April 7,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 15

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

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

the minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. The minister is

fully aware that about 98 per cent of the fire fighters in the Province are

volunteers providing a much needed service to residents of the Province. The

minister is also aware that the present court case in the town of Wabana has put

a lot of extra stress and strain on volunteer fire fighters in the Province.

Because of the importance of having volunteer fire fighters in communities and

towns in this Province, and because the increased legal liabilities are of a

grave concern to fire fighters and councils, what does the minister plan to do

about this very serious problem facing volunteer fire fighters in this Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to an

ongoing active court case. I've made one comment on it previous to this, and

basically the comment that I made was let's wait and see what the result of the

court case will bring forward. If the magistrate or judge finds that there is

something that needs to be changed in the act or as far as government is

concerned, at that particular time we will address that particular question.

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

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: The minister is fully aware that there is

no protection now - absolutely no protection under the municipalities act - for

any volunteer fireman in the Province. Absolutely none. The minister does not

have to wait for the outcome of the court case on Wabana. It has been an issue

for some time now with the fire fighters in the Province. I think it is about

time now for the minister and his department to act to do something about this.

Would the minister consider bringing in legislation in this spring session of

the House to provide some protection for the volunteer fire fighters in the

Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, there is protection provided to

volunteer fire departments to the tune of almost $600,000 a year that we pay to

the Workers' Compensation to protect volunteer firemen from the possibility of

injury and the loss of wages. The question the hon. member has put forward is

one that has been debated for years, and years, and years. It is not the first

time it has come forward and I will reaffirm what I said a few minutes ago, that

if, after the case is heard, the current case is heard, there are

recommendations from the magistrate or judge, to look at the possibility of

doing what the hon. member is suggesting, then we will certainly look at it at

that particular point in time.

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

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

The minister is also aware that the $600,000 we are spending

each year on compensation for firemen in the Province, and insurance, has

nothing to do with legal liabilities brought on by third parties, so I would

suggest that the minister could act and bring in something similar to what they

have in other provinces. I think it is referred to as the good samaritan clause,

or something like that. Some of the other provinces have it. Some other areas, I

think, are covered by it in the Province.

I think the minister realizes this is a very important

subject and concern for volunteer fire fighters in the Province. I say again

there is no need to wait for legislation. The compensation is there, the

insurance is there, and they are protected under that from the time they leave

their home to go to a fire and return, but there is absolutely no protection for

any other liability that may be incurred such as the one now on Wabana.

Again, I ask the minister if he could bring in some sort of

legislation this session, and furthermore, if the court rules sometime this

spring, could the minister make a commitment to the House now that he will bring

in that legislation to protect the volunteer fire fighters in this Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for

asking that question this morning because he knows, as I guess a lot of members

in the House know, the service that volunteer fire fighters in this Province

provide. I am sure the hon. member is aware of how I feel about the volunteer

fire departments in the Province. There is no bigger supporter of volunteer fire

fighters anywhere in this Province than me.

I will say to the hon. gentleman, and he understands as well,

Mr. Speaker, that a piece of legislation cannot be drafted, concocted, or put

together in a matter of a few days, so how can I, Mr. Speaker, stand in this

House and make a commitment that a piece of legislation would come to this House

this spring, with the agenda that we have, and the time that we may end up

having before the House closes, I can't make that commitment to this House, but

I will make the commitment to him that if and when the court case is heard and

the judgement is rendered, then we will consider that judgement, and at that

particular point in time, please, Mr. Speaker, give me the right and the

privilege to sit down and evaluate my position. Then, if we need to do it at a

later date we will certainly do what the hon. member is suggesting.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

All Members of the House are very pleased to see the level of

co-operation going on now between the Government of Newfoundland and the

there, and we are all very pleased with that co-operation, but in January we

were made aware of some sort of emergency committee, a federal/provincial

committee, which was to deal with the economic crisis in Newfoundland. The

committee was to, and I quote: "Quietly co-ordinate federal and provincial

economic development policies."

They have certainly been quiet, Mr. Speaker. Would the

Premier like to tell us who, indeed, is on that committee, and what is their

mission and mandate?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is not an emergency

committee in that it was suddenly put in place. It was a committee that I had

asked former Prime Minister Mulroney to put in place as the fishery crisis was

deepening and developing. He failed to do it, although he wrote me a letter, in

fairness to him, and said that he was prepared to engage the fullest resources

ended. Despite repeated efforts after that, there was no follow-up on it.

When the new government took over in Ottawa, I think within a

week I went to see the Prime Minister. I showed him the letter from former Prime

Minister Mulroney, and told him what the basis of the concern was, that I felt

the fishery crisis had three aspects that needed to be dealt with. One was the

immediate economic impact on the individuals displaced from work, and the TAGS

program, or NCARP as it was at that time, was dealing with that issue. Second

was the need to make sure that we managed the resources in such a way as to

conserve the stocks and rebuild for the future; and the third component was

dealing with the overall impact on the Newfoundland and Labrador economy of this

massive closure of the groundfish fishery, and that is what we put this

committee in place to deal with.

Since that time, Mr. Speaker, a number of courses have been

followed, a number of ideas have been put forward. The officials looked at it.

There was a suggestion that it would take about another $600 million over and

above what had already been put forward under the federal program to deal

effectively with the overall economic impact. It is clear, in the present

circumstances, the Federal Government would have great difficulty trying to find

$600 million to do that.

I have recently written to both the Prime Minister - I say

recently, it started last December and there have been several pieces of

correspondence and several meetings since with the federal Minister of Finance

in particular, with Mr. Mass who is the Chairman on the federal side of the

committee and Mr. Tobin is involved in it as well. I have to say that a specific

proposal has been put to the Federal Government by the Province. We have not

received a positive response from them yet. We believe that what we put forward

is a way that will help us deal with the overall economic impact that will not

make it necessary for the Federal Government to put up a large sum of capital as

had been suggested by the initial assessment. But I am still waiting for a

response from the Federal Government.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Premier for that.

Mr. Tobin was quoted back in January, in fact - I understand

he is one of the members of this great senior committee - he was quoted as

saying, `We will be able to demonstrate there are a variety of areas where we

can take limited dollars and have some measurable impact, in a constructive way,

on economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador. Some of these ideas should

become clear in the months ahead.' These ideas are not very clear yet to us.

Would the Premier like to tell us what great innovative ideas Mr. Tobin or this

committee have to stimulate the economy of Newfoundland without spending any

great amounts of money?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am not sure what the member is reading

from.

MR. WINDSOR: A Globe and Mail quote. I'll table

it.

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, yes, as a matter of fact, I would like

to see it. I don't doubt what the member said, but I would just like to see it

so I can deal precisely with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't table it, he just mails it.

MR. SPEAKER: He can't table it. Perhaps he will hold off

on tabling until I make a ruling on Monday.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Tobin said we will be able to

demonstrate and then something - there is a gap. There are a variety of areas

where we can take limited dollars and have some measurable impact in a

constructive way on economic development in Newfoundland.

He is right. The suggestion didn't originate with Mr. Tobin,

it originated with the Province, but his description of it, I think, is

accurate. Now, my problem is, the Federal Government hasn't yet accepted the

proposal. I don't want to make it more difficult to get their acceptance by

having a detailed discussion of it in the House. I would be most anxious to

discuss it in fact on a personal basis, but I don't want to jeopardize

resolution - working co-operatively with the Federal Government by doing so

today. I hope the hon. member understands.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate where the

Premier is coming from. Obviously, you are negotiating with the Government of

Canada and if there is some input there -

Will the Premier undertake to table this proposal at the

earliest possible date when it is available, when negotiations have proceeded to

that level, or in fact when he is convinced that to table that document will not

has been requested to put into this? Can he give us any idea of the types of

things that perhaps are being proposed here?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will table the

correspondence from the Province to the federal ministers outlining the

proposal, at the time when, as the hon. member says, there would be no prospect

of the tabling of it jeopardizing the success of the proposal. I'm not in a

position even to give any hint of it. I can't give any kind of a hint of the

general direction of it, but it wouldn't involve substantial expenditures of

federal funds.

That was the argument I made to the Federal Government for

taking it: Look, you acknowledge the Federal Government's responsibility for the

impact on the people and the economy of this Province of the closure of the

groundfish fishery. You've responded quite well in terms of dealing with the

direct impact on individuals, albeit on a temporary basis. You've put up a lot

of money to help respond to this situation. We realize that in these present

times when you are struggling to control a massive debt and persistent deficits

that it is very difficult to ask you to put another $500 million or $600 million

of federal capital into this. So we are prepared to look at an alternative that

would not see that kind of expenditure of federal capital but which we believe

would be equally effective, if not more effective, than spending that kind of

money. We've put it forward to them on that basis. That is as far as I can go

today.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation. Mr. Speaker, for some reason or other the minister seems to have

a veil of secrecy surrounding his department as it relates to the John Cabot

Corporation, et cetera.

Some while ago the government announced a new direction for

provincial parks as a result of the task force report. I would like to ask the

minister: Is this report, with its recommendations, available to the public,

and, if not, why not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the provincial parks, as are administered

through the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, there was an internal

task force of government employees - no external consultants, or anyone of that

nature, no money spent other than staff time from people in two or three

departments - who looked at the running of the parks, whether they were meeting

the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and our visitors from

outside the Province, or whether they need to be operated on some different

basis.

They did a report for government. If the hon. member, not

having had the experience, would check with some of the people in the front

bench on the other side, he would recognize that it is a fairly common practice

for employees of the government to do some assessment and to make some

recommendations to the government from time to time. That was done with respect

to the parks. There was no public consultation process other than that. There

were some questionnaires and surveys filled out through, again, using the

employees of the parks when people went into parks, and when they left, in terms

of what their needs and expectations were. Everything was internal so that we

could make some decisions about the future direction of the parks, so we could

better meet the needs of the public, both resident and non-resident.

That report was submitted to the government; some actions

have been taken. For every action taken, there has been a complete reason and a

full reasoning given as to why we did it. I don't know what the secrecy is. We

have told exactly what we have done, and we have told exactly why we did it in

each case, so I don't understand how that is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Capes, a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: I thank the minister for his answer.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the task force studied the issue

of gravel pit camping. I would like to ask the minister: What was the

recommendation of the task force on this contentious issue, and what plans, if

any, does government have to deal with this particular issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe, if I am not mistaken, at the public press

conference we held at Holiday Inn when we released the government's plans, which

I believe all members of the Opposition and members of this side of the House

were quite free to attend - it was a public event - the issue with respect to

roadside and gravel pit camping was raised. Questions were asked at that time.

