May 9,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 20

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Premier some pointed questions about

the Trans City scandal, but since he is absent from the House of Assembly again

today I have no choice but to direct my questions to the Premier's fall guy, the

Deputy Premier.

By now everyone following the unfolding of this scandal has

heard of a Cabinet document dated October 30, 1991, signed by the Deputy

Premier, whom the Premier appointed to Chair a special committee of four

ministers dealing with the hospital construction contracts. In that document the

Deputy Premier referred to a legal opinion and he, the Deputy Premier, wrote,

and I quote: "It is quite clear that if we award to Trans City Holdings we would

not be acting within the spirit of the Public Tender Act and our decision would

be difficult to defend within the House of Assembly."

In that document the Deputy Premier recommended that the

projects be re-tendered. I ask the Deputy Premier now: Why was the dynamite

paper he signed, dated October 30, 1991, withheld from the full Cabinet? Why

weren't all the ministers warned of legal problems and told the special

committee wanted to re-tender?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I notice at the beginning of the question that I have been

moved from head henchman to fall guy. I wonder why that change. Yesterday it was

head henchman.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the report of the

committee, after looking at the legal opinion, and the sequence of events was

that Cabinet had approved something and we decided to get a legal opinion on it,

and after looking at the legal opinion the report was brought back to Cabinet

which summarized, in effect, what was in the legal opinion, which had nothing to

do with what the hon. lady is saying.

As to the piece of paper she is talking about, that was

written by a civil servant as a proposed response by the committee, but the

committee simply did not agree with it. The legal opinion did not agree with it.

The reasons that we had for going with this proposal in the first place did not

agree with it. There were overwhelming reasons why we would not agree with that

position that was written by a public servant.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the

Deputy Premier.

Now the Deputy Premier signed the paper I just quoted from.

That paper bears his signature. It was quoted in full in the Supreme Court

judgement that ruled the government broke the Public Tender Act. Five government

members who were Cabinet ministers at the time in question are now saying they

did not see that paper dated October 30, 1991, signed by the Deputy Premier.

They claim the Deputy Premier did not even tell them there were legal problems,

or that the special committee wanted to re-tender.

Deputy Premier, don't you think that your colleagues had a

right to have all the information? Don't you think your colleagues in Cabinet

had a right to know that you were recommending that the contracts be

re-tendered?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I agree that if the committee of

Cabinet was of the opinion that the contract should have been re-tendered, I

would have hoped that all of Cabinet would have agreed with the committee,

absolutely certainly. If the committee was writing a report to Cabinet which

suggested that then I would hope Cabinet would go along with it. The truth of

the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that that was not the recommendation of the

committee. The recommendation of the committee, which has been tabled in this

House and discussed in this House in great detail, was totally different from

that particular document.

The other question the hon. lady raises is that this had my

signature on it. I admit it is my signature and I did sign that document that

was prepared by a civil servant for consideration by the committee. I should not

have signed it and it is a mistake that sometimes you make from time to time. I

have made a half a dozen mistakes I suppose in the last six years and if I stay

around for another six years I will probably make another half a dozen but, Mr.

Speaker, that is the inescapable fact of the matter.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is a $40 million one.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is better to make fifty small ones then

six big ones.

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

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Deputy Premier, the Deputy Premier indeed made a

very big mistake at the instigation of the Premier and because of that mistake

he won't be around for another six years. He won't be around beyond the next

election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Now the Deputy Premier signed a paper which is

quoted in full in the Supreme Court decision and in that paper the Deputy

Premier cited a legal opinion. The Deputy Premier indicated that he accepted the

legal advice as precluding proceeding with the award to Trans City and he

recommended that the contracts be re-tendered so all interested contractors

could compete on a level playing field. Now this paper was sent from the Deputy

Premier's office to the Cabinet office, to the Executive Council office. It was

stamped received at the Cabinet office. Now I ask the Deputy Premier: Isn't it

true that only one person could have blocked his paper in the Cabinet office and

withheld it from the rest of the Cabinet? Wasn't that person the Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all there were 150 or

200 pages of a judgement or whatever it was, 100 and-some-odd pages of a

judgement handed down by the Supreme Court. She indicates and tries to use this

as proof of authenticity that this was quoted from in that judgement.

In actual fact, the basis of the judgement had nothing to do

with that paper at all, and the hon. lady knows that if she reads the legal

report. She should also realize that if she reads the legal opinion that I

obtained from the Justice Department, having to do with the legality of the

process, she will see that the conclusion in the legal opinion - if she would

care to read it, and all hon. members should read it - is just the opposite of

what is in that paper.

All I can say to her, Mr. Speaker, is, that was a paper that

was prepared by a public servant for consideration by the committee but was so

different from the conclusion of the committee, after reading the legal opinion,

that the committee made a totally different recommendation to Cabinet, and that

in fact the paper she mentions, which by the way I turned over to the court

myself, that particular document was never distributed to Cabinet, and was not

made available to Cabinet because that was not the opinion of the committee. A

civil servant wrote what he wanted to be, or what she wanted to be, the opinion

of the committee that was not the opinion of the committee.

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

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Premier referred to the court proceeding; he

indicated that he handed this document that he signed, dated October 30, 1991,

over to the court. Now, I remind the Deputy Premier that he was very late in

producing that document and he handed it over only after the Member for Burgeo -

Bay d'Espoir made it public. Now, I say to the Deputy Premier that the RCMP,

according to the news media, have begun to look into the Trans City scandal.

According to news reports the RCMP started looking at the affair after the

Supreme Court decision ruling that government broke the Public Tender Act.

Now, Judge Orsborn, in the Supreme Court ruling, said that

some relevant information was missing, some information had disappeared. Five of

the Deputy Premier's colleagues who sat with him in Cabinet at the relevant time

now say that critical information was withheld from them, information that would

have changed their votes. What assurance can the Deputy Premier give the people

of this Province that he and the Premier are not now withholding information

from the police?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is a strange web that the hon.

member is concocting here. My understanding is - and I suppose she is dealing

with the same information I am. My understanding is that in response to a

question by the Leader of the Opposition in the House which, as far as I know

has no foundation in fact at all and which was totally discounted by the police

forces, there was an indication that the RCMP, I believe, look at every court

judgement; they have a look at court judgements that are made all the time. I

believe that was the sense of the news report and that's all that I know about

that, Mr. Speaker. Nobody is hiding anything from anybody; everything has been

perfectly open. In relation to my colleagues who have asked some questions, and

this happened to get out to the press, these questions will be answered

hopefully to my colleagues' satisfaction.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would love to follow on that line of questioning with the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board but that issue is not going away and I

will have another day. I have a more important issue today to deal with.

Could I ask the Minister of Education and Training some

questions dealing with Adult Basic Education, which we are all aware has been

drastically cut, in fact, all but eliminated, I think, in the community

colleges.

Would the minister like to tell us exactly what the situation

is? Is that, as we have been told, simply because of reduction in federal

funding? If so, what efforts has the minister made to have this funding

put emphasis on education as part of their great Economic Strategic Plan?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I see the new Education critic

doesn't have his facts straight any better than the previous critic did.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the cutbacks, there will be 200

seats taken out of Adult Basic Education in the college system. That leaves

5,500 already there, still there - No, 5,800, I am sorry, 5,500 in 1992 - 5,800

in the college system. In addition to that, there are still 1,200 students in

other Adult Basic Education sites around the Province, so when the hon. member

gets up and says that: Adult Basic Education has been devastated, wiped out,

disappeared, the hon. member doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

The fact is that there is more Adult Basic Education being

offered in Newfoundland and Labrador today than ever there was before in our

history, Mr. Speaker, so the hon. member, if he is going to be critic, he has

big shoes to fill when he tries to fill those of the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount, and I suggest that at least he get the first question right, Mr.

Speaker, and get his facts right.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, an abundance of words does not

make substance, I can assure the hon. minister.

Would the minister not confirm that at the Cabot College,

sixteen of the eighteen positions that were attached to the adult basic

education program have been eliminated in the last couple of weeks, and that the

adult basic education program in the Cabot College has all but been eliminated,

and that people are being told to go to private schools? Is the minister not

aware that the Cabot College was charging something in the order of $70 per

semester for adult basic education, while the private colleges are charging $200

a semester? Is that not the case, I ask the minister?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is going to have

to come over so we can brief him on just what is happening. The reality is we

Manpower seats. In order for a person to get into one of these ABE seats, he or

she used to be paid a living allowance, baby-sitting allowance, transportation

in. A whole lot of things used to be paid for. The cost was $7,000 per seat.

This program has been cut back by 30 per cent, $2.3 million

or something in that range. The colleges had to deal with that problem so they

looked at what they could do. The adult basic education programs are one-year

programs so they cut back on some of them because they had students who were in

one-, two- and three-year programs. You couldn't cut a student halfway through.

So they looked at what is happening to adult basic education in this Province.

They looked at the millions of dollars that are being spent on TAGS. The union

has something like sixteen or eighteen sites around this Province offering adult

basic education. They looked at the new trends that are taking place by

correspondence. They looked at a lot of people who want to do ABE who are

working but could not fit it into their time system, so it is being offered

after hours.

The reality is that there are 200 seats which were not solely

adult basic education. They also had a social reason. It was a living allowance,

it was a place to go. I should tell the hon. member that in Central Newfoundland

at this moment there are 227 on the wait list. Only five are prepared to attend

unless the seat is sponsored because it is more than just teaching to read and

write. It is a social thing where there is a living allowance and everything

involved.

What the hon. member has to realize is we are only talking

about 200 places. There are more than 200 places in this Province today than

there were last year. So there are more people taking adult basic education than

ever there was before. When I look at this particular program I wonder -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. -

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister is only talking

about 200 seats, talking about 200 people who are disadvantaged people who are

trying to claw themselves out of that position to get some basic education so

that they can support themselves and their families and not be dependent on

government. Is the minister trying to tell this House the government doesn't

care whether there are 200 or 2 people?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, at least he is a faster learner

than his predecessor. He got up first, the ABE was devastated, wiped out, the

whole population was going down the drain because there was no ABE. I set him on

the right track and, good, he learned. His predecessor would have taken two

lessons to learn, so he learned it is 200. When he got up it was everybody -

6,000 - everybody wiped out, so at least he has learned.

