May 7,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 32

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

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

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

The few comments that I have to make are a bit belated, but

there are a couple reasons for it. Number one, I was out of the Province for a

few days and the second reason is that I thought the Minister for Forestry and

Agriculture would be already on his feet, but seeing that he is not, I am going

to say better late than never.

Mr. Speaker, an historical sports event took place recently,

historical as far as rural Newfoundland is concerned, when the Herder Memorial

Trophy was played for by two rural teams, one from Badger and one from Flatrock

and, needless to say, I am here today to first of all, congratulate the team of

Badger, they played an excellent tournament.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I also want to compliment the people of

Badger for their support of their hockey team. But my biggest congratulation,

Mr. Speaker, really goes to Flatrock, my hometown. They played a terrific series

and I am really proud of them. It was beyond my wildest dreams, that I would

ever see Flatrock play for the Herder Memorial Trophy. For anyone who doesn't

know, the Herder Memorial Trophy was awarded by the Herder family, sixty-seven

years ago, and for the Premier and my hon. colleague here, it was first won in

1935 by Corner Brook. The first Herder Memorial Trophy went to Corner Brook and

this year, after a couple of years lying in the dust, Flatrock and Badger played

off.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it was good sportsmanship all around,

competitive but good sportsmanship. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say before I

sit down that our constable, Constable Kennedy, the constable who sits here in

the House, played in goal for Badger. He played between the pipes for Badger.

And, he was, as he is always, terrific, Mr. Speaker, terrific. He is of

professional calibre, although in the last game which went into overtime,

Flatrock outshot Badger by a real wide margin. Only for the constable of the

House, I am sure today that the Herder Memorial Trophy would be in Flatrock.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, what a backhanded way to

congratulate the Herder Memorial winners! Everyone knows that the Herder

Memorial Trophy is symbolic of hockey supremacy in Newfoundland, and we think of

teams like the Buchans Miners, the Grand Falls Cataracts, the Conception Bay

Cee-Bees. I understand the name of the hon. the Member for St. John's South is

on that trophy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: I want to associate myself with most of the

remarks made by the hon. member representing Flatrock, but I want also to tell

the House that I attended three years games and I showed more sportsmanship than

he did. I attended the games in St. John's and he came over and dropped the puck

to start the series. I want to tell you, I attended the three games and I was

fortunate enough to be in Badger for the presentation of the Herder Memorial

Trophy. I want to go on record as, number one, congratulating the Badger Bombers

for winning the trophy, I want to congratulate the Flatrock team for making it

to the point where they could compete for the Herder Memorial, and I want also

to congratulate the town of Badger for hosting the event. I understand the

visiting team appreciated very much the hospitality and the kind of true

sportsmanship they found in Badger.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to suggest that Your Honour send messages of

congratulations to all members, subject to the concurrence of the members

opposite and the Member for St. John's East to the artists honoured by the

Province's Arts Council at the Arts Awards ceremony last night. It was good to

see the Minister responsible for cultural affairs presenting some of the awards.

The artists honoured were Tim Borlase of the Labrador East

Integrated School Board, who was awarded the lifetime Achievement Award and Ron

Hynes from the Southern Shore, the noted singer and composer who was named

Artist of the Year.

The following three artists were inducted into the Hall of

Fame: Christopher Pratt, the internationally known painter and print-maker,

Denys Ferry of St. John's for his contribution to amateur theatre in the

Province, and Emile Benoit from Black Duck Brook, the well-known and well-loved

fiddler and composer.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I would like to join with the hon. member and

endorse her comments of congratulations to the five award winners last night,

and also to the entire Arts Council for their participation and contribution to

our heritage, Mr. Speaker.

The arts people are doing a tremendous job in this area,

under some trying circumstances. One of the award winners last night, Mr. Denys

Ferry, pointed out that the communities had a struggle all through the years in

attaining their successes. I guess it is the nature of the beast that they

probably will continue doing that. No matter how much you can do for the

community, the artists will have to strive and work even harder to attain

success.

Notwithstanding that, this government continues to broaden

its support in the very near future. I am sure that members of the House will

see, and so will the general public, that there are better things ahead for the

arts community, and this government will continue to support them.

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

have permission of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On an aside, I am not sure it is required, as unanimous

consent was not requested for the other previous speakers.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. I thought the hon. member was

speaking to what the hon. members had previously raised.

MR. HARRIS: That was my intention, and as it was not a

ministerial statement I did not understand that unanimous consent was required

for only the Member for St. John's East and not the previous speakers.

But to the point, Mr. Speaker, I do wish to join in and make

unanimous the congratulations of this House to the fine artists and performers

who were recognized by the Arts Council awards last night. Of course, these

artists are well recognized by hon. members as contributing a great deal by

their artistry and to the culture of this Province. It is unfortunate that, as

the minister has said, quite often artists are placed in the position of being

struggling artists as opposed to people whose valuable contribution is

recognized by proper and appropriate programs.

Mr. Speaker, I do look forward to the day when we don't have

to refer to our artists as struggling artists but rather as recognized

contributing citizens, and that appropriate levels of support are in place for

them.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to routine business, the

Chair would like to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the

public galleries today of the hon. Geoff Scott, Member of Parliament for

Hamilton-Wentworth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also we would like to welcome to the public

galleries today twenty-one students, grade six to nine from the St. Thomas

School in Grand Le Pierre in the District of Fortune - Hermitage. They are

accompanied by their teachers: Mr. Ronald Buckle, Principal and teachers Mr.

Wayne Rumboldt, Mr. Harold Colebourne and Peggy Wiseman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, when

the Hughes Commission Report was made public on April 24, no comment was

possible because circulation of the report had been severely restricted and time

was needed for analysis of the recommendations. I now want to inform you of what

progress has been made.

I am pleased to inform the House that the Deputy Ministers of

Justice and Social Services have been directed to review all the recommendations

of the Hughes Commission and, in consultation with relevant officials, to

provide information and advice on implementation. I can further report that good

progress has already been made with respect to many issues identified by Judge

Hughes, and numerous recommendations are already in various stages of

implementation.

Mr. Justice Hughes made recommendations concerning the

training of social workers and police. Mr. Speaker, training of police in child

abuse began in 1984 and has been subject to continuous review ever since. In

1989-90 more specialized training was undertaken jointly by Social Services and

the RNC and 1991 saw further revision and improvement of the training program. A

new joint program has now been designed by Social Services and the RNC and has

been delivered twice in St. John's, once in Corner Brook and is to be given in

Labrador in May. This training will be delivered on a regularly scheduled basis.

In addition, several years ago the RNC acquired videotaping facilities. A review

will now be undertaken of both the technical capacity of the facility and the

training requirements for more effective use of this capacity.

As a result of the Hughes Report, contact has been initiated

with the Public Service Commission to explore the potential role of that agency

in further improving interdisciplinary training programs.

Mr. Justice Hughes expressed concerns about the reporting of

child abuse. Mr. Speaker, for some years officials in the Departments of Social

Services and Justice have been working with educators and those involved in the

delivery of health care to heighten awareness of child abuse and to educate with

respect to the reporting requirements.

The Department of Social Services is in the process of

developing an information system which will enhance the ability to collect,

retrieve and analyze information and facilitate the appropriate sharing of

information in child protection cases.

Interviews of suspected victims of child sexual assault are

now conducted jointly by police and social workers, and there are regular

mechanisms in place to identify and address operational and other concerns as

they develop. The current policy of both police forces requires them to report

all cases of child abuse to the Director of Child Welfare.

Several years ago government initiated a review of the Child

Welfare Act and the difficulties arising out of the time limits for prosecution

for failure to report abuse under

Section 49 of the existing Child Welfare Act,

and concerns which have been expressed with respect to the necessary rewording

of that

section will be dealt with in a revised act.

Mr. Justice Hughes also expressed concern with respect to

caseloads, both in the Department of Social Services and the Department of

Justice. Mr. Speaker, the increased incidence of reported child abuse is tragic

testimony to the success of efforts to encourage recognition and reporting of

abuse. In response to the stresses imposed upon the system by this increase,

some steps have already been taken. In 1990 the Department of Social Services

increased its complement of social workers involved in child protection by

forty-four, and aggressive recruitment by the Department of Justice across

Canada resulted in the filling of all but three existing positions with the

Crown prosecutors office. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that

five new Crown prosecutor positions have recently been approved to deal with

increased caseloads.

In 1990 a special Sexual Offence Unit was established at the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary dedicated to the investigation of child abuse

and sexual offenses. Staffing levels of this Unit were increased by three in

1991 and one clerical staff was added. This Unit has a present complement of

eight officers and a staff sergeant and it is hoped to add one more officer to

this Unit shortly.

Mr. Speaker, work has also begun on other recommendations

made by Judge Hughes. A new draft policy manual for the Child Welfare Division,

started in 1991, should be ready for review and comment by regional committees

by June 30 of this year.

Preliminary contact has been made with the Law Society of

Newfoundland with a view to forming a committee to address concerns raised with

respect to court delays, and the Society has agreed to participate. The advice

of the Judiciary will also be requested.

Government has committed itself to the establishment of a

Police Complains Commission and funding has been allocated for this purpose and

the position of Director of Public Prosecutions was created several years ago.

Notwithstanding the withdrawal of federal funding, Mr.

Speaker, a Victim Assistance Pilot Project is currently underway in an effort to

address the concerns voiced by Judge Hughes for victim witnesses making their

way through the court system.

And, Mr. Speaker, the recommendations requiring amendments to

clarify the Child Welfare Act will be addressed in the revised Act.

Mr. Speaker, the analysis of the recommendations of the

Hughes Enquiry by the Deputy Ministers and their officials is being done on a

high priority basis. As soon as their analysis is complete, government will make

known its position on all recommendations and will take the appropriate action.

Thank you.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government's response to the chronic and growing problem

of child abuse is terribly inadequate. There has been some improvement, some of

what the minister just reported, but the improvement has not been in proportion

to the increase in demand. What is happening, Mr. Speaker, in too many cases is

that victims of child sexual abuse and victims of other kinds of child abuse,

are being further victimized by the criminal justice and child welfare systems.

Justice and social services workers in too many parts of the Province are

overloaded, they cannot cope. A community worker in Stephenville said to me the

other day: The problem is out of control.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked recently to both justice and child

welfare workers in the field and they are not aware of any action to respond to

the Hughes Report recommendations. A child welfare worker in rural Newfoundland

asked me on the weekend how he can get a copy of the Hughes Report. A worker in

the criminal justice system said to me this morning: I don't know what is

happening in our department.