The exact question that the hon. member asked today was asked at that press

conference. As a matter of fact, it was covered on the news that night, so maybe

he got his question from a clipping of that particular news.

I explained at that time, in the approach we take of giving

all the information all the time, that the task force had indeed recommended

that government should take action to, in some way, prohibit or ban roadside and

gravel pit camping. It was an official recommendation from some employees of

government, that we appreciated very much. But we, as government, in looking at

it ourselves, with the responsibilities that we have, and this Cabinet and this

caucus, looked at that issue and decided it was not a role for government at

this point in time, to ban gravel pit camping. But if we have concerns about

roadside and gravel pit camping, it is to do with cleanliness, garbage,

environmental concerns, and we will deal with those issues. But our real issue

here, in the mandate of the parks, is to make the parks attractive enough so

that people will want to go into the parks rather than camp on the side of the

road.

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

for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, with the announced closure of

twenty-nine parks in the Province, and the possible privatization of those

parks, I would like to ask the minister: While we are waiting to privatize, how

will the Provincial Government protect those parks from being used for

woodcutting and other private use?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there is one very timely part to

the questions that the hon. member raises in that today, actually, April 7, is

the final day for expressions of public/private sector interest in terms of who

would like to operate the parks that the government have indicated they are not

going to operate.

In the interim, all of those twenty-nine facilities are still

covered under the Provincial Parks Act. They have not been de-proclaimed as

provincial parks to this point in time. The good news is that we will be

announcing very early next week that there have been expressions of interest,

Mr. Speaker, for almost every one of those facilities where there is somebody

privately who feels that they want an opportunity to operate those facilities.

We will be announcing within a couple of weeks who it is that will, in fact, be

given an opportunity to run the facilities and make them available to the public

of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that presently they are still protected as

provincial parks lands. There is no cutting allowed, nothing of that nature.

Only those facilities of the twenty-nine where there is absolutely no expression

of interest by anyone in Newfoundland and Labrador of operating them, will they

revert to normal Crown lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture. I would like to ask the minister: Is he aware of the new berry farm

industry that the joint town councils committee has been trying to create on the

Bonavista Peninsula?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) stand up (inaudible).

DR. HULAN: I won't answer that because I like to answer

my questions sitting down.

To quickly answer the question, I could simply say yes and

sit down. Rather than do that, I should say that six years ago I started

preaching in this Province that we had to develop the blueberry industry and the

wild berry industry that had been neglected all through the years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: Yes indeed, I am aware of the proposal, and I

have indicated my support in principle for that proposal. As far as I know right

now, the process is proceeding, although the member from Marystown has some

coming from across the gallery. Anyhow, the berry farm proposal is proceeding at

this stage. Recommendations have been put forward to Crown lands with approval

in principle. I assume the proponents of the proposal are now actively going on

to the next step.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, that is a little bit of a

different situation than I was made aware of yesterday when there was a press

release put out by the joint town councils of the Bonavista Peninsula saying

that this project that was going to create 100 to 200 jobs has now been lost in

a maze of bureaucracy. That is a news release put out by Mr. Claude Stagg, the

chairperson of that committee. I would like to ask the minister again: Has he

been misinformed, or have you not been informed, Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: I suppose I could respond, Mr. Speaker, by

saying there are no berries buried in my bureaucracy. There is no question about

that. I can assure you, this project is not being held up because of the

Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. The recommendation of approval in

principle has been put forward.

Now, let me tell you, the full recommendation will be

following up after we have had a chance to assess this land mass, assess these

2,500 acres. Yes, there are individuals on the Bonavista Peninsula concerned,

very much concerned, that we would be allowing a project of this magnitude to

occur therefore preventing the regular picking by regular pickers in the future.

I have often traditionally picked berries in this area. So I can assure this

hon. House, Mr. Speaker, that everything is being done to make sure a project

that I have been insisting on for six years will take place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like for the hon.

minister to get in touch with this volunteer organization on the Bonavista

Peninsula because as of now the Department of Human Resource Development, Mr.

Speaker, has held up funding for this project, have held up funding because the

minister and his department have not given a commitment for more than two years

to prepare the ground. If they don't get the commitment now the money will be

lost. So I will ask the minister, if he would be kind enough to follow that up,

given the commitment that the project will proceed and allow those people, Mr.

Speaker, to go to work and have meaningful employment on the Bonavista

Peninsula?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, my officials were in touch with a

Mr. Brian Canning, who I think is the spokesperson for this organization, as

late as the day before yesterday and they are very pleased, according to Mr.

Canning, with the response that has come out of my department and the work that

we have done on it for them, everything is proceeding, it is just great but we

will continue with encouraging this development as the days go on, in spite of

the neglect by the Tories for sixteen years to develop this great industry that

has so much potential in this Province. Then they have the audacity to put those

questions to this House. They should hang their heads in shame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my question will be addressed to

the hon. the Premier. It deals with the Auditor General's report and it is

relative to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. It says: The

estates office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, the

minister's trust funds totalling $25.7 million as of March 31, 1993. Then on

page 98 it says: As a result of the review we conclude that the estates office

is not functioning in an appropriate manner with regard to registrar's

legislative responsibilities as a trustee, therefore we recommend an independent

review be undertaken of all facets of the operation of the estates office. Then

the Auditor General lists eleven different categories of inadequacies. I would

ask the Premier if he could confirm to the House that these matters are being

addressed in an appropriate manner?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report,

to which my friend from Mount Pearl refers, is of course for the '93-94 -

Waterford - Kenmount, I am sorry. No territorial ambitions at all, I say to my

friend from the -

AN HON. MEMBER: He won all the delegates in Mount Pearl.

MR. ROBERTS: He won the delegates in Mount Pearl, I am

reminded but for the '93-94 financial year. This matter came to the attention of

the officials in Justice some time in July or August of '93. Action was taken

then to begin to address the problem by bringing in - I think we had seconded an

officer from the Auditor General's department. There was some independent

accounting advice taken from an accounting firm outside the government. A report

was received, action was taken to implement the changes. It is my understanding

that the changes were made. I did not have the Auditor General's report in front

of me but here is the registrars response, which of course reflected the action

taken by the deputy minister: We agree with the recommendation that an

independent review be undertaken of all facets of the operation of the estate

office. We are pleased that an independent forensic audit of the estates office

has been completed, a copy of that final audits report was received in the

registrars office on October, 1994. While there was indicated a general lacking

of management practices, policies and procedures at the estates office, that

report concluded there was no evidence to indicate there had been any wrong

doing on the part of any staff, at the estates office and then the registrar

went on to list thirteen specific steps that had been taken to address the

issue, so, yes, there was a concern, yes, it was identified, yes, the officials,

under my direction at the time, responded in what I suggest is an appropriate

manner, and, no, there is no indication there has been any defalcation or loss

of any sort.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

The list of inadequacies that were listed - the Auditor

General said there are no formal policies for investment decisions, and

investments and mortgages have been made which exceed restrictions outlined in

the Trustee Act. Then further on it reads, it states office staff lacked the

training and expertise to perform certain duties assigned to them. Could the

minister or the House Leader comment on these particular specific aspects?

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

MR. ROBERTS: I would be delighted to, but I would say to

my hon. friend that the answers are all set out. All he has to do is to read the

report of the Auditor General. What he is doing is reading out in the House

simply one half of it. The Auditor General, doing her job very effectively -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry, the hon. gentleman for Burin -

Placentia West has trouble on a Friday morning?

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: I noticed, okay. If he would be quiet we

could get on with dealing with an important matter and not be diverted by

expressions like that. Now, let me come back. The Auditor General doing her job

very effectively raised a concern. The Registrar who is the official responsible

for the operation of the estate's office, the Registrar of the Supreme Court,

has addressed each of these and the two specific points that my friend for

Waterford - Kenmount raised have been dealt with.

Investment policies are being put in place and steps are

being taken to ensure that the staff are trained to do that job and there is an

adequate policy manual to give them guidance when matters come up. Now, I can

take the time of the House, if you wish, Mr. Speaker, if my friend wishes, to

read the entire response. It takes a full page of the Auditor General's Report.

If the hon. member wants I will, but I suggest to him he can read it. It is not

really helpful to the House to raise a question to which the answer is appended

to the question and not give the House the answer at the same time. Yes, there

was a concern, (

b) we heard about it very early on, (

c) we moved very quickly to

address it, and (

d) with respect, I think, we have addressed it fully and

completely, and I have heard no suggestion to the contrary.

If my friend has evidence there is a problem I would very

much like to know about it so that we can deal with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Before proceeding, as members know, from time to time we

welcome guests to the House of Assembly. I have received two notes this morning,

one from the Minister of Natural Resources and one from the Member for Fortune -

Hermitage, indicating that the Member for Harbour Grace and the Member for

Bellevue are celebrating birthdays today.

I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to extend best wishes, or

assume that it was the universal opinion that it was a great day for democracy,

but I thought I would draw it to members' attention for whatever actions they

deem appropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the report of the Social Services

Estimates Committee.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I notice you ruled in the House

this morning that you would like for the Member for Mount Pearl not to table

something until you made a ruling on Wednesday, because he is a Private Member.

I am just wondering what gives the Member for Trinity North the right to be able

to table one.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, it is clear under our

Standing Orders, I believe it is No. 121, that members are required, in fact, to

submit reports, so, yes, it is in order.

I draw to the member's attention, Standing Orders 120 and 121

which refers to specific making of reports by the Estimates Committee, so that

is sufficiently clear and will be part of my ruling. It is in order for the

member to file that report this morning.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Social Services Committee have considered the matters to

them referred and have directed me to report having approved, without amendment,

the Estimates of the Departments of Education, Health, Justice, Environment, and

Social Services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, report received and adopted.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of a question from the hon. the

Member for Humber Valley yesterday in the House of Assembly, some concern was

raised about the downgrading of fire services at the Stephenville Airport. I now

table information that proves it is not a downgrading but an upgrading. They are

going to replace the equipment at the Stephenville Airport with new

fire-fighting equipment.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, could we carry on with the debate, please, on

the Estimates? It is Order 2.(

a) on today's Order Paper.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

Supply on the Estimates for the Consolidated Fund Services, Legislature and

Executive Council, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

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

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have just a few comments on the - I am just wondering how

we are doing time-wise, by the way. Do you have any idea how we are doing

time-wise? How are we doing with the Estimates time?