Yes, of course, government is concerned about 200. That is

why we are offering ABE to more people than ever we were in the history of this

Province, because we are concerned about it, but we are also concerned about

other people in the college system. We are also concerned about business

courses. We are also concerned about the technicians. We are also concerned

about all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have to get an education, and we

cannot spend all of our money in one area. We are doing a fabulous job in adult

basic education, and we will continue to do that but we will not do it at the

cost and the expense of other young people who also have to get an education in

this Province.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier I would like to

direct my questions today to the Minister of Natural Resources. I would like an

explanation why Argentia was so suddenly dropped from the pre-qualifying list

for the offshore supply base for Hibernia.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I think that question is more

appropriately, perhaps, directed to me, the offshore benefits division coming

under Industry, Trade and Technology.

The four areas that were pre-qualified were three areas in

St. John's - I am sure the members who represent those areas were pretty happy -

and Bay Bulls, and I would think the Member for Ferryland would be pretty happy.

I was quite shocked when I saw that Argentia was not

pre-qualified. The process now allows for pre-qualification of a five day delay

whereby we can intervene. We have done so today; we have asked for

clarification, and we have asked for re-evaluation of that site.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the minister said that they are starting to poke

their nose in today. Obviously the Hibernia people cannot be interested in cost

savings because it was proven two years ago that they could save $1,400,000 a

year by using Argentia. They are not interested in an ice-free port because

today there is ice outside the harbour of St. John's and there is a vessel that

was supposed to go into Bull Arm that is still down in Argentia; that is going

on two weeks now. So, Minister, will you pursue your meetings - your people -

with Hibernia? Will you be able to keep the Member for the District of Placentia

and the Town of Placentia informed on the day-to-day because, from what I can

gather, they are supposed to be meeting with the Argentia Management Authority

today, giving them some explanation as to why. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, HMDC has offered to debrief those

people who did not pre-qualify. As I said, the process is quite simple. Whenever

a tender is awarded there is a two day delay which allows the process to kick in

for government to intervene. In the case of pre-qualification there is a five

day delay. Our formal notification arrived yesterday sometime around noon. We

have issued a letter, just in the last hour or so in fact, telling them that we

would like to exercise, through the C-NOPB, our right to seek clarification on

this matter and to seek re-evaluation. This is a process that was put in place,

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say, by the Peckford Government.

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

for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make it clear to this House too that there

are other things going on with Hibernia. I am glad the minister is sticking in

because somehow or other Hibernia has come to a certain kind of a status that

people are afraid to interfere with them. There is a $27 million mistake down in

Argentia right now ready to be taken apart, jump forms, designed and built in

Germany for a concrete platform at Hibernia. They found out that it was not good

enough so they put in slip forms. A $27 million mistake ready to be taken apart.

I want again to say that the issue of saving money, a twenty year production

could save $28 million by using Argentia instead of St. John's or anywhere else.

Sir, I would like for you to - if we could get together - tell them what we want

done in this Province by Hibernia because they should not be any bigger than the

government, no matter who is on the government side, to tell them who is boss.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's

frustration and I know he is genuinely concerned and sincerely concerned. This

is a massive and complex project. There is over $3 billion spent to date and

some 8,000 people working, with the majority of those people working here in the

Province. We also have to be concerned about Hibernia's unfettered right to make

decisions based upon the economics of the project and while you may be unhappy

today perhaps the Member for Ferryland is delighted, perhaps the Member for

Mount Pearl is very happy, perhaps Members from St. John's are very happy. They

have to have that unfettered right. What we are seeking is clarification to

ensure that there was fairness in the pre-qualification and that Argentia

management authority were treated honourably, upfront and the transparency is

there and the fairness was there. That is what we are seeking out to show.

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

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

direct a question to the Minister of Health.

On March 30 of this year your department announced four

initiatives to deal with the retention and recruitment of physicians in rural

Newfoundland. Now this concept is a start but it does not go far enough and it

does not have any concrete plan. Will the minister tell this House how this

program is going to be implemented?

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

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

thank you for the question.

There is a concrete plan in terms of the initiative that we

announced on March 30 to start dealing with the recruitment and retention of

rural physicians. There are four elements to it; one has to do with the

provision of a bonusing system depending on the isolated area that the physician

is serving in, and providing that he serves at least two years from March 31 in

that area. There is provision in that initiative to recognize extra workload

where there is a shortage of physicians. There is provision in that initiative

to bring provisionally licensed physicians up to the level of fully licensed

physicians in terms of where they start. There was a $1,500 difference there.

All of these initiatives together have been brought forward

partly as a result of collaboration with the rural physician sector of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association. I can tell you that if the member

read the press releases from NLMA and from the rural physician sector of that

organization he would find that the initiatives were roundly applauded,

excitedly received, very much appreciated, and by their indication will go a

long way toward meeting the rural physician retention situation in Newfoundland.

They are happy. I'm sure that rural members of this House

should be happy that the government was able to take those initiatives in the

rather difficult financial circumstance that we all know we find ourselves in.

But that may not be the end of the road. We will continue to do what we have to

do to provide physicians in rural Newfoundland such that health care will be

delivered on a fair and equitable and high-quality basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question was

regarding the implementation of the plan. The Medical Association agrees with

me. In a letter to doctors it indicated that the plan is very philosophical in

nature, and there is no specific concrete plan to implement, and how they are

going to carry it out. That is what I asked the minister. He is just avoiding

the issue.

I'm aware of doctors who have been on call in this Province

for several months at a time. I've a letter from a doctor who was on call seven

days a week, twenty-four hours a day, for three consecutive months. This problem

is not just about money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He made $90,000. I ask the minister, does

the minister really think an extra $5,000 per year is going to keep doctors in

rural Newfoundland?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if

$5,000 will keep every rural doctor in every rural setting where we would like

to keep them. Five thousand dollars is the lowest bonus that will be applied and

paid to a doctor who stays in a rural setting more than two years. There is

another level at which they will get a $7,500 bonus and a third level at which

they would get a $10,000 bonus. We have been told, they tell us, that economics

is a part of the reason why we have a job to keep them there. We understand and

appreciate that. We can't compete with Manitoba which starts their physicians at

$90,000 to $120,000 when we have to start ours at somewhere around $67,000 to

$90,000. We can't address all the problems of Newfoundland in health care on a

dollars and cents basis. If we have to do it that way we are going to have

difficulty for a long time. But a mixture of creating a climate where they want

to come, creating a reasonable remuneration package, and all of the other

elements, we think will assist us in getting the job done and meeting physician

resource needs.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister

have any plan that addresses the crisis developing from the shortage of

specialists in rural parts of this Province, and even in urban areas of this

Province, but more especially in rural parts of this Province?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The difficulty in retaining specialists

is an extension of the whole problem of trying to retain physicians in rural

Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. We don't have the level of supply of specialists in

all areas that we need in the Province. On a general practitioner basis PRAG

tells us that we have really enough GPs in Newfoundland. Our problem is getting

them spread out, equitably distributed, so that the urban areas and the rural

areas have a reasonable coverage.

In terms of specialists we are encouraging our regional

health care boards to recruit as vigorously as they can, to try and make a

lifestyle and a work setting for these people as comfortable as they can so that

it will encourage their interest. It is not an easy problem. If I were to tell

you that I have a plan that can ensure that we will always have gynaecologists

or obstetricians or radiologists or psychiatrists, or any of these in every

place at the appropriate level all the time, I can't assure you of that.

I tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that I have been in some

considerable dialogue with the people at the medical school in an effort to open

up some slot so that people who go out and practice for awhile and want to come

back and go on to a higher education and speciality settings will have a greater

opportunity to do so. This year, we will be opening up additional spots for

people who can come back and train towards certain specialities. It is a

long-term problem, it is an historic problem, but one that I am happy to tell

you, we are addressing as vigorously as we can. Maybe if it had been done ten or

fifteen years ago with the same vigour and imagination, we may not have these

problems.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health as well.

Some months ago the Burin Town Council met with the minister,

concerned about the fact that the obstetric ward at the Burin Peninsula health

care facility was about to close. At that time the council was assured by the

minister, he gave his word, that it would not close, and I had it confirmed

again today by the council.

Mr. Speaker, as of last Thursday, notice was posted in the

Burin Peninsula health care facility, and in other medical doctors' offices,

telling mothers-to-be that the obstetric service was closed down and there were

ambulances put on stand-by to carry them to St. John's when the need arises. Let

me ask the minister why did he not keep his word that he made to the Burin Town

Council? In other words, why did he not live up to his commitment?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not about to comment on any

interpretation of any

observation that was given second-hand to this member by anyone who might have

been at a meeting with me. If he had been at the meeting, he might have heard

what I said, and if he were really interested in his district he would have come

with the town council to attend the meeting, but instead of that he shoved them

over on me all by themselves, and they had to come and deal with me without the

benefit of having their member present. He should have been there and heard what

I said and not listened to second-hand and third-hand information.

Doctors at the hospital are employees of the hospital board

and it is the board's responsibility to ensure that they have sufficient doctors

in place. I cannot guarantee, no minister can guarantee, no government can

guarantee that people who work for salaries in hospitals will not at any point

in time resign, if they chose to do so, and move on.

I tell the member this, any commitment that I gave the town

council, or the Burin Peninsula health board, was to work as vigorously as I

could with them and do what we could on their behalf to help them. And the rural

physician enhancement package that I just announced in March was part of a

response to meetings that I had with, amongst other people, the people from the

Burin Peninsula.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are a few seconds left and I give the hon. member a

supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that I have

had several meetings with the Burin Town Council and at no time did I ever lie

to the Burin Town Council. That is not a trait of mine, I say to the minister. I

like being honest and up front.

Let me ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Besides not keeping his

word, not being honest and up front with the Burin Town Council, what is he now

doing to ensure that there is obstetric service put back in the Burin Peninsula

health care for the 30,000 people that facility was built for? What is the

minister going to do to ensure that the services are provided in that hospital

and that obstetric services are put back there immediately?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: If the hon. member is trying to indicate

that I lied to the people from the Burin Peninsula I wish he would have the guts

to say it straight out and not try to say by means of the back door what he

should be man enough to say through the front door. I did not lie to the Burin

Peninsula Town Council, I did not mislead the town council, and to answer your

question directly: What are we doing to ensure that gynaecologists,

radiologists, and obstetricians are down there? We are providing the appropriate

level of budget to ensure that the board has the ability to hire the people. The

board has the responsibility to hire them, they have the mandate to hire them,

and they are vigorously recruiting. They have a doctor coming in, as I

understand, June 15, they have temporary help coming in June 1, and if he talked

to the board down there he would find out they are doing their job a lot better

than he is doing his.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear when you called

the order -I have a report to present.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the House consent to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the House consent to revert to Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No. No leave given - another day.