So, Mr. Speaker, many people who are working to combat child

sexual assault and to give assistance and support to victims - and I might note

that many of these work voluntarily - have the feeling that government is simply

paying lip service to the problem, that the decision makers simply do not have

an appreciation of the gravity of the problem.

The other day we listened to the Premier responding to

questions about the inadequacy of counselling services to child sexual assault

victims. The Premier responded by saying: That is not my responsibility, that is

up to Treasury Board. This is the Premier of the Province, Mr. Speaker.

Now, a few years ago not many people had a real idea about

the extent of child sexual abuse, but thanks to the womens' movement, thanks to

the news media and thanks to the televising of the Hughes Commission hearings

when the Mount Cashel and the foster home victims testified, most of our

citizens now understand the terrible and long-lasting damage that victims

suffer. Citizens want to see a better response from their provincial government.

They don't want a slick public relations exercise, they want real action.

Now, I will come to some of the specifics in the minister's

statement. He acknowledges the recommendations calling for a revision of The

Child Welfare Act and he does say that work on a revised Child Welfare Act began

years ago.

When this administration came to office, the first Minister

of Social Services, the Member for Port de Grave, told me that he was going to

have the new Child Welfare Act before the House of Assembly in the first year.

Mr. Speaker, it has now been more than three years. The minister points, in

particular, to the need to overhaul the reporting requirement and offense

provisions of the act. That is a priority, and let us do it in this Spring

sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Let's do it now. Don't procrastinate any

longer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions I want to

ask the Premier related to his answers in Question Period yesterday and his

comments concerning the issue of a moratorium which my colleague asked him about

yesterday. It is clear from reading Hansard, I guess that the Premier, as many

people in many quarters suspect, has been advocating that a moratorium be

imposed upon the deep-sea fishery. I guess the question is, surely if one is

suggesting that that should be the case, then one should have spent considerable

time assessing what the consequences might be. So can I ask him: if there is

such a moratorium, what future does he see for the fishing company that we know

of now as FPI? How many jobs would be lost, how many plants would be closed, and

so on throughout the system? Surely he has given this some thought.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The thing the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition should rely upon is Hansard, not the false and fraudulent press

release issued by the Member for Grand Bank yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, the position in Hansard - and I will dig it out

now - is very clear. I will stand behind that position. But it is totally

different than the false and fraudulent presentation done by the Member for

Grand Bank.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No no, it's not - I stand by what is in

Hansard. What I denounce is the false and fraudulent press release issued by the

Member for Grand Bank, where he announced that I called for a moratorium of one

to five years. I said no such thing.

MR. TOBIN: A year, two years, three years (Inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Member for Burin - Placentia West

particularly to restrain himself. The Premier is answering the question. The

Leader of the Opposition has asked the question. We will give the Premier the

chance to address it.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I apologise for that but it is

difficult when someone is closing down your district.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can get the precise wording

from Hansard in answer to the question. My recollection is that I said very

clearly that we must protect the inshore fishery on which this Province has

relied for 400 years. We must do that. The federal government and this

provincial government, and even the former provincial government, supported the

allocation for the inshore fishery to protect their interests. We must do that.

The national government policies are still consistent with that, so far as I

know, and if they aren't, they should be.

Now if fishing deep-sea is going to destroy that fishery for

the next 400 years, then we should put a moratorium on it, for one year, two

years, three years, if that is necessary. If it is not necessary, we should not

do it. Now for the Member for Grand Bank to falsely and fraudulently present a

press release suggesting that I called for such a moratorium now is utterly

false and irresponsible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier can use all the

verbal illusion and all the verbal trickery that he wants to use. He has become

an expert at it. The reality is, this Premier supports the idea of a moratorium!

That is the reality!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: He can be as slippery as he wants with his

answers. But tell us this: if there is a moratorium, what happens to FPI? How

many plants will close down? How many jobs will be lost? Tell us that!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me read from Hansard:

"Now, we have to protect that, and if that means putting a moratorium on the

directed deep-sea cod fishery for a year, two years, three years, five years,

whatever is necessary to rebuild the stocks, then we must do that because we

must protect our basic fisheries in this Province, and if that is necessary to

do it, then we must do it; but if it is not necessary, then don't do it."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, for the Member for Grand Bank to

issue that press release announcing that I called for a moratorium is a

shameless, fraudulent political misrepresentation and he has to accept political

responsibility for it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say, I stand behind and I still

support the words I expressed yesterday. Now, to answer specifically the

question of the Leader of the Opposition: what does he think will happen to FPI

and the deep-sea plants if we destroy the fish stock? What's going to happen to

them then? Along with the inshore fishery? He wants to destroy it all!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. If ever I

heard a case of the pot calling the kettle black when he referred to the Member

for Grand Bank making fraudulent political representation, this Premier has

become an expert at fraudulent political representation, Mr. Speaker, and there

are reams and reams of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Now since he can't answer my question directly

or he is not prepared to answer the question directly, whatever the reason is, I

asked him what happens to FPI, if there is a moratorium. He didn't answer that.

He couldn't answer that question.

Let me ask him another question, Mr. Speaker. Something very

specific, and something that he can answer if he wishes to. Everybody knows

around this Province and in this economy these days businesses are losing day

after day, suffering all kinds of losses. For certain, fishing industry

businesses are losing money. In fact FPI just announced a $1.5 million loss or

something in the first quarter. Now one of the reasons, one of the causes

contributing to those losses is this government's introduction of a payroll tax

on the fishing industry just a few short weeks ago in the middle of all of this.

Now could I ask the Premier: will he consider exempting the fishing companies

from this payroll tax that they put on just a few weeks ago, at least until the

current crisis is over and we return to more normal situations in the fishing

industry? Will he consider that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The question that he raised, Mr. Speaker,

is what happens to FPI. If there is a moratorium on northern cod and FPI are not

permitted to catch northern cod it will reduce FPI's operations by about 30 per

cent. The northern cod represents about 30 per cent of their operations, so the

specific answer is it will reduce it by about 30 per cent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the more pertinent question is what happens

to FPI if the norther cod are destroyed completely, if there is no moratorium if

one is necessary? That is the more pertinent question.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the second part of the question... was the

payroll tax imposed on the fishery? There was no such thing. All of the

businesses were relieved of the responsibility to pay property tax for school

tax. All businesses were, and in place there was a payroll tax imposed. It

applied to the fishery as well as every other.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, it is like

pulling hens teeth. You can't get a straight answer from this Premier. I don't

know why. He loves to play games with words, I suppose. He has become so good at

it.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier sarcastically responded to

a sincere question by the Member for Grand Bank when he asked what is this

government going to do to respond to the crisis today that we have in this

Province, the jobs that are gone. What is this government going to do? He

sarcastically responds by saying: Oh, that is the federal government's

responsibility, Mr. Speaker. Now it is all fine and dandy to be over in Europe

telling the Europeans what they should be doing, but the crisis is here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. What is the Premier going to do to help all those

thousands of people in the fishing industry as well as all those who are losing

jobs in spin-off activities? What is he going to do? Is he just going to sit

back, throw his hands up in the air and say: We can't do anything. We got no

money. Is that what he is going to continue doing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will deal with the first question. It is

not that you can't get a straight answer. The reality is that the Opposition

can't cope with a straight answer. That is their problem, they can't cope with

it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the

second part of the Opposition Leader's question: What is the provincial

government going to do to deal with the hundreds of people who have been thrown

out of work because of the reduction in the fishery - the thousands of people?

What are they going to do? I keep pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that this

government in 1990 and 1991 and again this year when it was necessary put

forward proposals and we will continue to do that. We were the ones who provided

real help for people as a result of the decision in 1990. What I don't

understand, and what I cannot understand is why it is that the Opposition keeps

insisting that the impoverished people of Newfoundland should take the financial

responsibility for relieving the federal government of what is the consequences

of their action in the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: What taxpayers are they working for? The

taxpayers of Ontario and BC or the taxpayers of Newfoundland? What taxpayers

interests are they protecting? We know what they are doing for their own selfish

political motives, Mr. Speaker. They want to keep pressure on the provincial

government instead of keeping the pressure on their political cohorts in Ottawa,

with whom they are working to cover up their failings, with whom they are

working on a daily basis and in touch with Mr. Crosbie and the Prime Minister on

a daily basis, to cover up their failure in the fishery and attempt to blame it

on this government. Mr. Speaker, it won't work. It is as transparent as the

clearest window glass.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is the same Premier who does

not hesitate for a moment to spend tens of thousands of dollars travelling to

Europe, down to New York, over in Vancouver, but -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - but

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: - but he is not prepared to spend one red cent

to help the fishermen in Grand Bank or the fishermen in Fortune or in Marystown

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - or anywhere else in this Province, the same

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind hon. members on both sides of the House that

Question Period is not a period for debate. One would not realize it right now

but it is not a period for debate, it is a period for asking questions and I ask

hon. members to abide by the rules please.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't buy $10,000.00 worth of cigars.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if members opposite -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Why don't you cancel the car allowance for

ministers then you then you won't have to worry about it at all -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: - and I will take my loss too as the Leader of

the Opposition, I am quite prepared.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Sure I will, and I will take a 10 per cent cut

in salary too!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: If you want a cucumber bill (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier was able to

control his backbenchers, maybe we could get on with the serious issue that I

have been trying to question him on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has become an expert,

an expert at blaming everything else in the world for all the problems. If it is

not the feds, if it is not the previous administration, if it is not the unions,

if it is not the press -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will ask the Leader to get on with his question.

MR. SIMMS: - well, this is sort of a part of the

question. Is not the Premier aware that he has become an expert in all of those

areas, Mr. Speaker? Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is what the Premier is doing all

the time and the government is like it and he knows it, and the people out there

in the Province by the way, are beginning to realize it too.

Now the question is this: Nobody is suggesting that the

federal government is not responsible for the fishery and has the major

responsibility in jurisdiction and should provide major help in terms of the

fishery, we called on the federal government to do that. I asked the Prime

Minister to do that a few weeks ago when I met with him in Ottawa, so do not

play little games, Mr. Speaker, with the lives of the people of this Province.

The question is: when is this government and this Premier going to live up to

its responsibility and its obligations and help the people who are in trouble?

That is the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I had to deal with all of the

aspects that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised including the cost of

travel. Now I remind the House that the government undertook - I undertook to

travel to UNCED, in part at the request or at the very least, the express

support of the opposition, who recommended that we should be doing it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is right. - recommended that we do

it, requested that we do it; the difference is he wanted to go himself and I

felt that that would be detrimental -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right, that is the difference.

PREMIER WELLS: - Now, Mr. Speaker, this government will

put its responsibility and its response to its obligations in terms of the

fisheries side by side with the political cohorts of the opposition in Ottawa

and what they have done, any time for examination. But what we will not do, Mr.

