR. HOGAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the

hon. Member that the district office or the supervisor or the social worker or

all hands have the discretionary authority to do that already, and probably do

not use it.

AN HON. MEMBER: They do not, no.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is also to

the Minister of Social Services. The Minister, in answering the lead question to

the Member for Port au Port, said that his special programme funding has now

been exhausted. This includes the funding being discussed under interim supply.

In fact, the programme has been overspent.

In light of the fact that his own social workers will tell

you there are ever-increasing lineups at the doors, that when they arrive in the

morning they have a lineup, when they leave at night there are still people

waiting, how does the Minister plan to address the needs of this ever-increasing

work load for the rest of the year?

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

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member is

correct, the caseload is increasing gradually. At a much slower pace though then

we had anticipated. The works programme that we have in place now, no doubt,

will address some of that and probably slow it down even further. But in

anticipation of that the Department is preparing to reorganize, or deploy the

troops, if you want to call it that, to do more frontline and front office work,

or district office work, to address any extra caseload that might come into

being.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. We have seen an

increase of 20 per cent, I believe, from 1989 to 1990, another 12 per cent

increase or more this year, in the work load. When the Minister's Department

came out as part of the Government programme to address special needs out there

in relation to employment, the statement from the Department said they would not

only hire people involved with social assistance or in receipt of social

assistance, but also those who have run out of UI, those about to run out, those

who are in need. What percentage of the people hired under the Minister's new

programme is in effect people who are not in receipt, or regularly in receipt,

of social assistance?

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

MR. HOGAN: I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that the percentage

is rather high. It comes out at about 43 per cent: 18 per cent of those hired

are able-bodied single people, the other 25 per cent in theory is married people

who have stamps and do not have enough stamps to qualify for UI and various

scenarios. But I am told 43 per cent of the people who have been hired to date

come in the area of not being social service recipients. But I have some doubts

about it. I would rather say it is around 35 per cent.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is aware

that already a lot of people have been advised they were going to be hired by

the programme and have then been told that they would not be hired. Will the

Minister tell us, how many people have been employed in his own district on

these programmes? How many people were called back and told that they could not

be hired on the programmes that were put in place?

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

MR. HOGAN: I do not have those specific figures, Mr.

Speaker, but I will endeavour to get them for the hon. Member.

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

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

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. The Government, and previous

governments, have recognized the high cost of air travel between Labrador and

the island portion of the Province. Of course, in 1968 there was a Labrador

travel subsidy programme introduced to help in the disparity in this high cost.

The Minister is aware of the shortfall in funds budgeted for the programme this

year, as a matter of fact the approximate $312,000 allocated for the year has

now either been spent or is committed, and yet, half the fiscal year is

remaining. Can the Minister assure the people of Labrador that the necessary

funds will be made available to assist those affected groups who need this

travel assistance?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as the Member knows, the

programme for travel subsidy for sport and culture in Labrador is administered

locally in Labrador by a committee responsible, and that committee of course saw

fit to spend and allocate all of the monies available in the first half of the

fiscal year, and unfortunately, rather than spread it over the entire fiscal

year and over a broader range of sport and cultural activities, they saw fit to

spend it up front in the first six months, which creates a very difficult

problem in that we do not have extra monies available in my department to

facilitate the balance of the year and the groups that would like to access this

particular programme. We are looking at it, Mr. Speaker, but as of this time, we

just do not have extra funding available to add to the programme.

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

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: I wonder if the Minister is aware of the

number of people affected. It is my understanding that in Happy Valley - Goose

Bay as an example, cross country skiing, alpine skiing, judo wrestling, fencing,

bowling, swimming and figure skating are going to be affected; these people will

not have a subsidy to travel to the Island portion of the Province, while in

western Labrador, sports of cross country skiing, alpine skiing, volleyball,

basketball, darts, curling, figure skating, swimming, synchronized swimming and

broomball will be affected.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a case of the committee not doing

their job, but is it not a fact that there was not enough money allocated or

budgeted for and, is not the increase in travel cost, not a misappropriation of

funds or misdirection of funds as he suggested earlier in the questions, Sir?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very aware that we

had an increase in travel costs. We identified that and spoke about it in budget

discussions last year. I spoke for the fact that it would be difficult to

maintain the programme in Labrador, given the restraints and given the cutbacks

that had to be taken into account. We did have to accommodate budget restraint

and savings were effected. This programme, however, was maintained, and I can

only repeat that the committee locally, chose to spend all the dollars

available, all of the dollars that I could allocate in the programme, $312,000

was allocated, it has all been expended by groups in the first half of the

fiscal year, and as of this time, I am again repeating myself, we have not been

able to identify extra funds to add to this programme.

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

West, has time for one short question.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for - I do not

know who is the Minister for Works, Services and Transportation, but I will

address the Acting Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

The former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,

the Minister in abeyance, whatever the title may be, promised the group from the

Burin Peninsula sincerely, that he would participate in upgrading the Winterland

airstrip. He said that the Provincial Government would accept their

responsibility if the Federal Government accepted theirs. It is my understanding

the proposal has been made to Ottawa, the Federal Government has accepted and

notified the Province that they would accept their responsibility and now the

provincial portion is up to the Province.

Can the Minister tell us when they will be agreeing on that,

and when will they have tenders called to upgrade the airstrip?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As far as I know, there is

no Federal/Provincial agreement where there is a Federal portion and a

Provincial portion, and the Federal Government has announced its Federal portion

and now we have to wait for the Provincial portion.

I understand what happened and, unless it is on my desk now,

I have received the information by way of press release. I believe the hon. John

Crosbie issued a press release - somebody issued a press release indicating that

there is $600,000 out of maybe a $3 million project that was now being approved

or was possibly to be approved and it was by way of press release and I have not

yet examined or considered a formal request. There is no Federal/Provincial

agreement in place on this issue and, Mr. Speaker, something though, that has

been worked on for a while and I find it very difficult to understand how the

press release process is now being used instead of the negotiating process.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I want to present the reports of

the Public Tender Act exceptions for May, June, July and August, 1991.

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, under the Automobile Insurance

Act, the minister is required to file with the House the annual reports

regarding the operations of the board. I have these to now be tendered.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: First of all, by leave of the House, Mr.

Speaker, Motions 3 through 9 could be done together.

MR. SPEAKER: Motions 3 through 9.

MR. BAKER: First readings.

MR. SPEAKER: These are first readings.

Do we have the concurrence of the House for Motions 3 through

MR. SIMMS: You do not need leave.

MR. BAKER: I just want to call them all at the same time

rather than individually.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce the

following bills:

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Consolidation And Revision Of

The Statues Of Newfoundland". (Bill No. 49).

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Application And Effect Of

Certain Acts Passed In The Present Session Of The Legislature Upon The Revised

Statutes Of Newfoundland, 1990'. (Bill No. 48).

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute

Law". (Bill No. 52).

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

"An Act To Amend The Hospitals Act, 1971". (Bill No. 51).

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce the

following bills:

A bill, "An Act Respecting Colleges of Applied Arts,

Technology And Continuing Education". (Bill No. 37).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Act". (Bill

No. 38).

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, 1977

(No.3)". (Bill No. 47).

On motion, Bill Nos. 49, 48, 52, 51, 37, 38, 47 read a first

time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 2, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

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

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

Bill 44. The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, when we broke off debate on

this bill last week, I think we were zeroing in to a larger extent on the

requirement for this particular amount of money at this point in time, and I

think it goes back to what I said earlier in this debate, that quite frankly

this is an amount of money that should have been anticipated. This Government

should have known at Budget time. In fact, I think they did know, but I think

they - I will not say deliberately, it might be unparliamentary for me to say

that they deliberately left this out of the Budget - but I think they should

have known if they didn't that they were going to be faced with serious

unemployment problems this year. I don't think it was any secret to any of us

that we were facing a recession, and that particularly a recession in Central

Canada was going to have tremendous negative impact on the economy of Canada

generally, and, of course, Newfoundland always seems to suffer worse. I do not

agree for a moment with the Premier when he says we may be in a recession but we

are not being hurt as much as other parts of Canada. The Premier should get out

of Confederation Building, go outside and talk with some of the people we were

just talking about.