Orders of the Day

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When this immense question of principle is settled over

there, Your Honour, would you first call, please, motions 4 through 13

inclusive. These are all bills that we are asking leave to introduce and I would

advise the House that I am told by the Table officers, with the exception of

motion 6, which is "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act", all the

other bills are printed and in the possession of the Clerk's Office so they will

be distributed assuming the House gives permission to introduce them.

With that said, would you call those motions please, Sir?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I can do them individually or as a

group, how ever the House prefers to do it?

Does the House consent to my calling it one motion on all of

these?

MR. ROBERTS: One motion, Your Honour.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

to introduce the following bills entitled:

"An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act", carried. (Bill No.

12).

"An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act", carried. (Bill No.

17).

"An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act", carried.

(Bill No. 15).

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Social Services to introduce

a bill entitled: "An Act To Amend The Social Workers Association Act", carried.

(Bill No. 2).

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

following bills entitled:

"An Act To Amend The Hospital And Nursing Home Association

Act", carried. (Bill No. 9)

"An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act", carried. (Bill No.

10).

"An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act", carried.

(Bill No.11).

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Animal Protection

Act", carried. (Bill No. 3).

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Department Of

Works, Services And Transportation Act, carried. (Bill No. 5).

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a

bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Evidence Act", carried. (Bill No. 16).

On motion, Bill Nos. 12; 17; 15; 2; 9; 10; 11; 3; 5 and 16

read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we carry on with the

Budget Debate, please? It is motion No. 1.

MR. SPEAKER: The Budget Debate, motion No. 1.

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. AYLWARD: I thought I gave a pretty eloquent speech

yesterday, Mr. Speaker, but I have only a little bit of time left and the

Hansard copies will be wanted, for sure, after I am finished.

I want to finish off with what I began with yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, which is to say that for this government to get close to and be able to

achieve a balanced Budget status, given the economic times, is quite an

accomplishment.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has done a superb

job in putting the Budget together, in dealing with all of the demands for

public services in this Province, given the financial situation that we have

been in, with declining transfer of payments over the past few years. It has

taken a lot of hard work and it has taken, Mr. Speaker, a lot of perseverance

but the government and the minister, in particular, have been able to accomplish

quite a feat.

As I was saying yesterday, when The Globe and Mail

gives a positive editorial for Newfoundland and Labrador, that is quite an

accomplishment, and in this case, as far as I am concerned, we have a number of

things that we can look forward to in the future that are positive for this

Province, and these are things that we have to start talking about more instead

of harping on the negatives which happens too often in this Province.

A lot of very positive things are going on in the areas of

economic development; opportunities are arising now that were not there before

in the mining sector, in the information technology sector, in the aquaculture

sector; the forestry sector is coming back and that is starting to be stable and

the companies are starting to make some dollars.

The other sector is the fishery, where alternative fisheries

are being pursued, which is something we didn't do a few years ago. And there

are other opportunities that are really starting to come around, so that looking

at the economic plan for the future, we have good reason to be optimistic. We

have really, a re-awakening of the resource economy in this Province; it is

starting to move. We have our financial house in order in the sense of the

government trying to keep it in order, given these difficult times.

So I think the companies that are out there looking to come

to this Province, now have more reasons to do so: they have reason because of

the EDGE legislation; they have reason because of our willingness to take on the

tough decisions to make sure that the taxpayers of the Province are well-served

and that their house is in order. Some very positive things have been laid out

in the last couple of years. And when we see what has occurred in other

provinces and we see some of the problems that are going to face a province like

Ontario and so on, when they wrestle with their debt problem, which they really

haven't done in the last three or four years, we have good reason to be

optimistic and I think, you know, we see some changes that we are making in

Education that have been going on for some time, they are starting to have an

impact. So, collectively, when you put the picture together it is a very

reasonable one. Again, I think it comes down to a matter of attitude. It comes

down to a matter of believing whether or not we are going to be successful as a

people. It comes down to believing whether or not we are going to be able to

make a go of it, to make sure that there are opportunities out there for our

people, and I for one am a believer that we are going to see those opportunities

further increased, and I believe you are going to see, as we see the rural

development movement changing its focus and changing its operation, style, it is

now going to start operating with an accountability mechanism in place that they

will be able to request what they need in order for them to move ahead, instead

of the government coming down and saying: Here is our plan for you. We want to

see what the plans are from the people out there coming forward. It is a new way

of doing business, and I think it is going to pay off in spades in the next

little while, and be very important as we move ahead in the rural areas which do

have a very bright future.

Despite what some people say, there is a bright future out

there. It depends again on what you want to make out of it. With the information

highway that is at hand in all the rural areas in the Province, the availability

of data, the availability of market research, the availability of information,

to be able to move on things, to start things, we are in a better position. If

you are going to have to face off with the type of crisis that we have had to

deal within the fishery, at least what we do have is a solid base, an

information base from which to try to figure out what we do with the

information, what we do with the potential opportunities that are out there in

the area of tourism, which is now again having a reawakening in this Province.

You see tourism really becoming a driving force with many of

the rural areas, bed and breakfasts which are springing up which are really high

quality operations that are going to attract people, tourism facilities that are

being put up for the right reasons, because of the tremendous tourism product

that we have here, one that we are working on, one that the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation is working on, that I think it is really going to start

paying off.

The advertising across Canada and the U.S. and so on to

attract people here is starting to pay off. I think the tourism numbers have

been going up in the last year or two, so it really is starting to come around.

Again, it is a matter of philosophy, I think.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. AYLWARD: I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your

kind patience. Thank you very much.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you lose your vote?

MR. WOODFORD: I don't know yet about the voting part of

it.

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible) $500 in the PC fund, right?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, $500 in the... I guess after this

there will be a lot of funds, I would say, sprouting up around the St. John's

area and other areas of the Province after we get a few days in the House.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few short

comments on the Budget. When I was going through the Budget, when the Budget was

being read, and after the Budget was read, and going through the Estimates

after, and in questioning the minister of the Department of Natural Resources on

the Budget, I found that there was something consistent with it. All throughout

the Budget reading, all throughout the Estimates and so on, there was something

consistent. That was that pretty well everywhere in the Estimates there was cut,

and nowhere, Mr. Speaker, in the reading of the Budget, in the details, was

there any mention of any job losses whatsoever. Yet just about every heading in

the Estimates, pretty well every heading, has a cut in funding.

We all know what is going to happen. It was evident in past

budgets by this Administration and it will be evident in this one, that pretty

well every day of the week now we will hear about five jobs gone, ten jobs gone,

twenty jobs gone here, 100 here, 200 somewhere else, all throughout the year.

One prime example of what has been happening is in

transportation. We had the airports, the federal government - members opposite

are really cosy with their federal buddies in Ottawa. When the airports policy

came down the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation for the Province

said absolutely nothing to his federal counterpart about what was happening to

airports in the Province.

I would like for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to just pay a little more attention to what I was saying about

the airport policy in the Province and the attention that his government has

paid to this particular problem. It is a very serious problem.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) weren't in Gander.

MR. WOODFORD: I wasn't in Gander for the meeting, but I

didn't have to be in Gander to the meeting.

MR. EFFORD: You weren't in Gander for the meeting.

MR. WOODFORD: You should have been in Ottawa to meet with

your counterpart Mr. Young.

MR. EFFORD: I've been in Ottawa.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but what did he tell you? You came

back from Ottawa with absolutely nothing, only probably a side agreement. You

might have had a side agreement. It was probably a side agreement, Mr. Speaker.

The minister in a meeting in Deer Lake with the town council in Deer Lake,

stated that in no way, shape or form were there any municipalities in the

Province going to be given the right to - or any amendments made to the

municipalities act to run any airports in the Province.

That has been so, so far. What is going to happen when it

comes down to the crunch with those airports, when the federal government says:

We can't get first of all the provincial government to run them, we can't get

the municipalities to run them, we can't get a local airport authority to run

them, and last, the possibility of absolute privatization is the one that they

would have to look at. What is going to happen? What will the feds do? All the

airports' budgets would have to be balanced before that. They've got to be

balanced within five years. Whether the federal government has them or not, or

the Province, or the municipalities or whoever, their budgets will be balanced.

This is another example. What I'm getting at is that the down

loading from the federal government onto the people of this Province, especially

in the last two years, amounts to a very large percentage of tax increases. I

would submit that if there were calculations done to the amount of tax increases

that it is after costing each individual in this Province over the last two

federal budgets alone would come somewhere between 10 per cent to 15 per cent.

Examples of that is this. The airports is one of them. The

down loading to the municipalities, all down through the federal government and

the provincial government to the municipalities, is another example. Another

example is the South Coast ferry service that will cost the people of the

Province millions of dollars down the road. Something that the hon. Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation would not have heard of six or seven years

ago. He would be going around with flashlights all around the Province

-Duracell, Mr. Speaker, their sales have gone down 50 per cent since the member

got in government in 1989. Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen to the South

Coast ferry service? What is going to happen to the Member for Labrador now who

sings out about the ferry service, the Marine Atlantic Ferry Service all up the

coast? There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with taking over

the ferry service. There is nothing wrong with taking over airports; nothing

wrong with running the infrastructure programs or any other kind of a program;

nothing wrong with a one-third cut to the community colleges, education; nothing

wrong with cuts to the University when it comes to education, absolutely nothing

wrong. Now all of a sudden everything is hunky-dory with their so-called

cousins.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Tories.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, the Tories in Ottawa. I should say the

Tories in Ottawa because there was never a Tory Government elected in Ottawa as

Tory as the Chrtien Government is today, never. Every word, almost verbatim,

that Kim Campbell said during the campaign of '93 is carried out by the federal

government in Ottawa. Pretty well every word, Mr. Speaker, that she uttered with

regards to no jobs, there will be no reduction in jobs for six or seven years,

that is happening. It has gone down a very small percentage. It is up and down

just like a yo-yo.