Speaker, we will not be goaded by the Opposition to imposing an impossible

burden on the taxpayers of this Province to relieve the federal government of

their responsibility for the disastrous economic consequences they have caused

to our fishery. We will not do that. We will not do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: But, Mr. Speaker, we will leave no stone

unturned to make sure that the federal government discharges fully its

responsibilities. Absolutely! We will stop the Opposition from sheltering the

federal government in the way in which they are, in trying to protect them in

this way and trying to cover up their failure because they are the political

cohorts of the Opposition. We know that they are in touch on a daily basis,

endorsing their failure in order to bring pressure to bear on the provincial

government because we are their political opponents. Mr. Speaker, that is a

shameful way to treat the taxpayers of this Province to whom they are answerable

for what they do.

The Province, Mr. Speaker, will use the maximum of the

resources available to assist all of our people in this Province whether they

get their living from the sea, through fishing or fish processing, or otherwise.

We will discharge fully our responsibility. But we will not relieve the federal

government of its responsibility because it manages exclusively the fishery

resources of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Premier.

The Premier is aware, and I suppose everybody in the Province

and possibly in Canada today, as a whole, are aware of the plight of the

Lundrigan's group of companies in Corner Brook. The Premier is also aware that

the loss of the Lundrigan group of companies in Corner Brook on the west coast

of the Province will be very devastating to the west coast and the Province as a

whole, I might add, because the trickle effect is even felt out here on the

Avalon Peninsula.

Today there are 280 employees employed with the Lundrigan

group of companies in Corner Brook. Just a few weeks ago there were eighty-five

to ninety laid off at the gypsum plant, and, seasonally, another 250 to 300

workers. But as of today, 280 permanent employees with the Lundrigan group of

companies in Corner Brook.

Could the Premier tell the House if he has had any

consultation with the Lundrigan people and, also, if he has been requested by

the Lundrigan Group for any help from the government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I thank the hon. member for his question.

It is a very sensitive question on a very important matter, something that is

very important to the Province.

I would go further than the hon. member and remind members

that for sixty years the Lundrigan family made a tremendous economic

contribution, not only to western Newfoundland but to all of this Province and,

indeed, to the nation. But more significantly, Mr. Speaker, they did so in a

manner that left them with the widespread support of all of the people of this

Province and the great respect of all of the people of this Province because of

the businesslike and gentlemanly manner in which they always conducted their

business affairs, because of their concern for their employees, and because of

their concern for other people in the community that they wanted to help.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in that circumstance the government must be

disposed to give the situation every possible consideration. I have to say to

you that I have been in discussions from time to time, and so has the President

of Treasury Board and the Minister of Development, with representatives of the

Lundrigan companies since last December. The first thing I did was ask the bank

to take into account the consequences of their decision on other creditors,

other businesses in the area, the consequences of their decision on the

Lundrigan family and the operation, and the consequences for Newfoundland as a

whole. I express appreciation to the Bank of Montreal for their courtesy in

taking the time to do this extra review of it.

So we looked at what the government could do to help

alleviate the situation. But, Mr. Speaker, here are the circumstances. The

Lundrigan group of companies have, for a number of years, been disposing of many

of their business assets to discharge their fairly substantial debt obligations

and now there are these assets left: A rent-a-car company that has five or six

direct competitors in the Province, a car sales company that has numerous

competitors in the Province, a concrete production company that has numerous

competitors in the Province, a building materials company that has numerous

competitors in the Province, and they were all under the one company, different

divisions.

MS. VERGE: The gypsum company.

PREMIER WELLS: I will get to the gypsum. I am aware of

the gypsum and I will get to that in due course. All of those are competitive

businesses. Every single aspect of the Lundrigan operation with one exception,

the gypsum, had competitive businesses elsewhere in the Province. Now, the

government cannot simply put money into a business operation that has widespread

competitors in the Province and assist them financially, because the next day

all the other competitors are in saying: What are you doing, assisting

financially our competitors? They are putting us out of business. They can give

lower prices than we can and they are going to put us out of business.

You just cannot do that unless you are going to be prepared

to provide financial assistance to every business that has trouble with its

banks. The one exception of all the aspects of it was the gypsum business so we

talked to the company about that, worked with them for two or three months to

try and find a means of providing some assistance to make sure that the gypsum

operation would continue. I do know they tried to work out a number of proposals

through Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador but in the end there was no

proposal for an adequate equity investment of it that would justify the

government putting money into the gypsum business as such under those

circumstances. Now, maybe the circumstances might change tomorrow, the next day,

next week, or next month, I do not know, and the government is keeping a

constant watch on what is happening because we want to make sure that we

preserve the gypsum production business in Corner Brook. I may say the

Lundrigans - Mr. Harold Lundrigan, Mr. Arthur Lundrigan, and Mr. Bennett are all

working diligently to see that they do that because throughout this whole

discussion of the last few months the greatest concern expressed by the

Lundrigans was for their employees and the creditors. Government has the

situation very much in mind and are working with it on a constant basis,

watching it on a constant basis, and we will provide whatever level of help it

is proper for us to provide, but what we cannot do is provide competitive

assistance to competitors of existing businesses that might drive other

businesses out of business in the Province.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I am also aware of the competitive nature of some of the

holdings of the Lundrigan group. The Premier touched on one that is an exception

and that is the Atlantic Gypsum Plant in Corner Brook but there is also another

one, specifically Atlantic Design Homes in Stephenville. Albeit it is not

working right now but just a few short months ago that provided 100 jobs for six

months and added a $25 million total to the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, no small lot as I am sure the Member for Stephenville can attest to.

The other part, as I am sure the Premier and everybody else is aware of, is the

management group in Corner Brook alone, the Lundrigan head office. It is not

just a natural head office as in any other company, they have expertise to deal

with national projects, international projects, and so on, so I would like the

Premier to take that into consideration as well if and when they are requested

by the company to do something in the next short while.

Having said that I wonder if the Premier would, through his

office, request a meeting with the Bank of Montreal and the Lundrigan group of

companies, the Lundrigan people, although I realize he said this has already

been done, but there may just be something, the banks may be just looking for a

signal of some kind or another, or someone else that may be interested in the

gypsum plant itself. Maybe if he initiated something right now through his

office, not guaranteeing anything, not prejudging anything, but sit down with

the three groups involved, government, Lundrigans and the bank, and there just

might be some ray of light there, something just might come out of the meeting

that might be beneficial to the Lundrigan group, and more specifically, Mr.

Speaker, to the employees. We have an awful lot of people on the west coast of

the Province today who are depending on this, so I would ask the Premier, on

behalf of the employees and the Lundrigan group of companies, to make at least

one more stab at it and if it is at all possible to help out in whatever way. He

did not get an inch with Atlantic Gypsum but at least make one more stab and see

if there is any help available.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. members knows,

Atlantic Design Homes is closed up. They have been closed up for years. They

came into operation for a specific purpose, to create buildings for the Bull Arm

facility. The plant and facilities are still there.

In terms of all of these divisions, these operating divisions

to which I referred, to the best of my knowledge all are profitable operations.

That is the knowledge that I have, and all will probably be sold. So the 280

jobs to which the hon. member refers are not at stake. Those businesses will

continue under some other ownership, no doubt. Some have already been sold. Some

businesses that they have held have already been sold.

I have told the hon. member, I thought, in the answer to my

first question, that we are continuing to monitor the situation. One of the

first people that I spoke with last December was Matthew Barrett, the Chairman

of the Board of the Bank of Montreal. I went to him first and asked him to look

at it. He was not familiar with it personally. I asked him to deal with it on a

personal basis. As a result of that, they have been carrying on discussions for

several months to try and find a solution.

The bank, I am told, has made an application to the Supreme

Court for the appointment of a receiver. The bank itself has not acted to

appoint a receiver. That is a matter that is before the courts, and I make no

comment on it. The outcome of that will be whatever the court decides the

outcome should be; but as I have told the House, there is no lack of willingness

or disposition on the part of anybody on this side of the House to make the

maximum possible effort to help sustain that company. By the same token, we

cannot do it in such a manner that causes unfair competition to other business

interests in the Province that are competing with those businesses and paying

the taxes that would be used to provide any assistance that was provided. So we

have to keep the thing in perspective.

I remind the House that the people who understand that

perspective more than anybody else are the Lundrigans themselves, because that

is the comment I had directly from Mr. Harold Lundrigan when I spoke with him

about it. So I can assure the House, and assure the people of the Province, that

the government will make every possible effort that it can properly make to aid

in finding an acceptable resolution of this problem that will protect the

interests of the employees, protect the interests of other creditors who will be

affected if the bank gets its money and the other creditors are adversely

affected, and also to protect the interests of a great family of entrepreneurs

who have contributed tremendously to the economics and to the welfare of this

Province for sixty years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary to the Premier, and I

will be more specific. With regard to the Atlantic Gypsum plant itself, that is

one operation that is not in competition with anything in this Province, and I

would say probably in Atlantic Canada. There is another little place, I think,

in New Brunswick somewhere. Anyway, I had the understanding, and was led to

believe that right up until last Friday there was a possibility of a sale there.

Could the Premier be more specific with regard to that particular part of the

operation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am aware that there were at least four

possibilities of sale of the Atlantic Gypsum operation. I have been informed,

and I am hesitant to give any detail that may be improper for me to give at this

stage, so I will be cautious about it.

I am aware that there were four significant expressions of

concern. To the best of my knowledge, just yesterday there were engineers in

Corner Brook looking at the plant and facilities with a view to purchasing it -

engineers representing a major gypsum operation; and there are others that I

know are interested.

There were two other, what I might refer to as local

proposals. One local proposal that would have provided for a takeover of the

operation, but in a peculiar kind of way because there is a single corporate

entity; these are all operating divisions of the same corporation. There is also

another bank involved with the gypsum assets, and there are charges on those

assets separate and apart from the main bank, which is the Bank of Montreal. We

looked at a possibility, but there was not a level of equity investment that was

even anywhere near what one might describe as somewhere near normal level of

operation, and the amount that would have to be injected by government would be

very substantial. It was being put forward on a basis of no interest, a

non-interest bearing loan, and we could hardly justify that because it was not

going directly into the gypsum assets itself. So if we are going to provide that

kind of assistance we might just as well be up front about it and do it directly

with the company and say what we were doing. We have to be very careful and make

sure that we do it right, but there is a level of interest, and I believe - I

have a high level of confidence - that we will find a solution to the gypsum

operation as well.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Before going on to other matters, the Chair wants to remind

hon. members of our rules with respect to parliamentary language. In the heat of

debate in Question Period today there were a couple of words used that I ought

to bring to hon. members' attention. We have these rules to try to keep tempers

down. Sometimes we may use words that can be offensive, and that cause a stir of

excitement.