MR. SIMMS: Where are all the ministers involved in this

program?

MR. WINDSOR: The ministers are all here defending their

program. But the Premier should get outside and talk to the people and find out

exactly what is going on in this Province. He should talk to some of the people

who are absolutely destitute out there now, trying to subsist on payments from

the Department of Social Services. It is putting more pressure, as we have just

heard, on the Department of Social Services budget, to the point where they are,

quite honestly, not able to cope with the demands that are being placed on them.

I have had occasion over the past month or two to deal with

more problems of persons on social assistance than I have in my sixteen years in

this legislature. It is absolutely incredible, the difference that we are seeing

out there from the people who are having these problems; not only people on

social assistance, but people on unemployment; people seeking social housing,

because they are no longer able to afford to provide accommodations for

themselves; people who are in grave danger of losing their homes and everything

that they have built up over a lifetime, because they have lost their jobs, or

because the costs have increased so much that they are no longer able to deal

with them.

This Government should have been able to predict that they

would need an employment program of this magnitude. I do not think any of us

disagree with this amount of money. In fact, I think, as my colleague just asked

in Question Period, why can we not find another small amount of money to help

even more? Because, obviously, this is too little and too late. So we do not

disagree with the money. We do not disagree that these departments are

appropriate departments to have programs to administer these funds, to use these

funds and create employment. We would like to have the information of what is

taking place. I do not personally wish to get into that. Other colleagues of

mine will want to address that in some detail, as to how these funds are being

spent, how they are being allocated, and to which offices the funds are going. I

think there are many questions that need to be answered there. The real question

is the management of the economy of this Government. I think it is obvious to

all of us that this Government has been a dismal failure in that regard.

The Minister of Finance has shown, time and time again, that

he is totally incapable of even predicting what his deficit is going to be. I do

not know that we have ever had a variance of the magnitude of the one that we

saw last year. I believe the minister predicted a $10 million deficit at the

beginning of the year, and ended up with a $120 million or $130 million deficit.

MR. SIMMS: He predicted a small surplus.

MR. WINDSOR: He predicted a small surplus, that is right.

It went to a 130 million deficit. Try as he might, he could certainly not

justify such a great variance. There are only two answers. One is just grave

error in calculation - we want to give them the benefit of the doubt - a grave

error in calculation. The second answer is that they very clearly and

deliberately misrepresented the facts in their Budget, when they knew that they

would have a much greater problem to face, but hoped above hope that sometime

during the year, the Hibernia development, or some other development would

generate the kinds of revenues that would be necessary for Government to end up

at the end of the year with a balanced budget. But when you looked at the

Budget, as we did, examining it in detail as we did last year, it was painfully

obvious, since we were all forecasting a recessionary year, that one could

hardly expect provincial revenues to maintain themselves. One could hardly

expect transfer payments to be maintained, since they are based on the state of

the economy in Central Canada primarily, in relation to the economy in

Newfoundland and other parts of Canada. So this Government should have been able

to predict that they would need this type of program.

Here we are today, Mr. Chairman, desperately now trying to

create a few jobs in the fall, spending money on programs which have not been

properly planned, because they have been very hurriedly put together, many of

them without proper engineering study in analysis and design. And, as I

indicated the other day in Question Period, many projects have been dusted off.

They are old projects that were there for some time, that Government had wanted

to do this year and have not been able because they did not get the proper

planning done.

So some old programs, old projects that were planned but then

set aside as not being high on the priority list, have been dusted off and

hurriedly pushed into service so that some of this money can be spent. I suspect

we will find, in the end analysis, after this program is over and we study the

results of it to see how effective it was, that a lot of this money was spent

unwisely. Certainly, when you get into this time of year, trying to do

construction projects, in particular, you are being less effective than you

should be.

Mr. Chairman, one of the items here is community water

services. There is $500,000 here to create a few jobs. Now, here is a prime

example, $500,000 is not going to do an awful lot of work in communities. It

will create a few short-term jobs but how many more jobs could have been created

had this Government moved ahead with its announced water and sewer program for

municipalities, its capital program in municipalities this year? The minister

stood in his place some time ago and boasted about his early design program, how

this Government was taking such an initiative to release the design of water and

sewer programs well in advance in anticipation of some funding coming forward in

the Budget. He tabled a great list of projects for water and sewer work this

year but the projects were not released. They have not been released until the

fall. Only within the last month have the projects been released. In other

words, all of that construction work that could have been undertaken during the

prime construction season, during the summer months when the weather is most

favourable, and the cost and efficiency is most desirable, instead of having

that work undertaken during that period of time Government has delayed it. The

question is why have they delayed calling these tenders? There were thousands of

jobs that could have been available over the summer. We would not have needed

this $500,000 from Municipal Affairs. There would have been plenty of

construction jobs. All of these people that we are trying to fit into small

construction jobs now would have enjoyed plenty of employment over the summer

months, but instead of that we find that the money is unspent. Now, that will

make the total picture look more favourable, that money will not be required to

be borrowed by the Province. But then the Province was not borrowing it anyway,

was it? It was simply a Government guarantee, simply approval for a municipality

to borrow. That is the crazy part about this, Mr. Chairman. If these were monies

that Government was going to borrow on its own, spend, and be responsible for

repaying, well, you could say, they can justify that by simply cutting back on

their expenditure; they are not spending as much. They know they have a problem

so they have decided to spend less. Now, that would make some sense. You could

live with that. You could say, well, it is not a good year and instead of

spending $400 million we are only going to spend $200 million, so we have saved

$200 million, but Government has not saved anything here. All they have done is

stopped municipalities from borrowing and spending. The President of Treasury

Board smiles - he knows, and he knows that I know, that that needs to be

qualified. It is a contingent liability on the Province. It appears in the

perspective but it is just that, it is a contingent liability. In the event that

the municipalities are not able to repay, the Province will have to repay.

There are many, many projects in municipalities that

Government knew full well would never come back to Government seeking to have

that money repaid. Many of the larger municipalities are fully paying 100 per

cent of their debt, so what justification is there, as a hypothetical example -

and this is totally hypothetical - what justification would there be in saying

to the town of Gander, we are going to delay your program, you are not going to

get your money spent this year? Why not let the town of Gander spend the $1

million, knowing that the town of Gander is quite capable of carrying and

repaying that debt on their own? That $1 million construction program would have

created a lot of economic activity and would have created jobs in the town of

Gander. Instead, we now have a $500,000 program to try to create a couple of

short-term jobs.

So, what is the rationale, Mr. Chairman, for delaying them?

Let me be clear. I did not say that happened in the town of Gander, that was a

hypothetical example.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WINDSOR: I will have another opportunity, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

The first thing I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, is how

happy I am to see our colleague for Harbour Main back in the House of Assembly

looking so fit, so trim.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: I welcome him back, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Just picking up on dollars and cents -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, there's no slur, I am being sincere,

totally sincere. Picking up on the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - yesterday,

talking money, the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations tabled two

reports in this House on Workers' Compensation. The hon. the Member for Fogo was

up today asking some questions. And, I suppose if you spent most part of your

working life in occupational health and safety, and dealing with and being an

employee of the Workmen's Compensation Board for a period of about five years;

and then spent the rest of your life associated with occupational health and

safety and the now Workers' Compensation Commission; and to see what took place

on the appointment of this Commission when we have to look at a minority report

presented in this House yesterday, at the taxpayers' expense, Mr. Chairman -

having perused this document, seeing exactly what it was and the intent of it, I

would like to make some comments, if I might.

First of all, I find the document, I suppose, offensive, to

say the least. If you look at the foreword in it, first of all, on page 1, the

gentleman concurs with his Committee members. If you move on to page 2 - and

this is dealing with the Workers' Compensation Commission, now - he says: `One

also wonders if the recommendations of my colleagues are nothing more than an

extension of the draconian fiscal policies of the Provincial Government, slash,

slash, slash, and a little more concern,' etc. Now, what that has to do with

Workers' Compensation certainly leaves me wondering.