Interest rates, they blamed it all on the Bank of Canada and

the Minister of Finance. Interest rates went through the ceiling. Interest rates

in the last year or so have gone sky high again. It is only in the last few

weeks they have dropped down a little bit. The dollar went up and saved your

necks there. Absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker, there can't be any consultation.

The Premier is after spending more time out of the Province in the last year

than any other Premier in the history. What has been done? Where is the

consultation with Ottawa, Mr. Speaker? The downloading - there is no fight left.

Absolutely no fight left whatsoever, none whatsoever. No matter what comes up,

no matter what kind of a program, no matter what kind of a cut, whether it is

transfer payments or whatever it is, everything is okay. We will accept it. All

of a sudden everything is okay but yet at the same time they were elected to

protect the interests and the rights of the people of this Province and, Mr.

Speaker, that has not been done. That has not been done.

We have another example now, Mr. Speaker, of the CN and

Marine Atlantic being privatized. There are proposals out now for the Marine

Atlantic to be privatized. What is going to happen? The Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation is not in his seat. What is going to happen with tourism

in this Province? If Marine Atlantic tomorrow puts that up just a fraction there

would be no one -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that is right, it is an essential

service. If they interfere with that, Mr. Speaker, and if they privatize it we

know what is going to happen. We know what is going to happen because the

government of the day wants to do it. One of the reasons why they want to get

out of it is because of the fact that it is costing them too much money. They

won't admit that and they won't put up the fee so they will privatize it so that

the company who gets it will jack up the fees. They will kill the tourism

industry in the Province. Every bit of produce coming over by truck, every bit

of produce coming over across that gulf, Mr. Speaker, will cost the people of

this Province another 10 to 20 per cent. To add insult to injury, they just took

away the Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Program - another 10 per cent,

they dropped it to 8 per cent. Now that is gone, to add to that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island

just a few short years ago when he was in Cabinet and he was beating his chest

about Marine Atlantic putting up the fee coming across the gulf by five or ten

dollars, Mr. Speaker, he said he was going to sue the federal government. He was

going to sue the federal government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: The little bit of change that was left over

from buying shares belonging to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Give it up; sit down!

MR. WOODFORD: May I have some protection from the Chair,

Mr. Speaker?

He was going to sue the Federal Government. He was going to

make sure that the Tories in Ottawa were going to be taken to court because of a

small increase in the fee for the crossing from North Sydney to Port aux Basques

by CN Marine. Where is he today? There is not a sound when the Federal

Government is going to privatize the whole Marine Atlantic system and CN as a

whole - not a sound. All of a sudden there are a few former Cabinet ministers

over there starting to speak up. It is too late. They sat around the table when

the decisions were made, and they have to take responsibility for it, but I

would say they are doing a little bit of polling, and doing a little bit of

door-to-door in their districts, and they are finding out that the die is cast.

The die is cast, and the only life-preserver they can jump

for now is the fact that they are outside Cabinet and they can all of a sudden

speak up. That is the life-jacket they are clinging to now, they are reaching

for now, but it is too late, as far as I am concerned. That will not save them.

They know their districts are gone. They know that this government is on the

ropes, and now they are starting to speak up when it is too late. They were

there; never mind what they knew and what they did not know. They sat around the

table when those decisions were made, and if there was something withheld then

they knew that the tender call, for instance, from Trans City, went to this

certain company. Why were there not questions asked then? Why were there not

questions asked just a few short weeks ago? All of a sudden, in the last couple

of weeks, there has been a revival and some people, former Cabinet ministers,

all of a sudden, saw the light. But that light is flickering pretty dim now and

it will go out. The lights for those particular members will be out when the

next provincial election is called.

Mr. Speaker, in the transportation sector, the downloading

from the Federal Government onto the Province, if it is all carried out, for

instance, with regard to Marine Atlantic, the South Coast ferry system, the

airport system, the ferry system to Labrador, all going to add millions of

dollar - millions of dollars - to the already overburdened coffers of this

Province. The people will pay. Sooner or later the people of this Province are

going to pay, and pay dearly, for what is happening with regard to the changes

that the Federal Government is making as they pertain to this Province.

I say to members opposite, and I say to the Premier, and the

message should get back to him, that there is going to have to be some fight,

something put up by this government, to try to pick up for the people of the

Province. That is what they were elected to do, and that is what they should do,

never mind giving them clear sailing and letting them do absolutely what they

like with any program that pertains to this Province, and that is exactly what

is happening, adding millions of dollars on the backs of the people of this

Province who can ill afford it. We have anywhere from 23 per cent to 35 per cent

unemployment. How can the people of this Province absorb any more taxes directly

or indirectly, whichever? There is no way, shape or form by which they can do

it.

Another example of the Federal Government's compassion and

sympathy for the people of this Province, is in the forestry industry. The

forestry industry in this Province is one of the biggest industries that we

have. It is a renewable resource. It is a resource that can go on in perpetuity,

and we can harvest if it is looked after properly. What did they cut out? Pretty

well the whole program forestry centre in this Province is gone, the whole

silviculture program is gone. Now we are down, and all of a sudden the Province

could reach in, pluck out ten million and put into forestry, put into the

Department of Natural Resources in this Province to take the place of the $12

million that the Federal Government just cut out. Great for them, but why was

there not anything said about it? Why were there not meetings held with the

federal officials to make sure that this did not happen? Why do such things

happen now without anything being said, that have such a drastic effect on the

people of this Province?

The paper companies in this Province today are doing well.

There have been three increases in newsprint over the last seven or eight

months, and just recently, a few weeks ago, there was another increase of $75

per ton. It is pretty cyclical.

Just a year ago we were here in this House debating a bill

whereby the government was going to pay Kruger $15 million for buying back some

of the Reid properties and so on, $7.5 million a year. They were a bit hesitant

at that time because of the $15 million bill, but I found out when I questioned

the minister in the estimates that that $15 million was paid in one year -

another $7.5 million, absolutely no problem. So, we could pluck out $7.5 million

last year. At first $15 million was too much, but we paid them the $15 million

in one year with no problem, and yet we have companies like Kruger and

Abitibi-Price, who are doing okay now, like I said, but for instance Abitibi in

Stephenville - and I say this now while the member is there, and I have to say

this about the member.

I have had some calls from people in my district and the

union rep from out his way, people cutting for Abitibi-Price. We have had a

meeting on it already. He has had several, as I know, with his Cabinet

colleague, and it is sad when you have Abitibi-Price bringing in wood from PEI

and Nova Scotia and we with all kinds of timber stands in this Province that are

over matured, and the minister has to go out this summer and spray another

209,000 hectares. The government will sit down over the next few weeks and

approve the annual allowable cut for the companies in this Province, but when

they look at that and they look over in this corner of the Province and see

3,000 hectares of forest that are over matured, look over in Central and see

another 5,000 that would have to be salvaged now or else be lost because of the

looper, or if they look in another

section and it is over matured, why does

Abitibi-Price have to have wood come in from PEI and Nova Scotia when the wood

is here but it just happens to belong to another company? Why should Kruger be

allowed to sit on hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of wood when we have a

company in this Province that could be hiring another forty, fifty, sixty, or

one hundred people, providing jobs for the people in this Province, providing

revenues for the people in this Province, and providing much-needed pulpwood for

the mills in Stephenville, Grand Falls, or wherever it might be? Why should we

look at hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of wood falling down around our

ears just because there is another label attached?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I said in the House before and I will say

again today, there is no company, whether it is Kruger, whether it is

Abitibi-Price, or whether it is MacMillan Bloedel, whoever they are, they should

not own one stick, not one log in this Province should they own, not a limb, and

I will go out on a limb and say that they should have to do the same thing I

have to do, or any other citizen of this Province. I have to go down and ask for

a permit to cut 5,000 board feet of lumber. If I want to cut a few hundred cubic

meters of pulpwood, I have to go down and get a permit. Not only do I have to go

and get it, I have to beg for it, from forestry. There is even a freeze on

commercial sawmill licenses now. You can't even transfer a commercial sawmill

license.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) crab license.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, the crab license is another matter; I

will get to that in a minute. I want to have a few words on that as well.

But I don't think there is a member in this Legislature who

will be able to stand in his or her place and argue against what I just said

when it comes to the paper mills in this Province. It should not be, I would be

the first to say that there should be efficiency. I would be the first to say

that there should be conservation and I would be the first to say that

Abitibi-Price or Kruger can come in to me today and sit down with the minister

and say look, we will give you 40,000, 200,000 or 300,000 cubic metres of wood a

year. We will guarantee your mill is going to run for twelve months of the year

for the next twenty years, thirty years or whatever, but they should not own

everything that is out there and tell me, every Newfoundlander and Labradorian

out there, if we can build, if we can go walk around a lake or if we can cut a

log. That to me, Mr. Speaker, is criminal.

We have a company in this Province today, Abitibi-Price,

which is going outside this Province looking for timber when we have all kinds

of stands - and I never even got into the Labrador part of it. Labrador has the

best kind of spruce, some of the best fibre in the country. Some of the best

fibre contents in the country is in the Labrador area. And we have places around

this Province today where people, right around communities, cannot cut a log and

cannot cut a bit of firewood. If they do they will be fined either by Forestry

or by Kruger, or be charged.

Many times, Mr. Speaker, over the last few years I have had

calls from constituents who had gotten permits from Crown lands to cut, went in

and happened to cut over the line that was on Kruger. When Kruger got the RCMP

to come up - in this case it was the RCMP - and look at it, here was a full

pallet load of logs cut by individuals for their homes on a legitimate permit,

and they were seized. The logs were seized, they were sent up, a trucker was

sent up to hook on to the pallet and bring it to the mill. And the individual

not only lost the effort and time that was put into it and the expense but also

was charged because a portion of that was cut on Kruger property. That is the

kind of stuff - it is a wonder, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians are not more hostile. It is a wonder that there are not riots in

the streets. It is a wonder because of what was done to them, and has been done

to them over the past years.

If the minister put half as much effort into it when he was

sitting around the Cabinet table when something came up with regard to forestry

as he is putting into criticizing other members for speaking in the House, Mr.

Speaker, well, then, I would say we would be well served.