I refer to Beauchesne, Page 149,

Section 492, which comes up

to 1987 with a list of words and descriptions that have been invariably ruled to

be unparliamentary. We have here false statements and fraudulent.

The Premier made reference to the statement made by the hon.

the Member for Grand Bank as being false and fraudulent. For the benefit of

decorum in the future, the Chair wouldn't want members to be making these

statements because it is another way of saying that it is a lie.

The Leader of the Opposition used the word `fraudulent'

later, and I will come back to that. I don't know the sense in which he used it.

Hon. members might think that statements are false and fraudulent and they

might, indeed, be, but we are not permitted to use those words in the House.

So I wonder if the Premier could withdraw or explain the

sense in which he used the word?

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any improper

statement that I make. If it was improper to use `false' and `fraudulent', I

withdraw them.

Except, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Beauchesne says,

"Since 1958 it has been ruled parliamentary to use the following expression:

Fraudulent, Debates, November 9, 1964, p. 9880."

Mr. Speaker, let me explain -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not clear what the Premier

is speaking on. I would like to have some guidance. Is it a point of order, or

is he entering into debate on the Speaker's ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: The Premier is just making a point. I have

asked him to explain and he is explaining.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw without

reservation any improper statement, because I think it is unacceptable to be

making improper statements in the House. But I do say, Mr. Speaker, it was quite

improper for the Member for Grand Bank not to quote exactly what I said, but

rather to express his

interpretation of it, that I was calling for a moratorium.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: And that is the sense in which -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On unparliamentary language, a member is allowed to make a

brief comment -

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. SIMMS: It's a speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Not very long ago. The hon. the Premier has

withdrawn. He is making a brief explanation, and that is permissible.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, you asked me to explain the

use of it and I withdraw any unparliamentary use. I explained that the basis on

which the language was used was to reflect the fact that the member put his own

totally wrong, totally incorrect construction on it and released it as a news

release, claiming it to have been a statement by me.

Now, I ask the member to show the like courtesy that I am

showing to him and release a statement of exactly what was contained in the

debate, and I accept full responsibility for that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used

the word `fraudulent', but I don't know in which context he used it. I should

say to hon. members, as well, that there is no list of words that we can say

that are unparliamentary that is permanent. It is used in the context, so a word

might be used today and be parliamentary and tomorrow could be used in an

unparliamentary sense. The Chair has to take into account the context and the

temperament in which it was used.

So if the Leader of the Opposition would know in which way he

said it or could withdraw it, then that would relieve the Chair of further

investigating it. I have asked the Leader of the Opposition - he probably didn't

hear me. I said, the Leader of the Opposition used the word `fraudulent', but I

didn't get -

MR. SIMMS: No, I didn't. No.

MR. SPEAKER: You didn't use it?

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if I am given the same courtesy

as the Premier - and this is too silly to talk about, anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Because the Speaker ordered him to withdraw

and he couldn't do it, he wasn't man enough, he had to get up and give some

silly explanation!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: It's silly, too childish to talk about. Mr.

Speaker, I quoted the words that the Premier used, and said that the Premier

used those words -

MR. MATTHEWS: And accused me!

MR. SIMMS: - in accusing the Member for Grand Bank. That

is what I used.

MR. MATTHEWS: He accused me of using fraudulent

statements.

Notices of Motion

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of motion, seconded

by my colleague from Grand Bank:

WHEREAS recent statements by the Premier calling for a

moratorium on the deep-sea fishery will mean 7,000 Newfoundlanders will become

unemployed; and

WHEREAS the deep-sea fishery has already been significantly

reduced;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House support an

allocation of fish for the deep-sea plants.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of answers

that I want to give. One is to a question that was asked by the Member for

Kilbride about my travel between September 17, 1991 and October 15, 1991.

In that time, Mr. Speaker, I took a number of trips. They

wanted the cost. One was to Ottawa, it lasted two days. It involved a meeting

with the Prime Minister, it involved an address to the Law Society of Upper

Canada, and an address to the Memorial University Alumni, Ottawa Branch. The air

cost was nil, because the air expenses were incurred by the Law Society of Upper

Canada who had invited me at that particular time, and I took advantage of being

there to meet also with the Prime Minister and to address the Memorial alumni.

The cost was very minor.

The second one was to Goose Bay on September 27. That was for

two days and it was for meetings in Goose Bay and Sheshatshit. Mr. Dornan was

with me. During the period that I was there, Mr. Ray Hawco, who is the assistant

secretary to Cabinet for native policy was also there, but he didn't travel with

me. He was in Goose Bay at that time for negotiations on the Labrador Inuit land

claims, so he took advantage of it to attend the meetings.

The third time I moved during that period was a trip to

Halifax for a one-day meeting with Premier Cameron. On the way back I stopped in

Deer Lake. I flew to Deer Lake from Halifax on the way back, got off there and I

went to Stephenville for a day. There are no expenses in connection with that

trip to Stephenville, because that was for a Liberal Party function, so the

Liberal Party paid the expenses for that. I came back to Corner Brook and I a

couple of days work in Corner Brook on constituency work, and another day - this

is on a weekend. It was the long weekend, the Thanksgiving Day weekend. Then,

while I was there, I went for one day to Baie Verte. There were no expenses in

connection with that because it was a Liberal Party activity. Then, from Corner

Brook, I also went to Gander to address the Federation of Municipalities.

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

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

point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we are interested in the

information from the Premier, but the reason why it was put on the Order Paper

is that in cases like this, where answers are lengthy, you prepare it and it is

tabled, then we can get the information.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't like the information.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I surely do like it, I tell hon.

members, but I don't like anyone abusing the rules of the House, that's all.

That is the only reason I make the point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I accept the member's point of order, I do

not quarrel with him on it.

Mr. Speaker, the second answer is in response to my

undertakings of a couple of days ago to provide information on the Public

Libraries Board, on questions that were raised. I undertook to do a complete

examination on it, bearing in mind the member's comments. I won't read it, I

will just explain. I have sheets prepared to be distributed. I will explain that

the first sheet is the budget as was submitted by the Public Libraries Board.

Members will note that the only significant increase was in salaries and wages

were there was a $307,000 increase requested.

The second, third and fourth pages are the explanation by

Treasury Board as to how they dealt with it. I would specifically draw members'

attention to the last paragraph which explains exactly how it was done, and that

the additional amount for increased salary cost and so on were taken out of the

request because, Mr. Speaker, not only were wage rates frozen, but positions

were also frozen. This reflected increasing the number of positions.

The final sheet, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Humber East

raised the question of the relative cost and suggests that Newfoundland made the

lowest contribution of any province in the country. That, Mr. Speaker, is

completely wrong. I saw an excerpt from statistics. That is the figure. Now, I'm

glad the hon. member is going to raise that, because all she has to do is take

the Budget figure and divide by our population and she will get $10.73, instead

of $8.14 as is shown on that paper. So it doesn't matter what that is, it is

wrong information. I don't know where she got it, but it is wrong information.

Now, if the hon. member can't divide, I will get her a

calculator. You take the precise budgeted amount and divide by our population,

and you come up with the figure of $10.73, not $8.14 as it appears on that

statement. Now, Mr. Speaker, that told me that I couldn't rely on those figures,

so I had people call the four Atlantic Provinces to find out precisely what was

spent on budgets. We find that of the four Atlantic Provinces, Mr. Speaker,

Newfoundland is the second highest. Newfoundland last year contributed $10.73,

New Brunswick $10.44, Nova Scotia $9.22, and PEI $12.98 per capita.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there is one other thing that

people ought to remember. Newfoundland and PEI, I believe, are the only

provinces where the provincial governments pay the full shot. In other provinces

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: There may be some contribution in space,

but in other provinces, Mr. Speaker, much or most of the expenditure -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I can only say to the people, maybe Mr.

Penny has mislead me in that, but I have his statement here and I can read it to

hon. members.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I can only say I am presenting the

information I got from Mr. Penny. Now if it isn't correct, I will go back and

ask Mr. Penny to verify it. But he says: 'When considering the provincial

statistics the approach is one of the total contribution of public library

services. Spending per capita is based on the total cost of the service, of

course, overfunding is provided almost entirely by the province.' He notes that

in other provinces such as Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC, the

municipality is primarily responsible for the service with the province

providing the lesser amount. Newfoundland and possibly PEI are the two provinces

that are funded by the provincial government.

Now, if Mr. Penny is incorrect - I don't want to mislead the

House - I will go back and ask him to get that information again. But I will

point out, Mr. Speaker, that clearly, Newfoundland is well ahead in the Atlantic

Provinces, but is probably well behind by comparison with the rest of the

country. So I'm happy to table that information, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to report to

the House on activity travel-wise in the same period asked for by the Member for

Kilbride: September 17 to October 15.

Mr. Speaker, I had six trips in that period, mostly lasting

for a couple of days. One was out of the Province to Boston and my deputy

accompanied me on that trip concerning Cabot's 500th anniversary. Other than

that they were within the Province. I might note an error on this particular

document that was provided to me. At the time I was the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs and because I was asked to report on officials who

travelled with me on these trips it shows a visit to Fogo Island by the deputy.

He did visit Fogo Island but it was not with me. It was a trip on his own, so in

the context that I was asked of officials travelling with me, I was not with him

on that particular trip.

Also, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Peckham, the Assistant Deputy Minister

accompanied me on a trip to Gander to attend the Federation of Municipalities

Conference, as did another Assistant Deputy Minister, Art Colbourne, in Ontario.

And finally, Mr. Callahan, Director of Public Relations attended with me visits

to the West Coast, Stephenville, Port aux Basques, Harbour Breton, and Grand

Falls, and that is reported, as well. My executive assistant accompanied me on

one trip and that is shown, as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: To where?

MR. GULLAGE: To Port Saunders.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 10, Mr. Speaker.

The continuation of the debate on Bill 17.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I only have a few minutes to go over this again. The last

time I spoke on this debate on Bill 17, I made some remarks concerning the

Member for Naskaupi. I reviewed those remarks, I had to look at them, I didn't

say anything I didn't mean and I don't see anything there that was

unparliamentary. If I had found anything I would have certainly apologized to

the hon. member but I did now see anything. I did leave out one very important

thing that I didn't know at the time, Mr. Speaker. I didn't know that the Member

for Naskaupi does have, on file with the Speaker's office, a note from the

doctor as to the reasons why he is off sick. I didn't know that at the time, I

did not mention it, but I do want to mention it publicly here today to clear up

any misunderstanding that I was personally attacking the member himself. It was

not the intention, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Which member was involved?