MR. ROBERTS: I will ask the clerks, Mr. Chairman, to

compile that and to provide it to my hon. friend.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is not that I intend to be up that

long, but I was just wondering.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, the hon. gentleman only gets ten

minutes, so if he wants to use seventy-five hours, he has to use it ten minutes

at a time.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Of course; I know that. How many times

would that be, that I would have to be up here?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Only twelve hours. Well, I would get

home by midnight.

MR. TOBIN: No, the House can't sit beyond 5:00 p.m.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No more it can't; it's too bad.

MR. SIMMS: It is twelve hours on the Estimates, not

counting the nine hours for Concurrence.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, that's right. We have nine hours on

Concurrence Debate, in addition to that, which we plan to do next week if we can

reach an agreement with the Government House Leader. If the Government House

Leader would only stop being so pushy, stop pushing us and bullying us, trying

to force us out of the House for Easter, we might come to some agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I expect any time now.

MR. ROBERTS: If my hon. friend would yield.

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

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not trying to push him. My friend, the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board suggests all we have to do is go to 11:30

tonight and we can finish it. Is that what the numbers are? So we aren't trying

to push. If my friend, the Member for Grand Bank wants to go to 11:30 tonight we

can. He may be here alone, but we can do it.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) just passed an amendment to the

rules the other day to quit 5:00 p.m. on Fridays.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, we passed - 5:00 p.m. on Friday, I

believe, takes care of it, doesn't it?

MR. TOBIN: Remind the minister.

MR. ROBERTS: I can (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You can move that we now adjourn at

5:00?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) I can take care of that.

MR. TOBIN: No you can't!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, but I know you wouldn't, I say to

the Government House Leader. Based upon his performance over the past number of

years as House Leader, I know he wouldn't do that, he wouldn't resort to those

tactics. That is one thing we have enjoyed. He is co-operative. When you make

deals with him, he keeps them, never knocks the deal off the rails like the

former Government House Leader used to do, the Member for Gander. You could

never trust him. Whenever you made a deal you didn't know when he was going to

pull the rug right out from under you. But I must say, with this Government

House Leader things have been much better.

Mr. Chairman, just on the Executive Council Estimates -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Lieutenant-Governor

(inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Lieutenant-Governor's operations.

No, the Member for Bonavista South has expressed an interest in the

Lieutenant-Governor's operations publicly and I thought perhaps that he would

speak to that. I know he has some very serious concerns about the

Lieutenant-Governor's operations and the cost to the people and so on. I'm sure

that he will be having a few words on that particular matter before we clue up

and based on those estimates, Mr. Chairman.

Over the last number of days we have touched on a number of

very interesting topics in the estimates of the Executive Council, from the

expenditures on Protocol, as raised by my good friend, the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, the cost of how many chauffeurs there are attached to Works,

Services and Transportation that chauffeur ministers, in particular -

MR. BAKER: Two.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I know there are two, I say to the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. There are two. We know that, we found

that out.

MR. BAKER: I told you. You didn't find it out, I told

you.

MR. SIMMS: No, we found it out.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: All we could ever get from the Minister

of Finance and Treasury Board, Mr. Chairman, is that it is in the Estimates.

That is the answer he always gives. He gets up with his book and he says: It is

all in the Estimates. It is in the Estimates but, I say to him, try to find it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Chauffeurs, yes, we've determined there

are chauffeurs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). That is not a chauffeur, it

is a gofer.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No. That is someone trying to - I said

we've learned from our digging and prying, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, that there are two chauffeurs on call. The government has two

chauffeurs. Someone said when you walked in: Bring up about chauffeurs. The

other member said: No, he is not a chauffeur, he is a go-fer, referring to the

minister. I said: No, I don't believe that, and I'm not going to say that, which

I just said.

We've found out some interesting things. We found out that

indeed the day before, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology informed

the House that some of the Premier's travel was included -or paid for the

Premier's travel in a number of trips all around the world. The Premier had said

that all of his travel and entertainment were covered in the estimates of the

Premier's Office. We have discovered now, that is not a fact, that indeed, I

would say, a substantial amount of travel has been covered off by the Department

of Industry, Trade and Technology. So we really can't get the true figure as to

how much the Premier spent on travel the past year.

AN HON. MEMBER: It will never be found.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll never find it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You'll never find it - it is buried too

deep in the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board's Estimates.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You can't have that. Get another one. In

the - he is trying to steal my Estimates now, Mr. Chairman. I need protection

from my colleague here, he is trying to take my Estimates away.

Really, we are trying, because we will get here - this

ongoing debate, particularly by the Member for Eagle River, about how much less

this current Premier spends than former Premiers. When you try to really get to

the real figures, it is kind of difficult to do. Because when you have the

chauffeurs who are attached to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation's office -

MR. EFFORD: What's wrong with that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There is nothing wrong with it, I say to

the minister. I'm glad he has a chauffeur. He needs a chauffeur. According to

his driving record, Mr. Chairman, he should not be chauffeured back and forth in

his district. Any man who would run into a moose -

AN HON. MEMBER: Deliberately.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I did not say deliberately. I say he

listened too much to Buddy Wasisname when he said he was going to wing him with

his car. That is the only way he got the moose. He could not pass the shooting

text.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I agree, but the Member for Humber

Valley says you could not pass your shooting test so the only way you could get

a moose was to run into it with your car. I do not know if that is true or not.

Is that true? I heard the minister was one time out turr hunting, Mr. Speaker -

I know I am straying from the Estimates of the Executive Council a little bit

this morning but on Friday members are usually pretty tolerant. I heard he was

out turr hunting one time and he is not very good with the shotgun either. The

word is that he blew a hole right through the bottom of the boat, right through

the bottom of the boat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yesterday we quizzed the Government

House Leader on Newfoundland Information Services, the public relations cost to

government, which he was very forthcoming with, and information that was very

good.

Oh, there is one thing I was going to ask the Minister of

Finance, I see there is a decrease this year, which I have noticed with some

curiosity, 2.4.06 on Collective Bargaining. There is a decrease in the money.

Last year there was $580,000 spent in that particular subhead and this year they

are budgeting $486,000. Now, last year they spent just about $100,000 more than

was budgeted.

I know the Government House Leader is perhaps listening to me

but the Minister of Finance is preoccupied there with my colleague. On

Collective Bargaining 2.4.06, Page 20 of the Estimates. Last year there was

$497,000 estimated under Collective Bargaining, and then actual expenditure was

$580,000, about $100,000 more than was budgeted.

MR. ROBERTS: That was all in Professional Services.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: This year I notice you are down in

Professional Services about $100,000. I am just wondering why this year you

spent that much more, in the last fiscal year? If you spent that much in 1994-95

why would you be budgeting $100,000 less in 1995-96? Can the minister answer

that for me?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the details here,

although, of course, I can get them. If my friend wants the precise details I

can get them but I do not have them with me. The increase in 2.4.06, as the

committee will see, is almost entirely the result, the increase in the actual

last year over the Budget last year, was almost entirely the increase of $85,000

in 05, Professional Services. That is the vote to which we charge the expenses

of arbitrators and arbitrations. We pay, of course, lawyers fees and we would

also have to pay our share of the arbitrators fees, and any other professional,

if we have to retain an accountant, or a consultant of some sort in connection

with arbitrations.

My recollection is that last year there were one or two very

lengthy and difficult arbitrations. I am not sure which bills are in here but

there have been cases in Corner Brook. My hon. friend has read of them, I think,

very difficult arbitrations where a couple of men were charged with criminal

offenses and the jury found them not guilty. Well, that is the end of that. Then

these men brought arbitrations to try to get their jobs back. There was one

extremely lengthy arbitration which upheld the government's decision to let the

man go.

Then there was another man whose arbitration, I believe, is

underway. I forget the gentleman's name but the name is not important in this

context. The man has a right to arbitrate his grievance and it is being

arbitrated. This is drawing a lot of attention in the press. Bill Callahan in

the telegram has written about the man's case several times.

Now I don't have to tell my hon. friend that these things can

be very expensive. I believe the government are being represented by Michael

Harrington Q.C. of Stewart McKelvey here in St. John's. A very capable lawyer

but I have no doubt getting paid a fee he would command in ordinary work and

these things add up very quickly. So it is my understanding that is the reason.

Now why are we back this year? We just take the best guess we get on what is

likely to come and really this is one of these cases where an estimate could

only be an estimate. It is not like a salary vote where you can predict with

some certainty what you are going to need. A salary vote, my friend will note,

is exactly the same this year as it was last year. In the Budget the actual was

$5,700 less. If my friend wants more details, I will get them for him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the hon. Member for

Bonavista South. The hon. Member for Grand Bank indicated that his hon.

colleague will be discussing the Lieutenant-Governor's establishment. It is my

understanding that we have passed the estimates on the Lieutenant-Governor's

establishment.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is up to the House if they want to

revert back.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, Your Honour is right but my point

was that I know that the member had expressed some concerns publicly about that

and someone said to me about - I think it was the Leader of the Opposition -

about the Lieutenant-Governor's arrangements and so on but I really didn't know

- I don't know what the Member for Bonavista South is going -

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I just want to clarify that point, that

we have passed it and if members -

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Yes, I know that -

MR. CHAIRMAN: - wish to discuss it then it would have to

be at the consent of the House.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - but I am sure the Government House

Leader would have - if the member wants to make a few comments on it, there

would be no problem.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to revert my

friend -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, that's fine. The hon. the Member for

Bonavista South.

Yes, the House has agreed to revert back to the estimates of

the Lieutenant-Governor's establishment.

AN HON. MEMBER: So has it been passed already?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It has been passed but by agreement we will

revert back, okay?

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

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

Mr. Chairman, I voiced my opinion in the past about the

Lieutenant-Governor's house and I think it is an opinion that is probably shared

by quite a few people here in Newfoundland considering the age and the time that

we find ourselves in today. When we look at the Department of Social Services

having to take such stringent actions as to look at not paying hydro bills and

hear the kind of story that was related here by the Member for Burin - Placentia

West a couple of days, Mr. Chairman. It is even more blatant to see some of the

expenses that have been carried on and have been brought forward by the report

here on salary details for the Lieutenant-Governor's house.

I would like to read down through a couple of them, Mr.

Chairman, if you will; private secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor, $62,413 - a

private secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor. Now that is in addition to the

$100,000 that the gentleman takes in as a salary. He has a private secretary,

not only does he have a private secretary but he also has another secretary

being paid $34,263. Another $100,000 for secretaries at the

Lieutenant-Governor's house, Mr. Chairman. There is another charge here that I

would like to ask the House Leader to respond to at the end of the day or at the

end of my little spiel here today, because I am not so sure what it means;

secretary to assistant deputy minister. I don't know why that would be included

in the Government House estimates here, Mr. Chairman, in salary details, for

another $26,358. That is on page 9 of the departmental salary details.

