April 16,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 30

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

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

for the Premier. I want to remind the Premier that in an interview carried in

the Sunday Express on April 14 the Minister of Social Services is quoted as

saying that he in no way personally intervened to ensure that reclassification

was carried out for the Social Services Appeals Board which led to huge

retroactive increases for Members of that board, including the former Chairman.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Minister is quoted as saying that it was bureaucrats

who did this not politicians. Now I want to say to the Premier that in the House

yesterday the President of Treasury stated and I quote, `Representation was made

by the Minister, obviously, and Treasury Board Ministers agreed with that

position and it became a Level 2 board.' Now I want to ask the Premier whether

or not he has been able to find out or determine whether or not the Minister of

Social Services intervened in this matter, whether or not he pushed the matter,

and was he telling the truth when he indicated to the media of this Province

that it was not done by politicians and there was no involvement by him?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the process of assessment is

not yet complete. It will probably be complete later this afternoon and I will

certainly have it to table in the House tomorrow. I have seen some documents and

some correspondence that indicate that this was part of the clean-up process of

committees or boards which had been in place. We wanted to reduce the cost and

standardize it to clean up the mess that had been created before, and when we

did this with Treasury Board doing the allocation, some boards were

dissatisfied. The President of Treasury Board mentioned two boards that were

dissatisfied yesterday. I have since learned there were three. There was another

one for which the Minister of Finance was responsible - they just mentioned it

to me - the Mining Tax Review Board. That was another one and the Minister of

Finance made representation with respect to that, the Minister of Energy made

representation with respect to another, and I assume, although I do not have the

detail yet, but I would assume the Minister of Social Services made

representation with respect to that one. So I can say that at least there was

that much representation.

I have also seen the letter that caused the payment on a

retroactive basis. That came from Treasury Board and was signed by an individual

named Meadus. I do not know what Mr. Meadus's position is. I have just seen it

now. The letter was issued in October 1990 and it gave instructions to the

Deputy Minister that the change was effective from April 30, which was when

Cabinet made the original decision. It was retroactive when Cabinet made the

original decision, and that was a direction issued by Treasury Board. I have not

completed the thing yet to say what the role of the Minister was, but I can give

the House that much information up until now.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Premier has

not had an opportunity to complete his investigation, but the Premier made

mention in his answer cleaning up the mess of those boards. Mr. Speaker, under

the old payment

schedule the Chairman of the Social Assistance Appeals Board

could charge $100 a day for a one day meeting. Under the new

schedule he can

charge $350 a day for a meeting and he can claim four days of per diem expenses

for each one day meeting: preparation for a day he can claim $350, travel for a

day meeting $350, attendance at a day meeting $350, travel home one day $350,

for a total per diem of $1,400. Now, I ask the Premier, is that cleaning up the

mess?

MR. SIMMS: Good question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The only thing I can say, Mr. Speaker, is

that what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said to the best of my

knowledge at this moment, because I do not have the thing complete, but to the

best of my knowledge at this moment is utterly without foundation. But I will

determine whether or not that occurred, and if that occurred improperly, we will

take steps to recover the monies. If there is in place rules which allow that to

happen, we will take steps to correct those rules. What the precise situation is

I do not know at this moment, but that is what is being done, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this. As

part of his investigation in trying to get to the bottom of this situation and

clear up what is being alleged here, will the Premier interview the former

Chairman of the Social Assistance Appeals Board, Mr. Noseworthy, who has already

spoken to the media in this Province about the matter, so that the Premier will

be in full possession of the facts as far as the former chairman of that board

is concerned?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with

meeting with anybody in this Province who wants to meet with me. If that

chairman wants to meet with me, he is absolutely free to call. I have never

refused anybody yet. But, Mr. Speaker, if it becomes necessary to a proper

determination of this issue I would have no hesitation calling him - if it

becomes necessary.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this

about the behaviour of the Minister of Social Services in this whole matter.

Yesterday after Question Period, the Minister of Social Services came across to

this side of the House, in front of witnesses, and threatened a Member of this

House by saying the following: "I will see that you get nothing for your

district."

Does the Premier feel that that is acceptable behaviour on

the part of a Minister of the Crown?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation saying

that no Minister in this Government will ever be permitted to prevent any Member

from getting anything for his district that that Member or that Member's

district ought to have. I can assure the House that that is the case.

Whether or not the Minister said that, I do not know. But I

will find out.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. While the

Premier is in the process of finding out, yesterday the Minister of Social

Services was overheard by a number of people in this House and in the galleries,

threatening a visitor to the public gallery by saying: "I will get you for

this." Does the Premier feel that that is acceptable behaviour on the part of a

Minister of the Crown?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation saying

that such threats are unacceptable. There is no question about it, it is

unacceptable. What I do have hesitation in accepting is any suggestion that the

Minister said that. But I will check it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I will check it. But I do not accept

it merely because the Leader of the Opposition has said it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the

Minister of Social Services. As the Minister knows, the Social Assistance Appeal

Board is a very important board, because it is the last avenue of appeal for

recipients of social assistance who feel they have been wrongly addressed by the

social workers, and that that particular board has the powers of a commissioner

under the Public Inquiries Act. Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of that particular

board is a very important individual.

Can the Minister tell me what particular qualifications does

the new Chairman, Mr. Stoyles, bring to this position, other than his having

actively worked on the Minister's campaign? And is it not true that this

appointment was a blatant political appointment made by Cabinet with the full

knowledge of the Premier, since the Premier is the head of Cabinet who makes the

appointments?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to the

hon. Member that the person who is now the Chairman of the Social Assistance

Appeal Board was appointed Chairman because of the experience he had obtained on

the Social Assistance Appeal Board while the former member was sitting on that

same board. Also, during that period of time they went through a training

programme to give them the background and the necessary qualifications and the

knowledge about the operations of the Appeal Board.

I can say very clearly that the former person on that Appeal

Board who I think was a former Member for Twillingate, Ida Reed, did not go

through the same training programme as did the present Chairman of the Appeal

Board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since the Premier

could not confirm the salary of the members of the board, would the Minister

confirm that the new

schedule for members of the Social Assistance Appeal Board

can conceivably consist of the following: preparation for the meeting one day,

$350; travel to a meeting for one day, $350.00, because there are five zones

spread across the Province; attendance at the meeting for a day, $350; plus

travel home, $350. So conceivably, a hearing outside of St. John's can cost

$1,400. Will the Minister confirm these facts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Per day?

MR. WINSOR: Per day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Per day, per person.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The first time I was

aware of an amount of money of that magnitude being received by the Chairman of

the Appeals Board was when I read the Sunday Express on Sunday morning.

Mr. Speaker, it greatly concerned me as Minister of Social

Services because first of all the Minister of Social Services does not have any

part in drawing up the regulations on which the Appeals Board operates by. That

is not done by the Minister or the Department of Social Services, we do not draw

up the regulations. So their regulations are implemented according to - they

must act under those regulations.

I was really concerned about the fact that any Member, not

only the Chairman, but any Member would receive that much money to hear one case

in any part of the Province. So what I have asked to have done, Mr. Speaker,

very clearly, because I am greatly concerned about the amount of money that I

have to operate in the budget of the Department of Social Services, what I have

had asked to do, Mr. Speaker, is I have asked my Deputy Minister to ask internal

audit to do a complete review of all the claims submitted, not only by the

former Chairman, but all Members of the Appeal Board over the last two years

since I have become Minister.

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

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware then that social

assistance regulations made in 1977 provide that the rate of pay for the

Chairman is $200 a day and that these regulations have not been amended? And

where is his authority to pay these amounts and to pay them retroactively, if

there has been no amendment to this act?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is very clear that

hon. Members opposite do not understand what I said yesterday and today. I

cannot, I do not and I have not a

part in making decisions on regulations or

drawing up regulations governing the Social Assistance Appeals Board. And, Mr.

Speaker, I want to say to this hon. House I am as equally concerned as every

Member opposite about the wastefulness of a Minister in Government or a

Department in Government or a Premier's Office in Government or anything. I want

to point out very clearly my concern about waste that can happen in Government,

so I will read out and table in this hon. House some figures, Mr. Speaker. This

is a standing offer for frozen and seasonal produce for $1,500 by a Premier's

Office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: $10,000, Mr. Speaker, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I do not know what it is the hon. gentleman is talking about

at this point in time, and I do not know -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

At this point in time I do not know what it is the hon.

Member is talking about. I do not know if it is relevant to the question. I will

give him fifteen to twenty seconds to see if I can determine whether what he is

doing is relevant to the question.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My point is that I

have been accused of being irresponsible and not having concern for money being

spent by Departments in this Government. I want to go on and give you another

example. `Please issue a standing order for the supply of tobacco products for

the Premier's private dining hall, $5,000'.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARREN: You are despicable, John. You stink - stink.

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

The hon. the Member for Fogo, on a final supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. POWER: Two wrongs do not make a right, John.

MR. RIDEOUT: The Premier is proud of this, is he?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask the

Minister this then. Does the Minister intend to do the same thing he did last

fall, when he reduced social assistance payments and failed to amend the

regulations? Is he again going to make regulations with retroactive effect but

this time, instead of taking money away from people like he did the social

assistant recipients and the single mothers last year, does he intend to use his

power now to legalize a 700 per cent increase to his political cronies?

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

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

quite right, we should be concerned about the amount of money spent and charged

off by any appeals board, not only the Department of Social Services Appeals

Board. I have asked Internal Audit, everyone, everybody - I did not ask internal

audit myself personally, but the Deputy Minister this morning to have Internal

Audit investigate the operations of the Chairman and all members of the Social

Assistance Appeals Board. I have a great concern. The one thing I have not done

since becoming Minister is have a cabinet full of liquor in my office at all

times. Let me give you an example: `Please issue a standing order for liquor and

beer for the Premier's private dining room, $20,000, by that former Premier over

there - $20,000!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

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

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. The Minister of Employment is aware

that the Transport and Allied Workers Union has been successful in organizing

the majority of the independent truck operators in the Province and have written

the Minister requesting amendments to the Labour Relations Act which would make

it possible for the union to be certified as the official bargaining agent for

the independent truck drivers with the employers.

Now I have a letter here which was written to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations in November of 1990 - in November. When does the

Minister intend to respond to this letter from the Transport and Allied Workers

Union? And why has it taken nearly six months and counting to prepare a response

to the Transport and Allied Workers Union, local 855? Does the Minister have

writer's cramp? What is the problem here?