MR. R. AYLWARD: The member was Mr. Kelland, the Member

for Naskaupi. I was not personally attacking the member, it was just what was

happening at the time.

I just want to put that on the record, to say that the hon.

Member for Naskaupi does have on file with the Speaker's office, I have been

told, a letter from the doctor saying why he is off sick. I think it is

important to say that because if the hon. member is sick, and obviously he is if

the doctor says so, I wish him well and I hope he recuperates in a hurry, Mr.

Speaker.

I think we are talking about Bill 17 and the amendment that

the Member for Harbour Main moved to have this referred to the Government

Services Legislation Review Committee, a step we take with all other bills, and

I don't understand why we would not take it with this bill. If we put it to a

Legislation Review Committee we would certainly get some public input on the

bill and maybe we would get some ideas for the government as an alternative to

Bill 17. The union leaders were in here and had some discussions with the

Premier and the President of Treasury Board, and the President of Treasury Board

laughed at them and told them what they were saying was no good. If they didn't

want to hear what the leaders were saying maybe we could refer this to a

committee and hear what the general public servant would say. We could have some

public servants come before us and give -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: A wage freeze today and a land freeze

yesterday.

When we talk about a bill like Bill 17 we are talking about

trust. A prime example happened in this House today and yesterday about trust

and trusting this Premier, the Premier that we have in this Province.

The Premier says something one day, which he did with Bill 16

last year - he signed contracts - and he denies it the very day after. He said

in this House today - I do not know how anyone could possibly believe him any

more, or how anyone could trust him - but he said in this House today that he

did not suggest there should be a moratorium in the deep-sea fishery. He

actually said that today in Question Period.

I have a copy of Hansard, unedited transcript, May 6, 1992,

on page 1, and this is what the Premier is saying. Premier Wells these comments

are attributed to. He says -

AN HON. MEMBER: Page 1?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Page 1 it says on this. Yes. There are

two page 1's, for whatever reason.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is the tape number I am talking about.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The tape number is 1111.H and here is

what it says, among other things. The Premier said several things, and he went

on to say at the end of it: If that means putting a moratorium on directed

deep-sea cod fishery for a year, for two years, for three years, for five years,

whichever is necessary to rebuild the stocks, then we must do that.

Now if that is not calling it a moratorium on the deep-sea

fishery I do not know what is, and I do not know how he can stand here in his

place today and deny that he said it. He certainly cannot suggest that Hansard

misquoted him. It is on tape. He can go up and listen to the tape if he wanted

to. Every time he does not like something that is on the media he says he is

taken out of context or they misquoted him, but I cannot see how he can - well

he certainly cannot say that Hansard misquoted him, and he is suggesting here

that if necessary there should be a moratorium on directed deep-sea cod fishery

for a year, two years, three years, five years, whatever is necessary. These are

the exact words that he used.

It is not only public servants that cannot trust this

Premier. Apparently anyone who is dealing with him, anyone who asks him a

question today and asks him the same question the day after, you are likely to

get two completely different answers - one completely contrary to the one that

was given before, if it suits him at the time. If that is what suits the

particular time for the Premier, and it is not bad the way he might be trained.

A lawyer will go into a court and argue today, if they are representing me for

murder, they will argue today that I am innocent. Whether I am innocent or not

they will give me a good defence; but the next day, if they happen to be the

prosecutor, that same lawyer would be arguing that I was guilty. That is what

the Premier of this Province seems to be still doing as a lawyer. He probably

thinks he is still in court and he believes he is making, what he is trained to

do, his presentation. Today he will argue that a person is guilty and give some

facts and figures. They will dig out all kinds of things to argue that a person

is guilty, and the next day he will be arguing that the same person is innocent,

if he happened to be the client. Now he could not do it as direct as that,

because there would certainly be a conflict of interest for the same person, but

that is what a lawyer will do.

The first one who brought this to my attention was the Member

for Humber Valley. I remember him saying it here in a debate one time. Two

lawyers are trying to prove that one of them is a liar every time they go to

court. Those are the exact words that the member used, and that is exactly what

they have to do. One of them is trying to prove the other is a liar. Now we have

one in this House of Assembly sitting in the Premier's seat, a lawyer I mean, a

lawyer. If it was parliamentary I would use the other word, Mr. Speaker.

That is the point of this whole Bill 17, and the betrayal of

trust of the public servants in this Province. It is not only for the public

servants in this Province. It is for the deep-sea fishermen, trawlermen, and it

is for the fish deep-sea plant workers. Maybe the Member for Fortune - Hermitage

does say something to the Premier in Private, that he does not want a moratorium

on the deep-sea fishery. Maybe he says that. He just cannot say it publicly, and

I think he probably would say it in private to the Premier. He will not say it

publicly because he will never get in Cabinet if he embarrasses the Premier.

Also the Member for Burgeo, is it?

MR. TOBIN: Burgeo, yes.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Burgeo and Ramea.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, he has two deep sea plants; he

should be saying to the Premier after he heard this statement yesterday or

certainly, after his reading it now, that this is not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By leave? Just to

clue up for one second Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. R. AYLWARD: To clue up for one second, Mr. Speaker. I

just want to say that this bill, the same as happened last year on Bill 16, this

Bill 17 is a breach of trust to the public servants and I do support the

amendment put forward by the Member for Harbour Main, to have this bill

forwarded to the Legislation Review Committee, so that we could get public

presentations on this bill in order that we might get some solution so we do not

have to do it next year.

It is going to come this year again, I said that last year it

was going to come, it is going to come this year, if we could get some public

hearings maybe we would get some solutions and you would not need to do it next

year, because, Mr. Speaker, if there is an election before the Budget next year

and the Premier wins the next election before the Budget next year - I do not

think he will but if he does, Bill 18 will be in place by this time next year.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: It is sad, Mr. Speaker, I thought members

opposite might want to participate in a debate dealing with such an important

issue, but apparently they have all spoken I guess, according to the Member for

St. John's South -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: - that is not quite true now I say to the

Member for Exploits. Most of us have not been here for two weeks because the

House was closed for two weeks, so I realize he would not be able to relate to

that, it will take a little while.

Mr. Speaker, I did miss the opportunity earlier to speak on

the bill when it first came up for a number of reasons, not the least of which

was that I have been travelling around the Province, unlike some other party

leaders who travel around the world, I have been travelling around the Province,

Mr. Speaker, and listening to people and listening to their concerns, and as a

result of that, it has been impossible to participate in debate because of

commitments that I had made publicly. But nevertheless there was no hurry to

rush back and speak in the debate; we are speaking on an amendment now and then

we can speak on further amendments, we can speak on sub-amendments, so there is

no hurry or no urgency related to this debate, so the fact that I had not spoken

last week is irrelevant. I will speak this week and that will be relevant.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is still irrelevant.

MR. SIMMS: It is still irrelevant according to the

Minister of Finance. Now, Mr. Speaker, the first thing I did by the way, in

trying to familiarize myself with the issue a tiny bit or to recollect some of

the things that were said in the past and how this all began and what this mess

was all about, I decided to go through Hansard of last year, March 19, 1991,

page 362, when the President of Treasury Board at that time, then introduced the

legislation dealing with

An Act Respecting The Restraint Of Compensation For

Public Servants In This Province, then known last year as Bill 16. So I went

back to see what the President of Treasury Board had to say - I also by the way,

tried to see what the Minister of Finance had to say and I note with delight,

that he did not have much to say at all, I do not believe, other than what he

read in the Budget debate.

But here is what the President of Treasury Board said: Bill

16 does two things. First of all, from April 1 1991 to March 31, 1992, the wage

scales are frozen - the wage scales are frozen for a year, is what the President

of Treasury Board said in March of 1991, for a year, then it gives choices, Mr.

Speaker, because there are many different situations here. First choice, unions

who have signed contracts; the first choice was for unions who had signed

contracts. At the end of the freeze period, which would be one year, they can

choose to jump immediately to the end of their three year contract. That is what

they said, Mr. Speaker, the last year in their three year contract and simply

remove the middle year, that was the option and the choice that the President of

Treasury Board gave to the public sector unions of this Province and the public

servants of this Province.

Then of course, the other choice which would be as a result

of the legislation, the other choice: they could simply take two years of their

contract that are left and stick them on the end of it.

So the point that the President of Treasury Board made and he

harped on all throughout the debate, because of questions that were being asked

by members on this side of the House and by public servants and so on, the point

that he continuously made to emphasize the government's position was that this

action that they were taking last year under Bill 16 will be for one year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board in Hansard

last year said a number of other things. He talked about how they were very

open. In the whole process they were very open with the public and with the

unions. This is what he said last year. And the reality, of course, as we all

know by now, having had the benefit of history for the last year or so, is that

that is certainly not the way it was perceived or seen by the people on the

other side who didn't feel that the government was being very open, who didn't

feel that the Premier was very open and who didn't feel that the Labour

Department, the Minister of Labour, was being very open and so on.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I know for a fact that

there were Cabinet Ministers floating around this Province last year, 1991,

privately saying: I wish we had frozen the wages for two years. We would have

been a lot better off if we had frozen their wages now for two years, so we

won't have to face the fuss next year, which is the fuss they are now presently

facing. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that doesn't give you an indication that this

government knew exactly what the situation was financially a year ago - they now

claim they didn't know, of course. They are saying they didn't know, that this

all crept upon them. But the reality is they knew it all a year ago, because

ministers were privately going around saying: We shouldn't freeze the wages for

one year, we should freeze the wages for two years. Since we have got to go

through legislation, we should do it now so we don't have to go back and face

the public again in a year's time. Now, those are the real facts, Mr. Speaker,

and those are the things that I read just to refresh my memory on some of the

things that happened last year.

The most startling bit of information that I came upon, Mr.

Speaker, was an extract, not an extract but the actual policy on labour as put

forth by the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador three years ago in 1989,

in the little Liberal Party manifesto booklet that was given to all candidates a

little over three years ago, in April of 1989. They had a whole raft of

policies. We remember them all. Hospital beds shouldn't be closed. Remember

those kinds of policies that the Liberal Party had and brought to the election

and duped the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with.

Here is another interesting one. The member need not dig it

out because I have a copy of it right here too. Yes, there it is, look: We shall

not close hospital beds, etc., etc., etc. But here is their labour policy. Now,

this is what I found most startling. After reading what the President of

Treasury Board had to say last year in Hansard on Bill 16 and after having

ministers slowly creeping around the Province and asking -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, on a point of

order.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, some time ago, as a matter of

fact I think it was either this time last year or - I am not sure - it may have

been in the old House, Your Honour made a ruling in respect to the displaying of

signs, that the language on the signs is totally unparliamentary. Now, that is

twice this afternoon I have seen it, Mr. Speaker, and I know it is

unparliamentary. I would ask the Chair to ask the hon. member to either leave it

in his drawer with the rest of the -

AN HON. MEMBER: This one here?