He moves on into this report and talks about the historical

role of compensation. Well, we can all look at a hundred documents that have

been written about that. Then he talks about what the workers are saying. Right

in the middle of the first paragraph he says: `Now, employers don't want to pay

their fair share....' Well, if employers don't want to pay their fair share, and

this gentleman is so adamant about jumping on the employers in this Province and

how dramatically they are affecting the compensation situation, then let me

remind this hon. House, and that particular gentleman, of what the rate

structure is for certain classifications that we find industry involved in

today.

Manufacturing: Class 3 in the Workers' Compensation

Commission. They are paying $5.78 per $100 of payroll. So, for every $100 of

salary that anybody in the manufacturing industry puts out today, they have to

pay the Workers' Compensation Commission $5.78. Now, that surely must impact on

every single consumer in the Province who has to pay for goods and services.

This particular assessment finds its way down into the supermarkets and into

whatever.

Just let's look at some of the other areas of high

employment. Construction: $5.23 for excavation work. Talking about highways and

buildings, $6.05; $5.23 for other areas. If one would consider what the

employers throughout this Province are having to pay to Workers' Compensation to

cover the tremendous high increase in injury that is taking place in the work

place, then one only wonders how long we can continue, how long the Workers'

Compensation Commission can continue with employer funds, because never, Mr.

Chairman, has any employee in this Province ever, ever, seen on his or her

cheque stub a deduction for worker's compensation. Now, if this gentleman had to

sit down and stay with the Committee and make some sound recommendations, and

look at it realistically, knowing full well the financial circumstances that the

Worker's Compensation Commission finds itself in, he might have made some

positive suggestions in understanding that. I stand to be corrected here but I

would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that outside of somebody purchasing

disability insurance themselves it is the only form of personal income that

anybody can receive that is non-taxable. If you were unfortunate enough to be on

social assistance for three months and obtained a job then you would get a T4

slip telling you what your social assistance was, and if you were lucky enough

to get enough stamps to be on UI benefit you would also get a T4 slip from the

CEIC, but if you are on workers' compensation up to a maximum of $45,000 you

receive 90 per cent net of your gross salary less, Mr. Chairman, your deductions

for, obviously, your Canada Pension contribution and your UIC, and the rest of

your benefit is non-taxable. So, if this gentleman had to make some positive

suggestions, knowing the circumstances of the Workers' Compensation Commission,

and say that that particular payroll could be income tax and that monies turned

back into workers'compensation. He could have made a whole lot of suggestions

but what did he do? He took the taxpayer's money and travelled around the

Province and put together a document that is totally meaningless, that is so

left- wing, that is so socialistic, that it is not fit to be in the House of

Assembly. It is incredible. It looks like a document that came from the labour

government over in Britain when they put worker's compensation on the bum some

twenty year ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) government with a social

conscience.

MR. MURPHY: That is not a social conscience. That kind of

thinking would melt Lenin's statue if you want to call that socialist thinking.

What garbage. Now, we do not need to talk about where. The hon. Minister got up

today and explained, when questioned by my learned safety officer for the

district of Fogo, the Minister responded and talked about what transpired in

1984. I forget who the Government was at the time but I am sure somebody will

remind me, what took place when they turned around workers' compensation.

Worker's compensation was set up in such a way, it was so healthy, Mr. Chairman,

that it funded many of the water and sewer projects throughout this Province,

and still does to this day, until they had to get rid of it because they did not

have the money to pay the benefits. We talk about occupational health and safety

in the workplace. The hon. gentleman who wrote this document knows full well -

MR. TOBIN: You know.

MR. MURPHY: Indeed I do know, but I would not give him

the satisfaction to mention his name. There is a set of regulations in the act

as good as anywhere in Canada. He calls his document 'Betrayal' and I would

agree. It is obviously a good name for this dribble.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he betray you?

MR. MURPHY: He betrayed more than me, Mr. Chairman. The

people he betrayed most were the workers in this Province because he said

nothing positive, nothing sincere, or nothing to hang onto, absolutely nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can tell the man is sincere.

MR. MURPHY: I will answer the hon. Member. I do not have

any problems. I am not looking for any special funds for St. John's South. I am

not looking for anything.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: By leave, to clue up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Does the hon. Member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, yes, indeed.

MR. MURPHY: It is betrayal; thank you very much and thank

the hon. House.

MR. NOEL: The iron fist from Grand Bank.

MR. MURPHY: It is betrayal. It is betrayal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Does the hon. Member have leave?

No leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: One minute and like MacArthur said: I will be

back. I am certainly not finished with this rubbish, so I will relinquish to the

hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West because I am certainly not finished, Mr.

Chairman, by any stretch of the imagination.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the Member over there, the

fellow the Premier said lacked the political maturity to go into Cabinet, should

try and mature and get into Cabinet and stop interrupting in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: He is not even in his seat.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's

South should continue to speak. He said he will be back. Well, I would suggest

that he speak, because we do not know when the next election is going to be

called and he should try to get in as many speeches as he can because after

that, he will not be back.

But in any case, I do not know why the Member for St. John's

South has adopted such an attitude towards the gentleman who wrote this report.

He has the right to express his views. The Member for St. John's South has the

right to express his views and this hon. member should have the right to express

his views as well.

He might not share the same political philosophy as the

Member for St. John's South - Mr. Chairman, I have never seen in this country

anyone with right wing leanings to the extent of Brian Mulroney and the Premier

of this Province, and as the Member for St. John's South. He represents a large

working constituency and he attacks the working people of this Province as it

relates to this.

Let me say to the Member for St. John's South, and to all the

members opposite that in terms of workers' compensation, the programme is in

place to assist and to help the people who need it, and if there is abuse of the

system or anything else, the problem is policed. If there is a problem, put in

the necessary people to police it, but the injured, the people who have

accidents, lose an arm or a leg, the workers' compensation plan must be there

for them, and there is no way you can get to those people by trying to cut

corners or do anything else.

The bottom line is that there must be in place a mechanism to

ensure that workers' compensation continues and as a matter of fact grows and

becomes better. There must also be a mechanism in place to ensure that those who

need it have it there for them.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as we get involved today, and we have been

in the past couple of days dealing with Supplementary Supply, our position on

this last Monday, was that we were ready. Last Friday our House Leader told the

Government House Leader that he was prepared to deal with Interim Supply and

have it approved.

AN HON. MEMBER: Last Thursday.

MR. TOBIN: -last Thursday, if the Government was prepared

to provide a list.

Mr. Chairman, the President of Treasury Board or the

Government House Leader has gone about doing everything except provide the House

with the list and I would suggest that we could get down to the wire again this

evening and there would be no list provided, and if the President of Treasury

Board thinks he is going to get Supplementary Supply approved through this House

without the list, then, Mr. Chairman, he has another thought coming.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, it won't happen! The list will have to be

what we are looking for too. Not something like the Minister of Forestry tried

to bring in the House the other day. Neither he or anyone in the House knew what

he was talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Minister of Social Services.

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Social Services. He is telling

us every day that he has a list. Well then, where is the list the Minister of

Social Services is supposed to have? Does he have it in his pocket, in his

briefcase? Why isn't it on the Table of the House? The pork barrelling you did

in your own district with the community development list, that is the one I want

to see. My colleague for St. Mary's - The Capes, covered by the same office,

could not get a job in his area. They all went to your district. We have never

seen it before. Never the like of it before. That is what we want to see, and

that is why we are demanding that the list be laid up on the Table. Particularly

the list that the Minister of Social Services has. Yes. Now that is some kind of

a list he has there.

The Minister of Forestry -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Table it, boy, table it! Mr. Chairman, can we

have the Page pick up the list? Okay, the Page is going to pick it up and I'll

take a look at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, the Page is going to pick it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Chairman, we see what is happening.

He said he is going to table it, the Page goes to pick it up, and what does he

do? Put it back in the drawer. I would too if I did the pork barrelling that he

did on that list. It is time that the Government House Leader, the President of

Treasury Board, showed leadership in this House. There has been no leadership in

this House in this session.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Minister of Social Services on a point of order.

MR. HOGAN: All the hon. Member has to do is ask for the

list and I will table the list through the normal method. He is the only pork

barrel I see around here. There is no pork barrelling (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking to that point

of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has already ruled that there is

no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Let me say, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of

Social Services that if I continue in the - what do you call it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nutri-System.