Let's go on down to establishment operations, the gardener at

the Lieutenant-Governor's house, Mr. Chairman, makes $30,593. How many other

people do we know out there today that the taxpayers will pay for a private

gardener for $30,593. The chef, Mr. Chairman, he has his own private chef

deciding what is served, what the menu is, who eats what, another $26,000.

Seamstress - just imagine, at the Lieutenant-Governor's house there is a

seamstress being paid $20,000 a year - $20,000 a year for sewing buttons on,

cuffing up pants, making changes to a skirt, I suppose. It is ridiculous, a

blatant misuse of taxpayers' dollars.

I said there was $30,000 paid to a gardener. If you look on

down the line, there is a Gardener II as well. There are two gardeners at the

Lieutenant-Governor's house. The second gardener, a Gardener II, is making

$6,000 less than the first gardener. Just imagine.

AN HON. MEMBER: What totals are they?

MR. FITZGERALD: The total for gardeners is - let's see,

Gardener I and Gardener II - $55,000 at the Lieutenant-Governor's house.

Now all this pomp and ceremony is all very well. At one time

it played a big

part in our history. I am not so sure that it has a part to play

any more. When you go out and see the opening of a building, or you see the

Lieutenant-Governor coming here to sign a bill that has been passed through the

legislation, you see the big, black limousine parked outside, big, black

Cadillac, flags flying, the pomp and ceremony of it, who pays for it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I say to the hon. Member for Grand

Bank, his white Cadillac is being paid for by private funds from his own bank

account, I am sure. The taxpayers are not paying for it; and the Member for

Burin - Burgeo agrees with me 100 per cent back there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Minister of Health.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Health drives a Jaguar,

but I am sure he paid for it himself because he had it before he was a minister.

If I owned a Jaguar, I have to say to the minister, because I drive by his house

every day, I certainly wouldn't have it out in the salt. I would park it in the

driveway, or I would keep it out of the way until the salt disappeared.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: It wasn't there all winter, I don't

think.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it was in the garage.

MR. FITZGERALD: It was in the garage? But you have taken

it out too early. You have a nice car there. I might borrow it some time to go

down to Grand Bank. I wouldn't go to Bonavista South with it. I wouldn't take it

to Bonavista South; I would never get elected again.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got a deal.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, and I am sure the minister is

sincere when he says that, because he is a good man.

AN HON. MEMBER: He uses his Cadillac in the wintertime.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes says that the Minister of Health parks his Jaguar and uses his Cadillac in

the wintertime - so very true - but I am sure that the Minister of Health made

his money in an honest and sincere way. He was an enterprising businessman, and

I commend him for that. What he got he earned, I am sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Am I against the monarchy? Absolutely, I

am against the monarchy. It should never be. It should be done away with. Why

should we here, as Newfoundlanders, have this big building down there on

Military Road where we house a family that does only ceremonial duties?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not the party policy.

MR. FITZGERALD: It may not be the party policy, but I

speak my own mind when I stand here, and that is what we all do on this side. If

I ever got into a position of power, it is something that I would always bring

forward, that it would be something that I would want done away with. We can't

afford it any more.

We go down there, and I think it is $100,000 a year we pay. I

think that comes from the federal funds, but it is still taxpayers' dollars. We

are all very cognizant now of both provincial and federal money. We pay for the

upkeep and the gardeners and all that kind of thing, the administration support

for the establishment down there, that costs us in excess of half-a-million

dollars a year. I am not so sure if people - what would you call them, the

higher-ups, the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Elite.

MR. FITZGERALD: The elite from other countries, when they

come here, if they stay at the Lieutenant-Governor's house or not. I am not so

sure about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Some do and some don't?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not usually.

MR. FITZGERALD: Not usually, I don't think.

AN HON. MEMBER: I want to find out who these elite are.

MR. FITZGERALD: Who are those elite? Those are people who

are in high authority in other countries, I say to the minister. You wouldn't be

included. I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, you

wouldn't be included if you went to another country. You would not be considered

as an elite person. I probably would because I speak for the common people. I

would probably be considered elite by the common people, but Mr. Minister I

doubt if you would. You would have to earn your stripes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't get any anyway, Mr. Chairman. The

minister blacklisted me. He won't even allow me to meet with councils, he won't

even allow me in his office, so now I have no reason to be nice to the minister.

But I respect the minister as well. That is why I wouldn't say anything that

would be very negative towards him other than his own actions here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon? What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) find $6 million and $7

million and $8 million a year (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I know you can't, but you could have the

decency to say that if your member wanted to come and meet with him that he

would be allowed there too. That is all. You could have done that. That is only

common decency. It is a privilege and a courtesy that you should extend to your

colleagues who sit here in this House. Even though they might have different

viewpoints you should not lower yourself to such childish ways.

When questions are asked - I refer this back to the minister

as well - he and his seat mate there, the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, no matter what question is asked the finger is pointed: We will get

you, we are going to get you. How childish, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) president of the Injured

Workers Association.

MR. FITZGERALD: Same thing. Bully fashions, bully ways.

Anyway.

Mr. Chairman, if there are people here in this House, or if

the government of the day feels that we must have a Lieutenant-Governor, then

let's look at doing things a little bit differently than the way we've been

doing it. Let's put him in an office here at Confederation Building. Give him a

suite if we have to and let him carry on the ceremonial duties. Take the car

away from him, take the chauffeur away from him, take the house away from him,

take the gardener away - Gardener I and Gardener II -, take the seamstress away,

take the two secretaries away. Let's have him here in Confederation Building.

There is lots of room. Invite him up. Set him up with an office, set him up with

a suite, let him perform his ceremonial duties, but let's do it in a fashion and

a way that the common people out there can relate to.

Those are some comments that I have to make on that. Those

are my views, I would like to add, not necessarily the party views. I think it

is about time, in the economy that we have today, in the economic conditions

that we find ourselves in, when you look at 70 per cent unemployment on the

Bonavista Peninsula, when you look at people on social services with two or

three people saying that you should survive on $150 a week, when you look at the

amount of money that we are paying out to those people - and we are throwing

money, taxpayers dollars, at the Lieutenant-Governor and on his establishment

down there, on the big mansion that he lives in. We continue to go out and look

for other funding from the federal government to put up the Caboto building

where we can house our archives and our museum. What a place for it. Put it down

there, and be ever mindful of the good old days when we could afford that kind

of thing.

Let's do away with it. Let's be responsible. Let's set him up

here in Confederation Building.

MR. EFFORD: What would that accomplish?

MR. FITZGERALD: You will save $500,000 a year. The

minister goes: What is $500,000 a year? That may not be much to you Mr.

Minister, but I can tell you it is one hell of a lot to a lot of people out

there today in this economy. It is the principle of the thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is the principle of the thing to show

that we are responsible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, before I make a comment or two

upon the remarks of my friend for Bonavista South, the Committee asked earlier

where we are with respect to the seventy-five hours and the Clerks at the Table

have given me the information. I would be happy to make it available to the

House. The rule says seventy-five hours. That is one of Bill Marshall's legacies

to this House I say to my friend for Grand Bank. My friend for Grand Falls

concurs. He was probably in the Chair when the rule was adopted.

Forty-five hours have been accounted for by referral of

fifteen heads to the committees in accordance with rule. Nine hours are

accounted for by the concurrence debate so that is fifty-four which leaves a

total of twenty-one available for the debate. Interim Supply took five hours and

eight minutes, I am told by the timekeepers, and the debate up till the end of

yesterday - now, we have not talked about whatever time we have used so far

today, it was four hours, so as of the start of this morning we had eleven hours

and fifty-two minutes left.

I think that is probably what my friend for Gander, who is

pretty good with figures - when he estimated 11:30 tonight he was being a little

generous. We could probably finish this by 10:00 o'clock tonight if we simply

want to sit straight through, but I do not think anybody is very keen to do

that.

MR. TOBIN: (inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, we do not need leave of the

House to do that. My friend for Grand Falls knows what the rules permit. I am

not suggesting it. I think reasonable people could come up with a reasonable

answer, but the committee wanted the information and that is the information.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me come back to my friend for

Bonavista South. He is entitled to his opinion. Nobody would quarrel with that.

I certainly don't, but I want to say very clearly that we on this side, and I am

speaking for the ministry, and I believe I speak for all of my colleagues, in

fact I believe I speak for the great majority of the people of the Province, we

reject his view.

He very straightforwardly says he would abolish the monarchy,

sobeit. In Canada we have a constitutional monarchy and that is the system. I

see no need to change it, but if he does, get on with it I say. I am reminded of

the apocryphal story of the speakers corner in Hyde Park in London. I do not

know if my friend has ever been there on a Sunday morning? The Leader of the

Opposition has been there, I suspect, and my friend for Grand Bank. It is a

glorious thing to do if one is in London on a Sunday morning.

MR. SIMMS: They have one of those up in Toronto

(inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: I have not seen it, I say to my friend for

Grand Falls. It is a glorious tradition, an exemplar of free speech. You go

along to the Hyde Park corner, bring your own soapbox, or your own hoarding.

Literally that is what a hoarding means, and you get up and make your speech.

Some people come week after week.

Lord Soper who was a methodist minister - I think he is now

dead, but I have heard him preach there. He was then the Reverend Mr. Soper but

eventually they made him a life peer. The Queen made him a life peer. He would

go over on Sunday morning, and he would have up his hoarding with his placard on

it: repent for the end of the world is coming - or whatever was his message for

the day. He would get up, the crowd would come and then the crowd would move on.

The story goes that one day there were two or three crowds,

and over one crowd there was a socialist haranguing that we should get rid of

the Queen, she should be put out to work as a scullery maid at two pounds a

week, or whatever. Then another crowd were saying, we should cut off the king's

head, they are nothing but plagues on the body, and the bobby was there saying,

all those who want to get rid of the Queen over on this side, and all those who

want to get rid of the King over on this side.

That is the way I treat the hon. gentleman, get on with it.

Get out and make his speech. If it is his party's policy let them put it in

their platform, but we reject it.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible

MR. ROBERTS: I accept what my friend for Burin -

Placentia West says, it is just an eccentricity on the part of my friend for

Bonavista South and he is entitled to that. I am not going to get into the kind

of inflammatory rhetoric that he did. Let him do that and I have no quarrel.