AN HON. MEMBER: She cannot write.

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: I am meeting with the individuals involved in

that group this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: That is no excuse for not answering the

letter!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, again the Minister has not

answered the question. I asked her why it has taken a six month period to

respond to that letter. I am sure she will be asked today when she meets with

the Transport and Allied Workers Union.

Now let me ask her another question, a supplementary. There

have been numerous protests and road blockages in recent years because of the

many, many legitimate grievances of the independent dump truck operators. Does

the Minister agree that something must be done to bring good labour relations

practices to that industry and to afford some protection to the independent dump

truck operators? Does she agree with that?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: I am meeting with the individuals involved

this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and I will hear first-hand their concerns. I am

looking forward to that opportunity and perhaps will be in a better position to

respond to my critic's question after that meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Not only does the Minister have writer's

cramp, she has a problem answering questions as well. Now let me ask the

Minister this. As a former union leader I am sure she is very, very offended by

the horrible conditions under which the independent dump truck operators have to

work. Will she tell them now that she is on their side, that she agrees with

their forming a union and doing whatever is necessary to get the union certified

as a bargaining agent?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: I think, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman

had the grasp of labour relations he seems to think he has he would be aware

that the certification for a union goes before the Labour Relations Board and

has nothing to do with me as Minister.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the

Minister of Labour and Employment Relations. If the Minister has the grasp of

the Labour Relations Act she thinks she has, will she explain to this House why

a legitimate group in this Province who have voted to become certified and

organized as a union have to wait six months for an incompetent Minister to

respond to their letter, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: I am the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, Mr. Speaker. Some gentlemen on the opposite side seem to have

difficulty even getting my name straight and then they call me incompetent. I

find that amusing. Anyway, in response to that a letter was sent from my office

saying that the matter was being considered - that it had been brought to my

attention and was being considered. It was then given immediately to the people

in the Labour Division of the Department and they began immediately to examine

the legislation. I do not know when the letter went. I can double check that. It

usually goes in the mail the same day, however, there might have been a problem

at this time. However, I am about to meet with the individuals this afternoon.

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

Extern.

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

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Will the Minister confirm that

his Department has projected an operating deficit of $400,000 in 1991-92 for the

St. John's Fire Department? And will he tell the House why such a large deficit

is projected so early in the fiscal year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any

projection of a deficit of $400,000 in the St. John's Fire Department.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to remind the

hon. Minister that everyone else in the Province knows. It it on the front page

of the Evening Telegram this afternoon, so apparently it is not a secretive

thing. Your ADM did meet with the Fire Department yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. gentleman is on a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: Has the Fire Department been told to take

specific measures to eliminate the projected deficit? What are those measures,

and do they include the threatened layoff of ten firefighters if costs are not

controlled?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, costs are being controlled, of

course, and have been controlled in the Fire Department and other divisions of

my ministry since we took Government. We have an obligation to keep those costs

under control, because we administer the Fire Department on behalf of some seven

or eight municipalities in this particular region. You are quite right in saying

that the Assistant Deputy Minister is having meetings right now with the Fire

Department discussing operating costs, because they have to live within a fixed

budget for this forthcoming year, as all other Departments of Government have

to.

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

John's East Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, is the bluster and intimidation

now being used in the St. John's Fire Department related to the fact that the

firefighters have not had an agreement for eighteen months and are now involved

in binding arbitration? Is the Minister trying to intimidate the union into

backing off on their position before the arbitration board?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

the Premier. Would the Premier tell the House of Assembly what is the Government

policy, his policy, for retaining private law firms in the Province to do legal

work for Government Departments and Government agencies such as Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador? Would the Premier tell the House of Assembly what

process he used and what criteria he used in making the decision to take the ENL

legal account away from the apolitical law firm of ?Stewart, McKelby, Stirling

and give it to the Liberal law firm of Halley, Hunt, headed by former Liberal

leader Ed Roberts?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I say again we were horrified

at what we say happening by the former administration, where they used these

things to put in place basically Tory supported firms; perhaps not all, there

may have even been a few who were independent. The hon. Member mentioned the

Stirling, Ryan firm. I have never known them to be extensively involved in

politics, but for the most part we found that the former Government took all the

Government business and gave it to two or three select law firms. I would say

probably about six or eight months after we formed the Government the Minister

of Justice spoke to me about it and said that he was concerned about this

situation. We developed a policy, and our policy that we put in place was to

spread the work around and rotate the work. Now that is the last I had anything

to do with it, and that was a year or so ago. So far as I know that process is

being implemented by all Government Departments, and we think that is the right

thing to do.

The Minister of Development who is, of course, answerable for

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador has since advised me of the way he has

dealt with it in his Department. He said, Look, instead of having all the work

in the whole Province done by that one firm that did it for the last ten or

twelve years -

MR. BAKER: Thirteen years.

PREMIER WELLS: - thirteen years, spread it around:

appoint a firm in Corner Brook to do the work in Western Newfoundland, appoint a

firm in Gander to do the work in Central Newfoundland, appoint a firm in St.

John's to do the work in Eastern Newfoundland, and leave Stirling, Ryan in place

who will also do some of the work. Now, to the best of my knowledge that is the

way it works and that, Mr. Speaker, is consistent with the policy we developed.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier may know

that there are now about 450 practising lawyers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are 120 law firms. I would like to ask the Premier: what opportunity was

given the other 119 law firms - apart from Halley, Hunt, headed by Ed Roberts -

to submit proposals for the Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador account, valued

by the Minister at over $200,000 next year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me just correct the last statement,

'valued at over $200,000 next year.' The Minister told me the amount was

$190,000 over ten years, not $200,000 a year. The Member's comments are as valid

as that. Now, I know what may have been reported in the paper but that is

incorrect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member, above all

other Members of this House, knows that you cannot really do that with legal

work that you retain. You cannot invite proposals and have that work. Legal

advisors are a different kind of thing. Any more than the hon. Members opposite

could do this, any more than the hon. Members opposite did when they were in

office. They would award work to a firm in which a Cabinet colleague sat as a

senior partner in the firm. Everybody knows that they did that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: We will get the full information, Mr.

Speaker, and make the full information available to the House. But just to clue

up on the Member's particular question. It is not possible to invite proposals

in these kinds of ways, as the hon. Member well knows, being herself a lawyer.

But what we tried to do was correct the incredible abuse that the former

government had in place and share the work around the Province, and in that way

benefit all parts of the Province and not just a select few.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

table in the House of Assembly a list of all Government and Government agency

legal work that has been contracted out to private law firms in the Province and

would he explain the criteria used by the Government in selecting each of the

firms? And finally, would the Premier let us know whether he has considered

whether it would not be more cost efficient to have legal work such as the ENL

work done in-house by staff solicitors rather than done by private solicitors?

After all, are we not supposed to be operating in the most cost efficient manner

possible in the interest of taxpayers and the business clients of ENL?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are several things that need to be

addressed, Mr. Speaker. I think in much of the work we could do it more

efficiently in-house, and that is why we are taking steps to have that done, to

increase the staff in the Department of Justice. Now, the hon. Member was

herself Minister of Justice. She took no steps to achieve that which she is now

speciously asking the Government about. She took no steps as Minister of Justice

but we are and we will continue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, will I table all of that information? Yes -

but I will go back for the last ten or fifteen years and table it all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I stand

to present a petition signed by five residents of Green Bay, from Long Island in

Green Bay, Lush's Bight and Beaumont being their communities. The prayer of the

petition, Mr. Speaker, is as follows: 'We the undersigned petition the hon.

House of Assembly not to approve the amalgamation of the Long Island and Little

Bay Islands ferry service for six months each year. And furthermore, if such an

amalgamation must take place, we favour a three point ferry service with the

mainland terminal at Pilley's Island.'

Mr. Speaker, I must say the names on this particular petition

are the names of a delegation who visited the offices of the Minister of

Transportation this morning. They did not get to meet the Minister. They did

meet with senior officials, and made the case for their island. A week or so ago

a delegation from Little Bay Islands was also in to see officials of

Transportation to make a case for their particular island.

Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I have problems with this as

the Member, from the point of view that it is a downgrading of a service to both

islands. The current two boat system was implemented some years ago to avoid the

endless squabbling over ferry schedules etc. that came about from having one

boat serving two islands in the beginning all year. Now we are about to take a

step back in time and get into a situation where we have one boat serving two

islands for half the year. Then we get into the endless wrangle of which

mainland landing point is the operative mainland landing point. At present the

current suggestion from the Department of Transportation is a mixture of both

landing points, a ferry

schedule that seems to meet with the approval of neither

council.

As I indicated this particular morning the delegation was

from Long Island and their main concern was, of course, their particular island

and they put forward the case for their island with the mainland terminal being

at Pilley's Island.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard on the news here lately

considerable talk about the ferry system to Bell Island and how the ice has

broken that system, Mr. Speaker, and there has been much ado and the Member for

the District has been on the radio many times about taking actions to ensure

that the residents of Bell Island have a decent ferry system. Well, Mr. Speaker,

it is not the ice that broke the system in Green Bay, it is this Government. The

fact that the Government is scrambling to fix the system on Bell Island would

indicate to me that it is probably because it is represented by a Liberal

Member.

What this Government has decided to visit on Long Island and

Little Bay Islands is a plague that they decided to visit upon three other

islands in my District a year or so ago, amalgamation. In this particular case,

Mr. Speaker, it is transportation amalgamation rather than municipal

amalgamation, but it is unwanted and unwarranted amalgamation nonetheless.