MR. TOBIN: Nutri-System plan, that some day I may be as

slim as him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Having said that, Mr. Chairman, the Minister

of Social Services is over there with a list and I am hearing numbers floating

around of 100 to 200 jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, listen to the - what is it? The

politically immature Member. The Premier said in terms of having a Cabinet

Minister from Labrador, this means more than having a Member for Labrador, the

Member must have the political maturity. So I would only assume that the Member

for Eagle River lacked that maturity, and today he is demonstrating he still

does not have the maturity. It probably is good that he is sitting next to the

next Cabinet Minister. Probably that is good, because I under -

AN HON. MEMBER: Get some advice.

MR. TOBIN: Get some advice as to how he got into Cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) only going to be half a

Minister.

MR. TOBIN: Well, no, I won't say he will be half a

Minister. No, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing negative to say about the Member for

Bonavista South, nothing at all. He was a great contributor to my campaigns in

the past. In many ways.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who? Hogan was?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, Gover, poll captain. Only poll that was

off.

MR. TOBIN: As a matter of fact - no, be kind, boys, be

kind. I mean, he is going to be the next Minister of Justice, we have got to

show him respect, much to the disappointment of some of the Members opposite,

such as the Member for St. John's South. Not the Member for St. John's South, he

does not care if he ever goes in Cabinet. The Member for - he is not here today

- Mount Scio - Bell Island. And the Member for Bellevue, who are going around

telling everyone they will be the next in.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that neither one of them will

be the next in, it will be the Member for Bonavista South. Or Your Honour, Mr.

Chairman. If there is anyone in this House in my opinion, on that side of the

House, who deserves to be in Cabinet, it is Your Honour. I say that with all

sincerity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: He is one of the greatest people who ever sat

in the Chair, and I have nothing but respect for him.

But I want to get back, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of

Social Services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Isn't that terrible, Mr. Chairman?

MR. TOBIN: A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I know that it is not

appropriate to be shouting in the House in any case, but certainly when you are

not in your own seat. I would think that you should advise the Member for Eagle

River that shouting from someone else's seat is not in the rules of this

Legislature, and someone should either ask him to leave the Chamber or to behave

according to the rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the point of order, the hon. Member is

correct. There is no provision for any member to speak in the House unless he is

recognized, and when he is recognized he has to be seated in his own seat.

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

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

Isn't that shocking now. Imagine, of all the members in this

hon. House to chastise somebody else for speaking from a different seat. Boy,

isn't that terrible?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Anyway, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Back to this betrayal - I have to try and rectify some of the things that are

totally, totally, totally incorrect submitted by one member of the committee. He

calls it betrayal, and betrayal it is at the taxpayers expense. He goes on to

talk about a public review should take place to find out why the Occupational,

Health and Safety Division only spent half of its available budget in the past

year. A meaningless statement. Totally meaningless when the staff is not in

place, and the previous administration knows why, and the Minister already

explained that we are on our way to intensifying and generating and creating

more activity in the Department for Occupational, Health and Safety and

training. He talks about reserved funds.

Now the Member for St. John's East, the authority on Workers'

Compensation just arrived in his place. Now, Mr. Chairman, let me advise that

hon. Member that he will have an opportunity to stand up and talk about Workers'

Compensation until he is blue in the face, and we will give him an opportunity

to talk about the act, we will give him an opportunity to talk about assessment

and rate structure, Occupational, Health and Safety Division, appeal, appeal

tribunal, remuneration for doing things. The hon. Member will have lots of time

to talk.

AN HON. MEMBER: Arbitrations.

MR. MURPHY: Arbitrations. We will give him all the time

he needs to talk about Workers' Compensation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Now, now. We will give the hon. Member lots

of time to talk.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is allowed to talk. He is allowed to

have his say.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Chairman, this minority report - I look

at my colleague from Placentia and the hon Member and myself are after

forgetting more about Occupational, Health and Safety than the hon. Member for

St. John's East and the author of this document would ever know. As a matter of

fact, what they both know, obviously, you could put on a stamp.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MURPHY: You could put it on the back of a postage

stamp and still have room for the Dead Sea Scrolls!

Recommendations, compensation services, innuendo, words that

have been said many times. I remember when the hon. Member for Harbour Main was

over there - a total gentleman when he was Minister of Labour, you could

approach him. He had the good sense to put this hon. Member on his advisory

committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MURPHY: There is nothing new in this document. It is

nothing more than a left wing approach, and then he closes off, Mr. Chairman,

with: injured workers must not be betrayed. Well, there is the key statement.

There is the only statement, or one of the few statements, in the whole document

that I will totally agree with.

Mr. Speaker, he talks about the lack of training -

occupational health and safety training - that is not going on in the Province.

We have the department with a full division in occupational health and safety

training, going throughout the Province offering courses. We have some 800-odd,

Mr. Minister, I think, occupational health and safety committees established

throughout the workplace in the Province, made up of union and management

members. We have other agencies, the Newfoundland Safety Council and other such

agencies, traipsing around from Labrador West to St. John's and all points in

between, offering constant and continual occupational health and safety

training.

The hon. Member for St. John's East I think yesterday smugly

appreciated this Minority Report. Now the hon. Member last year, and I do not

mind, I tried to help him with some questions he had when he asked the former

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations about occupational health and safety

problems out in Hibernia. There is the man asking occupational health and safety

questions about Hibernia, and he sat in Ottawa with the people who voted against

Hibernia. They did not want to give us five cents for the development of

Hibernia, and still and all, last year he was up and down asking questions to

the former Minister on occupational health and safety. So, somewhere, Mr.

Chairman, you have to divide partisan politics and the reality of what has been

done. This Department is only continuing to expand what was done by the previous

administration. Occupational health and safety is an extremely important issue.

It is not one to be toyed and played with, with this kind of a Minority Report,

by a man who should know better, but could not refuse to play partisan politics.

MR. TOBIN: Answer the question, boy.

MR. MURPHY: Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, what is two and

two? I will tell you, he knows the answer. The Member for St. John's East knows

the answer to two and two, but I doubt if he knows the answer to three plus one.

I really do.

Mr. Chairman, again let me say that if we are ever going to

be able to afford, in this Province, to give injured workers funding, or

compensation while they are off work, the only way we have done it, over the

years, has been to assess the employer. If we keep on driving up the assessment

because of workplace injuries, and/or as the Member for Burin - Placentia West

said - I did not say this, abuse. He is the man who said it, abuse, and he may

be very well right. There may be abuse, and there may be lots of it. There may

be lots of it, but this Province and the industry in this Province, can no

longer afford to continue with this one-sided show to fund what is taking place

with accidents and injuries. We just do not have it.

If you look at the health care system, and what has taken

place in the health care system over the last ten years - the Minister of Health

is there, and he knows full well that nearly 5 per cent of the total health care

budget in this Province goes out in compensation costs. If you take

approximately $900 million I think, and the Minister can correct me if I am

wrong, you are looking at $45 million that goes out in this small Province in

compensation costs. If you know anything about occupational health and safety,

that is only the tip of the iceberg, the direct cost of accidents. You can

multiply that by six, and when you pick up the Workers' Compensation Board's

Annual Report and you look at the assessments, last year was $94 million in

direct assessments, $79 million, and self-insurers, $5 million, and then vested

income that they had, for a total income revenue of $94 million. Now, put the

iceberg analogy on that - and my hon. friend from Placentia knows only too well

what I am talking about- and we are conservative, I would suggest, when we say

multiply that by six. That is what it costs this Province for accidents in the

workplace and/or associated illnesses, $600 million. Now, how can a Province the

size of Newfoundland possibly afford that kind of money associated with

injuries.

I am not trying to diminish the suffering and/or the

fatalities and illnesses that take place in the workplace. That should be first

and foremost. We all witnessed the horrendous tragedy of the Ocean Ranger and

the impact that it had on all of us. It is only yesterday we heard a report on

television and on the radio about an industrial sawmill accident that took place

in Central Newfoundland, and it goes on and on and on. That should be our first

and prime concern. But in saying that, we need to understand, all of us, what

the cost associated with Government and industry is, and the cost of accidents

associated with that in doing business in this Province. If we would pay

attention to that end of it, then obviously we could accomplish the accident

prevention programming that is desired to reduce the carnage, the injury and the

suffering.