Now, let me just make a comment or two about the facts of the

matter. The Lieutenant-Governor is not simply an ornament. The

Lieutenant-Governor is an integral part of the government, of the machinery of

this and every other province. The office is in the Constitution Act. We could

not abolish it in this House. We could abolish Government House. We could take

away the Lieutenant-Governor's staff. We could do all that, but we do not have

the power to abolish the office of the Lieutenant-Governor.

Mr. Chairman, other provinces do things other ways. Some

provinces have a Government House and some don't. We have one here, but let me

come back. The Lieutenant-Governor is an integral part of the government of this

Province. All of the executive government functions - and my friend for

Bonavista South has never served in the executive government; maybe he will,

maybe he won't - but all of the executive government functions are done in the

name of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. That is a Cabinet directive there,

not an Order in Council. That is the way it works. A law doesn't become a law

until the Lieutenant-Governor or his delegate sits here and gives it royal

assent.

We could create another system of government. The Americans

have a different system. There the president serves both as head of state and

chief of state. But in our system we have a prime minister who serves - I can

never keep these straight. I think the prime minister is the head of state and

the Queen or the Lieutenant-Governor or the Governor-General in their respective

offices are the chiefs of state, but I may have that transposed. I never could

keep it straight. That is point one.

Point two. The office of Lieutenant-Governor, and before it

the office of the Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador, is an integral and a

very honourable part of our history. It is a tradition which I for one would

want to carry on.

Point three. The cost of maintaining the establishment of

Government House is very modest. My hon. friend had great sport reading out the

salary details. Of course there is a staff there. Government House is a

provincial monument, it is a building with a history. It is about 160 years old

now. It is a monument. It is one which successive governors have opened up. Many

years ago very few Newfoundlanders saw inside Government House, but I guess

about in the - well, perhaps with Sir Leonard Outerbridge, the second Governor

after Confederation. In Sir Leonard's time, and down through his successors,

Government House has become very open. The New Year's Day levee, the garden

parties. Throughout the course of a year I would say that hundreds and thousands

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians go through Government House functions of one

sort or another. There is hardly - well, the court circular as it is called is a

little pretentious, perhaps - but it is - no, the Government House Circular is

published in the Telegram I believe it is each Saturday. It tells what

functions are coming and what functions the Governor will be attending outside

Government House. It is an important part of our life.

The costs are not excessive. The Lieutenant-Governor has a

private secretary who is really the deputy minister or the chief administrative

officer. The private secretary is the ancient title. The Governor has a

secretary. I don't find that unreasonable. My friend for Bonavista - South has a

secretary, and one could argue what he does is no more important than what

others do who have secretaries.

He went on, secretary to assistant deputy minister. This

comes up throughout the Estimates. If he had been at a committee hearing the

other night - and I'm not complaining he wasn't, but somebody else was, made the

point - this is the title description. The secretary to the assistant deputy

minister I would wager shown on page 9 of the salary details is the secretary to

the private secretary. Possibly, almost certainly a woman, I suspect. The person

who takes dictation, answers phone calls, files letters and prepares -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: There would be - the private secretary is

General Barnes, who is - you might call him the chief executive officer, or the

deputy minister. He comes here to the House often.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aide-de-camp.

MR. ROBERTS: No, he is not an aide-de-camp. The

aide-de-camp are voluntary at Government House. They are military and police

officers. Again, we often see them here in full fig during -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't get reimbursed (inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: As far as I know the aides do not get a -

they may get a free meal, you know, if they are down there for a dinner. But as

far as I know they are not - I assume if they travel with the Governor their

travel is paid. The private secretary is paid. He runs the office. He runs the

Governor's office as Governor.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) three, three secretaries.

MR. ROBERTS: The private secretary - sure, if you want to

call the deputy minister a secretary as well. The private secretary is the

deputy minister if you wish in the Lieutenant-Governor's establishment. The

title is called private secretary. Just as years ago I think Mr. Peckford when

he was premier had an officer called principal secretary, my friend for Green

Bay. Now, he was not a secretary in the sense that he - I doubt if he - I don't

know what he did, but he didn't take dictation and do filing and do that. He did

other things for Mr. Peckford. He was called the principal secretary. He really

functioned I guess as either a chief of staff or a deputy minister, but the

title shouldn't mislead even my friend for Bonavista South.

He went on to talk a little about the gardeners and chefs and

so forth. Government House is a very historic building. It needs to be looked

after. It is also a building where the Governor entertains. He may do some

personal entertaining; I mean, that is up to the Governor. My friend for

Bonavista South I suspect has his friends in from time to time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you do yours?

MR. ROBERTS: Mine?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your entertaining.

MR. ROBERTS: I do mine generally at my home. I would be

delighted to ask my friend for Grand Bank to join me but I have to tell him his

colleagues might look askance at that. I would be glad to have him come down for

dinner, particularly if his wife came with him. Particularly, particularly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Exactly. My wife would say that my hon.

friend's taste is better than that of his wife, and he can think that one

through and work that one through.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, my friend from Burin - Placentia West

might know about that. I think I will leave that one on the table. The two of

them can talk about that behind the Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) gardening.

MR. ROBERTS: We will plough another furrow, I say to my

friend from Grand Falls.

The Government House is not a lavish or elaborate

establishment. It is run very efficiently, very effectively. It is run with

regard for economy. I think the staff there do a very good job. I have been

there officially in the past. Sometimes I might have been there privately.

Sometimes the Governor of the day might say, come and have a bite to eat with

me. Sometimes they don't; that's up to them, but sometimes when I was minister I

was there. There is certainly nothing lavish about it, but it is done very

tastefully, very well, and very much a credit to the Province.

So what I will say simply is that while my friend is entitled

to his opinion, I reject it. There is no lavishness. There is nothing we need to

be worried about there. If we are going to have a Government House, the costs we

are incurring are the costs we must incur and I, for one, and the Ministry of

which I am a part, say without hesitation that we believe Government House is a

worthwhile expenditure of funds, and we have no hesitation at all in asking the

committee to approve the amount requested here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: If my friend from St. Mary's - The Capes has

a question, of course I will yield.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Last year they opened up parts of Buckingham

Palace for the ordinary citizen to go in and visit. Would you agree, or the

government consider, some sort of arrangement at Government House in order for

the ordinary citizens of the Province, and indeed visitors and tourists, to come

and visit the establishment as a tourism attraction?

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

MR. ROBERTS: That is a very good suggestion. I can say to

my hon. friend, my understanding is that Government House is available in three

ways. First of all, the garden parties, and there are now three or four held,

but the major one is here in St. John's, and the New Year's Day levee are public

in that anybody may come, from anywhere in the Province, who wishes to come to

call.

Secondly, my understanding is Their Honours and their

predecessors are more than willing to try to accommodate any group that wishes

to come. My hon. friend was a rural development officer, I recollect, before he

came into the House. If the Rural Development Officer's Association were having

an annual meeting and wanted to come to Government House, my understanding is

that, Their Honours, the Governor and Mrs. Russell, will do what they can to try

to accommodate, to come in for a glass of sherry or a cup of tea or whatever.

Also, my understanding is that any group that wishes to tour

the public house - now the house is two houses; the Governor lives over the

shop. I must say, I suppose I started going to Government House when I was

fourteen or fifteen, but it wasn't until I was in my fifties - I had never been

up over the stairs in Government House, into the private quarters. There are a

number of bedrooms and sitting rooms up there, but the public part of the house,

my understanding is that one calls the private secretary's office and they are

only too happy to arrange a guided tour. Now, it has to be a guided tour because

it is a home. It is not a museum. It is a working home - it happens to be the

Governor's home as well - but if my hon. friend knows of anybody who wishes to

tour the house, a group of his constituents, or young people or what have you,

my understanding is that they are only too happy to try to oblige, and they do.

The tourism

part I am not sure about, because the house is

not large. It is a big building in that it is larger than any house any of us

has -

AN HON. MEMBER: People use the grounds (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, yes. I have a friend of mine who walks

every day from his office to his work, and he walks right through the grounds of

Government House - he goes in one gate and comes out the other -and he has made

a tradition of calling upon, whenever a new Governor is appointed, and saying:

Your Honour, may I continue to walk through, instead of going down around

through the mall and around by St. Thomas Church. And the Governors, up until

now, have always said yes, so I think it is available.

Now I am not sure it would be practical - I am giving an

opinion off the top which may be worth nothing more than that - but I am not

sure it would be practical to open it on a commercial basis. I have not been in

Buckingham Palace. I have gone down with Alice and watch them changing the

guard, but my understanding is, only some of the state rooms are open.

At Government House, there are only three public rooms, three

or four. On the front of the House there is a drawing room, a ballroom, a dining

room, and the `green room', I think it is called, the old billiard room, in

fact, there along the Military Road side of the House. They are really the only

public rooms there. The Governor's study is his own office. There is a morning

room which the family uses as a sitting and a dining area, and then there are

cloak rooms and washrooms, that is the ground floor of Government House as I -

that is the public part. So I don't think it would be feasible to have tourist

groups going through, but any group that wishes to tour it, my understanding is,

the Governor is only too happy to make it available and to arrange to have a

tour. They have a group of volunteers who come in and - for example, the

ceilings at Government House are elaborate plaster work and they are painted.

They are done by the same man, Alexander Pindikowsky, who did the old House of

Assembly ceiling. He was a prisoner down at the Penitentiary and his work there,

I guess, was to go out and paint the ceiling of the House of Assembly and

Government House. But it is a very handsome house, very well kept and a credit

to the present occupants and to their predecessors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a few other comments, Mr. Chairman,

and I will be very brief on this. The minister seems to think that the

Lieutenant-Governor's position is almost cast in stone and something that we

need in order to make government function. It has been traditional and all of

that and is in the Constitution, but I am wondering if we are not satisfied to

do away with the whole thing then maybe we should start considering doing away

with the building, doing away with the residence. I say again, all the things

that he said are good and wonderful. Why can't the Lieutenant-Governor - would

it be demeaning to have the Lieutenant-Governor occupy a suite of offices here

in Confederation Building? Would it be demeaning to have him in another building

other than this great big giant mansion of a house down there on Military Road?

It would certainly save us a lot of dollars and it would certainly make more

sense.

In many richer provinces, I think of Ontario and I think of

Alberta, my understanding is that their Lieutenant-Governor stays in a suite of

offices, that is where he goes. He gets up in the morning, if need be and goes

to work. He doesn't have this big House where he has all the staff and gardeners

and what have you. Sure, it is beautiful down there and if I were spending that

kind of money, you would expect it to be no less. And as far as somebody using

the grounds for taking wedding pictures is concerned, that doesn't mean a row of

beans. There are lots of places in St. John's where you can do those things.