Mr. Speaker, we have a Government here which is cutting ferry

fares in half and cutting ferry systems in half, and that makes absolutely no

sense. They promised the people they would pay less, but they never promised

them they would get less. Less and less is what the people of my District and

rural Newfoundland, in general, is getting. Mr. Speaker, it sort of reminds me

of the scene on the Newhart Show where the three brothers show up and one says,

hi, I am Larry, and this is my brother Darryl and my other brother Darryl. Well

in this particular case we have a guy showing up and saying, hi, I am Clyde, and

this is my brother Less and this is my other brother Less. And we have Clyde and

Less and Less going around rural Newfoundland and we know what that means for

rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. It means less money for the hospitals, it means

less money for schools, and it means less money for transportation. Mr. Speaker,

we have a very serious situation here and one that will be recurring every

spring, because every spring there will be a continuous and ongoing fight over

the establishment of a ferry system. The system was not broke it was working

fine. This Government's desire to amalgamate and save money at the cost of

tremendous anguish to the people on the islands concerned is going to lead to

nothing but grief in the future.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that Clyde and Less and Less

stop tramping through my District and other parts of rural Newfoundland, leave

matters as they be, things that are not broke need not be fixed. I thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the

petition put forward by my colleague for Green Bay on behalf of the residents of

Long Island and Little Bay Islands, because the problems that the residents of

these Islands experience are no different from the problems which arise in my

district and the district of my friend, the Member for Lewisporte - Change

Islands, who are being forced to live with a system similar to yours but maybe a

little worse because ours, I think, is going to be for nine months of the year

and, Mr. Speaker, the commitment of this Government when it ran for office in

1989 was to improve the ferry service throughout this Province, and Mr. Speaker,

with changes like that, I would say - some improvement.

Mr. Speaker, what is more important about this, is, this

system has been tried before; it has been tried on the Change Islands, Fogo

Island run, found that it did not work and successive governments for a while

decided they would not adopt that type of scheme again. Now, Mr. Speaker, last

fall, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, stood in his place in

this House and announced that this Province would be reverting to a system which

had been tried years before and found it did not work.

Mr. Speaker, the Member also referred to ice conditions. I am

quite familiar with difficult conditions associated with ice, because the Fogo

Island ferry has not been able to run since - Sunday, I think it made its last

trip. It ran from Change Islands, he knows equally as well, I am sure he has had

as many calls this morning as I did, wondering if they were going to get mail

service out there today - and let them know that they might get some mail

service later this afternoon, by the way.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when this Administration ran for office, it

said that a ferry system should cost the same and be just as good as

transportation on land, and, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how reverting to a

system of having one ferry serve two Islands to change a proven and tried

system, I fail to see how that is going to improve ferry transportation for

Island residents of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, what we find there, again, is that strand of

thought which runs through this Government, that rural Newfoundland is not

important and if we can make life miserable enough for these people in rural

Newfoundland, perhaps they will not want to live there. Well now, Mr. Speaker, I

will let these people who will make decisions on behalf of that Government know

now, that rural Newfoundland is not going to roll over and die because this

Province is intent on reducing its level of service. They are going to fight and

fight hard and be vindicated, if not now, in two or three years time when they

get rid of an Administration that seems intent on destroying rural Newfoundland.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is customary in this House,

when a petition is presented, by whatever side, that there would be a speaker

from the other side of the House. I am wondering if, in the absence of the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, one of the other Ministers would

care to speak to this petition which has already been presented, because there

are people here, Mr. Speaker, who are concerned about the petition which has

been presented by my colleague and I would hope that the Premier or some of his

people would at least have the delegation which is present, listen to what

Government has to say about the concerns of their district.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier to the point of order.

PREMIER WELLS: To the point of order. The Member

obviously has a right to say what he wants. Any Member opposite can rise and

speak. But they have no right to tell others whether they speak or whether they

do not speak, or what they should say or they should not say.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a

petition on behalf of 195 residents of the towns of Old and New Bonaventure in

the district of Trinity North. And the prayer of the petition reads: that the

undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to see that a suitable short and long term solution regarding the

road conditions from Trinity to Old and New Bonaventure is sought immediately.

Now, I support these residents in my district for two

reasons. First of all, I grew up in that region of Trinity North and I have

experienced their frustrations with their terrible road conditions for the past

thirty years. The people of Old and New Bonaventure resisted the resettlement

movement of the 1960s and they have developed as two very successful inshore

fishing communities. They demand very little and they normally complain even

less. Yet over the past twenty years they have been continually ignored when it

comes to basic Government services. The communities are at the end of the road,

so to speak, and I guess the old adage, "out of sight, out of mind," applies.

Secondly, during every election that I can remember since

1949 the residents of Old and New Bonaventure have been promised pavement, only

to be told after polling day that they are no longer a priority. Once again this

year, because of limits on capital spending, the residents of these communities

have been denied the type of roads that most of us take for granted. But what is

ironic is that the previous government brought the pavement to within a couple

of miles of the community, but if you note the voting patterns in Old and New

Bonaventure, you can get a clear picture as to why the residents still have to

endure mud, potholes and dust in this day and age.

I noted from the Minister's statements when he announced this

year's capital roads programme that the priority for road work was based solely

on a list provided by his officials and I have reminded the Minister that it has

been my personal experience, having been a civil servant for the past ten years,

that civil servants are never 100 per cent right 100 per cent of the time. And I

am sure that the Minister will take that into account when he sets his capital

spending priorities for the next fiscal year.

I am pleased that the Minister has committed himself to go to

my district and have a first-hand look at the road conditions in Old and New

Bonaventure. And I trust that this will lead to positive results.

Mr. Speaker, I support the petitioners in their efforts 100

per cent and I assure them that we will work together to right the wrongs of the

past twenty years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would

like to have a few words to say in support of the Member for Trinity North. I

congratulate him on his first petition to be presented in this House, his first

speech also, I understand, so I congratulate him for that also.

But I do want to say to him that he is a week too late. He

should have presented his petition a week ago. The Minister presented his roads

list last week, he presented $25.5 million worth of roads for this Province and

he excluded the people from Old and New Bonaventure.

Now the new Member - and I know it is inexperience because he

is a new Member, and it is certainly not his fault - but certainly one of his

colleagues over there should have tried to help him out, being a new Member in

this House, and tell him to present his petitions the day he gets them. Get the

petitions to the House so that the Minister will be pressured into trying to act

on it, especially from a Member from his own side.

Now, he is a new Member, and he believes that the list that

the Minister presented was based on a list sent up from public servants and it

was based mostly because the last seventeen years of Tory government ignored all

of the opposite Members' districts. Well, he might not know it but of the

sixty-eight projects over there, I think there were forty that are being done in

districts that were represented for those seventeen years by Tory people that

are now represented by Liberals. So he can be assured that the list was not done

up by public servants and presented on a basis that the last seventeen years of

Tory government did not give those districts any money. Because I know of

several projects in the district of Codroy Valley that were on that list. And I

can assure the hon. Member that for the last eight or nine years the member who

represented that area happened to be the Minister of Transportation at the time,

and he was not shy in spending money in the district of Codroy.

So, Mr. Speaker, the list that was presented in this House is

a shame on the Minister of Transportation, Mr. Speaker, who should have tried to

look after - I say it flat out, he should have tried to help the new member for

Trinity North, Mr. Speaker, and help the people of New and Old Bonaventure

because he was an inexperienced Member at the time when he came here, he came

here a bit later than all the rest of us. He should have went to the Minister

right away the day he got elected because he drove those roads during the

by-election, he was all over that place, he made promises that these roads would

be done this year, and the Minister of Transportation betrayed him again, Mr.

Speaker. The Minister of Transportation of that Government, because the Premier

would not let him spend it in new and old Bonaventure, 'because this Member is

only a new Member, he has to pay his dues first. He cannot be getting the money

the first year off of me, King Clyde. I am not giving him money the first year.

He has to come in here and pay his dues.'

Now, Sir, they gave some money to the Member for Codroy or

whatever the name of that district is, they gave a little bit of money to

Stephenville. He certainly has paid his dues, Mr. Speaker. He sat in the back

bench for the last two years when he should have been in Cabinet. I think he

should have gotten ten times the money that he got, but he did not get it. So I

say to the hon. Member for Trinity North that the next time you get a petition,

come over here and ask me what you should do with it because I will help you. I

will not be like the Members opposite who are trying to penny pinch and squeeze

all of the money out of the Ministers for themselves and they will not help out

their newer colleagues. But I will help them and I will tell them exactly how

the system works over there and that it is not done at all, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TOBIN: He did not sign it, Bob. Tell him to sign it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Uh oh, he did not sign it.

MR. TOBIN: He did not support his people. He did not sign

the petition.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He has it signed now. He has it signed

now

MR. TOBIN: He just signed it that time, boy.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Member

wants some advice, any Member on this side would gladly help him out. We know we

are not getting any money from the Minister of Transportation. He would not give

us any money if it was the last thing in the world. If the pavement rolled up

from Waterford Bridge into the inside of the Goulds, Mr. Speaker, I will never

get another cent from that Minister, and I will accept that. He only has two

more years and then I will be back there and he will be gone, so he will not

have to worry. And the Member for St. John's South will not be around after

that, but maybe the Member for Trinity North will be on this side of the House

the next time, and I can assure him that if I am Minister of Transportation

after the next election that the road in New and Old Bonaventure will be done by

this Government, Mr. Speaker, by the next Tory Government that comes in within

the next year and a half.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

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

support this petition so excellently presented by the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: It is very refreshing to hear that kind of

presentation when a Member is presenting a petition to this House. He did a

superb job in terms of explaining the situation. It contrasted with the

ramblings and the shoutings of the Member opposite who in commenting on the

petition commented on everything but the petition. So I would like to

congratulate the Member for Trinity North who did such a superb job in the

presentation of this petition on behalf of the residents of Old and New

Bonaventure who it seems, Mr. Speaker, have been suffering for a number of years

with a problem. On the surface it seems to be a road problem, but in reality it

is probably a voting problem. In the comments from the Member for Trinity North

we can see that the kind of patronage that was expended by Members opposite was

a type of patronage that applied not only to district versus district, it

applied not only to districts like the Strait of Belle Isle, it applied not only

to districts that for years and years had voted Liberal, but it applied within

Tory districts to communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. BAKER: Now this is what amazes me, I did not realize

that this was going on. But in the districts that voted Tory, the patronage was

applied within that district. Mr. Speaker, I was shocked by that revelation.

Now in terms of this petition I have no problem in supporting

the wishes of the people of Old and New Bonaventure, no problem at all. The

Member for Trinity North over the next few months will undoubtedly be making his

case to the Department of Works, Services, and Transportation, to the Minister,

and I will assist him in this regard, and I will support this particular

petition in terms of next years capital programme.