Sometimes it is difficult for safety professionals to walk

into the CEO and talk to him about the accidents and the suffering, because the

CEO sometimes looks at the balance sheet. But if we can convince him to look at

the balance sheet, then surely heavens that would show itself in the reduction

of accidents. But to come to this House and to turn over to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations this partisan document, is disgraceful and

nothing less than disgraceful.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: I, again, will be speaking further on this

subject, you can be sure.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HOGAN: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. the Minister of Social

Services have leave of the House?

MR. MATTHEWS: We would like to grant leave for the

Minister to table the list from his Department that we have been asking for, as

long as the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes gets recognized afterwards and it

is not taken away from his time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has already recognized the hon.

the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes and, by leave of the House, I recognize

the hon. the Minister of Social Services to present a statement. Then the House

will revert back to the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, hon. colleagues.

I wish to table this information, Mr. Chairman. It is an

up-to-date November 5 information spread sheet showing the breakdown of the jobs

that were found through the Emergency Response Program, and it is broken down by

region of the Province and by district office.

Also accompanying this, for the information of members

opposite, it is the same spread sheet showing the regular CD Program which was

carried on up until the funds were depleted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We will certainly look forward to analyzing the list the

Minister has just tabled.

I listened with some interest to the former speaker and,

although I do not think this is the proper forum for the member to get up

talking about the minority report, realizing that the member probably is

unfamiliar with that area and does not have too much more to offer, I respect

his right to speak in the House. It is a money bill. I think the member has been

basically told by his boss to get up and try to defend the indefensible, and to

take the flack for the report that was tabled yesterday.

The one thing I would suggest - and I want to move off it to

get into the meat of the bill itself - is that, it is hard to argue with the

member when he says that we must start curtailing costs. But do you throw out

the baby with the bathwater? Are we trying to solve all our problems by

penalizing those who cannot afford to be penalized, instead of addressing the

abuses within the system? So maybe the Member better rethink some of his

philosophies.

Moving to Bill 44, Mr. Chairman, which really has nothing to

do directly or indirectly to any great degree with the Compensation Report, but

with the state of unemployment that presently exists in the Province. When you

represent a district like St. John's South that has been hit pretty hard, I

would think that the Member should zero in on some of the problems he is facing

in his area and admit that the solution proposed here by Government is certainly

not going to even put a band-aid on some of the wounds that are out there.

If we look at the Bill itself - with the exception of the

first heading, Constitutional Affairs, which is going to cost $185,000 above and

beyond what was projected; and that is understandable in light of the work that

has to be done to keep the country together - the rest of the headings all deal

with money being provided to create jobs in the Province. Now when we started

debating this Bill we asked the different departments to tell us what jobs they

have created. The money has been spent, apparently, in most divisions. What jobs

have been created, where, how many people have been employed, what effect is

this really going to have on the unemployment picture, and what change is this

over what has occurred in other years?

During Question Period today we heard questions being posed

to the Minister of Social Services. We did not hear too many answers forthcoming

but the Minister did admit that the caseload of his Department is up

significantly over last year. When one realizes that last year was up

significantly over previous years, then we can picture the state of the economy.

Many Members I am sure have talked, to local social service offices, as I have.

The workers there, who are working day and night, will tell you that they have

never seen so many before looking for assistance. People are desperate. In all

the years I have been involved in politics - and we have had some tough years in

the past - I have never seen as -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Mr. Chairman, I cannot even hear myself. They

have conversations all over the place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was saying, in my

many years in politics I have never seen as many people hurting around the

Province as there are presently. A number of reasons: the downturn in the

economy, the failure of the fishery in many areas, the failure of this

Government to provide any work worthwhile, the cutbacks in the amount spent on

construction, the manipulation of the funds so that tenders would not be called,

and so on, to balance the Budget. All is leading to the fact that a lot of

people are unemployed in the Province. Many of them are not used to it. There

are always some people who have trouble finding employment, especially in

certain areas of the Province, and they depend upon make work programmes,

whatever, to help them.

These programmes do. They not only help individuals, quite

often they also help put some infrastructure in our communities. Many

communities around the Province have facilities they would not have unless we

had, as we have had in the past, the different types of make work programmes. In

fact, throughout, or at least in some areas of the Province, many worthwhile

pieces of infrastructure, from stadiums to fire halls to playgrounds to

libraries, would not be there without the assistance of these programmes.

But the Federal Government also cannot go without blame here.

We cannot put all the blame on the Provincial Government. The Federal Government

manipulated or changed their programmes a couple of years ago, and no longer

were they going to have those short term employment programmes, because they

were not doing anything to help the people. They were going to bring in all

kinds of fancy retraining programmes. Send people off to schools and colleges.

Train them for what? Because the jobs are not there, and the people are going

off, in some cases receiving some training, coming back to find themselves home

with a certificate of some kind or other but no job. So they are no better off,

there is no bread and butter on the table.

We also find that many of the dollars that were taken out of

the work programmes went directly into the pockets of individuals by being

channelled into different types of training programs; who really benefited?

Quite often, the educational institutions. Many of them have become extremely

wealthy, developing a programme for one project and then taking on a similar

project, only to charge for developing the same programme again, so it is a

complete and utter rip off of training funds. Then we have programmes like ACOA

that were supposed to create so many jobs around the Province and when the small

individual goes in with a proposal, the first thing he has to do is have a

$100,000 study done which usually ends up telling him that it cannot work. You

have your consultants getting richer and richer and the working class around the

Province getting poorer and poorer.

So maybe it is time we looked at putting dollars directly

into the pockets of individuals and getting something done at the local level,

and if that means going back to the old time make-work programmes, at least it

will put bread and butter on the table where there is none, and put facilities

around the communities where presently we do not see any under construction. So,

Mr. Chairman, we are in a dilemma around rural Newfoundland in particular and

certainly the effects have rippled through the larger centres.

There are people in many communities, more than half the

population, who so far this year have not even qualified to draw unemployment

insurance. Fisheries Response Programmes came out and you had CEIC playing their

little games, sticking strictly to regulations, refusing to bend or consider

local circumstances.

How, in Labrador for instance, on the coast of Labrador, how

can you get twelve weeks in the fishery if you are a first time entrant in the

workforce, when you do not have any fish? How can you get three weeks stamps in

the fishery if the fish do not show up, where, in areas plants could not open

because of the failure of the caplin fishery or the complete failure of the

inshore fishery, or where they opened for two or three weeks, how can you get

six weeks employment?

It is impossible, and these factors must be considered, but

they are not, consequently people are going from day to day wondering: are rules

going to be bent in order to qualify? What complicates things even more was when

CEIC went out and consolidated their offices in St. John's. I do not know

whether anybody else is affected, but they made a real schemozzle of trying to

help the system. Everything has been tremendously slowed down, complicated, the

workers down there are overworked and frustrated and you cannot get hold of

anybody to address problems anymore. All of this is just adding to the burden of

the average person out in the field trying to survive.

I do not know what the answer is unless we revert to what was

supposed to be a short-term, make-work effort, because, when there is nothing in

sight for the long-term, when the short-term efforts we are making are in the

wrong direction, then if it worked, at least let us go back to it because it did

keep bread and butter on the table. Here we see a drop in the bucket in relation

to addressing the problem.

In the social services section, we see $4.5 million, $4

million really, we understand, which has already been spent. It is not even

going to address the extra case loads in social services, not to say the other

people in the Province who are on the borderline, who have run out of UI or who

are just about to run out without any prospects of employment. Then it is bad

enough to see not enough money being put in, but when we see it manipulated by

the department to make sure that their own areas are looked after, then we

wonder about the fairness and balance of this Government.

Mr. Chairman, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador right

now is in a crisis state that it has never been in before, where we have people

who were always used to working, used to be able to provide for their families,

unable to do so anymore because of the state of the general economy. What is the

Government doing? Throwing 8.7, less than that -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. HEARN: - $8 million at a problem that will cost ten

times that, even to put a dent in it. I will get back to it a little later, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just take a

couple seconds to announce the projects that were funded by the Department of

Forestry and Agriculture on the -

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the hon. Member for (Technical

malfunction) talking across the floor. And -

AN HON. MEMBER: Couldn't hear you.

