November

22, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 60

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all thank my

friend from Humber Valley in his kindness in letting me use his copy of the

statement I am about to make because mine became misplaced. If ever there was

the wisdom of the practice we follow of giving members opposite a few minutes

advance notice of statements here it is.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kevin Smith died early Saturday morning,

November 18, while being held in custody at the St. John's lock-up. Two

investigations are now underway into the circumstances of his death. The first

is being conducted by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary: the second is being

carried out by my officials, and in particular the adult corrections officials

directly responsible for the operation of the lock-up. The investigations are

separate and apart from each other, and are being conducted independently.

Any announcement of the outcome of the RNC investigation will

be made by its representatives, in the usual way. I shall inform the House, and

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, of the results of the investigation

which is being carried out by my officials as soon as I'm in a position to make

a public statement. All that I can say about the internal investigation at this

time is that the two correctional officers who were on duty at the lock-up at

the time that Mr. Smith was taken into custody have been reassigned to other

duties in another correctional facility pending the outcome of the

investigations.

I can inform the House, too, that there will be a judicial

inquiry into the circumstances of Mr. Smith's death. The Director of Public

Prosecutions will initiate the inquiry process at the appropriate time, by

making a request to the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court that a judge be

appointed to conduct the inquiry. I shall make the judge's report public in the

usual way, of course.

Thank you, Sir.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There has been some questions since last weekend concerning

this tragedy that happened last weekend at the lock-up here in St. John's and

there have been some questions asked since that. I have asked a couple of times

the minister some questions in the House on it. One of the things that I find in

the minister's statement today is that usually, looking back on some of the

cases that I have seen in the last number of years, usually a judicial inquiry

is something that is not held until after the police investigation, whether it

is RNC, RCMP or what have you. There are two separate investigations here,

really. There is one by the RNC and the other by the corrections officials at

the lock-up who are responsible really, for the operation of the lock-up.

Those two investigations are not finished but yet the

minister is going ahead with a judicial enquiry. That tells me, Mr. Speaker,

that there is something really suspect in this particular case. I'm glad to see

that the minister is, before those investigations are finished, making sure that

there is going to be a judicial enquiry into this matter. I say to the minister

that it is a step in the right direction.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: However, we will have to remain -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WOODFORD: However, Mr. Speaker, just to conclude, the

minister also said in his statement that he will make public the two

investigations by the other departments, the RNC and the corrections officials.

That will shed some more light on why we need a judicial enquiry into this

particular matter. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

take this opportunity to inform the hon. members that November 19-25 is Drug

Awareness Week in Newfoundland and Labrador and throughout the rest of Canada.

Drug Awareness Week is a national event organized to create awareness about

alcohol and other drugs.

Our provincial theme this year is: F.A.C.T., Families and

Communities Together. This theme emphasizes the importance of both the family

and the community working together to prevent alcohol and drug abuse through the

promotion of healthy lifestyle choices.

Throughout the week various seminars, workshops and other

activities are planned in schools, community organizations, as well as in

various workplaces, to heighten awareness of some of the issues surrounding

alcohol and other drugs. As parents, family members, friends, educators and

members of the community, each of us has a role to play in terms of promoting a

strong drug prevention message. Many of the initiatives planned for this week

emphasize prevention and include involvement with youth groups, school

activities and information sessions for parents and teachers.

Throughout the year the staff of Drug Dependency Services

within Community Health offers many programs and services in areas such as

Allied Youth, peer leadership and education and parent education so that young

people may make more informed decisions about alcohol and other drugs. Staff

also provide counselling services for families that are directly affected by

drug and alcohol abuse in addition to providing treatment services for those

with alcohol and drug dependencies. These programs help of course to improve

communications between families and build support mechanisms in the community.

Abuse of alcohol and other drugs is a concern that affects

all of us. As members of the community, I urge everyone to become involved in

the prevention of drug and alcohol abuse and in the promotion of healthy

choices.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Drug Awareness Week

Committee and the various community and youth groups that have worked with the

committee in organizing Drug Awareness Week activities. I ask hon. members to

join me in offering support for a week of successful and informative activities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly it is commendable to have a national Drug Awareness

Week and to focus upon some of the major problems out in our society today. This

government collected $76 million last year in taxes from the Liquor Corporation

and another $66.5 million in tobacco for a total of $142,500,000 collected in

alcohol and tobacco tax in this Province, and when you look at the Budget, just

in prevention and promotion alone, we see a measly $442,500 spent last year on

prevention promotion and the Budget was $463,000. They decided this year to

allocate less in the Budget again, another decline of $13,000 to $429,600 when

we take in taxes of $142 million. I do not think it balances.