So, Mr. Speaker, the reason is obvious -

MR. FUREY: Take it from Burin-Placentia West (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: -but this year's road programme has been

announced and we will certainly have a look at it in terms of next year's

process. I believe that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem supporting this

and wish the residents of Old and New Bonaventure the best of luck in terms of

getting the road done. I know they need it. I know what it is like to suffer

from lack of pavement, as so many areas of this Province are, so many areas who

are suffering from lack of pavement, by and large brought upon by the way they

voted for the last number of years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the honour to

present an original petition signed by 114 on one part of it and 69 on another

for a total of 183 residents of Old and New Bonaventure, Mr. Speaker, petitioned

to this House and signed by myself in support of it. It says as follows, Mr.

Speaker: The petition of the undersigned of the communities of Old and New

Bonaventure in the Provincial District of Trinity North states that we the

residents of these communities are gravely concerned for the welfare of our

children who travel each day over the unpaved road to and from school. The

condition of the unpaved portion of this road degenerates each spring and

becomes not only difficult to drive over, but also becomes dangerous for heavy

vehicles, in particular. Despite having received many promises over the years

that this road will be paved, no action so far has been taken. This is

unacceptable. We implore this hon. House to set aside such funds, as is

necessary, to have this road paved without delay, not only for the convenience

of the communities at large, but in particular for the protection of our

children. Your petitioners respectfully request this hon. House give its

immediate attention to this request.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I present this petition on behalf of those

residents of Trinity North, and in doing so, of course, I want to congratulate

the Member for Trinity North in finally getting up the courage to stand on his

feet and speak in this House on the petition that was presented to him several

weeks ago. In

part I blame him, Mr. Speaker, but now I blame the hon. the

President of Treasury Board for not telling him properly. Instead he waited

until I passed the hon. Member a note today advising him that I was going to

present a petition from his District -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: -and suggested that he stay in the House

because I would like him to respond to it. Mr. Speaker, this petition was

presented to me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the residents of New and Old

Bonaventure got up the petition the Member just presented today, and upon

discovering after several weeks that it was not to be presented in this House

decided they had to put together another petition and it was presented to the

Leader of my Party and I was asked to present it to the House on behalf of the

residents. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to commend the hon. Member. I have been

encouraging him over the last several weeks to get up and speak in the House and

I am glad he has finally done so. Now that he has I am sure he will continue to

participate in debates in the House. Mr. Speaker, some of the things he did say

in presenting the petition, I think I have to support, that much of the problem

with the residents of this district has perhaps had to do with the voting. Now,

this Government cannot say that they are rising above that level of patronage,

Mr. Speaker. This level of patronage goes back to the former Liberal Government.

Was it not former Premier Smallwood in a famous speech to the voters of

Ferryland who talked about how not one red cent would go to the district of

Ferryland if they did not vote for their member. They reap what they sow, Mr.

Speaker. When the Member for Trinity North goes into Old and New Bonaventure

during an election campaign and promises road pavement, just as the Member did

before, he has to expect that the people want something back in return.

Unfortunately for the new Member he does have a certain amount of naivety

because he seems to be the only one, not only in this House but perhaps in all

of Newfoundland, who believes the press releases of the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation when he says: this is a list selected by officials

who provide it and the Members have no influence on it. Mr. Speaker, it is quite

obvious when one looks at the breakdown of this in terms of districts with

sixty-four out of sixty-eight going to districts currently represented by

Liberals, they cannot stand back and say this is to redress the evils of the

past because many of the districts now represented by these Liberals were in

fact represented by Tories for so many years, so that is a very facile answer,

Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the hon. Member for Trinity North to join with me in

trying to convince this Government to change that historic pattern and to have,

instead of the officials allegedly making the decisions without any influence

from the public, to have an open process about road decisions so that decisions

can be made and people can make representations to an independent board which

will have the ability to receive the representations, to hear the concerns, and

to establish a list of priorities that is done in an open manner and a fair

manner so that all Members of the House and the people of Newfoundland will have

some confidence that various Governments are not using their own money to buy

votes or to buy support.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favour

of the petition presented by my colleague for St. John's East, and to obviously

commend him for enticing the Member for Trinity North to present the petition.

It is sad when someone has to come to this House and send a note to another

Member asking him to present -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I do not need any instructions from any Member

over there. The people of this Province, whether they live in New or Old

Perlican, in Burin - Placentia West, in Placentia, or in Carbonear, have every

right to expect their Members to present a petition on their behalf, and whether

you be a new Member or an old Member you still have that responsibility. I make

no apologies for myself, or for the Member for St. John's East for writing a

note to the Member for Trinity North asking him to present a petition. The fact

of the matter is this Government has brought down three budgets with allocations

for roads and not one red cent in three years has this Premier or this

Government given to New or Old Bonaventure. In three Budgets not a nickel and

yet the Member gets up and blames it on the bureaucrats. Well, probably the

Member might believe it is the bureaucrats but I can tell you that it is not the

bureaucrats. It was done in the Cabinet room. It was done by these Minister who

cut the pie and did not give a cent. Now, the other thing I might like to know,

the other question I would like to have answered: was there money allocated this

year for road work in Trinity North?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: The Member says yes there was. When he got up

to speak he said the reason why it probably was not done was because of the

voting patterns of Old and New Bonaventure over the past twenty years. Now my

question is how did they vote in the last election? I wonder if the leader of

the NDP would be permitted to tell us how they voted in the last election. And

did their voting pattern in the last election have anything to do with the fact

that they did not get five red cents out of this Budget? That is the question I

would like to have answered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: They were as close, they were levelled off,

they were basically levelled off, split, and I wonder if that had anything to do

with it. And I wonder if other places in the Member's district voted more

Liberal and got more money. That is the question that has to be answered. I

wonder if this Member who just got elected has not been counselled very well by

the President of Treasury Board and other people on how to manipulate the system

and how to be political within the district. That is shameful. That is shameful,

Mr. Speaker, that a Member would play politics within his district, allocate to

one town and not another because of how they voted, or one town voted more for

him than another town. That is shameful, but it is happening in this system.

We also saw today how political this Government really is.

When my colleague for Green Bay presented a petition supported by my colleague

for Fogo, both of whom had similar problems, not one Member opposite stood to

speak to that petition. Yet, when a Liberal presented a petition the President

of Treasury Board was on his feet supporting it. And now my colleague for St.

John's East has presented a petition, it will be interesting to see whether they

will continue to play politics and refuse to stand and speak to that petition

presented from this side of the House.

I would say that if neither Minister on that side stands then

the Member for Trinity North owes it to the people of his district to stand and

speak in support of this petition. Every opportunity a Member gets, he should

stand and support something for his district. The fact that he just presented

one and spoke for three minutes is not important. The opportunity is again there

for the Member for Trinity North to take his place in this House on behalf of

the people and to condemn this Government. For three years they have brought in

budgets with not one nickel for the people of the communities on whose behalf he

just presented a petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You just take it easy. Mr. Speaker, the

Minister should make a commitment right now to that Member - and he can do it.

The President of Treasury Board and this Government, if they are sincere and

supportive of the petition, can stand and tell the people of Old and New

Bonaventure this evening that they will have pavement next year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want the Minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again I have no

problem supporting the petition from the residents of Old and New Bonaventure,

and I would simply say `ditto' in terms of what I said to the first petition

from these two communities. However, I would like to make note of the fact once

again that there is a tremendous difference between the reasoned, sensible,

persuasive arguments put forward by the Member for Trinity North as compared

with the ravings and shoutings from Members opposite. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 7, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 7. The hon. the House Leader to move

that further consideration -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

- of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses,

section or sections,

preamble or

preambles, title or titles or whatever else

might be related to Order No. 3 shall be the first business of the House when

next called by the House and shall not further be postponed. You have heard the

motion. All those in favour 'Aye'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against `Nay'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3, third reading of a Bill, "An Act

Respecting Restraint of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province". As I

recall, we are debating the amendment to the motion.

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

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

Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about this infamous

bill and the closure motion. That is the big thing. It is the first time, I

suppose, and perhaps years from now we will be able to read it in Ripley's

Believe It Or Not, but this is the first time that on a bill in three stages,

the Government House Leader brought in closure. He should be ashamed of himself,

Mr. Speaker. He should hang his head; he should be ashamed to go outside the

door of this Assembly; he should sleep in here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do not know if the noise level is bothering other Members,

but I can say to hon. Members that I am totally mesmerized and I have been since

petitions began. I do not know if it is the new House, whether or not, as I

said, the sound is coming more to me. But if hon. Members find it, then I am

going to have to enforce order in this House and ask hon. Members if they are

talking to please talk more quietly, more subdued so that it does not manifest

itself throughout the whole proceedings in such a manner that it interferes. I

would ask hon. Members to co-operate.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What the hon. the

Government House Leader did was put the boots to us; he shut us down. He said,

you are not allowed to get up and speak any more. He said, we are going to rule

the roost, and that is what he did; he used the old hobnail boots; he ground us

into the floor.

I was here yesterday afternoon and I was flabbergasted, Mr.

Speaker. I was sitting down here when the debate started and my hon. friend and

colleague, the House Leader, was giving a fine speech, an excellent speech, when

all of a sudden - I will tell you what I was thinking about, Mr. Speaker, and

you will have to indulge with me for a moment. I was thinking about Sunday's

storm and athe fact that I did not get to church. I was thinking to myself when

all of a sudden up rises the Government House Leader, the President of Treasury

Board, with his book in his hand and he started in. Well what a lacing he gave

us. What a lacing! We had no authority to stand up in the House. We were

irrelevant. What irrelevance, he said. He laced up one side of us and down the

other side. I thought to myself, well, I did not hear a homily yesterday, I

missed church because of the storm, but I was relieved, I was really glad that

here was the Reverend Baker on his feet and he told me and the rest of my

colleagues that we were sinful people, that we had committed sin, that we should

not have gotten on our feet here and tried to get across to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador what this Government was perpetrating on them. But we

were sinful, Mr. Speaker.

When I went home last night I thought about the Government

House Leader and I said to myself, well at least I was in the House. I did not

go to church yesterday, but the Government House Leader relieved a lot of

pressure that was on me for not going.

MR. SIMMS: You did not go to church!

MR. PARSONS: No, I missed church on Sunday because of the

storm.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: Sunday night it was stormy, and I left it

too late.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I left it too late, Mr. Speaker, and I did

not go. But when I went home I looked in the bible; I was looking for the names

of the people who were mentioned and do you know the only name I could not find,

Mr. Speaker, was the name the House Leader referred to - he kept saying

Beauchesne. That was the only difference in the liturgy I hear in church, when

the minister or the priest, the clergyman, has the homily, and what the hon.