What an ideal building to do away with the $35 million or $40 million that you

are looking for from the Federal Government. What an ideal building to make that

into what you plan on doing with the Caboto Centre,and if it meant expanding on

it and making it different, then do that as well.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) get you sworn into Cabinet.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is no problem. I have no hang-ups

about not wanting to go in there and it is not a slight against the present

Lieutenant-Governor. It is the office, the pomp and ceremony and it is the

building that I have a problem with.

Mr. Minister, one final question: Does the

Lieutenant-Governor pay taxes?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, as far as I know, His Honour

pays taxes on any income as defined by the Income Tax Act of Canada. My hon.

friend may be referring to the fact that the Constitution Act, the original 1867

act, says that the salary of the Governor General of Canada is exempt from

income tax. That reflects the principle that the Queen pays no tax, personally,

to the British authorities in England, in Great Britain, but my understanding is

that the Governor is no more exempt from tax than anybody else. I have no doubt

he has expense allowances and they are not taxable but then again, my hon.

friend and I both draw tax-free expense allowances as members, and not only

that, further we draw tax-free expenses on a reimbursable basis, as members. My

understanding - now, I have never really looked into it - but my understanding

is the Governor is an individual like anybody else and therefore pays taxes.

I can go further, I had occasion in a previous life to look

into the issue of whether the Governor was compellable or had to respond to a

civil process. I am not talking about a criminal process, even the Queen would

have to answer to a criminal charge and that is an interesting legal argument,

but of course she would if she broke the law in some way - but the Governor of

this Province, in my judgement as a lawyer - I had occasion many years ago to

look at it for a client. The conclusion to which I came is that the Governor of

this Province is compellable as a witness, is compellable as a party in civil

litigation, is on no different footing from anybody else, even if the government

were a party to the litigation. Of course, the "even if" is important, because

the government, in effect, is the Lieutenant-Governor. When we act as a Cabinet

we are the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. That is our most formal form.

Again, that is not a new principle. There was a very famous

case in England, oh gosh, 120 years ago, when the Prince of Wales, who

afterwards became Edward VII, Victoria's eldest son, the Prince of Wales

appeared as a witness in a very unsavoury divorce case, in which he perhaps knew

more about what had been going on than he ought to have known. In any event, in

due course, he appeared in court. It caused quite a sensation at the time, the

Prince of Wales appearing as a witness in a divorce action, particularly given

that he did know a little about what was going on and the subject matter of the

divorce action. In those days, divorce actions were only adultery in the U.K.

But legally, there was no question, the Prince of Wales was a proper witness.

So the Governor stands on exactly the same footing as any

other citizen of Canada. I can't say for certain that he pays taxes on his

income because I don't know that, but I'm quite certain that he does. If my

friend has concerns beyond the question I would be happy to look into it and

undertake to get him a proper answer. The Governor-General - there is a special

section, I could look it up for him, in the Constitution act. The special

section, as I recollect, says the Governor-General shall be paid 5,000, I think

it was, tax-free. That reflects the fact the Governor-General is the Crown.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) what do you mean by

subsidize? Help pay the hydro bill and help pay the maintenance?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) money out of their own pocket.

MR. WALSH: And the receptions. By the time the year is

over most of the receptions (inaudible) - not the formal ones - but most of the

teas and coffees and so on are usually paid for by their Honours. I've know

three of the last people who have sat in that position, some representing both

sides of this hon. House, or I suppose, the House of Commons. I can tell you, at

the end of each year, there is not one who has been there that I've known in the

last three, of whom it has not cost them money personally at the end of the year

in order to serve in that position. I think one that you would probably be able

to talk to yourself very easily would be the predecessor to the current person

sitting there. But it costs them personally. You've got to be willing to write

off a fair amount personally.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the member, it costs us all

money to take

part in any organization or to have any occupation, so that is no

great thing. I ask the minister if he would undertake to find out if the

Lieutenant-Governor pays taxes on his personal income and report back. If you

don't want to report back to the House, then I certainly would like to have it.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. I shall certainly get that

information for my hon. friend, of course.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to get involved in

the discussion on the rights of the monarchy or the Lieutenant-Governor or

anyone else. I don't happen to be of the same strong belief as my colleague, the

Member for Bonavista South who, I know, if he got the chance to go down to the

Lieutenant-Governor's House, he would probably be there 11:00 for 12:00.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) the hon. gentleman (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I think he probably believes in what he is

saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I know he believes in what he is saying.

MR. ROBERTS: That is (inaudible) belief.

MR. TOBIN: It is certainly not a view shared by our

party, but our party is an open party, and we are fortunate enough to have

people like the Member for Bonavista South who, when he feels strongly on an

issue, doesn't mind speaking it. Our party is big and broad enough to let people

speak their minds on issues that they feel very strongly on.

Mr. Chairman, what I want to try to touch on briefly again is

the travel estimates. We got into the travel estimates of the Premier and

everyone else, as to what we could find there.

Now, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was very

helpful the other day, while the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board, the person most responsible for gutting the Social Services budget in

this Province - no wonder the Minister of Social Services has to have so many

meetings in the run of a day with the President of Treasury Board. It is hard to

believe, when you look at the budget of the Department of Industry, Trade and

Technology - and my quick calculations as I went through this, and I only wish

the minister was here - in transportation and communications, under the

different headings, in the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology, my

quick calculations show me that the travel budget is $1.2 million. When I go

through that, I am wondering under which heading - The Premier confirmed

yesterday that he does travel and charge it, to Asia, to the Eastern Seaboard,

to Vancouver and other parts of Canada, and I am wondering what part that comes

under.

For example, I notice that under the budget heading in the

Minister's Office, the travel is only $111,000. In Executive Support it's

$156,000. In Administrative Support it's $78,000. In Policy and Strategic

Planning it's $37,000. In Marketing - the transportation budget for the

marketing division of Industry, Trade and Technology is $473,000, up by

$172,000.

The Member for Bonavista South is back, Mr. Chairman; I would

think he didn't get invited to lunch at the Lieutenant-Governor's house, if he

did, he would be down there.

Mr. Chairman, Technology Development, $132,000 in

Transportation and Communications; $49,000 in Industry Development; $30,000 in

Strategic and Industrial Development; $141,000 in Offshore Petroleum Business

Development; $71,000 in Business Support under the Economic Analysis; $25,000 in

Economic Impact Analysis; another $25,000 in the Financial Analysis; $10,000 in

the Business Modern Development, for a total of $1.23 million.

What I would like to know - and the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology is not here, but I would like to know - where in the

department is the Premier's travel written off, under what headings? I would

suspect there is probably some of it from the marketing end of it. I would

suspect there is none of the Premier's travel coming from the minister's travel,

because the minister is never home himself. So there are questions that have to

be asked, and questions that still remain unanswered.

Now, the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of

Finance, continues to be extremely vague about these headings, and he is the

President of the Executive Council, and he has an obligation to answer the

questions in this Legislature that are asked. The President of Treasury Board

not only has an obligation to answer the questions; he has a responsibility to

respond to them truthfully, and that is not what is happening around here. Like

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, every time he got up this

morning to answer a question, it looked like he hit his head off the bottom of

the desk.

Mr. Chairman, these are questions that have to be asked, and

questions that must be answered. I say to the President of Treasury Board, Mr.

Chairman, now that he has finished his meetings, if I could get his attention

for a minute, I ask the President of the Executive Council, upon confirmation by

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and yesterday by the Premier

admitting that his trip to Asia and his expenses associated with it, was charged

off to ITT, his trip to Vancouver, to Montreal, and Calgary, was charged of to

ITT, his trip to the Eastern Seaboard was charged off to ITT, and none of it

included in the Budget, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if, when the minister gets up, he

would be able to tell me under which heading I would find where the Premier

travelled, where the Premier travelled as it relates to the travel the Premier

admitted yesterday he took on the expenses of ITT?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, thank you, very much.

Following our policy of being very open and straightforward

about those things I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that the

travel the Premier undertakes to fulfil some of his obligations as Premier comes

under the Premier's office and is included under that heading. The travel that

he undertakes to promote EDGE legislation and so on, and trips arranged by ITT,

would be obviously paid by ITT and would be included under the travel allotment

for ITT.

Mr. Chairman, obviously, as the Premier goes around promoting

the Province we must pay his airline tickets. This is not a benefit to the

Premier or anything. It is simply paying government bills that we like to do

promptly. We like to pay our bills as promptly as possible. These bills are paid

because they are legitimate travel expenses. We must carry out promotion of the

Province because this is an ever shrinking world. We must rely on the rest of

the world to sell our products and to develop this Province. We must do that. We

cannot build a wall around ourselves and simply stay in this Province and never

go outside, and try to survive totally independent of the rest of the world.

Mr. Chairman, that is not possible so we have to make use of

the rest of the world, and we have to get around. There is a cost to doing this

and the costs are paid. The expenses are as outlined in the Budget. He made the

comment, the Premier is travelling and it is not in the Estimates, and so on. It

is in the Estimates, Mr. Chairman, under travel for the Premier's office, and

where this has to do with promoting the EDGE legislation, and things set up by

ITT, it is paid for by ITT. If the Department of Finance wanted the Premier to

travel to New York to talk to Standard and Poor's, and Moody's, then I would pay

for it out of my travel allotment in finance, because he is in essence going

instead of me.

These are normal things that are done, normal proper things,

things that must be done for this Province to carry on as a Province in a world

economy. We make no apologies for it, Mr. Chairman. We are very open and very

honest about it, and everything that is done is under the proper headings in the

Estimates and is here for approval of this hon. House.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: We do not argue with the need for the Premier

to travel. I say to the President of Treasury Board that we do not argue with

the need for the Premier to travel, but what I will say to the President of

Treasury Board is when the Premier is out of this Province for approximately

ninety days there is no way his travel amounts can come from the Premier's

Budget.

I do not doubt for a minute that the Premier would like to

have it all shown upfront, but it is the President of Treasury Board, the

President of the Executive Council, that is sneaky about all this, who is trying

to cover it up. It is the President of Treasury Board who put together the

Budget that cut the guts out of the Department of Social Services and who has

people out there today being driven from their homes.

Yes, it is some kind of a Budget, Mr. Chairman, that is some

kind of a budget when you look at the Province's expenditures on highways. I say

to the member, the last year we were in government it was in excess of $50

million. The highway budget was in excess of $50 million. This year, Mr.