So I say to members opposite that something - and the

minister is present, I don't know if he heard anything I said but he should take

note, because I tell you, the time has come when the people of this Province,

who have been dictated to for so long, have to stand by and watch people from

other provinces make a living when we have a nucleus and hundreds of thousands

of cubic metres of wood standing right around our backyards.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. George's mentioned about the

crab licenses. Now, that is an issue -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I say to the member that I have - most of

the crab licenses in the Province are in my district, Mr. Speaker. We had

licences for 400 tons of crab for the Jackson's Arm plant last year. What have

the feds done now, in conjunction with the provincial government, I ask you?

They have it cut from 400 tons down to 250 tons. They went and issued more crab

licenses around the Province. They moved 150 tons out of Jackson's Arm - moved

it elsewhere around the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, sure there was, but who - and where

did it go? Where are the plants now? Who has the plant open in Englee? Who

opened the plant in Englee?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I can tell the member a few things, too,

about this crab fiasco that is going to come to light in the next couple of

weeks. Mr. Tobin had better come around, because the people of his district are

waiting for him. I was in Sops Arm on Friday night and -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not only his (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that is right; there are other areas

as well, but why they moved that... If in that area there was a TAGS program, or

there was a downturn, a good groundfish fishery over the years and it was gone,

or turbot or whichever, was gone, I could probably see some of that being spread

around, but in this case, that is all that plant has to rely on. That plant was

open every year, pretty well, except - that and the other pelagics. We had good

mackerel, herring, and caplin markets over the years but couldn't take advantage

of them, but that particular area relied heavily on that 400 tons of crab. All

of a sudden, when the crab sales were up - we have boats around this Province,

in the hon. member's district, $875,000 to $1 million in crab last year alone,

one boat. Then we have inshore fishermen out there with a little punt, they go

out and they are depending on this to try to get them through the season, get

them through the year, and they can't do it.

The offshore crab fishery last year dictated to the minister

when to open the supplementary fishery in the Fall of the year, because you know

why, they could take their big boats and go offshore, their sixty-five footers,

rake it in, stay overnight, bring in the big loads, and the little fellow had to

stay home. He couldn't go offshore in his twenty or twenty-five foot boat to

take advantage of the crab fishery, in the hostile elements that they have to

encounter out there, but the big sixty or sixty-five footers could do it,

absolutely no problem, and they dictated to the minister when and when not to

open the supplementary crab fishery last Fall.

Mr. Speaker, the cuts to education and health care are the

two that we should be very careful of. The health care system - all members of

this House should take a stroll down, begin at the Health Sciences Complex over

here, and start going through some of the wards, look at some of the patients,

stop and talk to some of the patients, and then leave there and go down to the

Miller Centre where we have three nurses looking after thirty-three, it is just

as well to say, totally handicapped people. Then, leave there and go over to

Hoyles-Escasoni and spend a few hours if you want to see something.

I experienced it first-hand this year, because my mother was

in the Health Sciences Centre and then went to the Miller Centre, and from there

over to Hoyles-Escasoni. If someone wants to know first-hand, let them take the

time in the night to go down and watch what is going on in those health

institutions. Go down and see who is looking after those people who cannot feed

themselves. They cannot put a hand to their mouth to give themselves a drink,

and they do not have the capacity and the manpower or the womanpower there to

feed those people. You have to see it. We need not turn on the television and

look at foreign countries. All we have to do, if you take the time, is to go

down there and find out what is going on, down at the Miller Centre three nurses

- one nurse and two nursing assistants - looking after thirty-three people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am not gone half-an-hour, am

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we proceed with the debate, the Chair would like to

take a minute just to rule on the point of order raised by the Member for St.

Mary's - The Capes on April 5, 1995, dealing with comments made by the hon. the

Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

The point that was raised by the member was that the hon.

minister's words were out of order and therefore unparliamentary. The Chair, at

the time, had not heard exactly what the comments were that were made by the

hon. minister, and so, took the point raised under advisement and to review

Hansard to see exactly what had transpired.

With regard to unparliamentary language, Beauchesne has

several references; however, there is no complete list of words or statements or

phrases that are considered unparliamentary at all times. Beauchesne paragraph

486 (1) indicates that: "It is impossible to lay down any specific rules in

regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular Members, or

to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to order; much

depends upon the tone and manner, and intention..." and it depends on the person

speaking, and "sometimes upon the person to whom the words are addressed...."

Paragraph 486 (3) says: "There are few words that have been

judged to be unparliamentary consistently, and any list of unparliamentary words

is only a compilation of words that at some time have been found to cause

disorder in the House."

Beauchesne continues on at page 149, paragraph 491. It says

there: "The Speaker has consistently ruled that language used in the House

should be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. No language

is, by virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable. A word which is

parliamentary in one context may cause disorder in another context, and

therefore be ruled unparliamentary." Our own Standing Order 52 states: No member

shall use "offensive words against any member of this House."

Reviewing what the hon. minister had said, the Chair

considers that the language in this House at any point in time should conform to

good standards, should conform to standards of good taste, and should not be

inappropriate. In reviewing Hansard, I came to the conclusion that the hon.

member's statements were inappropriate and I ask him to withdraw them at this

point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. the Minister of Fisheries,

Food and Agriculture if he would withdraw the remarks that he made on April 5.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, if I made a comment that was

unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the floor, and also

pleased to be able to make some comments about the Budget this year. The hon.

member opposite who was so able, as some would say, to hold himself in his long

approach to dealing with the Budget Speech - I suppose quantity sometimes is a

substitute for quality, although others might not agree.

We have with us this year a budget to analyze and a budget to

discuss and debate that is a budget of prudence. It is a budget that we have

been working toward ever since we've been elected. The ability to reach a

balanced budget in what some refer to as the poorest province of the country - I

would refer to it more as the wealthiest province in the country, but one which

has had a very difficult economic circumstance dealt it over the years, some by

virtue of our situation with fluctuations in the resource sector, some, because

of the very nature of our economy in the way that it has functioned and possibly

also, because of the lack of some overall effort at literacy and a variety of

other areas which could certainly have improved a lot for many of our

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians over the years, so there were contributing

factors to our economy and a lot of reasons for our difficult economic

circumstance.

We have, Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out by The Globe and

Mail back some weeks ago, set an example which is an interesting situation

for Newfoundland, but one in a series of many examples that have been set, if we

look back to the initial changes that we made to the health care system back

around 1990-'91, when there was an outcry that we were going to destroy the

health care system through some of the efforts that were taken, and what

happened at that time? The same scholarly paper I suppose, was given praise when

praise is due, decided to do a complete analysis of the changes to the

Newfoundland health care system.

The hon. Minister of Education was, at the time the minister

who, in the captain's chair of the Department of Health, presided over a

fundamental shift and a fundamental change in the way that health care was

operated in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Could we have a quorum call, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: A quorum call.

Quorum

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a quorum present.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I -

AN HON. MEMBER: Before you were so rudely interrupted.

MR. RAMSAY: - was so rudely interrupted, exactly, by an

Opposition member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: I thank the hon. member then for his

diligence in making sure that the words of which I am about to speak, are so

worthwhile that they need everybody's attention and I wish him well in getting

the other members of his caucus in to have a listen as well.

As I was saying, the hon. minister at that time of the

Department of Health, made these changes; there was a fundamental shift, it

could be called a paradigm shift of the way that we delivered health care in

this Province and that was a test of the way the administration of government

worked in the Province and it worked well. It allowed us to cut down on the

administrative costs of health care delivery; it allowed us to focus different

institutions so there was little or no competition between the tertiary care

centres in a given region, and that the monies that were becoming fewer and far

between would be better utilized in the delivery of health care. So that was the

single I suppose effort back at the beginning of our term back in 1990 that was

a test.

We've worked towards a point where now with further declining

revenue, with a situation that has - it has changed somewhat with the way that

the federal government will deliver money to the provinces, that we now see an

overall shift in the way that we have to administer government in this Province.

We no longer can see a situation where we go out and spend money and it is

grant situation for social programs. We will also, Mr. Speaker, have a situation

to deal with where we know that we will get less and less as time goes on, as

inflation and other activity erodes the overall total amount of money on what we

deliver.

We have to look at the situation and determine if in fact

there are economies that we can realize in the administration of government. You

only have to ask the general public which deals with government on a regular

basis as to whether there are economies that can be realized. Can we under

administer and over perform? I really think we can. We can change the

administration of the variety of government services provided to the people in

the Province. We can lessen the administrative cost. We can get some economies

by focusing the administration in given areas.

To give an example, on the West Coast of the Province by

combining the health care boards there we will be able to set in motion a system

where the overall payroll and finance and administration is done in one centre,

the laundry and that end of the service is provided in another centre. By

spreading it around we can maintain and sustain the different institutions, but

we can also realize certain economies by putting where it makes sense the

functions that are needed to be a shared service for all of these different

institutions. It is no different here in the capital city where there is a need

to share services, a need to designate specific services to specific

institutions.

I might point out for hon. members that when I was on my way

back to the office this morning from another meeting in the other building I met

a very concerned parent whose daughter was recently admitted to the Janeway. He

brought to me his concern about the possibility of the Janeway being integrated

into the Health Science Centre, and concerns I suppose that have been expressed

by staff there and also by parents. There is of course with the Janeway and

dealing with children a lot of attachment and a lot of emotion that goes with

this kind of situation. Certainly the Janeway as a creation, as an institution

that has served this Province so well, I think certainly - and I would mirror

his comments in saying that I feel we should do whatever we can to maintain the

Janeway as a separate entity even if the Janeway itself does share some services

and some location. If it were to be constructed as a separate location attached

to the Health Sciences Centre I'm sure that it could then realize certain

economies in the plant and equipment side of things, the sharing of heating, the

sharing of food services, et cetera, but certainly retain its identity, a very

important identity here for the Province and for the area.

A number of other things that come to mind. The hon. members

opposite maintain that we are adding millions on the tax burden to the average

person in this Province. We can look at financial situations either on a direct

basis at a given point in time or we can look at a financial situation spread

over a longer period of time. I suppose it depends on the philosophy that you

espouse and how you will look at a given situation. We could say that the cost

of not funding a given amount of activity is the same as if you do fund it

because the overall expense either to the economy or to the individual is the

same: either it is expense in an adverse reaction to no treatment in the medical

field or, on the social side, if the money is not available then there is a

consequence to not intervening in a person's life at the right point in time,

there is a cost and an expense to intervening and raising the money necessary.

If you do not have the money at a given point in time, if you do not have the

financial wherewithal to look after the expenses then, Mr. Speaker, the costs in

the future, if you borrow the money to pay for them now, the costs become even

greater from a financial perspective if you are spending borrowed money.