MR. FLIGHT: Couldn't hear me? Is there something wrong

with the system, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak up!

MR. FLIGHT: See? Mr. Chairman, I would request that you

check out and see if the sound system is working.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have no difficulty in hearing the hon.

Member.

MR. FLIGHT: Can the hon. Members opposite hear me now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, in that case I would want to

take a minute to proudly table the list of projects that have been put in place,

funded under the Employment Initiatives Programme. And what is -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this your district?

MR. FLIGHT: No, this is all of Newfoundland, all across

Newfoundland and Labrador. Out of $2 million, Mr. Chairman, that was allocated

to the Department of Forestry and Agriculture, I am proud to indicate to the

House that I have committed $1.865 millions up to this point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Which means that a little more than $100,000

is yet to be committed. And what makes this programme from a Forestry

perspective interesting is this: that by far most of these projects had already

been identified by my officials as being necessary anyway. If we would have had

the money in our regular Forestry budget these are the kind of projects that we

would have done. So it is all the more important, Mr. Chairman, and it makes all

the more sense, that when we create employment creation programmes that we fund

projects that have long term benefits to the Province.

So not only will these projects create a lot of jobs - I do

not have the number of specific jobs here but I will - a lot of jobs -

AN HON. MEMBER: The numbers are what we wanted.

MR. FLIGHT: Well, do some research yourself. You have

those facilities.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, is this what the President of Treasury

Board wants done? (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: So, Mr. Chairman, the name of the

association, the place and the amount are listed here. So at $400 a week, it is

very simple, very quick, to figure out how many jobs. What is listed here - my

officials have done this - is the name of the development association, the place

and the amount. What should also be pointed out, is that not only will this have

the effect of creating the short term benefit, it will be the creation of good,

meaningful productive jobs for the people who are employed in areas all over

Newfoundland. But the long term benefit is that it enhances our forestry, and

the Province will reap benefits from this particular programme forty or fifty

years from now. It gives me great pleasure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty or fifty years?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes. Silviculture programmes, thinning,

planting, site reclamation.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll be gone. We'll all still be here.

MR. FLIGHT: You'll be gone. So, Mr. Chairman, it gives me

great pleasure. I tell you, the things that will grow from these programmes will

be a lot more enduring than any of the cucumbers we ever tried to grow in this

Province. They will be growing forever. As a matter of fact there is planting

going on right now. We would expect to harvest the trees that are being planted

right now in about sixty to seventy years from now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Long before. Mr. Chairman, I would compare

that kind of production with the kind of production we saw from certain

facilities that were established in this Province for growing certain vegetables

these past two or three years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: So, Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure

that I table the list. Excellent programme, wise expenditure of dollars.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a few words

based on what the Minister of Forestry just said. If I -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

I hate to interrupt the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia

West, but because of the conversations to my right, I am having difficulty

hearing the hon. Member. I ask hon. Members to refrain.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, yes, I have difficulty in

hearing too but I am quite capable of hearing the Minister of Forestry whistling

when I was speaking.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that the President of Treasury

Board and the Government House Leader told us that there would be a list

provided, based on the information that our House Leader asked for, in terms of

the numbers of jobs that were created through these projects, the number of

positions that were created, and all that. I think that our House Leader asked

for that, and he was assured that it would come. Now it is our understanding,

and I have not been able to see it - could we just have a quick look at that for

a second? My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that the list that has been tabled

by the Minister of Forestry does not tell us anything about the numbers of jobs

- just a lump sum payment.

MR. FLIGHT: Every project is designated by (inaudible)

the place and the amount.

(Inaudible) and Mr. Chairman, the Member is just being picky,

and not telling the truth.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing there that

tells us how many jobs were created by that department.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: When did you become the whiz?

There is nothing there, Mr. Chairman. I want to say to the

Government House Leader, Mr. Chairman, who made the commitment on behalf of

Government for the information that we requested, that it has not been provided.

It has not been provided, Mr. Chairman. Absolutely nothing has been provided.

There it indicates the value of the project. That is all it is; it does not tell

us how many jobs. It does not even tell us, Mr. Chairman, if it is all used for

labour. The question that I would like to ask here, is this all being used for

labour?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, every cent.

MR. TOBIN: Every cent is for labour?

MR. WINSOR: No, it is not. Chain saw rental, Graham.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Chairman we have to get this

straight. Now, the Government House Leader, I would like for him to listen to

this, because I am being serious. What we have here is a list that does not

indicate how many jobs were created; it just gives the location and the dollar

value. Now the Minister of Forestry says that every cent of this is for labour?

AN HON. MEMBER: He does not know.

MR. TOBIN: Was every cent of this for labour?

AN HON. MEMBER: He does not know. No, it was not.

MR. TOBIN: Were equipment and rentals not put in place?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: On a point of order,

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture on a point of order.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, if it is so important to the

hon. Member, and as I said, I think he is just being picky, Mr. Chairman, and

wasting time in the House, but what is contained in that list is every project

that was identified, the delivery mechanism, whether it was a town council or a

rural development association; the place the programme is, and the total amount

of dollars. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is $1 million, eight hundred and something

thousand dollars committed, at $400 per work week, I think it is, Mr. Chairman.

That is public knowledge, $400 per work week. All the hon. Member has to do is

divide $400 into $1.8 million and he will have the total number of jobs created.

MR. TOBIN: That will only give you the number of work

weeks. (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: That is the number of work weeks. However,

Mr. Chairman, if it is so important that the Member would want it, I will call

back to my officials; I will leave the floor of the House right now, and call

back to my officials, ask them the number of jobs created, and indicate to the

House as soon as I have that information. I have provided all the information

that should be necessary, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the President of the Council.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, to the point of order which had

to do with the Opposition request, we are not responding to the Opposition

request, obviously. We are doing what is right, and tabling in the House, as

soon as we can, as soon as is possible, the list of projects, locations, and

amounts of money. As Your Honour knows, the local groups that are doing these

projects have some flexibility in terms of numbers; obviously we provide them

with the money, and they go and do the forestry projects as agents of Government

in most cases, so this is the process. What I would really like to say to this

point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that I spent four years sitting over in

Opposition, and on that one sheet of paper is more information about projects,

on that one sheet of paper, than I received from the previous Government in four

full years, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come off it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

want to respond to the point of order that has been raised here and say that the

only reason we are getting any information in this House is because we requested

it. The Government House Leader knows full well, that we requested a list of

location, amount of money and the number of jobs. That is what we were told

would be tabled in this legislature. The ministers are playing games with it. I

am sure the Government House Leader was specific in his request to the

ministers, and either the ministers are not competent enough to bring the

information to the legislature, or they are trying to play games so that we

really cannot get the answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are playing games, yourself!

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I am not playing games. We want the

information and it should not be too difficult to get, I say to the minister.

That is all we request, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the Government House Leader

going on about information, it is nice to talk back four or five years and what

you got and or you did not. Who remembers now what you were given or you did not

get? So I say to him, he is just playing games with all this nonsense. When we

were the government, the Opposition did not have to come to the legislature and

fight to get information, it was given to them readily.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. members are engaging in

debate, using the rules of the House and the point of order. I suggest, we are

in a ten-minute exchange across the House, and that hon. members use regular

debate rather than abuse the rules of the House by bringing up what they know

are not points of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I think providing that list to

the House - which was not what we requested - was a blatant attempt by the

Minister of Forestry to cover up for his incompetence. Then the Government House

Leader, who should have known better, was on his feet. And he knows what he

promised better than anybody. He talked to our House Leader, and I spoke to him

about it, as well. On both occasions, he promised he would give the information,

which included the number of jobs. Now the Government House Leader is either

going to earn the trust of the Opposition or lose it, and he is very quickly on

a course of losing it. Because if one does not honour his word, nothing is worth

talking about.

The bottom line is that we have not received from the

Minister of Forestry the information that was requested. I have not seen what

the Minister of Social Services gave us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I will not say it. I suspect that the

Minister of Social Services has given us the number of jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, the Minister of Social Services says he

has given us the number of jobs. Now, if the Minister of Social Services can do

that, why can't the Minister of Forestry do it? After all, he is Cabinet three

or four years. The Minister of Social Services is only there a few months. He

had the ability to do what was asked of him. I think, instead of the Premier

giving two portfolios to the Minister of Forestry, he should strip him of both.