MR. MURPHY: That is the one I am talking about. That is

it. I would ask that a ruling be made on it, Mr. Speaker, because it should stop

and it is unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the hon. member is correct, that

displaying of signs and placards on desks is not permitted in the House, and I

ask hon. members to refrain from doing so.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a well known tactic by the Member for St. John's

South. Just as I am getting in full speed, the Member for St. John's South often

uses this tactic of interrupting on silly little points of order to throw you

off stride or something. Mr. Speaker, I shall not be thrown off stride. I shall

not be moved. I will say what I want to say and ignore the Member for St. John's

South as more and more of his constituents seem to be doing.

So, Mr. Speaker, before I was so rudely interrupted, I was

talking about the Liberal Party's policy on labour, which I hauled out today

from my Liberal Party policy manual. Let me just read for Your Honour, because I

know Your Honour will be hard pressed to stop from showing a smile or a curl in

his lips. He might even be hard pressed to stop from snickering. But I know Your

Honour will show great restraint, and not.

Here is the labour policy of the Liberal Party of

Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to my colleagues. I know they are not

interested in listening. The member over there, the Member for Humber Valley,

has a copy. Well, just listen to this, I say to my colleagues. The labour

policy. It is only a page, not very lengthy: in recent years economic

development in Newfoundland and Labrador has been impeded by an unsettled labour

climate which has resulted largely from the failure of the government to

recognise the essential role of unions in our society.

Great words, wonderful words. As the hymn says, wonderful

words. Then it goes on to say, now just listen to this. If you can keep your

tongue from inside your cheek, just listen. The next paragraph: the record of

the Tory government in dealing with labour has been dismal. I don't hear too

many sniggers over there now, normally they would be laughing and pounding and

everything else when I repeat that. The next sentence is this: its adversarial

approach has created some of the worst moments in this Province's trade union

history.

Well, by golly, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you this, if our

adversarial approach as a government prior to 1989 created some of the worst

moments in this Province's trade union history, I wonder what kinds of moments

the adversarial approach of this government have caused in just the last three

years. We had been there for seventeen years.

Then they say; a Liberal government will be determined to

create an atmosphere of realistic cooperation in developing labour legislation

and in dealing with the public service unions. Determined to create an

atmosphere of realistic cooperation. The Liberal policy of fairness and balance

will be the basis of negotiation with its public sector unions. Fairness and

balance, ho, ho, ho!

We will talk a little bit about how fair and how balanced

this government's approach to labour relations and negotiations have been. We

will talk a little bit about Bills 16 and 17. But I cannot get into it yet until

I finish reading the labour policy for Your Honour, because I know Your Honour

is deeply interested in all these matters.

They go on to say: while the rights of all workers must be

protected it should not be at the expense of the trade union movement and its

members. What a joke. It has all turned out to be a joke. Here is one of the

biggest jokes of all: a Liberal government is committed to full consultation

with labour and management in the creation of competent legislation. A Liberal

government is committed to full consultation with labour - what an absolute

joke. A Liberal government will also seek to enhance harmonious relations. Can

you imagine after what we have seen over the last couple of years?

So, there is what the President of Treasury Board said last

year, and there is what the labour policy of the Liberal Party is. So -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I just started. Half an hour, maybe.

MR. GRIMES: Time's up!

MR. SIMMS: So, Mr. Speaker, no, I beg to differ with the

hon. member. I should tell the Member for Exploits, he will be delighted to know

this, he has been in the House three years but he obviously doesn't know

anything about the rules. I have an hour for which I can speak on the amendment.

Then I can have another hour when we get back to the second reading motion,

whenever we do, whenever that might be. Had the Member for Exploits not

interjected then and tried to irritate me by saying "time's up", those silly

little interjections, I might have been prepared to make my points and then take

my seat. But, Mr. Speaker, if he and his colleagues continue to interrupt and

interject, well then naturally that is just going to extend my period of time

because I want to make my points, and I haven't even come to my first point yet.

Most of what I had to say so far is the

preamble to my comments and remarks on

Bill 17.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is reasonable for all of us as MHAs

in thinking about Bill 17 not to just slough it off, and not to just sit there

as backbenchers on the government side, for example, and try to defend this

because it is very hard to defend the legislation. The legislation, not the wage

freeze. There are two different things here as we all have come to find out. The

wage freeze issue is one issue, and that is an issue that they can deal with as

they see fit, and wish to deal with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The wage freeze. We had a wage freeze

ourselves. So that is not the issue. I didn't say I didn't mind it, but I said

that isn't the issue. It does take money out of the economy as the minister

knows, tens of millions of dollars out of the economy in the middle of a

recession. That is not necessarily the right thing to do. So you have to give it

a lot of serious thought. But that isn't the major issue that we are dealing

with here today in Bill 17. The issue, as the minister rightly knows, I suspect

he knows, is the taking away of the rights, the breaking of the collective

agreements, signed, sworn to, negotiated collective agreements, and the

precedent setting that that does for our Legislature indeed for any province,

the seriousness with which that kind of action is seen and perceived by people,

and how it could affect not only public service unions negotiating with the

government, but anybody who decides or dares to make an agreement or sign a

contract with this government, anybody in the private sector, anybody who makes

an agreement. Anybody in the private sector if they make an agreement with this

government. Why should they believe, why should they bother, why should they

even think that it will never be broken, Mr. Speaker. So this has precedence.

The point here, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill deals with the

wage freeze, and that is not the big issue. The big issue is collective

bargaining. That is the big issue. That is what members should concentrate on.

If I were a member of the Liberal Party and a member of the government over

there I would feel pretty sheepish about this. Now they may want to stand there

and try to defend it because they see that as their role and their

responsibility. But I find it almost impossible to defend, Mr. Speaker.

So why are they at this stage? Why did we reach this

position? Well there are a number of reasons why we are at this point, Mr.

Speaker. First and foremost is the fact that this government bargained

dishonestly and deceptively with its public sector unions. That is the first

main reason why we are at this point, because the government bargained

dishonestly and deceptively with all of its public sector unions when they

negotiated agreements in late 1990 and again early in 1991 because, Mr. Speaker,

at that time they knew full well that they were facing a very severe financial

situation, and they knew full well that one of the options they had before them

was the option of a wage freeze. Therefore their negotiations, Mr. Speaker, were

deceptive and dishonest. I think that is unforgivable.

They certainly knew, Mr. Speaker, what to expect when they

cancelled agreements in 1991, because as I said earlier Cabinet ministers were

going around this Province privately saying: God, we should have imposed a two

years freeze. We should have done it now instead of having to come back next

year with another bill or another law. So they were deceptive in their

negotiations as a government, Mr. Speaker, and I say that they could have

bargained more honestly instead of bargaining dishonestly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, another reason why we are at the stage that

we are at today with respect to this legislation and this law is because the

government refused to consider any alternatives that were put before them, and

any alternatives given to them by their own public service advisors, their

deputy ministers and so on, who I am sure provided them with all kinds of

alternatives. While they laugh and toss aside suggestions like cutting a

minister's salary, or cutting the car allowance for ministers, they cast that

aside and joke about it, the reality is it could save $250,000 or more, fifteen

Cabinet ministers, that is not going to cover their deficit or anything but it

is symbolic, it is real, and it does save $250,000 which you could perhaps

provide to some group like the Consumers Organization for the Disabled who just

need $10,000 or $15,000 to keep an office open, or whatever.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Libraries Board.

MR. SIMMS: The Libraries Board who are short a couple of

hundred thousand dollars. There were alternatives, Mr. Speaker. They could have

discussed perhaps a bit more intensively and more honestly with the public

sector unions the concept and ideas of job sharing, early retirements,

attrition, unpaid leaves of absence. There were other alternatives. Departments,

as far back as 1989 anyway, and before, I guess, had discretionary funding.

Their government departments have, I think it is about a 2 per cent

discretionary funding in their departments, so they could have taken a cut in

discretionary funding in each government department. If they really wanted to it

might have saved a couple of million dollars. They could have held off on the $2

million renovations to Exon House for offices for the Department of Fisheries.

That certainly was not necessary immediately or right away. They could have cut

back on discretionary advertising for the Economic Recovery Commission, $25,000

or $30,000, whatever it might be.

MR. WINSOR: Or eliminate it.

MR. SIMMS: Well, we will get to that. They certainly

could have done that if they did not want to eliminate the Economic Recovery

Commission as my friend for Fogo suggests. They could have cut back on public

relations expenditures, hundreds of thousands of dollars in departmental budgets

in total for public relations expenditures. And when you are going through the

exercise that this government is trying to go through, of trying to convince

people of the importance of restraint, then those things would not only have

been symbolic, those things would have been real and you could have saved a few

million dollars here and there. There are probably dozens of others that we have

not had a chance to go through without having access to the books. They had

other alternatives but they totally ignored and refused the alternatives. They

could have demonstrated, of course, their willingness to negotiate with the

unions. They could have bargained with the unions. They did not simply have to

hold a gun to their heads. They could have bargained with them. They could have

negotiated with them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Well, this government said, yes, yes, back in

1989. As soon as it assumed office, it said yes, it said yes, it said yes, and

that is what got them in the trouble they are in, Mr. Speaker. That is precisely

why we are at the point we are at today in this situation. They could have done

a number of other things, there were lots of other alternatives. They could have

bargained honestly to begin with, but instead they held a gun to their heads.

There are other reasons why we are at the point we are at today, Mr. Speaker.

They did not consider any other options, by the way. In their mind there were

three options only. It was the option of borrowing and they try to give the

impression that the Opposition wants them to borrow their way out of the

recession when nobody ever said that on this side, certainly not me.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: I did not, Mr. Speaker. I said we could have

some cautionary increase in borrowing. I did not say you borrow your way out of

the recession. They like to give the impression that they are opposed to

borrowing but when they brought in their own Budget they have a $29 million

deficit. That is borrowing. They obviously agree with borrowing. It is just a

question of how much you can borrow and to what extent. What we are saying is if

you can borrow $30 million maybe you can borrow $50 million and it would not

kill you, and that extra $20 million you could put into your job creation

program and offer some incentives to the private sector to create some jobs. Use

some imagination, which is another option.