When you look at it overall, in community health services

last year with a total Budget that includes drug dependency which is only one of

many, many items in this area of $10.6 million spent when they budgeted $20

million. In other words $10 million that was budgeted was not spent to take care

of numerous areas in community health services. If you look at the long list

that is there drug dependency is only one small area of many, including

prenatal, postnatal, child health clinics, school health programs, disease

control, education promotion, speech pathology, continuing care, a whole host of

these, when we spend only in the thousands of dollars a year in this Province

for alcohol and drug prevention when we take in $142.5 million, I think it is

criminal and is not going to solve the problem in the long-term.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Could I just have leave to finish, Mr.

Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think we have to look at the long-term

cure for illness and disease prevention here in this Province and it can only be

done by advancing more monies and forces in this particular area, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I call Oral Questions, I would like

to welcome to the gallery, on behalf of all members, thirty-five Canadian Law,

Democracy and Co-op Education students from Holy Trinity High School in Heart's

Content, from the District of Trinity - Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Along with their instructors, Maureen

Robinson, Fred Driscoll, and the bus driver, Jude St. George.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Minister of Finance, but once again

he is either late or absent. In the absence of the Minister of Finance, I will

address questions to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, news broke outside the House that the government

is making radical changes in its capital works program for this year, news of

yet another desperation move to compensate for an incomplete and inaccurate

March Budget. Will the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation tell the

House the status of his capital works program for the year, and in particular,

will he tell us the status of the Philip Place office conversion?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition first that

this news did not break yesterday. This decision that was talked about on the

news media today and yesterday was made when the Minister of Finance made his

announcement that the government had a $60 million deficit to deal with. I then

made the decision there would be no point going on and spending further money,

and making that deficit larger, until the Minister of Finance had the

opportunity to revisit and look at the financial situation of the Province.

Secondly, it is not a result of inaccurate or incomplete

budgetary decisions last year. It is a result of seventeen years of

mismanagement by the former government which put us $7 billion in debt, and we

now pay out almost $600 million a year in interest. We are trying to get the

finances of the Province in order.

The third part of the question: What is the status of Prince

Philip Place? That is continuing on. The contract is let; we cannot stop it. If

we did, it would cost the government just as much money, the taxpayers just as

much money. That will be completed next year.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The other day, I asked the Premier why he spent $26 million

this summer that was not authorized in the March Budget. He couldn't give an

answer. Today, I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: Why are

you spending mega millions of dollars to convert an office tower in St. John's,

called Philip Place, for civil servants when you are supposed to be reducing the

size of government in proportion to the reductions you are imposing on

hospitals, schools and municipalities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Very simply, Mr. Speaker, it is a good

business decision for the taxpayers of this Province - a very good decision. It

is too bad the former Administration hadn't made some of these decisions,

because one of the buildings owned by a minister of the former government, from

which we are now taking people out of Natural Resources and bringing into Philip

Place, we were paying for that building $500,000 a year in rental

accommodations. What is happening, in the case of Natural Resources is, the

people that we are moving into Philip Place is costing the taxpayers of this

Province approximately $1 million annually. The total renovations of Prince

Philip Place is $6 million. Amortize that over twenty years and you are talking

$20 million versus $6 million a year, a saving of $14 million to the taxpayers

of this Province. We have to make the right decisions because they have made the

wrong decisions for seventeen years.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Philip Place will be known in time as Efford's folly, I say

to the minister. So the government is proceeding with the conversion of the

Philip Place office tower for government offices.