Chairman, the provincial contribution is $15 million, I say to the Member for

Eagle River. All it shows, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation was not able to convince his Cabinet colleagues to get the

kind of money that we could get when we were in government. $15 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What do you mean they are not getting any? I

just finished announcing last - I say to the minister, that twice in the last

month I announced when tenders closed for the ramp on Harris Drive in Marystown

and the repairs to the Beau Bois Road and the bridge in Creston North when it

closed. I announced that it closed, who the contractor was, Mr. Chairman, and

when it was awarded I announced it again on behalf of the minister. So for the

minister to say that I am not getting anything, I have announced it three times.

I don't know what he is talking about, Mr. Chairman. I got calls from people in

my district thanking me, the council and the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the minister?

MR. TOBIN: Oh yes, they thanked the minister too, my

buddy the minister, Mr. Chairman, my good friend. But for the minister to say,

Mr. Chairman -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You had it all week.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that is what we got, $15 million and there

is less than $10 million to be called in the transportation budget. I will tell

the minister why now, if he wants me to tell him. I got sixteen pages here on

transportation, I say to the minister. There is approximately $8 million left to

be called in the transportation budget because out of the $8,150,000 there is

$815,000 of that has to go to engineering which leaves less than $7 million.

There is approximately $1 million carryover, $2.2 million allocated in grants,

loans for town councils in the Province where you are buying out roads. I say to

the minister, if he wants me to announce what is happening I will tell him.

There is already $2.75 million in provincial work that has been called in the

provincial budget.

MR. EFFORD: That was announced here in the House.

MR. TOBIN: I know it was announced here in the House.

Signs, Mr. Chairman, sign improvement -

AN HON. MEMBER: $1 million.

MR. TOBIN: No, no, $900,000.

MR. EFFORD: That was in the Budget.

MR. TOBIN: That's right. That's what I'm saying, which

means that you had $15 million in the beginning, there is $900,000 for signs,

$2.75 million already announced, $1 million carryover, $2.2 million for grants

and loans and that leaves, Mr. Speaker, $8.15 million with roughly $815,000 in

engineering.

MR. EFFORD: What grants and loans are you talking about?

MR. TOBIN: To councils, where you are buying back roads.

That is not in your budget where you are buying back roads from the towns.

MR. EFFORD: That is not in the Budget.

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Chairman, the information was given

to me -

MR. EFFORD: It is the wrong information.

MR. TOBIN: Is that right? You are not buying any roads

this year?

MR. EFFORD: I didn't say I was (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is what is left. I can

tell the minister where the possible work is going to be this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where? Tell him.

MR. TOBIN: There is going to be some in Port de Grave,

going to be some in Cupids.

MR. EFFORD: How much?

MR. TOBIN: A fair bit, Mr. Chairman. The kilometres to be

done, Mr. Chairman, you cannot count them on two hands. No, Mr. Chairman, I

won't say anything else.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Is that right? I think the Member for

Twillingate might get some road work. Your member sitting next to you is not

getting anything.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, there is money there for Burin -

Placentia West, I say to the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. member have leave of the

House?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, that is what I'm saying to the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)?

MR. TOBIN: I have sixteen pages on transportation.

MR. EFFORD: How far have you got?

MR. TOBIN: First one. Mr. Chairman, I was talking about

no money in the Social Services budget. Probably a little bit off track, but it

is away from the Executive Council.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is why the Premier should fire half his

Cabinet and bring in the ones from the back benches. People like the Members for

Port au Port, Trinity North, LaPoile. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the Minister

of Health there is some truth in what he said. But I tell you one thing, that

there are rough times ahead, particularly in the health care system.

For example, I know of a person, I would say to the Minister

of Health now. I say this because I know it. There is a person who is in

hospital at this present time and one nurse on the floor that that lady is on.

She is in a cast. I don't know how many beds are on the floor, but I do know one

thing. That the other night the one nurse wasn't able to move the lady. That is

who was on the floor. One person. They weren't able to get anyone else to come

to help the lady get out of the bed, I would say to the Minister of Health. I

think that is a sad reflection on our health care system. Who is responsible for

it I don't know and I don't care. But when the situation is such that there is a

lady -

AN HON. MEMBER: You should care.

MR. TOBIN: No, I want it corrected. When the situation is

such that there is a lady in hospital - or anybody else for that matter in any

hospital in this Province. I believe it is in the Health Science Complex -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I could be wrong, but it is my understanding

that there was one nurse allocated to that floor that night.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I don't know, I have no idea. I really don't

know. There is probably only one bed - well, obviously there is more than one

bed on the floor.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: If one person in all of the health care

system in all of the Province is not getting adequate treatment that is one too

many. I want to know about it.

MR. TOBIN: You want to know about it?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: If there is only one not getting the

proper care then I want to know about it. Because that is one too many.

Everybody should get proper care.

MR. TOBIN: There is one I can tell you right now. It is

no reflection on the nursing staff that was there. They work like Trojans, Mr.

Chairman. What I was told the lady said was: No wonder there are so many nurses

off in this Province with bad backs. Because the way the nurse was trying to

move that lady the other night alone, it was unbelievable.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) and turned her over. She

died. She is being buried now this morning. They came in. Perfect care. Up at

St. Clare's.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know. I'm not saying

that. I don't argue with that, and I'm delighted to hear it. Because I can say

what my experience with hospitals and people who work in hospitals is that they

are extremely care-giving individuals. Our Province is fortunate enough to have

such dedicated, committed and highly qualified people as we have in nursing

staffs in this Province. We do have the best.

The problem is we don't have enough. That is why I say to the

Minister of Health that the budget for his department will not suffice to

provide to the people of this Province who need adequate health care,

particularly those who are in the hospitals. It is not sufficient to deal with

it. When you have a person who wants to get out of bed, needs to get out of bed

in the nighttime, and there is only one - I was going to deal with the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in a couple of pages I have for him. I have

a couple of pages on Municipal and Provincial Affairs too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Don't be long. Mr. Chairman, I have, look,

provincial transportation, look, federal expenditures on highways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is what I'm saying to the Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, this is stuff that is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: There is the total expenditures on highways

since 1979.

AN HON. MEMBER: In health care you will see it go up, I

bet.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I don't know about the health care...

Look at the Province's expenditures on highways. Don't tell me that is going up,

then. That is the year government changed. Look; that is where it was, and look

where it has gone since then.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I am on leave.

MR. EFFORD: You are on leave? No way, Mr. Chairman.

MR. TOBIN: I am not on leave, boy, don't be so foolish.

Getting back to the Minister of Health again, I tell him that

is a very serious situation that exists when people are in the hospital, in bed,

and there is only one nurse there to try to treat that person. As a matter of

fact, I appreciate that the minister - and I may get the information that I am

talking about today, and probably the person will agree to give me the name and

the whole bit so I can pass it on, but it is no reflection whatsoever on the

nursing staff - none whatsoever.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Okay, and I appreciate that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty yielding to

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to let him speak.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: The hon. member said he is on leave. If he is

on leave, I withdraw it.

MR. TOBIN: You will what?

MR. EFFORD: If you are on leave, I withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to take a few minutes to respond to some

of the points being made by members opposite in regard to the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation and the monies which are going to be spent

this year on roads.

I guess I have received representation from just about every

community group in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with a request to

have roads not only built, but maintained and serviced for the coming season.

The one thing I would like to be able to do, and the one thing I have a

responsibility to do, is to build roads wherever the need is required. The

problem that I have is trying to find the money to build the roads, and through

the budgetary process, and the decisions government has had to make again this

year, I have no choice only to be able to spend the money which has been given

to me by the budgetary decisions, and that figure is $15 million.

Honourable members opposite keep talking about $40 million

and $45 million, and that the minister is not able to convince Cabinet to give

him $45 million or $50 million like they used to do in order to build roads. I

can respond to that and explain it.

I haven't pressured Cabinet; I haven't gone to Cabinet and

requested $45 million or $50 million, and I based it upon this decision: We can

only spend the money in which the revenues allow us to spend within the

Province. Otherwise, we would continue on the same format as did the previous

government, and I base it on the same principle upon which I operate my own

personal life.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, seriously. If I am earning $50,000 - and

that works out to, what, $3,000 a month clear money after taxes - and I want to

do something beyond which my salary can allow me to do, and my budget can allow

me, I would have to borrow that money from a financial institution. Then, if I

kept on doing that for everything that I wanted to do, for the luxury life that

I wanted to live beyond my means, beyond my salary, I would keep borrowing that

money, and it would come at some point in time when I am not able to pay that

money back, and you have placed yourself in a very serious financial situation

personally.

You would do the same thing operating a business. I was in

business for seventeen years, and I had to operate my business within the

revenues generated by that business, and if I went beyond that I had to go to

the banks. If I over expended my financial ability to operate the business

within its own means, I would have to go to a bank and borrow more money, and

during the seventeen years I was in business I saw many, many businesses go into

bankruptcy for operating in that manner.

I remember one competitor that I had in the identical same

business that I operated, he started up and in the second year of operation, on

Christmas, he gave his wife and children and babysitter a trip to Florida -

those were the tickets that were put under the Christmas tree that morning -

plus a new car and all of these luxury things that they couldn't really afford.

My wife, my people, asked me: Why don't you do the same thing for us? Your

competitor is able to do it. I said: I can't afford to do it. A year later the

guy was bankrupt.

So you can only do what you can afford to do. If you go

beyond that somebody has got to pay for it. Government is in no different a

position. The former government operated in that same manner. Borrowed money

because of the political pressures from the general populace to do the things

that they wanted to do. As a result of that type of operation that government

went in for the ten years that the Peckford Administration was in, that is the

reason why year after year the Province kept going farther in debt. Where the

ability to pay back the loans and the interest became a major burden on the

taxpayers of this Province. The voters of this Province and the people of this

Province saw that. That is the reason why they didn't vote in that government

back in 1989. That is the reason why they voted in this government. Because they

charged us with the responsibility to make the right decisions based on the best

interest of their future and the future of this Province, which is the future of

the people who live in the Province and their children and grandchildren to

come. I don't want to be a part of an administration that is not going to have

any consideration for the people of the Province today and on into the future.

I would be the most popular minister in the Province if I

were able to go out and do every

section of road that is required by every MHA

on both sides of the House. The reality is I'm not going to be able to do that.

The reality is that we don't have the money to do that. The reality is that we

are only able to afford to spend $15 million this year. It is not tasteful, but

it is a fact of life. You can't do something based on borrowing. There comes the

problem that we've all had for the last number of years. We've borrowed

ourselves to the limit and we can't afford to do it any more. The party times

are over and we have to make some hard decisions.