Now, we have realized a balanced Budget this year and that

again, as I said in the beginning, is leading the way. We are probably held in

much high esteem if we take the commentaries that we read on the Newfoundland

situation seriously, that we are leading the way again throughout the country.

We have looked at the area of business in the business community in the Province

and I must say in the last six years that I have been here I have seen a

fundamental shift again by the business community, by the small business person,

by people in the Province in general in understanding and knowing that they have

to do something a little differently in order to get the support that is

necessary to finance their businesses either from government or from the private

sector, from the banking services that are available. They realize that they

have to put forward a professionalized packaged product in order to sell people

on the idea of financing their project. That was not realized as much back then.

It has become a change in the way that people approach things. They realize that

money is not freely available, there is a limit to the amounts available, both

private and public, and they also realize that they have to put their best foot

forward in trying to maintain the financing for the business venture they have

in mind.

This is happening and it is causing us to be held in much

higher esteem throughout the country, and of course, when we see business people

coming here from all over North America, from other places throughout the world,

they look at Newfoundland and they say, you guys are doing things right. Just

last evening I spent some time with a vice president of a large multinational

corporation who was saying you guys are doing some of the right things here and

I only wish that some of the other provinces would do it as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is this kind of impression that Newfoundland

is leaving on people throughout North America that is certainly going to have an

impact on the future business prospects here in this Province. We have brought

in the EDGE legislation, something which we were very pleased to have the whole

of the loyal Opposition loyally doing their duty to support real initiatives,

which make sense. The EDGE legislation is something which does make sense. They

have supported us in that and with that I think they deserve to know that it has

been a success, not that it would only be a success if they had supported it,

even if they had not supported it, I am sure it would still be successful. Of

course, some of their input was very valuable in making some of the decisions we

did make in the development of that legislation.

Now, we have had over 1000 enquiries so far on the EDGE

legislation, through the toll-free phone line, written enquiries, and other

telephone calls to the department. Those 1000 enquiries along with other

writings and situations that have arisen have allowed us to distribute some 6000

packages of information all throughout the world as to what Newfoundland and

Labrador has to offer in the way of incentives. That shows you that people are

standing up and taking notice. They are paying attention to what Newfoundland is

saying.

Initially at the first press conference the minister held

there were two announced. The following second round, some two or three weeks

later, they were able to announce another four businesses that qualified under

the EDGE legislation. There were seven last week that were approved and will be

announced some time very shortly. We also have another six being analyzed that

are in an negotiation stage with the government right now, and another fourteen

businesses which are making enquiries. There is a lot of activity and that is

only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, no pun intended to the iceberg

companies that have come our way, but certainly it is the kind of thing we like

to see.

There is excitement out there. People want to come here to

set up shop, not just to take advantage of some of the wealthy resource sectors

that we have. If you look at the Voisey Bay discovery, just as a case in point,

with Voisey Bay coming here and being the talk of the mining world, so to speak

- if in fact this mining discovery is as big as some of the indicators point to

we could have on our hands probably one of the biggest mining finds in all of

the world, in value and in the potential for generating economic wealth for the

people of the Province and for the shareholders in the various companies

involved. That is speaking well for the wealth of the resources that we have.

We have a single most important resource in this Province,

our people. We are also very wealthy in the area of the different resources that

we have. Some of them of course are renewable but others like mines are not

renewable resources. We have to make sure that we exercise sustainable

development efforts in the mining of these resources and see to it that it is

done on a sustainable basis and that the environmental impact is limited, that

the overall effort takes into account the socio-economic actions that may

result. The activity that will cause problems with our socio-economic affairs in

the Province, take those into account and, Mr. Speaker, from there I am sure

that that will also help contribute to the truly balanced budgets that we need

from this point onward.

We will face some difficulty in the next number of years as

the federal government limits the amount of money that they are able to transfer

to the provinces but I am sure we are up to the task, probably better prepared

for it than any other province because we have practised it ever since we took

office in 1989. I think the people can be proud that we have managed, in spite

of all of this, to resist the temptation to throw money at everything that comes

along, from a political perspective. We based it on a very strictly planned

perspective and borrowed less and less money each and every year. We are the

only government in the country to borrow less money each of the last five years

which certainly is the kind of thing that we, as a government and as the Liberal

Party, have brought to the people of the Province. Most people say they are

amazed that we have managed to do this in spite of the economic circumstance

that we find ourselves in.

There will be a lot of changes to the economy over the next

while. A lot has already occurred but a lot of the changes to the economy that

we see - if you look at real estate, everyone thought over the last forty years,

thirty years that real estate was a solid investment. If you put your money in

real estate and if you are able to maintain it, it will always be worth more.

Then we get such a shift in the overall value of real estate with the severe

drop in the inflated values of Central Canada but also to a point where there

are new businesses in this economy that are preforming and they are performing

without the benefit or need for a lot of brick and mortar. So what we are

experiencing, Mr. Speaker, is - some could say - the death of brick and mortar

as a collateral value for business purposes. What we will have now, Mr. Speaker,

is a situation where the ideas, the people you have associated with your company

and your group, the overall effort that you make in putting together a very well

crafted plan in an effort to create your business, is going to be worth more.

Information is the only thing of value in the new economy. As

the information can lead you to producing, either in another location or here,

that the information value is very high. Based on that, banks and financial

institutions are having to shift their focus and come up with a different ways

and means to analysis and develop the overall method by which they determine the

relative value of business ideas and the way that they will lend money to people

who start these new business ventures. Based on that, Mr. Speaker, we, as a

government, have to set the stage so to speak. We have to help these

individuals, who are interested in business, start their businesses by helping

them set the stage, make sure that the business environment is one that they can

survive and prosper in.

We have to also make sure that we provide a tax regime, a

regulatory regime that is certainly the kind of regime that will allow them to

survive, prosper and contribute back to this country. To contribute back to the

Province and the people here, just what it is that we want to do in producing

wealth for our nation and for our Province, and that is the key to the overall

optimism, I think, that we as politicians should put forward to the people of

the Province. We have to be the optimists. We have to be positive about the

future of the Province. We have to take little steps such as this Budget, which

is a stellar accomplishment, but it is a little step along the road to the

prosperity that we will seek in the future.

To look at some other initiatives where we have made some

effort, if you look at the nineteen economic zones that have been proposed for

the Province, in these nineteen economic zones we have set up a situation where

these zones will be required to, in the given zone, have all groups or

organizations that will be funded to do so under the confines of a performance

contract.

Now, some would say confines but probably you can say, when

you are performing within a required contract that will allow you to be free -

as the hon. Government House Leader sometimes says: The truth shall set you free

- and to use that as a bit of a situation where it is a totally open process.

The performance contracts will be tabled here in the House of Assembly.

Therefore, economic development activity in this Province that we have to pay

administration costs for throughout the Province, throughout the nineteen

economic zones, will be a totally transparent process. It will be a process

where they are required to put forward their desires for their district, their

needs and the amount of activity that they will undertake, the performance

parameters that they will require in order to satisfy their performance in that

given contract, so it is very important. It is a change, and it is a fundamental

change, in the way that the people of the Province and those involved in

economic development activity will behave in the future.

Getting into something a little different, on the technology

side, we have developed a task force called the ONLINE Task Force. The ONLINE

Task Force, just to mention, anyone who has heard the term `on-line' knows that

it is usually referring to a computer connected to another computer, but the

ONLINE Task Force is an acronym for `Opportunities Newfoundland Labrador In The

New Economy'. This partnering arrangement between business, between governments,

both federal and provincial, and the industry, is a key in order for us to

undertake what it is that we have here in the form of a new economy, computer

on-line hi-tech industry, and you have to know where you are in order to

determine where you are going and how best to get there. What this exercise is,

over the next six months, the ONLINE Task Force are working on a partnership, in

a partnered way, in coming about the understanding of exactly statistically

where the Province is with respect to its high technology industry, and where we

go from here, what is the best overall strategy. We have people from the

different walks of life. These individuals, we hope, will provide us with good

advice on how the government can best set the stage so that drama can unfold in

the right way.

The movie producers association, the Producers Association of

Newfoundland, the acronym PAN, I just had a meeting with them this morning and

they also will require some support in their industry, and we are hopeful that

we can also provide that support through the formation of a partnership

arrangement between the industry, the federal and provincial governments, to set

the stage and determine where we go from here with our support of the Producers

Association. We see much more production of video commercials, feature films, a

lot of activity in that, the art and advertising section. At one time if the

Government of Newfoundland wanted to do a video, or wanted to get something

printed for the promotion of the Province, it would always go outside the

Province to get someone to provide this material, this product. More and more,

as the industry matures here in this Province, we are going to be able to

provide it here at home.

I met with another individual this morning in the area of a

small business in a southern Newfoundland location, and he intends to start

doing something here which is a product that is currently imported into the

Province. We can do it here and we can do it here better; this individual and

his partner were in to see me and they are determined to make it happen and to

distribute the product first here at home and then eventually export and bring

in new dollars here into the Province, creating an industry, much needed work

and also putting a product forward that will be certainly a product that is

better than the current ones that are in the market in this specific sector of

the food services industry. So there is a lot happening out there, there is a

lot of excitement. People outside the Province - no longer is it such that we

have to go and get them. It is the case now where they are coming to see us and

saying: What can we do in Newfoundland? We want to come here and set up shop; we

would like to be part of the Newfoundland economy, we want to contribute. You

are the closest point of Canada and North America to Europe, how can we best

utilize that as a part of our overall activity, and they are excited and that

makes us even more excited here in this Province and we have to capitalize on

that.

Each and every one of us as elected politicians should take

our own situation, our own personal desires and aspirations, put them to one

side every once in awhile and see what we can do for the benefit of our

Province. Some probably would say that their own personal strategy would be for

the ultimate benefit of the Province, but one only has to look at the words of a

famous individual, who has become famous I guess because of the tv medium, but

he is a very good speaker and trainer, one Anthony Robbins who says: It is

amazing how much you can accomplish if you have no worry about who gets the

credit. This is the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, that we have to do, not worry

about who gets the credit.