The second option was that they could cut expenditures. Well,

they certainly did that but as far as I am concerned they did not go deeply

enough into the system because I think there is an awful lot more that could be

cut in the system in government departments. Ministers never get the time, nor

Treasury Board, and certainly not the Premier, to actually scrutinize the

government department expenditures. Haul in the deputy ministers, haul in the

directors, go through the Budget. Take the time, that is what is required, take

the time. The problem is time. If you sat down and went through it I bet you

would find $2 or $3 million in any government department that is probably there

for programs that have been there for thirty years or twenty-five years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: It is too bad that the President of Treasury

Board wants to make a joke and wants to joust with me, but I am trying to be

sincere in offering some suggestions. He is not interested in listening. I am

saying there is more there that can be done. There are other alternatives. The

point is, there are other alternatives. Borrowing he said was one alternative.

Cutting was another alternative. Three alternatives, the only other alternative

he said was increasing taxes. Well they certainly did that. They were not

hesitant about that. They were not hesitant about cutting, and they were not

hesitant about borrowing, because they borrowed themselves. They like to paint

the picture that we are the ones who want to borrow. They do not want to borrow.

They borrowed $29 million for their current account.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Nobody said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Nobody ever said that.

The President of Treasury Board sits too close to the

Premier, because he is getting caught up in all this verbal trickery that the

Premier is used to using. He is not as good at it as the Premier.

I want to say this to the President of Treasury Board. Those

are three options that he kept talking about. We only have three options - cut,

increase taxes, or borrow. Correct? That is what he always used to say, and the

Premier used to say the same thing, but there is a fourth option. There is a

fourth option. They could have used some creative thinking, used their

imagination, or that of the highly paid public servants who advise them, and

they could have brought in a plan and a program to assist in creating jobs -

getting the economy moving. They could have done that. Let me say they could

have done that. That is the fourth option. Use some creativity. Use some

imagination. Bring in something that will create jobs, therefore providing

revenue, therefore providing revenue to the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, Mr. Speaker, not snap your fingers. I just

finished saying, use some creative thinking. But the problem is they cannot use

it. They are not prepared to even look at it, because all they say is, oh, the

only way you can do it is get money, and you do that by snapping your fingers so

we cannot do that. They will not even look. Let's not even think about it. Let's

not even think about it. That is their stand pat answer. You spend money to

create money. You spend money to create money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does the money come from? How can

you get it to spend?

MR. SIMMS: If the minister had been listening, I would

have told him. I gave him twenty options.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, it was not foolishness. You see, that is

the problem. If anybody dares suggest an alternative or an idea to this

government, to the Premier, it is all foolishness. Nobody knows anything only

them, and that unfortunately will lead to their demise one of these days. That

is the kind of attitude, to be perfectly frank, that our government had after

seventeen years in office. You have only been there three years and you have

exactly the same attitude, and look what happened to us.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you have changed.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have changed. No question

about it. One thing that a few years in opposition does for you is give you a

chance to sit back and look at the mistakes that you made, and believe me we

made mistakes. Nobody denies that. This government is making mistakes. The only

difference is they do not very often admit that they make any mistakes. But I

will tell you one thing, they have reached a stage in their political lives that

it took the other party, our party, seventeen years to reach. Now I say that in

all sincerity to my friend, the Member for Gander. That is a fact, and I will

tell you, in three years, after one term in office, for a government to have the

kinds of criticisms cast upon them as this government has all around this

Province, it is unbelievable.

Now they may not lose the government. I do not know. We will

see. Time will tell. If they did that, that would be absolutely unbelievable.

Because most people think most governments historically have the second shot at

it and all that kind of stuff. But we shall see. Because there are many factors.

It is not just the Premier's popularity, if that is what they are all hoping to

hang their hats on. It is going to be done out in the constituencies, in the

districts, that is where it is going to be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, we saw the polls in England. Every

pollster over there predicted Mr. Major's defeat. So we all know about polls. So

anyway, I say to the President of Treasury Board, there were not only three

options, there was a fourth option. You could have done something to create a

bit of wealth to get something going, create some jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I told you how to do that. There are ways of

getting the money. By the way, listen! There is a myth out there that they are

trying to perpetrate, Mr. Speaker, on the people of the Province. They did not

have any money. You had $3.5 billion. So you had money, it is a question of your

priorities. That is the whole point. I thank the President of Treasury Board for

interrupting me and reminding me. The whole point is, you had $3.5 billion and

you could have used some of that $3.5 billion if you wanted to.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a good point.

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, that's only in your view. I don't expect

the President of Treasury Board to admit ever that we make any points over here.

Never. I certainly do not expect the Member for Exploits to admit it because he

does not know what is going on at all anyway. He does not even know what is

happening out around the Province.

MR. GRIMES: I know who is going to get (Inaudible) 10 per

cent of his salary (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I am quite willing to do that. If the minister

will accept my challenge here today, if he wants to keep it up, I would be quite

willing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I'm putting it in now. I will challenge

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations here now, if he is prepared to

take a 10 per cent cut in his salary and advise the Speaker tomorrow morning, I

will do the same thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I will do the same thing. Now, does he want to

do it? Put up or shut up! Is he prepared to do it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I am prepared to do it. Is he prepared to

do it?

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) Question Period -

MR. SIMMS: Yes I am. Are you?

MR. GRIMES: I made no (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I didn't think so, Mr. Speaker. He is world

renowned, he is nationally renowned, he is certainly renowned in central

Newfoundland, as somebody who is not prepared to put his money where his mouth

is. Roger the Dodger. Here he is again, conveniently dodging the challenges.

We are debating an amendment to Bill 17 at the moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, it's not the hoist, I say to the President

of Treasury Board. I am not surprised that the President of Treasury Board

doesn't know what's going on in the Province. He doesn't even know, as the

minister responsible for running legislation through the House, what we are

debating.

MR. TOBIN: That's for Roger.

MR. HARRIS: Roger was wearing that button at the NTA

convention.

MR. TOBIN: He wore it at the NTA convention.

MR. SIMMS: What, the other day?

AN HON. MEMBER: Roger the Dodger.

MR. SIMMS: Oh yes? I am told, Mr. Speaker, this is

unparliamentary, so I won't - just a quick flash for Your Honour so you know

what we are talking about. Bill 17.

MR. HARRIS: It says, it means, I don't like Bill 17, it

says.

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we are debating an

amendment, and the amendment is to refer this Bill, refer this law, this

legislation, to a committee of the House.

Now that is not such an unreasonable request. It is not an

unheard of request, for sure. If we are prepared, for example, to put out the

question of changing the name of the Province to a select committee of the House

- not even one of the current sitting committees, we created a select committee

to deal with that issue, which is an important issue; and if we are prepared to

send out legislation and bills almost routinely to our standing committees on

various areas, Government Services, Social, and so on, we send out legislation

to them almost routinely - then why wouldn't we be prepared to take a few weeks?

It is not urgent, it does not have to be passed by next

month. People are getting their salaries and all that stuff, that is the

argument the Government House Leader will try to use. But it could be held for a

few weeks. Give one of the committees of the House a chance to have some public

hearings on the thing, even if he just held it in St. John's - public hearings,

and give people a chance to come forward and offer their views of this

unprecedented move. It is not unprecedented anymore, Mr. Speaker, because it

happened last year so the precedent was set last year with Bill 16. We think

that is a reasonable request and that is why we move the amendment, to give

members opposite a chance to give it some serious thought.

MR. BAKER: Very reasonable.

MR. SIMMS: Very reasonable. I thank the President of

Treasury Board. It is very reasonable.

Now, the hoist, which is another amendment, can be moved in

second reading and, really, it is meant for a different reason; It is, in my

view. When you bring in the hoist amendment, it is meant to try to delay the

thing, but referral to a committee can be done in a month. It can be back in a

month; they can be given a mandate to report back by -

AN HON. MEMBER: In one day.

MR. SIMMS: Exactly, whatever. So, that is why we move the

amendment and that is why we are debating the amendment but, in reality, of

course, we are going to debate the entire piece of legislation. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I have not yet spoken on second reading, so I want to conclude my

comments on the amendment for now and I will be back later to speak in second

reading, whenever that is, tomorrow or Monday or whatever, because the press are

waiting for me to do - they want to ask some questions today, so I have to

leave, and my colleague, the ever popular, wise, articulate, knowledgeable

Member for Burin -Placentia West, with whom I just spent a day on the Burin

Peninsula, who is, by the way, probably one of the safest members in this House

- tremendous support down there. And I noticed with interest that the Liberal

Party is going down there, June 19, or something for an executive board meeting

and I look forward to the response after that meeting, the press and the

coverage of the Liberal Party's Executive Board meeting in Marystown. I am

looking forward to it very much.

A lot of people down there, when we had our public hearings

on Tuesday, mentioned to me that they were looking forward to Roger Grimes

coming down and a few other names they mentioned, a few other teachers mentioned

their names to us, so I look forward to that. My colleague, the Member for Burin

- Placentia West, now, Mr. Speaker, will speak, and I will speak later on second

reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we had twenty-six.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin Placentia - West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the member,

actually, I have two of the briefs here to which I may make reference during my

speech. One group has just been penalized by the wage freeze, the unionized

workers at the Marystown Shipyard and the other group, had some very choice

words for this administration, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Member for St. John's South,

quite sincerely, that if this Premier and this government would take the type of

action to do something for the Marystown Shipyard, that Mr. Crosbie took last

week to try to save the St. John's dockyard then something might happen, Mr,

Speaker, but Mr. Crosbie comes down here and he takes the St. John's dockyard,

he gives it to a Crown corporation with a mandate to make it work. This

government takes the Marystown Shipyard from 685 employees in 1988 to less than

seventy unionized employees today, that is what this government has done for the

Marystown Shipyard. They have reduced it from 685 -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. TOBIN: That is not true?

AN HON. MEMBER: No (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will get Gary Brenton to check

on this and show the member where it is true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Maybe two, Mr. Speaker. When Brian Peckford

became Premier of this Province, he started constructing trawlers on

speculation, that is what Brian Peckford did. Mr. Speaker, how about this? There

are 200 workers from the Marystown Shipyard who will run out of UI benefits

before this year is over.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I cannot find it right now but I will find it

for him, I tell the member. If only this Premier would do what John Crosbie has

done, then we would have a great opportunity.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have this agenda before us today, this

amendment to the resolution. I don't think anyone would be asking a whole lot if

we asked this government, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is right, Mr. Speaker. The member - I

have to admit I was wrong and that the Minister of Labour was right. Starting in

1989, the unionized work force at the Marystown Shipyard stood at over 625

people. In addition to the 100 senior administratives and supervisory personnel,

which has now been reduced to less than 100 at present, the unionized work force

would today number approximately 60 to 70 employees. It has gone from 625 in

1989 to somewhere between 60 and 70 today.