Government House Leader did yesterday. But there was no mention in the bible

about that fellow Beauchesne.

Now he got up yesterday and he kept saying, Well this was

under So and So. Now you are not allowed to do it, because you do not

understand, because you are young fellows over there and you do not realize what

is going on, and the hardships that we find ourselves in. Oh, Mr. Speaker!

I must say I finally realized what he was talking about and I

said, here we are, the poor people of Newfoundland and Labrador, some of them

losing their jobs completely, others had raises promised them, and here is Bill

16, the infamous bill, the worst piece of legislation that was ever brought

before this House of Assembly, and here is Old Closure Baker - he will go down

in history. You should be ashamed of yourself! Three times on the one bill -

three times - to muzzle the Opposition. He tried to make us like calves in the

pasture. Did you ever see a calf in the pasture with a muzzle on her so that she

could not open her mouth? That was us. He tried to muzzle us, he tried to knock

us down, he tried to walk on us, stamp on us! But he could not do it and he had

to bring in closure. He will go down in history as the only House Leader who

ever brought in closure three times on the one bill.

There are an awful lot of things to be said about this bill.

And what surprises me - and the last time I spoke here I mentioned the same

thing - is that the few speakers who have gotten to their feet on the other

side, they were always saying the one thing, we do not like this bill, we really

cannot digest this bill. But at the end of the day, when it is voted on, when

the House Leader brings in closure and it is voted on, every Member on the other

side - "aye." Not one of them will live by their convictions, will live by what

they really feel and know, that this bill is a disaster for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

When we consider what this bill is all about - we talk about

the restraints, the Government's problems as it pertains to loan guarantees,

loan monies - and then we look at what the Minister of Development brought

before this House yesterday, the Economic Recovery Commission expenses related

to promotion and advertising, with hospital beds being closed, people being laid

off in Old Perlican, Placentia, Port aux Basques, Bell Island, here in

Confederation Building, other health institutions, teachers being laid off, here

is the Economic Recovery Commission's promotion and advertising, $110,000.

That is what the Economic Recovery Commission spent on

advertising. I can see the Minister coming through the door now and I am glad he

is here. Because no matter how smooth the Minister is - a very smooth talker -

he can never convince me, and I do not think he can convince anyone in

Newfoundland and Labrador, that $110,000 should be spent on advertising when

people are being laid off, losing their jobs; when people in Newfoundland and

Labrador are losing their homes, their cars.

Then in this Minister comes with, and quite proud of it, and

after each heading: Annual Report, $26,210. Annual report of what? Of what? I

mean I have said over and over in this House where the money could be saved,

where those things which are happening with Bill 16 need not be necessary. And

the first thing I said up front, dissolve the ERC and put that young Minister

where he is supposed to be, in charge of development - not Dr. Doug House. He

was never elected. That is $55 million there. Then when I look here and see

Professional Services $17,426 cost to date for assistance, advice and the

development of communication programmes, that is $17,000; let us see what else

they spent our money on; Advertisements $2,697; Buy Newfoundland Radio Campaign

$40,543; Newfoundland Manufacturers Association $15,000, The Newsletter

Connections, Connections, is the name of the newsletter, $8,600. Mr. Speaker,

there could be a lot of people, a lot of men and women still working today, some

of that $110,000 could perhaps at least have kept six people working; six people

in this Province who need jobs, whom this Government without care, knowing,

deprived of their rights to live and be proud and working Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, when I was up a few days ago, I mentioned the

Chairman of the Social Services Appeals Board and it has come to light today and

yesterday in Question Period and in the media and here we have a Government that

espouses to - all we can hear is restraints because there is no money; they do

not have any money; what could we do, we had to do something, and here we look

at, the Minister of Social Services, for the Chairman of his Board, the Appeals

Board received up until last fall, $200 per day.

Now the Minister can say what he likes, these are the facts;

through his asking, through his begging to Treasury Board, the chairman of this

appeals board monetary remuneration was changed and what he was getting $200 a

day for, he was getting in the new schedule: his preparing for the meeting one

day, $350; travel to a meeting one day, $350; attendance at a meeting one day,

$350; travel home one day, $350. A year ago, what cost $200 is now costing

$1,400; and the other thing, Mr. Speaker, I learnt today in passing, was that,

up until last year - the Member for St. John's South can say what he likes, but

it is the truth, up until last year - you see, there are regions of the Province

where those appeals are held and I have been told now, because of this here,

because of the monetary situation now, that appeals are being held in

communities right across the Province; in other words, what could take place in

Gander, where all the people could come to Gander to appeal their cases, the

appeals board now is travelling to those individual communities at a cost of

$1,400 a day for the Chairman, $1,400 a day for the Chairman, from the same

Government who said we have no money; we have no money to pay salaries -

AN HON. MEMBER: You be quiet.

MR. PARSONS: You be quiet. If you want to get up, you can

get up after I sit down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: If you want to speak, you get up because you

have no gag -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, how can this Government go out

there and say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: we have no money, that

is why we had to take away your jobs. How are they going to say to the nurses,

when the hon. the House Leader here said: they should have had raises before

this, they should have had the money that they deserve, but, Mr. Speaker, they

did not get the money, it was clawed back by this Government, not frozen, it was

clawed back.

How can you give something and then say it is frozen, Mr.

Speaker, it was clawed back, it was taken back from them, the monies that they

had, and then the Chairman of the Appeals Board for Social Services gets one

little trip, one little trip out to hear perhaps one appeal, $1,400. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that is despicable, and the Minister of Social Services who was up here

the other day, and I said to him that he had laid off numerous people in his

Department, numerous people had been thrown to the wolves, and I told him that I

did hear through the grape vine that he had hired twelve temporary people and he

said - Mr. Speaker, arrogance, you talk about arrogance - Mr. Speaker, he looked

straight across at me and said: fourteen, not twelve, fourteen -

MR. EFFORD: From my district.

MR. PARSONS: - fourteen from your district -

MR. EFFORD: Yes, what is wrong with that?

MR. PARSONS: Now, Mr. Speaker, where is the fairness and

balance of the Premier to which he espouses; he was out all through this

country: that when I become, if I become; it was the biggest shock ever he got

in his life when he did become; oh, what a fright he got that night, but anyway

Mr. Speaker, he was saying -

MR. DOYLE: I would say the biggest shock that he had was,

when he found the Minister of Social Services with his fingers in the cookie

jar.

MR. PARSONS: Oh, oh! Oh, oh, I did not like to say that,

oh, he was caught. First of all, he was caught in the boat, right, now look at

where he is now he has his fingers in the cookie jar. Yes, he got his fingers in

this time, and I am telling you he may get a rap on his fingers yet. The Premier

has not decided yet. We will wait. In a couple of days time we will see what is

going to happen.

That is the start of the downfall, I want to say to the

Minister of Development that this is the start of your downfall. Right there to

our left is the start. He has his finger in the cookie jar. His hand is going to

get jammed down there. His hand will not be able to get up from the cookie jar.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection

against these vicious attacks by those two Ministers. Here comes my old friend

the hon. House Leader, the Rev. Baker. Then there was a lot of controversy over

it and the lawyers came to the Justice Department on numerous occasions. They

figured they were not getting enough money, Mr. Speaker, and we increased their

fees by $10.00 an hour. I heard a woman on Open Line saying she would be quite

prepared to work for $5.00 an hour to supplement the wages that herself and her

husband were receiving so their family could live with a bit of dignity. They

raised the lawyer's salaries by $10.00 an hour, but Mr. Speaker, what can we

expect from a Government that had no word, not now, then, or will never? What

did we do on Meech Lake? The Premier reneged. The First Ministers of the

Provinces signed Meech Lake and the Premier reneged. What did he do with us in

the House of Assembly when we wanted to vote on Meech Lake? He would not let us

vote. He decided, no, you are not allowed to vote. What did he do with the

nurses, Mr. Speaker? He reneged. What did he do with the Newfoundland

Constabulary? He reneged. What did he do with the firefighters? Again today we

brought it up in the House. They reneged. What did he do with the hospital

workers? What did he do with the general civil service? He reneged. He broke his

promises, Mr. Speaker. What did he do as far as the elimination of what was

necessary, what was survival for the outports, what was survival for rural

Newfoundland, they took away MUM Extension. Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to a

gentleman the other day who has a tractor and was not working, times are bad in

that industry as well, and his wife worked at MUM Extension. He came to the

office over there almost crying saying the unbelievable happened, his wife was

just laid off at MUM. She worked at MUM Extension. Here he was a man who was

trying to pay off his tractor, with no work, and his wife laid off as well. Mr.

Speaker, that is only one of the stories that are out there, but the stories

that will be related within the next six or eight months because of what this

Government did to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will come home to

roost with every one of you, including you, the Minister of Social Services.

Like I told you before you are going to be rapped on the knuckles anyway.

The fact remains that you should not be so arrogant as to get

up and tell the poor people - where the money comes from is your office - tell

them single mothers cannot receive this, people looking for assistance cannot

receive this, and in the same tone, within the same month, give your political

heelers a 700 per cent increase. You should be ashamed of yourself!

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)going to do?

MR. PARSONS: You should be ashamed of yourself!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: What a sleazebag you are.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: An honourable sleazebag.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I said before and I will say it

again, a lot of things could have been done apart from what this Government did.

And there are a lot of Members over on the other side who agree with me. There

could have been a freeze, if it was necessary. As I said before, there could

have been a freeze for two years, if it was necessary. Do it the first year. If

it was necessary to have the second year, do it. Perhaps the workers would be

satisfied to take early retirement. Perhaps they would be satisfied to take two

weeks off without pay.

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FUREY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend my hon.

friend for St. John's East Extern on a fine, fine speech. He is probably one of

the finer Members over there, and he has become a good friend of mine. Although

we do not share political philosophies we have certainly shared a lot of

friendly moments over the years, even though he voted against Confederation.

But I am not going to hold that against him, because he

recognizes he has done his mea culpas and genuflected before the great shrine of

Confederation and said I am sorry 300 times, and taken terrific benefits from

this great country called Canada. So he has done his genuflection and he is

very, very sorry, indeed ashamed, and hangs his head that he even dreamt or

thought about being an anti-Confederate. Other than that, he is a wonderful

fellow.