Now, what we have here is a whole problem with attitude that I think is fairly

prevalent. I think - the list, `Sam'. It is very prevalent from that list that

we have just seen right here.

I would like to get back - and I am sure one of our

colleagues will get back - to where all of these projects were approved. I had a

quick glance at that, and I did not see very much for any members on this side

of the House. As a matter of fact - probably I stand to be corrected - Sam, two?

MR. WINSOR: What's that?

MR. TOBIN: For us.

MR. WINSOR: No, it is about 20 per cent.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, there you go, Mr. Chairman, we got about

10 per cent or 15 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: That is what we got out of these projects,

around 15 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education

should pound his desk. After the pounding he has given the education system in

this Province he has nothing else left to pound.

What we have here is a Government that has again pork

barrelled with the Department of Forestry in terms of the allocations of funds.

This is not how they got elected to government, by making these promises. They

never got on the stage throughout this Province and said, we are going to look

after all the people who voted Liberal. The Premier's words were `fairness and

balance'. Well, I would like to know what has happened to `fairness and

balance', Mr. Chairman.

The President of Treasury Board, who should be showing

leadership in this House, is doing anything but that. No wonder this Government

is falling apart. No wonder there are Cabinet Ministers resigning left, right

and centre. No wonder in six months there have been five Cabinet Ministers

either quit or fired out of Cabinet. No wonder, Mr. Chairman, the Premier has to

keep around such incompetence as the Minister of Forestry, because of the people

who are resigning. Why doesn't the Premier look around at his back bench. He

doesn't have much, it is true, but he does have some members who could be put

into Cabinet to replace the Minister of Forestry. The Member for St. John's

South points at himself, and I would say he is right, he could replace him. I

would say he is right. And the Member for Carbonear could be in Cabinet. But the

Minister of Forestry should not be in Cabinet. The Premier should kick him out

as he has done with others - and others have quit for various reasons. The

bottom line is that the Government of this Province is falling apart. There is

no direction, no leadership, either from the Premier, Mr. Chairman, or from the

Government House Leader. There is no leadership, either inside or outside the

House. I think it is very obvious when you look at the resignations and the

firing from that Cabinet in six months.

There are some questions that the public want asked and some

answers that they deserve regarding what is taking place. I tell you, Mr.

Chairman, it will soon be time for someone to give the answers to what is taking

place. For example, today I asked a question of the President of Treasury Board,

the acting Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and the other

minister or whatever, the former minister, was trying to answer it. Now is he a

minister or is he not a minister? That is the question that has to be asked.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) You are not mad.

MR. TOBIN: I am mad, Mr. Chairman, at the abuse that is

taking place in this House, and everybody in the Province is mad at what is

taking place in this House of Assembly, with this Government, and they have a

right to be angry. There are three or four Government departments right now of

which no one knows who the minister is, whether there is an acting minister,

whether there is a minister waiting to resign. Let me tell you right now, I

respect the right of ministers to resign from Cabinet and do what they want for

personal or other reasons.

Mr. Chairman, I have every respect for a man or woman who,

for some personal reason, wants to resign, and I will never make any reference

to it except to say that I support any person who comes to that conclusion. I

will not mention any names, but I think everyone knows who I am talking about. I

support a person who reaches the conclusion that he would rather not continue to

serve in Cabinet and wants to be a private member. He has that right, Mr.

Chairman, and I respect him for it.

Apart from that instance, the Premier cannot half fire a

minister. A minister is either fired or not fired. There is either an acting

minister, a minister of the Crown, or there is not. That is what we need, and

that is what has to be determined.

For example, when the Member for Port de Grave was no longer

a minister, the Minister of Social Services became a full-time minister, and

that is the way it should be. But what do you have now, Mr. Chairman? How often

is the Premier of this Province going to have ministers who are put aside for a

little while?

MR. MATTHEWS: They are half in and half out.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, half in or half out. You cannot be there,

Mr. Chairman. And it is time that leadership is shown in this Province. We do

not know from one day to the next, who is minister of what in this Government,

and you have half the backbenchers over there going around trying to get in

Cabinet, so the ones who are on the front bench should be very wary of the ones

in the back benches.

MR. MATTHEWS: Trying to break in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I say to the Minister of

Forestry that I have been recognized by the Chair and the Chair will decide

whether or not what I am saying is in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to hear

it, I will say it again. I said you cannot be half in Cabinet or out of Cabinet.

When the Member for Port de Grave left Cabinet, the Member for Placentia took

his place. But that is not what is happening in other portfolios here. There are

ministers who are half in and half out, that is what I said. If the Member for

Port de Grave does not like it, Mr. Chairman, I say it is too bad. I couldn't

care less what the Member for Port de Grave likes or dislikes.

MR. EFFORD: You had better be careful.

MR. TOBIN: I will be careful, Mr. Chairman. The Member

for Port de Grave can tell me to be careful and he can issue all the threats he

likes, but it does not affect me, Mr. Chairman. If the member wants to come over

here he can, but I am not going to stop talking. Let him make up his mind. I am

not going to stop debating the issues while he is trying to make up his mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now, the last person who should talk about

crossing the floor and joining our party is the only one who was ever kicked out

of the Conservative Party.

MR. WINSOR: He took the files with him.

MR. TOBIN: I am sure we saw him on television a few

months ago saying, `I am taking my files and going,' whey they kicked him out of

the Tory Party. And, I understand, now, they are trying to find another

candidate for St. John's Centre. They are trying to kick him out of the Liberal

Party as well, so my friend for St. John's East may have a colleague, sooner or

later.

AN HON. MEMBER: His time will soon be up.

MR. MATTHEWS: You should get your answers, never mind

about the time.

MR. TOBIN: He should not worry about my time being up

because he recognizes his own time is up.

If we are going to deal with the issues facing this Province

in terms of the unemployment that exists from one end of the Province to the

other - and I can speak about my own district.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is 4:00, Thursday afternoon, and before

I announce the questions for the Late Show, I remind hon. members in this House

that it is unparliamentary for members to sit on a desk with their backs to the

House. I ask hon. members, in future, to refrain from doing that.

The questions for the Late Show: The first one is, `I am not

satisfied with the response of the Premier and the Minster of Forestry and

Agriculture to my question about the closure of the Western swine breeding

station.' That is from the hon. the Member for Humber East. The second question:

`I am not satisfied with the answer to my question to the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs, re the Labrador travel subsidy.' and that is from the

hon. the Member for Menihek. The third question is, `I am not satisfied with the

answer from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation regarding the

Winterland airstrip.' That is from the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

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

I just want to take a few minutes this afternoon to say

something about the order of the day. First of all, I cannot help but pay

respects to, and acknowledge the Member for Burin - Placentia West. As you know,

while the House was closed there was some reorganization in the Tory Party, and

I think it is time that the House passed on its congratulations to the Deputy,

Deputy, Deputy, Deputy House Leader opposite, Mr. Chairman. I found it strange,

because I didn't know how you would be able to move from a Deputy, Deputy,

Deputy House Leader to other more prominent positions in the party hierarchy

opposite, but one of the hon. members over here pointed out to me the real

reason that the appointment did not go further was because the Leader of the day

doesn't smoke cigars. That is it, Mr. Chairman, because if he had smoked cigars

I am sure he would have been able to bring back his old ability to `flick the

bic', as one member said, and light up those old cigars, as he was used to doing

before to previous leaders. I am sure that is what kept him from moving over to

the other seat, closer to the Leader of the Opposition.

Now, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, certainly has

what it takes to fit that position, and we should all be satisfied that he is

there doing what needs to be done.

But what really amazed me, coming from the hon. member,

earlier, was his holding forth about, you know, `This Government cannot go on

making promises; they cannot go on saying they are going to do something in

election campaigns and not do it. He said, `What happens to the fairness and

balance, Mr. Chairman?'