Now, is this what this government takes pride in? Is this

what makes this administration happy? The President of Treasury Board just said

to our leader: 'tell me what we do. How can we generate employment.' Put the

work force at the Marystown Shipyard back to work, Mr. Speaker. There are people

from all over that district, as far away as Terrenceville, Mr. Speaker, and

Grand La Pierre who work in the Marystown Shipyard. Yes, there are people from

the Fogo district who live and work in the Marystown Shipyard. I believe there

are people probably from Carbonear who work in the Marystown Shipyard. But this

government, Mr. Speaker, have reduced the work force in the Marystown Shipyard

from 625 to less than 70. That is a record to be proud of. That is the

accomplishment that the Member for Placentia should not be very proud of. I

don't think he is. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I find him to be a very

decent minister. I find him to be genuinely and sincerely concerned about the

needs of rural Newfoundland. I wonder how he can stay with this crowd, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what about a raise? What about Bill 17? Does

that affect them? As my colleague pointed out, during the past week we had the

opportunity to travel to the Burin Peninsula, and we had, I think, twenty-six or

thirty presentations, something in that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-six.

MR. TOBIN: Twenty-six formal presentations, Mr. Speaker,

like these two I have here in my hand. All we could hear was people saying there

is a need to do something for this part of the Province. One person, Mr.

Speaker, summed it up with the words: 'The Wells Administration have abandoned

the South Coast of this Province.' Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, as well, that

person was not and has not been a supporter of mine in the past. I can tell the

members opposite, the person who said that was not a supporter of mine. The

person, Mr. Speaker, who has never supported me and probably never has supported

this party said: 'The Wells administration have abandoned the South Coast of

this Province'- people thrown out of work day in and day out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Say it yourself. 'Eric', say it yourself. Mr.

nice guy over there - get someone else to shout your messages across the House.

This administration has abandoned not only the South Coast,

Mr. Speaker, they have abandoned the Province. How much money did the provincial

government put into the fabrication yard that was announced for Port aux

Basques?

AN HON. MEMBER: I told you that once (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: How much money? Tell me!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Tell me, how much.

AN HON. MEMBER: I already told you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, they turned their back on the

member, that's what they did.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: They turned their back on the Member for

LaPoile. They can't get up and say how much money went into it. Tell us. Tell

us, Mr. Speaker, what the government did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is what happened. This

past weekend, not only did we have a forum on the Burin Peninsula, on Friday and

Saturday myself and the federal Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Crosbie, met with

delegates, councils, joint councils, union leaders right throughout the Burin

Peninsula. My colleague from Grand Bank joined us for some of the meetings and

we heard the same messages - that the government in this Province is a bad

government.

What did the Premier say to the press today? He asked: 'How

can this Province do something for the fishing industry? How can we say to the

fishermen and fisherwomen in this Province - '

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I heard him: 'How can we say that we are going

to do something for you? '

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: 'How can we make you special?' That is what he

said to the press. 'How can we make the people involved in the fishery special

when someone -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) stretch limousine

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I wanted to buy a stretch

limousine, it is none of his business.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No more, Mr. Speaker, than it is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I believe the Minister of Health is drunk

again, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: I believe the Minister of Health is drunk

again, Mr. Speaker, drunk with exuberance. I am sure he knows where I got that

phrase, by the way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, it is a direct quote.

MR. FLIGHT: 'Look, Premier,' he said. 'Look (inaudible).'

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture - wait

until he tables his report. Wait until he tables his expenses and see if the

taxpayers of this Province paid for him on political campaigns in this Province?

Wait until he tables it and see if he has abused his powers as a minister. He

has, Mr. Speaker. He abused his powers as a minister first when he came in, but

it is a different story now. Let me say that to the minister - the same rules.

If I were the minister I would be irritated because the same rules do not apply

to you -

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - as apply to Ed Roberts under the conflict of

interest legislation.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member it may

come. It may come, but I have never been turfed out by my constituents yet. It

may come. It may happen to any of us, but I can say to the member that I have

won three successive elections.

MR. FLIGHT: I have had four.

MR. TOBIN: You never won three successive elections in

your life, and you never will.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) take you for granted.

MR. TOBIN: That is why I don't, and I won't!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Because I can tell the hon. member that on

Friday night past I had over 500 people, I believe it was, out to a dinner.

MR. FLIGHT: You had 500 people?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, indeed I did, and I will have more out

next year. All I have to do is get the Minister of Forestry on television more

often and we will all do right. If we can continue to get you on to let the

people of Newfoundland see an example of the arrogance, the incompetence, the

lack of security that this Cabinet possesses, if we can keep him on we will be

extremely lucky.

Yesterday the Premier of this Province stood in this House

and called for a moratorium on the deep-sea fishery.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. TOBIN: He called for a moratorium on the deep-sea

fishery. What did he say? Here is what the Premier said yesterday: '...if that

means putting a moratorium on the direct deep-sea cod fishery for a year, two

years, three years, five years, whatever is necessary.'

Mr. Speaker, why attack the deep-sea fishery in this

Province? Why always the deep-sea fishery? How can the Member for Bellevue go

out to Arnold's Cove and tell the people that he supports what the Premier said?

How can he?

Mr. Speaker, what does he have in his hand? We were almost

ready to call the Constabulary to get you.

I don't know what was being said, but I can say one thing,

that that is what the Premier of this Province said, if that means putting a

moratorium on the deep-sea fishery for a year, two years, three years, or five

years, then do it. How can the Member for Bellevue explain that to the men and

women who were laid off in Arnold's Cove? How can the member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If that happens they will

not go back June 1. A moratorium for five years won't bring them back June 1.

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

I want to remind the hon. member about our rules for

relevance and ask him to abide by these rules, Standing Orders.

MR. TOBIN: I know, Mr. Speaker, exactly what you are

saying. What I am talking about is how this government can generate revenue so

they can pay their employees a decent salary. That is the point I am making.

MR. WINSOR: If you shut down the fishery how are you

going to pay your employees?

MR. TOBIN: That's right. If you shut down the fishery,

how are you going to pay the employees? How does the Member for Fortune -

Hermitage explain to the people of Harbour Breton and Gaultois if the Premier

gets his way and puts a total moratorium on the deep-sea fishery? If this

Premier gets his way with what he said yesterday and puts a total moratorium on

the deep-sea fishery, what happens to the men and women of Harbour Breton and

Gaultois, Mr. Speaker? Will the member then try to weasel his way back across

the House like he did already? Will he?

No. How can you stand by and watch a premier destroy the

south and southwest coast of this Province? That is exactly what he is doing.

That is his agenda. How can the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir support a

premier who calls for a five year moratorium on the deep-sea fishery in this

Province? How?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you support John Crosbie?

MR. TOBIN: I can tell the member, Mr. Speaker, that there

would not be a deep-sea fishery in this Province today if it was not for John

Crosbie. It is time for someone, and it is time for the member to tell the

people of Arnold's Cove whether he supports John Crosbie's position or whether

he supports Clyde Wells' position. Because they are two opposing positions. John

Crosbie said: keep the deep-sea fishery open, we cannot totally wipe out rural

Newfoundland; and this Premier, and I will read it again said: if -

AN HON. MEMBER: If! If!

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker: If that means closing down

the deep-sea fishery in this Province for a year, two years, three years, five

years, whatever is necessary to rebuild the stocks, then we must do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want to rebuild the stock?

MR. TOBIN: Then the Premier goes on to say, to add insult

to injury, that it is relatively a new technology. The deep-sea fishery in this

Province is relatively a new technology, new innovation. That is what the

Premier of this Province called the deep-sea fishery, relatively - tell that to

the men and women that are laid off over in St. John's South, Mr. Speaker. The

NatSea plant. Tell that to them, Mr. Speaker, that it is relatively a new

technology and the deep-sea fishery should be closed down. Tell that to the men

and women in Arnold's Cove. Tell it to the men and women who were laid off from

the Catalina fish plant, or the Trepassey plant, or the Grand Bank plant. Mr.

Speaker, keep track of it.

MR. MATTHEWS: What were you saying about Grand Bank?

MR. TOBIN: That's what I am saying.

MR. MATTHEWS: What about Grand Bank?

MR. TOBIN: Tell it to the men and women who were laid off

last year in Grand Bank that this government cares about the deep-sea fishery.

MR. MATTHEWS: They don't care about anything. They don't

care about the other one, either, (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Care about nothing, Mr. Speaker, absolutely

nothing. I would venture to bet that there will be more people trying to crawl

out under the limbo stick. Afraid to admit, to stand up with the courage of

their convictions, afraid to stand up for the people who elected them, afraid to

stand up for the principles that brought them to the House of Assembly, the men

and women who sent them in here to take a stand. There will be more people who

will weasel out under that stick in the next few days.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I have never, ever betrayed my constituents. I

have never, ever refused to stand on anything I believe in, I have never, ever

run away from this House, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: Yes, the Member for St. John's South. We will

see where you stand when this resolution comes before the House. We will see

where you stand.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: You never worked in your life. The Member for

St. John's South, never worked in his life. The hardest work you did was drive

around in a car owned by Fishery Products. Tell me what you did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, there is some (Inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: There are some welts on your hands, alright.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the biggest contribution he made

to safety was to carry around the briefcase for the Member for Placentia, who

taught you everything you know. He taught you everything you know about safety,

and I doubt if he knows very much.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, you drowned them.

MR. TOBIN: That's right. What my colleague for Grand Bank

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not hear the Member for

Placentia - there are a lot of other things, you know. You hear the Member for

Placentia talking about the economy. He still does not know his position on New

York garbage. The Member for Placentia has not made up his mind yet on New York

garbage, whether it is good or bad. He talks about safety. Time for him to make

up his mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're against it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against them?

MR. TOBIN: What, am I against it? Am I against New York

piling up garbage and shipping it in here? Mr. Speaker, the member should ask

that. I am with the majority of the people in your district on that issue, and

if you don't know what that is then you are not very bright.

Now, to get back to this piece of legislation. That this

government has put the hobnailed boots once again to the working people and to

the professional people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think someone kicked him in the

head with them. I think that is what happened to the Member for St. John's

South, someone kicked him in the head with the hobnailed boots.

MR. MATTHEWS: What?

MR. TOBIN: The Member for St. John's South. I think

someone kicked him in the head with the hobnailed boots.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what about the teachers in this Province?

The Member for St. John's South said... what was it he said? If the teachers

want to get at me, let them come on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on! Come on!

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Do you know something? They

just might. That is enough said about that. Now, the Member for St. George's

should realise that this Bill 17 is being used against him in his own district

by a candidate handpicked by the Premier to run against you for the nomination.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Right?

MR. MATTHEWS: Met him on the elevator a couple of days