Now he asked me some questions. He is running away from the

answers. Sit down, my son, and listen to the answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Now, Mr. Speaker, protect me from the Member

for Port au Port, because his vicious attacks coming across the House, I can not

handle them. I cannot. They are just vicious attacks - scurrilous, vicious

attacks. Now protect me from my friend for Port au Port.

Now he asked specific questions about the Economic Recovery

Commission material I tabled in the House yesterday. Well, if I did not table it

they would be arguing about it. If I did not provide them with honest, up-front

answers they would be saying, well, the Minister of Development is covering up

or hiding something. But did we do that? No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: We opted for real change. When you ask

questions we give real answers. They are truthful answers. Now my good friend

for Stephenville recalls when we both shared the Opposition benches together,

day after day - and we shared the office and I had to listen to his blaring rock

n' roll between phone calls. We shared an office together, but we also shared

seats together on that side, in Opposition. And my friend for Stephenville will

recall that day after day, week after week we would ask questions about the

Sprung project, very simple, up- front, honest questions: Were there market

studies done? How much money has gone into it? Is it true that cows are eating

our money? Things like that.

We asked honest to God simple questions. Could we get

answers? No. And when we put the questions on the Order Paper, they shut the

House down. They shut the House down. I mean, was it well over a year and a

half? Yes. Well over a year and a half that they closed the House of Assembly.

So we had no forum, the people had no voice to ask questions. But when we are

asked questions, they might not like the answers, but we provide the answers. My

good friend for St. John's East rapped me on the knuckles for spending $50,000

through the Recovery Commission for the last two fiscal years, $50,000 a year.

Just in my Department alone I uncovered that they had an agency of record in New

York City for $91,000 a year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What?

MR. FUREY: Ninety-one thousand dollars a year! And I

asked, well, my God, what benefit do we get from this? And they could not tell t

t money. And so he me one single, solitary benefit from that money. And so he

says, why is the Minister spending $40,000 on a Buy Newfoundland radio campaign?

Because we believe in Newfoundland on this side. Because we believe in

Newfoundland companies. Because we want to support Newfoundland companies. Now

the corollary of asking that question is that they do not believe in

Newfoundland companies, that they do not want us to spend money to invest in

Newfoundland companies because it is the private sector that generates the real

money, that generates the real wealth that allows us to pour money into the

social sector. Even the hon. Member for Port au Port knows that, who was a

former businessman and, yes, whom I got elected. When Brian Peckford's blue wave

washed across Newfoundland and Labrador, myself and the hon. Member for Port au

Port tipped a glass of beer and celebrated together in Piccadilly, I believe.

Why? Because I was stunned enough to be his campaign manager and get him elected

by 450 votes in a sweep.

MR. HODDER: Tell them how much I paid you!

MR. FUREY: You did not pay me very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: Can you believe it? All he did was send me a

small little note saying, thanks a lot, Chuck. That is all I got. Thanks a lot.

And where did he go? Off to Florida he went, as I went back to work after three

weeks of intensive campaigning: writing his ads, shoving him in front of the

television, knocking on doors, chasing away dogs that were trying to bite the

rear end off him running up to houses. I did that for him. And what did he do?

He crossed the floor. Shame on you!

And he asked me for my advice. He said, Chuck, what should I

do? I said, well, the honourable thing to do is to resign and run as a Tory. You

will win anyway, because Peckford was sweeping and there were seats falling all

over the place. But no, he did not take my advice. It was the only time he did

not take my advice and it was wrong. But I am not going to condemn him for that,

because he has been an exceptional Member.

But what is more important is that he was a private

businessman. So I do not know how he can sit there as a private businessman -

and the hon. Member for Humber Valley, he too is a private businessman. And I

believe the hon. Member from my home stomping ground of Avondale one time

dabbled in business. And the Member for Menihek was a businessman. How can they

sit there and say no, do not spend money promoting Newfoundland business? That

is what we are saying - $40,000. We have spent $100,000 for the Canadian

Manufacturers Association Show, for a Buy Newfoundland radio programme. We have

spent less in two years than they have spent in one year with their agency of

record in New York City through the Department of Development. Talk about a

waste of money. My God.

And then he says; why are you spending money on an annual

report? Now surely to God Members across the way know that when the legislation

states it it becomes statute and therefore law that you have to supply an annual

report. The Member for Humber Valley tabled the annual report of the Milk

Marketing Board. I believe the Member for Port au Port - he was a Minister -

were you a Minister long enough to table a report? No, okay. Sorry. But the

Member from Avondale, for Harbour Main, he was the Minister of Highways, he has

tabled reports. These reports cost money. You have to pay out the money to have

the reports compiled and printed and tabled by law. My God, you can not argue

against that. Surely to God you do not want us to break the law.

And then we have $17,000 set aside to help us in our attempts

to bring community groups together for various announcements. Now the Member for

Exploits, he and the Member for Windsor-Buchans will recall one of those areas

where we spent a few thousand dollars was bringing people from the mainland,

from corporate areas, into the central Newfoundland area to announce a project

we are very proud of, the Steel Corp project. That has created real, meaningful

jobs in central Newfoundland. We did not spend the $17,000 on that, but we spent

a small portion of it on that so that we could get the message out; it is

important to get ths message out; it is important to spend a few dollars to

ensure that the people understand how we are spending the bigger dollars.

Now surely you cannot be against that?

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I have no idea.

Now the other Member says, well, you know, you have a $44

million monster called Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. I cannot even

understand that. I mean, he ran a business did he not? In St. John's East

Extern, my hon. friend ran a business. Let me tell you where the money is now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) trucking business.

MR. FUREY: Let me tell you where the money is so that

everybody understands for the record where it is. Sixteen million dollars is on

the table, Mr. Speaker, for loans and equity and low interest rates and these

kinds of things - it is risk capital. It is not money we flush out into the

harbour and into cucumber tents or anything else, it is risk capital; it is

money we lend out to companies. And by the very premise that you are lending

means that there is a return, people pay it back. That is the purpose of $16

million of that, and we have committed $24 million - $2 million a month for

twelve months equals $24 million. Eight million from last fiscal year has been

committed but has not flowed yet. When that $8 million flows into this fiscal

year, on the other end if we need to balance it with another $8 million for a

total of $24 million, there will be $24 million there for risk capital. R-I-S-K,

risk capital. It is not a block of money where we say here go take it to all of

our buddies and friends, as some of them would intimate, it is risk capital. It

is laid out there for companies to take advantage of under various programs,

whether it is the venture capital, whether it is the low interest rate loan,

whether it is equity positions in companies. And Members on all sides can look

at the record. Enterprise has helped corporations in all Districts, in all parts

of the Province, and record speaks for itself. That is $16 million.

Now where is the other $28 million for a total of $44 million

that Doug House has to run around and spend everywhere. That is $16 million. Let

me tell you where the other $28 million is. $15.4 million of it is in

Federal/Provincial agreements that this Government signed. The Rural Development

Subsidiary agreement flowing millions of Federal and Provincial dollars through

the Development Associations, we signed it. We have to put our money into it.

$15.4 million of that $44 million - $16 million was for risk capital; $15.4

million is for agreements we signed. What did we sign? We signed Rural

Development Agreement, the Enterprise Network agreement will be signed very

shortly; the Labrador Comprehensive agreement - surely the Member for Menihek

does not want me to throw that money out of the Budget. The Labrador

Comprehensive agreement, the Innu agreement and the Inuit agreement. So surely

Members on the other side do not want me as Minister of Development to say to

Ottawa, no, do not flow that money. Stop that $15.4 million, $15.4 million for

five agreements, Mr. Speaker: the Rural Development agreement, the Enterprise

Network agreement, the Labrador Comprehensive agreement; the Inuit Peoples

agreement and the Innu Peoples agreement. We are very proud of that $15.4

million, Mr. Speaker. Very proud.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what else did we spend money on? Well we

had to rent premises right across the Province because we got a great big new

idea. It is something that has been festering in rural Newfoundland for a long

time and it has been crying out to be done. It is called decentralization. This

Government took the bull by the horns and decentralized out into five regions of

the Province. It cost $1 million to rent these premises, premises being in the

Avalon area, the Clarenville area, the Gander area, the Corner Brook area, the

Labrador City area, and on top of that to make sure we covered rural

Newfoundland properly, we also sent out satellite offices into twenty-three

other regions. So that is five offices decentralized along with twenty-three

offices out into the region to serve rural Newfoundland. Now who can be against

that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we inherited two incubator malls,

one in Pasadena, in the Member for Humber East's District and one in Port aux

Basques, in the hon. the Member for LaPoile's District. Now we had a choice. We

could have shut them down but we said, no, we will carry on and make sure. We

will review them, reassess them, give them a new focus, a new direction, and new

life. That is what they required. They just cannot be receptacles to receive

handouts, and that is what they have been in the past. If you are going to be

really free enterprise - we do not mind incubating and starting businesses off

and nourishing them, but once they get nourished and get their sea legs, then

they are on their own, they should be on their own. $370,000 we are paying in

subsidized interest for businesses to occupy places in these two malls. We are

not against that, Mr. Speaker, we are for it.

Mr. Speaker, we had to computerize the system we currently

have so we could have updated information fast, efficient, quick delivery to

businesses. That cost us $500,000. We did that.

So, Mr. Speaker, where is the $44 million that my hon. friend

talked about? Sixteen million in risk capital, $15.5 million in five agreements

we are very proud to have signed with the Federal Government, $1 million went

into renting and leasing premises, $400,000 went into the incubator malls. There

were other operating costs. First time start-up costs are natural in the region

- there was $900,000 for that and there was $9 million for salaries. And here is

how it breaks out: when I inherited NLDC, which was the predecessor of

Enterprise Newfoundland, there were 67 employees. We did a complete assessment

of the Department of Development which, as hon. Members know, really is a

combination of four ministries; I think I am representing the Minister of

Tourism and Historic Resources, the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs, the

Minister of Economic Development, and the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and

Northern Development. When we folded all those into one ministry we said let us

take the delivery of community economic development, rural development and small

business and pull those employees out into our new Crown Corporation to deliver

our services. So I inherited NLDC which had 67 employees, and I moved 82 out of

that huge mandate of the New Department of Development, 82 from Rural,

Agricultural and Northern Development, from Rural Development, from Northern

Affairs, and all of these. What we wanted to do was harness all the small

business, the rural development programs and the economic development programs

under one roof. So that gave us 150 employees.