Well, of all members to say this particular type of thing, at

all times, is the Member for Burin - Placentia West. Only a couple of days ago,

the hon. the Minister of Development went down to some place in this Province,

stood up with the cameras of CBC over his shoulder, and signed a deal, one of

the greatest, biggest industrial developments in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Now then, is this a promise or is this

reality? Is this 500 jobs or is this 200 jobs? Is this 300 jobs, indirectly, or

is it not? Is this $21 million dollars of money back to the Government or out to

Mount Pearl? Is that where it is, Mr. Chairman? Is this the economic strategy of

this Government, saying that we are going to do something and going out there

and getting $21 million back to the taxpayers of this Province, so that we can

produce long-term, meaningful employment for people, and for the people on the

South Coast of Newfoundland not because they have elected the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, but I would say, in spite of the fact that they have elected the

Member for Burin - Placentia West.

What we are seeing here is a Government committed to fairness

for all people in this Province. That is why, I am sure, the Minister of

Development was so proud, and I cannot believe that at the first opportune time,

that member would not be on his feet saying thank you, thank you, bowing down

and saying, Please do that kind of stuff, as we all want you to do; so I can see

people coming back from Ontario and other places to work in the shipyard, and so

on. How come, the mentality of the Opposition is always so negative? How come

they cannot stand up and acknowledge the virtues of the people over here? How

come they always have to be so critical for the sake of it? One would have to

question why they are over there, I suppose, but after all, it is things like

this that puts people in Opposition and, I submit, will keep them there for a

long time to come.

So, Mr. Chairman, we are seeing what he says: When is the

leadership going to come to this party? Well, I mean, I was on "Straight Talk"

the other day with the Member for Green Bay, and with his head almost down to

his navel, he was saying: `We have a new Leader, now.' He could not keep a

straight face, let alone have a straight talk. And, Mr. Chairman, there is no

new Leader. Sure, the same fellow we saw over there for the last couple of years

is still there.

AN HON. MEMBER: They recycled him.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, and he has a couple of Deputy,

Deputy, Deputy people closer to him, but that is where he is. What we are seeing

here now, is leadership personified, in this Province. Canada is saying this is

where leadership is, not in British Columbia, not in Ontario, not in Quebec, it

is in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chairman. And I know it is very hard to

take when you are struggling to get up over 10 per cent in the opinion polls; I

know it is very hard when you are trying to get over the GST and popular

opinion; it is very hard knowing that if an election were called today, not one

of them would be left over there. They would all be wiped out, and nobody wants

that - well, one, is there? Maybe the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes would be

back. He has performed impeccably, Mr. Chairman, since he has come here, and,

certainly, I know his constituents would have to think twice about not returning

that member. But I do not think there is going to be any doubt about Burin -

Placentia West, the next time around, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot help but take this opportunity to say

to the members opposite that it is not comfortable, we all know it is not

comfortable when you are in that position, when the lone member of the NDP has

now jumped ahead of all seventeen over there; it is not easy, and that is when

he is getting coaching from the gallery, Mr. Chairman. Imagine if he had his

leader in here - I suppose he would be firmly in second place.

So, Mr. Chairman, we will continue as we are doing, providing

the leadership that we have been renowned for all across Canada. We will

continue to pursue the kinds of meaningful projects that we have just delivered

to the member's district, Mr. Chairman. We will continue to show the people of

this Province strong, accountable, honest leadership, and be able to put in

place the kind of economic activity that I know hurts, but, Mr. Chairman, has to

be done. We are going to take over the finances of this Province as they have

not been before, when there was not intellectual honesty, vision for this

country and this Province, and the hon. members got kicked out.

We are going to put in place now, Mr. Chairman, as we have

shown up to this point, good, solid, meaningful vision for this Province.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it will be a hard pill to swallow, I know, if they are not

all back here the next time around, but that is the way things go. And the

Member for Burin - Placentia West, maybe, if he gets back, and he is the only

one back, may move on up to be the Leader of the Opposition, next time, Mr.

Chairman.

I am going to conclude with that for today, Mr. Chairman, and

maybe in the next day or so I will talk about some more of the substantial

policy of this Government now that we are moving to finally put some sense back

into this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. After

listening to that speech, I can see why the Premier says the member is not

mature enough to put in Cabinet.

While we have the Minister of Justice, and the minister

responsible for Consumer Affairs with us, I understand, I think it may be time

to look at the expenditure under the heading of Justice. Criminal Law,

Professional Services, an extra $315,000, and it may be worth his while to

explain where that is going. I wonder if he will tell us if any of it is going

to help offset some extra costs that the Constabulary have run into in relation

to the towing away of cars. That is an issue that everyone seems to be ducking,

but it is the understanding from people who have been affected, who have had

their vehicles towed away, that some of them have had to pay through the nose,

others have been told not to worry about it, that the cops will pick up the tab.

So, if that is the case, I wonder how much money is being spent by Government,

because somebody, Government, I presume, goofed up in calling tenders. Now, I

will just rehash for those who are not familiar with the problem.

I was driving down the street a few days ago, when a wrecker

passed me, and on the side was `Official Police Tow-Away Vehicle'. I understand

that the Government, the Department of Justice, undoubtedly, sanctioning a

tender call from the Constabulary, or maybe called them directly, called for

tenders for towing away cars that had been involved in accidents, or for any

other reason the police would want them removed. You just cannot pick up a phone

now and call the nearest garage and say, `Can you come and remove this car?' You

must go to somebody who has bid on the job. In the round of bidding, I

understand, many of the operators came in with reasonable charges, whether it be

twenty, or twenty-five, or thirty dollars; but these bids didn't get anywhere,

because some individuals came in bidding one dollar fifty, one dollar,

ninety-nine cents, to tow away cars. If you bid on a job, well, that is what you

should get ninety-nine cents. However, what is happening is that when the cars

are towed to a compound, when the owner goes to get the car he does not have to

pay the tow charges he always had in the past, the ninety-nine cents, he has to

pay for storage, care and everything else. People have paid, I understand up to

$400 to get cars back where they are only suppose to pay the towing charge. Now,

somebody has made an awful mistake and the person who is paying the price is the

consumer. If it is in the tender that the guy who tows away your car can charge

what he likes well then he is only doing what he is legally allowed to do. If he

bid on the removal of vehicles realizing that the people who owned the cars

always in the past, winter towing, or whatever, when you went down to pick up

your car you had to pay the towing charges. Now people are paying through the

nose for a ninety-nine cent tow job. You could have fun with that, but that is

exactly what is happening. On some occasions, at least, individuals who have

protested that they should only pay the ninety-nine cents, which is what the

company, whatever, I do not even know who has the job so I am not trying to nail

anybody here, I am just talking about principles, they were told, well, pay your

ninety-nine cents and the cops will pay the rest. I wonder if the Minister will

tell us if the Newfoundland Constabulary or the Department of Justice has been

paying extra because the companies who tow away the vehicles are only charging

ninety-nine cents for the job, because if that is what they bid that is what

they should get? If they bid ninety-nine cents to tow away a car then they

should get ninety-nine cents for the job, but what they are doing, of course, is

collecting the ninety-nine cents from the Department of Justice, or the

constabulary, whoever, the same money, and charging the owners onerous fees in

some cases at least, for having the vehicle towed away and impounded. It is

extremely unfair and unless the tenders are tightened up then it certainly

leaves the thing wide open to abuse and the people who are affected are, of

course, the individuals who have their cars towed away.

Mr. Chairman, there is one other area I would like to touch

upon while we have a few minutes, and that is on Municipal and Provincial

Affairs water services funding. We have this year, once again because of a lack

of funding in that area, several communities which are in dire straits in

relation to the provision of water and sewer facilities. The Minister so far, I

do not think, has made his - I do not think we have a list from the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs of the projects approved. Whether or not the

Minister is doing the same thing as the other Ministers in setting up his own

areas we will have to wait and see. I was told the day before the Minister made

his announcement that the Member for Bellevue was out announcing that people

were going to go to work on a water project because they were getting money out

of the new programme. Now, if that is happening then it seems that all of this

was earmarked before the money was even released. We are looking forward also to

getting the list from the Minister of Municipal Affairs to see what jobs he

created and what areas were served, when we know that other areas have on record

for quite some time requests for funding where they are in extreme need.

Everybody has been told there is no such thi