Each and every one of us as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

can take a little bit of the credit for the type of people we are and we can go

from there, Mr. Speaker, and see to it that we support the development of our

Province. We support the future of the Province by giving a little bit of

ourselves for the overall greater good of the Province, and we will see an

increase in jobs, prosperity and economic development in this Province unlike

anything that has been seen since Confederation, even since the turn of the

century, since man first settled here in the Province and then eventually

families settled here, it will be the place to be in North America. Newfoundland

and Labrador will be a have province by the turn of the century, Mr. Speaker,

and I say that with no word of doubt.

Thank you very much.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: I have to check my notes.

MR. ROBERTS: You probably have 1992 written on them.

MR. TOBIN: No, actually, my colleague from Grand Bank I

thought was going to be -

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, there will be time for him.

MR. TOBIN: I won't let him down.

MR. ROBERTS: I believe that and he would do the same for

me.

MR. TOBIN: That's right because if he didn't -

MR. ROBERTS: It is the Leader we have to worry about, not

the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

MR. ROBERTS: It's the Leader we have to worry about not

the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. TOBIN: She would not let me down either, Mr. Speaker,

I can assure you of that.

MR. ROBERTS: Not gently, I agree. It will be painful and

protracted I say to my friend.

MR. TOBIN: No, I think she is going to lay some of you

down.

Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words on the Budget and

what is taking place regarding it.

As I was preparing to speak in this debate, I came across

some of the bills that were just passed out. One was

An Act To Amend The

Department Of Works, Services And Transportation Act. I hope hon. members

opposite had the opportunity to pick this up and look at it. The Explanatory

Note reads: "The purpose of this Bill is to allow the transfer of highways from

the jurisdiction of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to the

municipal authority in which that highway is located. Presently, such a transfer

requires the permission of the municipality...."

Mr. Speaker, what is going on? The Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation is bringing before this House another piece of

legislation whereby he will crucify the municipalities. He is going to force,

without any chance of them agreeing - for example, in my district - take the

town of Marystown.

MR. EFFORD: Proper thing. Tory district.

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Forever, forever.

MR. EFFORD: No, not forever.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, for as long as I'm there it will.

I would say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that there

will be a lot of Tory districts after the next elections, including Port de

Grave. Dr. Cal Powell out in Port de Grave on election night, on election night

we will be all watching television, the results coming in, and we will see Cal

Powell. The big thing will be -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What do you mean?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You wait. Cal Powell, Mr. Speaker, will beat

the minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: New district.

MR. TOBIN: New district, Mr. Speaker. He is going to lose

his district.

MR. REID: Tobin, you don't know Calvin Powell very well

if you can say that.

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

MR. REID: You don't know Calvin Powell very well to say

what you just said.

MR. TOBIN: I don't know the man at all, Mr. Speaker.

MR. EFFORD: Oh yes you do!

MR. REID: He was born in Carbonear. I know him

personally. He wouldn't get elected in Bay Roberts as the dog-catcher.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs shouldn't become that arrogant. Because that minister there has a pretty

good track record of running and not winning as well. I would say that Dr. Cal

Powell will beat the Member for Port de Grave in the next elections. That is

what I would say, Mr. Speaker. He will wipe him out. He won't know what hit him.

MR. EFFORD: Oh yes he might!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation is here today -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) protective armour. When I get

into a political battle.

MR. TOBIN: Protective armour. `Armorall.' Mr. Speaker, he

will need protective armour out in Port de Grave according to what I'm hearing.

Seven hundred people out to the rally in Port de Grave to elect delegates. The

largest convention in the history of Newfoundland we just had, the largest

political convention ever held in this Province was just hosted last week. There

were more people registered at the convention last weekend to choose between two

people than attended the leadership convention in 1989 to choose between five

people who would become the premier. That is what is taking place.

Today in the House I had the opportunity to raise a very

important issue, that being health care on the Burin Peninsula. We had the

Minister of Health who gave his unwavering word, stood on his principle, and

said to the Burin town council: We will ensure that there will be obstetric

service provided in that health care facility - not to worry. What is going on

now, I would ask the Minister of Health? Why did he not tell these people the

facts?

I think what the Minister of Health is trying to do is have

birth certificates printed in only four places in this Province, St. John's -

MR. SULLIVAN: Central Newfoundland, Western Newfoundland,

and Labrador.

MR. TOBIN: Western Newfoundland, Central Newfoundland,

and Labrador. That is the game plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your time is up.

MR. TOBIN: I have half-an-hour, I say to the Minister of

Health, and I may move the appropriate motion and have unlimited time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ha!

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and the Minister of Fisheries should

laugh, alright, after what is printed in that book about you. You should laugh.

What happened, the Commissioner of Members' Interest?

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you read it?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I can read it, and I will read it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I will read it for you if you want me to

read it.

Each of the new ministers, except the Minister of Fisheries,

Food and Agriculture, met the October 25, 1994 filing deadline. The Minister of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture breached

section 36.1, Obligations, by not

filing his statement of private interest until November 14, 1994.

AN HON. MEMBER: And there was nothing said about it.

MR. TOBIN: And not one word said about it, not a word.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Sure, there should have been.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this about

our leader - past leader or present leader - not a thing. What is in this is

that the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture breached

section 36.1 and

covered it up. You covered it up. You were not honest. You did not come clean.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You breached it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he cover up?

MR. TOBIN: He covered up his disclosure statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and the other thing, the combine

harvester, another dilly, put it on the cover of the book. Tell us what you have

harvested in this Province since you became minister.

The other day he was over floating around Europe, trying to

get a tanning plant. Well, good luck. The only thing tanned around here is the

hon. minister, the old bark and kettle, remember that?

Mr. Speaker, the only minister, the only Member of the House

of Assembly who breached a

section of the act, and yet he covered it up, he sat

silent, and he did not come clean with this House. I want to know, and I will be

asking the Premier at the appropriate time upon his return - I serve notice to

the minister today that we will be pursuing this. The Minister of Fisheries,

Food and Agriculture cannot be allowed to cover up.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he cover up?

MR. TOBIN: He never disclosed his -

AN HON. MEMBER: How?

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no committee formed now to look

into that, is there?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the question that I want to ask

the Government House Leader is: Are they going to now strike a committee to

investigate the fact that that minister over there breached the act?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Member for Bonavista North that

if he has something to say, to stand up and say it. I don't know if the Member

for Bonavista North agrees with it, but I don't. What is in this conflict of

interest, this commission of members' interest, I don't agree with it, a

minister of the Crown -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I will say to the Member for Bonavista what I

am referring to, it is that the Commissioner reported yesterday that each new

minister, except the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture met the October

25, 1994 filing deadline. The Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture

breached

Section 36.1 obligations by not filing his statement of private

interest until November 14. I wonder if the House Leader now - the minister

struck a report the other day, struck a committee last year - last year when

there was someone who did not file there was a commission struck to review why a

certain person did not file.

MR. SULLIVAN: It was not the member it was a spouse.

MR. TOBIN: It was a spouse. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was not

the member, it was a spouse who did not file. Now I ask the minister, is he

going to do the same thing for a member who refused to file?

MR. ROBERTS: He did file (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, but what I am saying is if we

believe in spousal rights we would not have them file.

MR. TOBIN: I don't think the spouse should. I don't agree

with it by the way, I don't think they should have to file. I will say it up

front, I don't think they should have to.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that means that I will have to be

around government as long as the hon. member. That means that I will have to be

around here as long as the hon. member and who wants to be around here as long

as the hon. minister? That is right, 100 years.

MR. ROBERTS: I was here when (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, I don't know if there is any truth to the

rumour that he is going to be running federally. I don't believe it personally.

I don't believe you are going to run federally - that you are running in Grand

Falls.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I am sure you would have and I would say that

there is a good chance that you would have won twenty years ago wherever you

ran, I would say that too.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, the more people who come to

know him the more difficulty the chance is going to be but twenty years ago he

could have won. Twenty years ago he could have won it, any district in this

Province. No doubt he could have won federally.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Joe would have told them to vote for

him. Joe would have said vote for this man.

MR. ROBERTS: To know me is to love me.

MR. TOBIN: What is that? To know you is to love you.

MR. ROBERTS: I should not interrupt the hon. gentleman.

MR. TOBIN: No.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He enjoys it, Ed.

MR. ROBERTS: I agree, it gives him something (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: But the combine harvester, Mr. Speaker, the

old combine harvester. How much money has he wasted? And then he is out golfing,

Mr. Speaker, spending money out on the golf course.

MR. ROBERTS: What are they harvesting, golf courses are

they?

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, the first thing they

harvested was the hon. minister's head and it is probably the only thing it

harvested.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman should remember

(inaudible) famous comment.

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) more brains in your belly then

in your head.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't follow the NDP or the

Socialists so I would not know what they said. Being a good Conservative I can

tell them what Mr. Diefenbaker said to Rick Cashin -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) by elephants.

MR. TOBIN: That is right. No, he said when I -

MR. ROBERTS: I always like the famous comment of Otto

Lang: If the hon. gentleman were crossing a quarter

section of a wheat field

(inaudible) all three of them?

MR. TOBIN: I did not hear that one either. Anyway, Mr.

Speaker, the old combine harvester, he has spent a fortune so that he could get

his picture taken sitting up on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did?

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture and last week he was over in Europe. Going around Europe, Mr.

Speaker, at the taxpayers expense, doing what? Trying to get -

MR. SULLIVAN: Trying to gather up a few grains.

MR. TOBIN: Going to Norway now, myself and the minister

of development.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I might be going to Norway now with the

Minister of ITT. Does the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation agree

with that?

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. TOBIN: I might be going to Norway now with the

Minister of ITT.

MR. EFFORD: You?

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: Not a chance.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I know Norway, Mr. Speaker, I've been to

Norway before.

MR. ROBERTS: I don't mind that, but I do object to the

fact the hon. gentleman came back.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I was over in

England one time and I checked into a hotel, and they said that you stay there

fairly often.

MR. ROBERTS: I hope so.

MR. TOBIN: They did. You and Hal Barrett, I believe they

said stayed.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh yes, buddies. Hal Barrett and I were

never in England together but we were soul mates.

MR. SULLIVAN: But they say their occupancy rate has

declined by 70 per cent since.

MR. ROBERTS: What was this?

MR. SULLIVAN: Their occupancy rate has gone down since.

MR. ROBERTS: And the quality has gone down even more.

There can't be a hotel in (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the old combine harvester is over

there (inaudible) - and the other thing that should happen is that he should

have to stand up in this House and defend what he spent last week over in

Europe. The other thing that the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture

hasn't come clean about is that golf trip when he got caught at the last minute.