But if we are going to serve these people it is not just

enough to have fiscal instruments to pass out money. We wanted expertise. I want

to be able to say to people if they come into Corner Brook from Port Saunders,

`You need a business plan. Well, I have hired a businessman who just came out of

the private sector who can help you do that.' So we hired an extra 30 employees,

Mr. Speaker. There are 178 employees in this corporation right across the

Province, in the five regions and the 23 satellite offices. We think we are

ready to roll now. They have the expertise in the regions, they have the capital

dollar commitment of $2 million a year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Newfoundland savings bonds?

MR. FUREY: I will talk about the savings bonds any time

you want to. Do you realize that you - I am not going to be distracted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah, come on.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, that gives us 178 employees and

we have frozen it at that. I think we are on the right track. I think that

people on the other side in their own heart of hearts believe we are on the

right track, because I do not know if there is another alternative. I am not

sure if they know whether or not there is an alternative.

Mr. Speaker, he attacked the Economic Recovery Commission as

well. He asked about the Economic Recovery Commission. That is a small troop of

men and women whom we asked to advise Government on policy direction in terms of

stimulating the economy. Why did we do that? We did it because we do not have

all the answers. I wish we did have all the answers, Mr. Speaker. I wish we had

a magic wand and we could wave that wand and have jobs for everybody. But we do

not have all the answers, and anybody who tells you they do have all the answers

ought to be suspect immediately. There are no instant answers, there is only

instant coffee. There are no instant answers. You cannot give instant answers.

He asked about the budget of the Recovery Commission. I will

tell him about it. In the 1989 fiscal year we budgeted $3 million. The fiscal

year by the time that Recovery Commission was set up ran ten months, and in ten

months they spent $1 million. One million dollars of the $3 million was spent.

In 1990-91 we budgeted another $3 million. They came in under their budget again

at $2.8 million - $200,000 short. In 1991-92 they asked for $3 million. We said,

`Sure. That was your original budget. Put forward your budget.' We are going to

give them $2.4 million, $600,000 below their budget. So anybody who says the

Recovery Commission is not acting responsibly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. FUREY: Just to finish the last sentence or two.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FUREY: So anybody who says that the Recovery

Commission has not been financially responsible ought to look at their audited

statements. I think my friend from Bonavista South is looking at the statements

now. In year one, they budgeted $3 million and came in at a million; in year

two, they budgeted $3 million and came in $200,000 under at 2.8 and in year

three, they asked for $3 million, everybody was frozen, we reduced them to $2.4

million. I think that is performance, Mr. Speaker, and I think in the long haul,

you are going to see that Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, with the policy

direction of everybody in Government, because it is not just the responsibility

of the Minister of Development, or Dr. Doug House, or the Minister of Energy or

the Member for Bell Island or St. John's South or Harbour Main or Baie Verte, it

is all our responsibility to act responsibly and to generate new wealth because

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: - it is the new wealth -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: - that allows us to deliver our programmes

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now, before I get into

launching a vicious, vicious attack on this bill, Bill 16, let me first of all

take the opportunity, just to offer a brief word of congratulations to the

Member for Trinity North today for making his maiden speech, but, I want to say

to the Member for Trinity North, not to use the Minister of Development's speech

today as a good example of being relevant. Here we have the gag order on for the

third time, Mr. Speaker, the gag order is on for the third time on Bill 16, this

is the second time that the Minister of Development -

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order?

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

The hon. the Minister of Development, on a point of order.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly on a point of

order. Now the hon. Member for Harbour Main, Mr. Speaker, rose in his place and

said that I was not relevant. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if he was in the

Chamber, but I thought he was, and the last time I talked to him, his ears were

working very well; his ears were working very well the last time that I talked

to him, but what happened was, the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern, laid

out a list of questions: I would like to ask the Minister of Development, he

said, whether the spending on the Economic Recovery Commission's advertising

budget was valid.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it is a valid point of order and

I would like you to rule on it. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker laid out a

series of questions for the Minister of Development, so when I rose to speak on

the Bill, he asked me to take the opportunity to answer the questions. In fact,

Mr. Speaker, he was leaving the Chamber at the time, and shouted across: no, I

will wait to hear the answers. Did he not do that?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. FUREY: - so I set about -

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

MR. FUREY: - so I set about, Mr. Speaker, just on the

point of order, I set about -

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) we only have twenty minutes, we

gave the Minister (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! I will ask the

hon. Member to get to his point of order.

MR. FUREY: My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker. A

Member cannot stand in his place and say that another Member is irrelevant,

based upon the speech or his speech that he gave, because he has to understand,

that on any bill, Mr. Speaker, until you get into clause by clause, is a

wide-ranging debate any way and I was responding merely to the questions put so

properly by the Member for St. John's East Extern.

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

the point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will try to be

about thirty seconds to this point of order. First, it is not a point of order;

secondly, we are operating under the gag order here, where, Members on both

sides of the House only have twenty minutes to speak. All the Minister is doing,

is trying to cut into the time of my colleague for Harbour Main, who was about

to launch into an attack on the Government for bringing in the gag order, three

times in a row on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, nobody interrupted the Minister with a point of

order when he was speaking, in fact, we gave him a few extra minutes, so, the

Minister, if he is going to be courteous, should sit in his seat, keep quiet and

do not go interrupting with specious, foolish, nonsense points of order.

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

There is no point of order. The hon. the Member for Harbour

Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, there is no

point of order, and as I was saying to the Member for Trinity North, I believe

he was out of the Chamber; I want to congratulate him on making a fine, fine

maiden speech today, but I hope he does not pay any attention to the Minister of

Development. And I hope he does not use the Minister of Development's speech

today and be influenced in any way by the Minister of Development, because it

was totally irrelevant.

And here we are, Mr. Speaker. We have got the gag order on

again for the third time on the one piece of legislation. We have the Minister

of Development, who spoke in this debate twice already, I was here for his first

speech on this particular bill, Bill 16, it was totally irrelevant. He got up

and he spoke about the Economic Recovery Commission. And now today when we have

the gag order on for the third time, we have the Minister of Development rising

in his place again, not paying any attention to the fact that the labour

movement in this Province is absolutely devastated by this particular piece of

legislation. The Minister gets up again and is totally irrelevant, does not even

mention Bill 16, does not mention the fact that this is three times that this

particular bill has had the gag order placed on the House. Not one solitary,

single word.

But just to respond to the Minister of Development for a

moment. I make no wonder that the Minister of Development today has to try to

explain to this House why he is spending $150,000 of the public's money on the

Economic Recovery Commission and trying to tout the few limited successes that

the Economic Recovery Commission has had, and try to justify to the people of

the Province why he is spending, first of all $100,000 on an advertising

campaign for the Economic Recovery Commission, and I believe he mentioned in the

course of his speech, that he is spending an additional $50,000 on touting the

few limited successes of Enterprise Newfoundland as well. A total of $150,000

that we know of, so far, that the Minister is spending on setting up press

conferences for the Economic Recovery Commission around the Province, and

carrying the Minister's suitcases here and there.

So I make no wonder that the Minister of Development has to

come in here today and tout those few limited successes. Because he is trying

desperately, I believe, to try and defend the indefensible, to try to defend

what the Premier said here in the House of Assembly not more than a couple of

months ago when he attributed to the Economic Recovery Commission 1,535 jobs. I

believe I have the quote here. Every one of those jobs is attributable, he said,

to the Economic Recovery Commission, and they would not have taken place merely

by the normal routine work of the Newfoundland and Labrador Development

Corporation.

What a sham, what a farce. And here is the Minister of

Development today trying to defend the indefensible, trying to get the Premier

out of the corner that the Premier has backed himself into. Fifteen hundred and

thirty-five jobs created by the Economic Recovery Commission, when in actual

fact the Economic Recovery Commission has probably been responsible for a total

of 65 jobs, most of which are part time jobs. So I make no wonder that the

Minister of Development has to spend $150,000 to try and back up that statement

that the Premier has made. Fifteen hundred and thirty-five jobs created by the

Economic Recovery Commission. What a farce, what a sham, I would say to the

Minister of Development and the Premier. And the Minister of Development, who

struck me up until this point in time as being a fairly honest gentleman, is

really destroying his credibility here today when he tries to defend the

indefensible.

Now let me try and back up what I am saying. Now the Premier

made the statement, I never made that statement. It was not the Leader of the

Opposition who said the Economic Recovery Commission had created 1,535 jobs.

That is a direct quote from the Minister's leader, the Premier of this Province,

1,535 jobs created by the Economic Recovery Commission. Those jobs, he said,

would not have been created, would have been gone, had it not been for the

Economic Recovery Commission. Recently I sent for a little list down to ACOA of

their involvement in the projects of the Economic Recovery Commission and I was

surprised by what I got from ACOA on the projects that were created by the

Economic Recovery Commission.

Arctic Sea Foods Processors Limited, in L'Anse-au-Loup,

Labrador, seventy-three jobs created by the Economic Recovery Commission. But

the Minister of Development and the Economic Recovery Commission failed to

mention the fact that ACOA have pumped in $1,456,000 into that project. The

Economic Recovery Commission and the Premier were supposed to be taking full

credit for those seventy-three jobs that were created, and that is total

dishonesty by this Premier to stand in his place a couple of months ago in this

House and say that the Economic Recovery Commission had created and preserved

1,535 jobs, and that these jobs would have gone had it not been for the Economic

Recovery Commission. What a sham. What a farce. Make no wonder the Minister of

Development has to try -

MR. FUREY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: - and defend the indefensible. And has to try

to defend this Premier.

MR. FUREY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the Minister of

Development, on a point of order.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we cannot let the record go

unchallenged.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a vicious attack.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Now I thought the hon. Member was low

yesterday in Question Period, you know that is just - anyway February 21, Mr.

Speaker -

MR. TOBIN: I thought this was a point of order.

MR. FUREY: This is a very important point of order, if

the hon. Member would clam up for a minute.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, oh!

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

MR. FUREY: On February 21, his Leader knows, I wrote to

him and I gave him a full listing of the participation of E&L and everybody else

in it. Now let me tell the hon. Member who is being dishonest. And I will quote,

Mr. Speaker, -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Name him!