People, most people, the majority of people in the Province,

realize that. Because if they did not realize that this government would not be

in power. The Opposition would be in power as they were for ten years. The

people of the Province know now mismanagement is not the way to go, overspending

is not the way to go. You've got to have fiscal management, you've got to have a

responsibility to the future of this Province, to children, our children, and

our grandchildren. I for one do not want my children paying for my selfishness

or my greed or my overspending or my irresponsible actions as a minister in a

government, or my grandchildren into the future. Because if we spend the way the

Opposition spent for the years it was in power then our children and our

grandchildren would pay for those errors and those mistakes.

If we can only spend $15 million on roads now, you can

imagine what they would have to spend, Mr. Chairman. They would have absolutely

nothing at all. In fact, there would be no Province in which they would live.

I've always said, I would like for my children and my grandchildren to have a

choice to live in this Province. If they so wished to move out, fine; but if

they choose to stay, fine, that is their choice. If we continued on with the

same management and the same way of operations as those people on the opposite

side, they wouldn't have a choice. They would have to move out of this Province.

I've got more faith in the young people and more confidence that they want to

live here in this Province, they want to be able to participate and carry on

with some degree of confidence that we've left a format and a manner in which a

government should be operated, and that it is going to be a choice for them, not

something that is going to be forced upon them.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) Western Bay.

MR. EFFORD: Western Bay? The hon. Minister Reid's

district.

Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, I don't need to go on any longer. They

just have to begin to realize that financial management is not a matter of

choice now; it is forced upon us to make the type of decisions that we have to

do to protect the future of the Province. We have no choice. I don't want to see

the future young people of the Province, as I see the two Pages sitting down in

the front of the House, I don't want them not to have a choice. We have to make

the decision that they will have a choice to be able to carry on a life in this

Province if they so choose. That is the reason why we are sitting on this side

of the House and those members are sitting over there, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to make a

few comments on this. First of all, I suppose I would be remiss if I didn't make

a few comments about what the minister just said. There are things you can agree

with, such as when the minister says you have to be more careful about the way

we spend money, and that over the years former Tories wasted money. We can stand

here all day long, for the next twenty-four hours and myself and the minister

can go back and forth to former Tories who spent money, to former Liberals and

how they spent money. How long is that debate going to go on, Mr. Chairman?

One jumps up and talks about a Sprung greenhouse, another

jumps up and talks about Churchill Falls, and we go back and forth across this

House with this foolishness day after day. The truth is that all governments and

all parties have wasted money and made grave mistakes, but that does not take

away the excuse for right now, and especially this particular minister when he

talks about transportation. Here is the reality today. We are not talking about

seventeen years ago when my colleague, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes was

eleven years old. I don't want to talk about that. I don't even want to talk

about the Sprung greenhouse for the next eight months in this House of Assembly.

I wasn't in support of any Sprung greenhouse - I wasn't then

and I wouldn't be now. The thing about the Sprung greenhouse, not to be bragging

about it, is that for three years, or however long it was, I cannot remember

because I didn't follow it that closely, just some in the media as most hon.

members did, Mr. Chairman. But for three or four years, whatever it was, 300

people or so worked. It was a mistake, yes, but they worked and we lost $20

million or whatever the number was.

Then we can go on back to the Churchill Falls rhetoric that

we hear every now and then, and talk about that for the next couple of months.

You know, all these things are past when we talk about mistakes.

I would like to talk to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation on this day in this House of Assembly, about the issue of

transportation. The minister knows full well that the roads in this Province are

deplorable. I can speak for my district, and I am sure when I talk about things

in my district, how the buses were held up a couple of days ago because of a

rough road, and the letters I read out from the children about going over a

scrub board - I know there are other members in this House who feel the same way

about the roads in their districts. So I want the minister to deal with the

situation of the day, and not keep going back seventeen years, ten years, and

six years ago, and cigars in the private dining room and so on.

I would like for the minister to act on what is happening

here now. The truth is, if the minister would come upfront, come clean, and

forget the foolishness and the history lessons of former governments, his, ours,

and everybody elses, if the minister would fully admit that the amount of money

he has for this year for road construction in this Province is unacceptable - it

is unacceptable to the minister, I would say, Mr. Chairman, but the minister

just doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up here and say it. He

doesn't have it.

It was months ago when I first got elected in here that I

really thought this particular minister, from accounts in the public, would be

one of those ministers with the intestinal fortitude to stand up and speak his

mind whenever he wanted to. Well, over the last few months, especially for some

funny reasons that I can guess at, the minister seems to have lost his edge on

that. He is not the champion of the people that everybody thought he was at one

time. One time he would speak out.

Mr. Chairman, I refer back to the Private Member's motion

just a few days ago on the loan fisheries department. Since that debate people

have mentioned to me that they expected the hon. the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation to stand up and support that particular Private Member's

bill. That was just another example of how this minister has - and the phrase

was used over there, `yellow tail' or something to that effect - how this

minister has leaned to that particular stance now, Mr. Chairman.

He was one of the champions of the people in the fishery and

everything else, and there are people now in this Province who are surprised,

totally shocked, some of the people, that this particular minister didn't stand

and really speak out on what he believed. I don't know if he is one of the nine

names or not, or if there were nine names on that particular petition. But I

believe personally that this particular minister wanted to support that bill in

principle but he wouldn't do it because maybe it was a member on this side who

brought up the motion. That is just my personal belief, Mr. Chairman. I know the

minister can speak for himself, but I wonder if he really wanted to stand up and

speak to that particular motion.

When I heard the minister talk today about his Budget and how

much money is to be spent this year on roads, I know he is not satisfied with

the amount of money he got and, I know that the minister may be - as a matter of

fact, in a little bit of defence of the minister - he may even be a victim of

circumstance and timing when it comes to road construction in this Province,

because the truth is, the timing of road construction now in this Province has

come to a peak of need. It is needed more in this Province than in the last

maybe eight to ten years. The roads have been deteriorating, and with the loss

of pavement, degrading, of course, and there are so many gravel roads that need

to be upgraded or paved, the minister finds himself in a predicament with regard

to time, as far as road construction is concerned, and the fact is, we need it

more this year than in many years. So now, all of this is accumulating on the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and at a time when he really

needed the support of his Cabinet colleagues for more money for road

construction, he didn't get it.

In all defence of the minister -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) one way or another.

MR. SHELLEY: I will finish now in a second; I will give

him his word.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, what I say is that the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, with the measly $15 million that he is going

to have for this year, the truth is that he is bursting inside to say to the

Premier, and say to his Cabinet colleagues, `This is a ridiculous amount for my

department. We need double, maybe triple that amount this year just to keep in

touch with the reality of the poor condition of roads in this Province.

Every part of the Province that you go, people who talk about

the roads say: My god, we have that great champion of the people, that Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation, and he got $15 million. How much clout

does he really have in this Cabinet? That is what people are asking. This great

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, how much clout does he really

have with the Premier of this Province and that inner circle of that Cabinet

that dishes out the money? I wonder, how much does he really have?

Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is that the people of this

Province who really believed the minister at one time to be the champion of the

people and speak out, and were really glad when he first entered the Cabinet

under the portfolio of Works, Services and Transportation, they were excited.

They were all glad. They said: The minister, he has a lot of clout; he will put

his point forward.

When he came up with $15 million this year for provincial

roads in this Province, a lot of people, a lot of big supporters of the

minister, started to wonder. They started to say to themselves: I wonder how

much clout does the minister really have?

I do say, in defence of the minister, that I believe he is a

victim of circumstance and timing of road construction in this Province. I

believe that he is coming onto the scene now when we need more money than ever.

I think even the minister would agree with that, that we are at a time now where

road grading and pavement and so on is needed more in this Province than ever,

and I think that the minister, in all fairness to him, pushed, scratched and

grabbed for a lot more money in the budget in his particular portfolio, but the

bottom line is he just couldn't get it. He couldn't get the support of his

caucus and the Premier.

Mr. Chairman, he talks about how he balanced the Budget and

so on, how really misleading is that? There is also another question that may be

asked. When you put forward a balanced Budget in a Province such as

Newfoundland, what kind of message, I wonder, is that sending to our federal

counterparts and their federal cousins? That is, maybe, a concern that I heard

raised in one of the national programs; what kind of message is that sending to

our Federal Government, the people we rely on for federal funding? We here, down

in Newfoundland, we are all okay; we balanced the Budget. As a matter of fact,

you cut us a bit more; we can handle that, too.

I will always remember, back a couple of months ago, when - I

don't remember the exact quote, but - the Premier made a comment I read in

The Western Star , as a matter of fact, a letter he had written to Paul

Martin, Minister of Finance for Canada, to say that basically - I can't remember

the exact quote but to the effect: Go ahead Mr. Martin, we are going to be hard

pressed not to support the cuts that you propose for this Province. So in other

words, come on with it, we can take it. Now what kind of message are we sending,

Mr. Chairman, when we talk to our federal cousins in Ottawa. Maybe that is the

problem here now, maybe that is the catchword that they are federal cousins in

Ottawa now and that is the whole difference. I wonder what the Premier would be

saying if there were opposite parties in Ottawa, Mr. Chairman. So maybe a little

cosying up to the federal government here may be a problem for us in the long

run. What kind of signals is that sending, for this Province, to the federal

government?

Well, Mr. Chairman, that is just on transportation and that

particular part of it but I would also like to make a couple of comments before

I clue up here. I know there are just a couple of minutes left. I just wanted to

mention something last night that I mentioned in the estimates debate while the

Minister of Natural Resources is in the House. I said it last night and, Mr.

Chairman, I am going to repeat it as often as I can repeat it and that is how it

relates to forestry. The federal agreement, which expires -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave?

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave? Just a couple of minutes to

conclude?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Just to make a couple of remarks, Mr.

Chairman, to conclude on the forestry. Last night I mentioned to the minister in

the estimates that - and I think that a lot of members in this House and I think

even the minister agrees with me to a large extent. What we can do is another

thing but on the issue of the federal agreement expiring and that the federal

government will not be supporting the extension of that particular agreement,

the CFDA agreement. Mr. Chairman, that may have some devastating effects on this

Province as it pertains to forestry.

We all know that the CFS Centre, which I mentioned in the

House in Question Period, that will also close in March of 1997. Mr. Chairman,

that particular centre was solely responsible for identifying the infestation in

the forest for this year. Mr. Chairman, the minister also concurs too, that that

particular centre has done some fantastic work in this Province over the years,

in infestation, in silviculture and so on. It is a real shame to see that that

centre is going to close down. It has been in operation in this Province since

Confederation.