There was a big panic over in the office when he got caught and had to run

around and try to get receipts and everything else. Oh, but yes!, I would say to

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: I didn't say no.

MR. TOBIN: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, nor should you say no, because if you said

no you wouldn't be telling the truth, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: Didn't they put up a fence for him that he

knocked down there with the snow plough?

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation did that. Built a fence for him out in his district, put up a

fence.

DR. HULAN: Almost like the Tory days, eh?

MR. TOBIN: You wouldn't know about the Tory days. You

weren't here, you were living down in the States going to university. You were

going to university. You must have went a lot by the degrees you have. You must

have spent forty years in university. You spent forty years there, Mr. Speaker.

Here comes a good minister. If only the Minister of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture would take an example from the Minister of

Environment. There is only one thing I would say about the Minister of

Environment, and that is the Premier punished him too long. The Premier has to

be one of the most vindictive people who ever lived in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the world!

MR. TOBIN: In the world. Because the Minister of

Environment was there in the back benches for five years. The Premier was trying

to get even with him because he wouldn't resign his seat and let him run out in

Stephenville, Mr. Speaker. Since he became a minister he has been one of the

best ministers in this government. That is not hard, but the Minister of

Environment has been one of the best.

The Minister of Health is not here now. Old

`conflict-of-interest' just came in, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. Say it again, he didn't hear you.

MR. TOBIN: He heard me.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, say it again. Old

`conflict-of-interest.'

MR. TOBIN: He heard me, don't you worry about that. He

heard me. He knows what I'm talking about. The minister of -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Natural Resources.

MR. TOBIN: No, no.

MR. WOODFORD: No, Tourism -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation, Mr. Speaker, where was he the last couple of days, last couple of

weeks? Down in Florida on the golf course. I would say to members opposite

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I remember where I grew up out in Trepassey

you could hear the old rooster crowing about six o'clock in the morning, but I

never hear him crow ten past four.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: His biological clock is off. You have

to get your biological clock back.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation is circulating in this bill is serious stuff and it

is going to hurt municipalities in this Province. If the government today

decides to pass over a road to a municipality it has to be done with the

agreement and the consensus of the municipality in question, but under this bill

here whatever government want to do, they will do it without the consent of

municipalities. So, all the roads now, whether it be in Grand Bank or Marystown,

whether it be in Cape Broyle or in Pasadena, the government will just pass it

over and do what they like and the municipality has no say whatsoever in it.

What does the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

think of that, Mr. Speaker? Does he support it? Does the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs support that legislation that is going to con the

councils?

MR. SULLIVAN: Is he going to increase the MOGs to make up

for it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: When he was President of the Federation of

Municipalities, he was a hero. He came in here and took on the former minister,

Mrs. Newhook and others, about different things. Now, I would like to ask the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, does he support government

bullying councils to the extent that is in this bill? Is he prepared, Mr.

Speaker, to stand up and defend municipalities, which is his responsibility, or

is he going to cave in and roll over to the bully from Port de Grave? It is one

thing or the other. He can laugh all he likes, he can smirk it off all he likes,

but the councils in this Province are not going to be happy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one is that?

MR. TOBIN: Number four, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Look, Bill 5.

MR. TOBIN: Bill 5, Mr. Speaker, and for the benefit of

the minister, I will read it. `The purpose of this Bill is to allow the transfer

of highways from the jurisdiction of the Department of Works, Service and

Transportation to the municipal authority in which the highway is located.

Presently, such a transfer requires the permission of the municipality in

question.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's what is going to happen. What is

going to happen to the councils in this Province? More down loading - tomorrow

or the next day they will end up with more roads in this Province and not one

cent of an increase, but a decrease in the MOGs; not one bit of co-operation

from the municipalities, and the Minister of Municipalities has a responsibility

in that Cabinet to defend the councils.

We have all seen the actions of this Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. We have seen the .05, where he closed out jobs in

this Province and he was doing it `because he was concerned for safety'. He had

to put it back to .05 because of this great concern he had for safety, but in

the next breath he put every wreck in Newfoundland on the road, cars that were

lying up for two or three years. People couldn't afford it.

Mr. Speaker, no wonder there were 1,000 people out to the

meeting in Port de Grave to elect delegates. It is no wonder Cal Powell will

pound him into the ground when the next election is called. It is no wonder he

is creeping and crawling around.

MR. EFFORD: I do not crawl.

MR. TOBIN: When he is finished with you, you will crawl.

MR. EFFORD: If I crawled around I could be in a lot of

trouble.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He was a night crawler, wasn't he?

MR. TOBIN: We will all be watching the campaign. I say to

him, Mr. Speaker, you won't have to crawl in front of Cal Powell, you will be

crawling behind him because he will beat you, he will be first; you will be

last. We will all be watching the election results when they declare the Member

for Humber East the next Premier of the Province and the Member for Port de

Grave gone, the Member for Carbonear, who didn't (inaudible) his caucus, gone.

The Minister of Development will be back; the Minister of Environment will be

back; the Member for Bonavista North won't run, if he does, he won't be back;

The Minister of - what is he called?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Downloading.

MR. TOBIN: That's right, he won't be back; he almost went

the last time. The Member for Lewisporte might as well stay home as put his name

on the ballot. The Member for Eagle River will be back.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, he will. The Member for Eagle River will

be back, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell you why. He is not going to get into

Cabinet over there when the new leader is elected and the shuffle is put in

place, he is not getting into Cabinet and he will come over here.

MR. SULLIVAN: He is not coming over here.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I was prepared to accept you but it

looks like you won't be back `Danny'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Humber Valley

won't be back, if he stays with that crowd over there.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but he might be back as a Liberal.

MR. TOBIN: No, he won't be back as a Liberal, that's what

I am telling them. The Member for Humber Valley will never be elected as a

Liberal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What about yourself?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I could not.

MR. TOBIN: Is that right? Because I was hoping to

nominate you for dog-catcher up in Conche.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I would say, Mr. Speaker. I would think there

is a good chance, particularly if they put part of your district in his there

would be a better chance.

That is another issue I have to get on, now, the

gerrymandering, the way they have chopped up the districts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you seen the report?

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you seen the report?

MR. TOBIN: I have seen the report that we paid millions

of dollars for, the one that was done by an independent Justice, Mr. Mahoney, I

have seen that, Mr. Speaker, but I haven't seen the report that was concocted up

on the Eighth floor, I haven't seen that one; I haven't seen the deceitful one,

the dishonest one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, how do you know it was

gerrymandered?

MR. TOBIN: How do I know? Mr. Speaker, with the Premier

and the Minister of Justice involved in something, what do you call it? It would

turn your stomach what goes on over there.

I am going to say something today and I hope whoever is

listening brings it back to the Premier. There is one reason and one reason only

why Clyde Wells was not in this House yesterday; one reason only -

MR. AYLWARD: What was that?

MR. TOBIN: - and I would like the parliamentary assistant

to the Premier to listen to what I am going to say. There is one reason and one

reason only why the Premier refused to come into this House yesterday and that

is because he was not man enough, he did not have the intestinal fortitude, Mr.

Speaker, he did not have the basic principle to stand up and congratulate the

Member for Humber East on being elected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: That's the only reason why he wasn't here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you think he would ever get up the

courage?

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, because he is gutless when it

comes to being decent and honest and having to show and display integrity.

MR. EFFORD: Could I ask you a question?

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: Is that the same man who (inaudible)

leadership race?

MR. TOBIN: No, no. I supported the Member for Ferryland,

Mr. Speaker. But I tell you, I support the Member for Humber East just as

strongly when it comes to winning the next election as I did the Member for

Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, all I say to the Member for

Carbonear is that I was in the back benches in 1982 when the people of Carbonear

wouldn't even elect you. You weren't in the back benches. You got the boot.

Milton Peach defeated you - defeated you twice - so don't talk about being in

the back benches until you get elected.

Not only that, after the next election you are going to be

back in the back benches again. Now that he started it, he got so sulky when

Bill Hogan went in Cabinet that he wouldn't speak to the members. He refused to

go on a Public Accounts Committee meeting that we all went on. He was sulky; he

was sooky - the boys told me themselves - because Bill Hogan went in Cabinet and

he didn't, so you talk about the back benches.

I will tell him as well, after the next election I will be in

the front benches over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not going to cross the floor,

too?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am going to cross the

floor with all of my colleagues, every one of them, and the new ones that come

in.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Three people now want to come over right

away.

MR. TOBIN: What?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Three people want to come over right away

now.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I say to you, if they are, you say the

same thing to them as we said to John Efford.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Say the same thing to them as we said to the

Minister of Fisheries; that is what I would say to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) on principle.

MR. TOBIN: If it is going to be done on principle, there

is one thing for sure, the Minister of Education won't be going anywhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

wants to practice law that is his business.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think the hon. member's time is up. My clock is showing

thirty-three minutes.

MR. TOBIN: In conclusion, let me say that it is

unfortunate that the -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: No.

MR. TOBIN: It is unfortunate the Member for Port de

Grave, who will never be around here after the next election, will not provide

me leave so I can continue with my speech.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am honoured again today to rise in this House for, I guess,

the sixth Budget, to be labelled the sixth red book, the sixth edition of the

red book, the sixth-and-a-half edition. It is almost like wine; it is getting

better with age, I would say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: When we took over after seventeen years

of Tory rule we went to the cupboard, of course, and here the cupboard was bare.

We found the cupboard totally bare. Not only was the cupboard totally bare,

there was nothing in the back room, there was nothing down the street, there was

hardly anything left in the provincial coffers, and obviously the only thing

that was fully stacked was the executive dining room on the first floor. The PO

numbers were flying out through the door, Mr. Speaker, as they were going down

with the ship. The PO numbers for the Cuban cigars, the PO numbers for the boxes

of liquor. The wine goblet - the big fire sale they had at Cabinet when they had

all the china being distributed to the people, Mr. Speaker, and they gave it out

at a fire sale. So there was nothing left there.

We had an onerous job to do indeed and the people knew that

we had an onerous job to do. When we came into this government to find the

financial state of affairs, we were obviously shocked, it was unbelievable. We

did not think anybody in their right mind would have been able to sit there and

prevail over such an economic mess. So obviously, Mr. Speaker, there wer