MR. FUREY: Breamer Industries (?), right from the letter

to his Leader, Breamer Industries, term loan of $114,000; Demand $40,000;

Intramacola (?), $41,000;

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. FUREY: So, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is he should

talk to his Leader because, you know, it is not my job to promote ACOA. I mean

the Province has enough responsibility promoting its own economic initiatives,

Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. FUREY: And I would ask the hon. Member -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would ask the hon. Minister

to get to his point of order.

MR. FUREY: I would ask the hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, to

be honest about it and call it as it is, because it is certainly beneath his

dignity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no point of order.

It is a difference of opinion between two hon. Members. But there is no point of

order.

MR. RIDEOUT: You want to take up his time misleading the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Your Leader told me that ACOA put no money

into it, in writing, and you get up and you mislead the House. And you can get

away with it and we cannot answer. Now that is not fair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: Now, Mr. Speaker, it is no trouble -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: - to know when you are getting at the truth.

Because the Minister of Development has been over there for the last ten minutes

or so that I have been speaking smarting in his seat because we are finally

exposing the Economic Recovery Commission and this Premier and this Minister for

the farce that it is, and that is why the Minister of Development is spending

$150,000 on an advertising campaign to try and retrieve some semblance of his

own credibility because of what the Economic Recovery Commission has done.

Now, Mr. Speaker, again let me go over some of these projects

that the Premier has said were created and preserved by the Economic Recovery

Commission.

MR. RIDEOUT: Totally, he said.

MR. DOYLE: Totally and completely preserved by the

Economic Recovery Commission. And we have to quote here: every one of those jobs

is attributable to the Economic Recovery Commission and would not have taken

place merely by the normal routine work of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Development Corporation. But he just conveniently overlooked the fact that the

Economic Recovery Commission and Enterprise Newfoundland were not the only

funding agencies involved here, even though the Premier said: oh, these jobs are

totally and completely attributable to the Economic Recovery Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DOYLE: So in asking for the information on these

particular projects that were funded by the Economic Recovery Commission we

found first of all, that Arctic Seafood Processors, down in Labrador, a project

that was funded totally and completely according to the Premier by the Economic

Recovery Commission, was indeed funded by ACOA and not totally by the Economic

Recovery Commission.

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

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is

simply that we are discussing the wage restraint Bill, Bill 16, and I have sat

here for the last ten minutes and have not heard anyone mention it. I am

wondering, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to get back to talking about Bill 16 as

we should be, or if there is, in fact, any relevance in this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition to that point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government House

Leader may have been conveniently out of the House while his colleague, the

Minister of Development, was speaking, but Your Honour knows, because Your

Honour was in the Chair, that not once during the twenty minutes did the

Minister of Development refer to the public sector restraint Bill - he talked

about Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, he talked about the Economic

Recovery Commission, he talked about a whole bunch of things. And I might add,

Mr. Speaker, that not once was he interrupted by a point of order, when this is

the third time that my colleague, who is trying to make a few points here this

afternoon, has been interrupted not by a point of order, but by a point of

nonsense and discourtesy to a Member of this House. Now the Government House

Leader, if he is going to pop in and pop up, should pop out and stay out, Mr.

Speaker.

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

To that point of order I remind hon. Members that we are

debating the amendment to Bill 16 as introduced by the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition yesterday, and that provides for a wide-ranging debate. I was

listening to the debate. The hon. the Minister of Development was responding to

some questions from the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern, and I

believe now the Member for Harbour Main is responding to points raised by the

hon. the Minister of Development. So it is relative to the debate. There is no

point of order.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Excellent ruling. Excellent ruling.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government House

Leader's actions here today are consistent with what he has been trying to do to

this House for the last number of weeks and months, trying to gag everyone.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it on his back.

MR. DOYLE: Take it on his back; use the hobnailed boot

approach again to govern.

Now, Mr. Speaker, getting back to the Economic Recovery

Commission, the Government's sprung, getting back to the Economic Recovery

Commission and all these jobs which were created by the Economic Recovery

Commission, as I started out to say, Arctic Seafoods Limited of Labrador, the

actions of the Economic Recovery Commission was supposed to have preserved or

created 73 jobs at Arctic Seafoods. That was totally attributable to the

Economic Recovery Commission as the Premier said, but he conveniently left out

the information that ACOA had contributed $1,456,000 to that company. The

Minister conveniently left out that information, the Premier left out that

information.

I am not going to have time to go over all these because of

the constant interruptions of Members opposite, but I will go through a couple

of them here. Red Ochre Productions Limited of St. John's, 46 jobs totally and

completely preserved by the Economic Recovery Commission - they fail to say that

ACOA made a contribution to that one, as well. Not a big one mind you, only

about $13,000 or so. But ACOA had contributed to that one as well. Instrumar

Engineering, 9 jobs. What contribution did ACOA make to that one? Well the first

contribution was $40,699, the second contribution was $92,000, and the third

contribution was $31,000. So, Mr. Speaker, the Premier conveniently left that

one out as well, that ACOA had been a very, very significant contributor to that

particular company. What about Sea Craft Limited? Twelve jobs totally and

completely preserved, created by the Economic Recovery Commission, 12 jobs. What

do we see, Mr. Speaker? The information conveniently left out that ACOA had

contributed $86,000 on one occasion and $18,000 on another occasion.

That did not seem to matter to the Premier. This great honest

Premier just conveniently left out that information and told us that all these

jobs were attributable to the Economic Recovery Commission.

Now, what about Terra Inns Limited in Clarenville?

Forty-three jobs there preserved totally by the Economic Recovery Commission.

What a Commission! We should be proud we have it. They preserved forty-three

jobs according to the Premier. No money from anyone else, just the Economic

Recovery Commission. The Premier conveniently left out the information that

Terra Inns Limited of Clarenville had a contribution of $1,305,000 from ACOA.

RDS Engineering Limited, another great creature of the Economic Recovery

Commission which preserved or created fifteen jobs. Again the Premier left out

the information, just conveniently overlooked it. I am sure it was only an

oversight, a slip of the tongue, and I am sure he will correct all that when he

comes back with the information I have asked him for about the Economic Recovery

Commission. He will come back and correct all that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. DOYLE: The Minister of Development told me, Mr.

Speaker, that I would have additional time because of the interruptions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. DOYLE: Of course there is leave.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no leave.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to be

totally relevant to the bill before this hon. House. The hon. Member for St.

John's East today talked about compensation and used the appeals board that had

been appointed not in this administration but in previous administrations with

the Department of Social Services. Now there is one thing for which I give

credit to the previous administration, they had the good sense to hire me, to

appoint me to a board on Occupational Health and Safety, in which I have long

experience. And if hon. Members say I knew nothing about it, that talks about

their credibility in appointing people. I was privileged to be able to offer my

expertise, and like most people I expected to be remunerated for that expertise,

and I was. I remember the last function I attended while on that board. It was

in the hon. the Member for Menihek's District, and I spent time with Mr.

Collins, whom I am sure the hon. Member knows. We left St. John's and flew to

Labrador West. I was paid my remuneration for that travel day, a per diem of

$150 a day. The Chairman was paid for his day and travel. I think it was

somewhere between $300 and $500 per day. I am going back six years now as a

Member of the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Board. All of a sudden we

have seen this great crusade about a board which has been appointed and the

remuneration given to Members of the board for travel days.

Now we met in Labrador West for one day - one day was all we

met - but we were paid for our travel day to Labrador West, we were paid for our

day while we were in Labrador West and we were paid for the travel day home. So

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the format was set for boards in this

Province, and in compensating people on boards I think the previous

administration set the precedent and I think this Government is only following

along now in footsteps which were already established by the previous

administration. So there is nothing new to be said about compensating board

members.

I was one of the fortunate Liberals to get on a board by the

previous administration; I travelled here, there and everywhere all across the

Province; I was paid for my day's travel, I was paid for my expertise - almost

was paid for my expertise. I do not know if they had enough money to pay me. I

was paid for coming back.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) Brian Peckford (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) your travel?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, was paid. I was paid for my day's travel

going, was paid for my expertise while I was there, and was paid for my travel

coming back. So I do not know what is new and why accusations have been thrown

at the hon. Member, the best Minister this Province has seen in years and years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

order.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to remind

the Member that the Government House Leader from time to time gets up and speaks

about the rule of relevance. Let me say to the Member that I do not know what

this has to do with the savage attack by his Government on civil servants, the

firing of people throughout this Province. Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point

that what the Member is saying -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - has to be dealing with Bill 16, and that is

not what he is doing right now. And, Mr. Speaker, if our Government made a

mistake and paid an incompetent person like that Member there to serve on a

board, then I apologize on behalf of that Government.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The hon. the

Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for

Burin - Placentia West, the only possible way he can stop the truth is by

getting up in his place and making a personal attack on hon. Members on this

side of the House. Now is that the behaviour this House should be expecting? I

would not mind his pulling his little stunts if he was as smart as some of the

other hon. Members Opposite, but he gets up and he makes absolutely no sense

with his point of orders, they are silly and stupid.

Mr. Speaker, I could talk about why this Government has to

bring in the compensation package it has. I was on the Occupational Health and

Safety Advisory Board and when I was going around the Province I would run into

these Egg Marketing Boards and Chicken Marketing Boards, and I was not sure as I

crossed with these what came first, the egg or the chicken?

Now I used to meet hon. Members on these boards. I met one

hon. Member, and I do not need to mention his name in this House, and he said to

me, you know, Tom, thanks to my friends whom I supported for the last fifteen

years, here I am chairing an Egg Marketing Board. I was never inside a hennery

in my life, but here I am, he said, getting my rewards, I am being compensated

to go about the Island and listen to the roosters crow. I said, you have

listened to the roosters crow. So, Mr. Speaker, was paid for travel the day

before, at the meeting, and to come home. Now all of a sudden today we saw this

great purification - up jumps the Leader of the Opposition talking about

compensation for the Appeals Board appointed by the hon. Minister of Social

Services. And then our friend in the back, who whispered as we all know a

jestful statement as sometimes made in the House between hon. Members, as we go

from side to side having fun, and today it entered in full force on the floor

when the hon. Minister was scowled at in Question Period over what we all know

is sometimes what we do as a little common gesture, whether it be in the

corridor or in the hall or whatever, and that will not be forgiven by hon.

Members in this caucus, I can assure you of that right now. I can assure you of

that.

It will not be forgiven what was done in this hon. House

today, and we all know. It should be said and it needs to be said, because it is

low as low can go what was done here today. So, Mr. Speaker, I could go on and

talk about why this Governm