Let me ask the Minister of Health: What is the status of the

expansion of the Gander Hospital which is planned, which is well along with the

foundation laid and considerable structural work done? What is the status of

that major expansion of the Gander Hospital which was promised to Gander voters

during the by-election campaign a couple of months ago, along with a threat that

if Gander voters elected a PC candidate, the government would halt that

expansion? What is the status of the expansion of the Gander Hospital?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the Gander Hospital project

was announced two or three years ago and it was a project that was designed to

be spread over about a five-year period in terms of its completion; that was the

original plan and nothing has changed in that respect as we speak. The contracts

that have been let are ongoing and will be completed. We will not be breaking

contracts that will add further financial injury to the Province or delay to the

project, but in terms of the completion of all capital projects, as my

colleague, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation just indicated,

all capital projects that have contract components that are not yet let will be

reviewed in the context of the fiscal decisions that have to be made by the

Minister of Finance. If there is a delay or an aborting of any particular

project in the Province, I would think, including that in the health care

sector, the announcement will be made at the appropriate time. But there has

been no decision in that direction at the moment and I would caution the

minister or anybody else not to read anything into it. It is just that we are

reviewing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The Connaigre Peninsula, I say to the

hon. member -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I say, the Connaigre Peninsula project

is like all -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the Minister of Health.

How can a government that cannot stick to a budget, that has

been consistently, year after year, off the mark, how can a government that

cannot meet a construction

schedule be trusted to manage the radical changes in

St. John's hospitals announced this summer?

When I asked the minister a month or so ago about his plans

for the St. John's hospital consolidation, he said there were no plans. I ask

him today, at the end of November: Are there plans yet? What is the estimated

capital cost of enlarging the Health Sciences site and adapting the St. Clare's

Hospital so that the services now housed at the Janeway, the Children's Rehab

Centre and the Grace can be merged at those two sites, at the Health Sciences

and St. Clare's?

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

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

I don't know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition

has an attention deficiency problem or whether she has a short attention span or

whether she has next to nil retention capacity in her mind, in her memory. That

question was asked two or three times in two or three different fashions by the

hon. the Member for Ferryland about a month ago.

I indicated clearly at that time in the House and to the

media that we anticipate that we will have some preliminary planning to put

forward around the end of this year. The Health Care Corporation of St. John's

is moving forward in a timely fashion and within a

schedule that we laid out on

June 29 regarding restructuring, and that was to bring forward about the end of

this year some preliminary plans to move from there to have the whole thing

finished by the end of December 1998.

That plan is still on

schedule and the end of the year is not

the first of December or November, it is not the end of November. The plan and

what I laid out as being the time frames in the past remain. They are the same

today as they were a month ago, and they probably will be the same next week if

you want to ask the question again. But we do not have anything new to add to or

take away from the answer to the question that was given three weeks ago.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary for the Minister of Health. So the Minister

of Health still can't even estimate the capital cost for the changes in St.

John's hospitals. He confirms that there is still no plan but he says there is a

plan for a plan. I would like to ask the Minister of Health about the status of

plans for the Connaigre Peninsula health centre and the announced new hospital

for the Lake Melville area.

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

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

To the Connaigre Peninsula, last year in the Budget we

provided some money to start the first phase of any facility planning, and that

is the programming component. The programming component for a new facility on

the Connaigre Peninsula has been completed. The next stage is obviously moving

to preliminary and then detailed drawings. That will happen if and when we have

the money to do it.

With respect to the Melville hospital project, that is a

project that is of the highest priority in terms of government. It is a project

that has been well known to be needed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: If the hon. member would listen, he

would be infinitely better off than mouthing off.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: With respect to the Melville project, if

I can answer the question without distraction, the project is one of high

priority with this government. Government has announced, on occasion in the

past, that the hospital will be built. We will build that hospital when we have

the money to pay for it, and the people of the Province are able to commit

themselves, through the tax dollars, to that type of a project, and that

announcement will take place when we arrive at a decision as to what point we

can commence construction of that hospital.

It is not on hold in the sense that it is being revisited in

terms of the need. The need is clearly evident. The need is there, and the

project will be done as soon as we can afford to do it.

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

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

for the Minister of Health.

I ask the minister: Does he agree with the decision of the

Health Care Corporation of St. John's to get into the fast-food business by

buying a Tim Horton's franchise for the Health Sciences Complex?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that

the people of this Province should take some encouragement in, it is the fact

that this government is committed to active and meaningful participation of the

private sector in terms of delivering services to the public of this Province,

and if the Health Care Corporation, in its wisdom, has chosen to involve itself

with a Tim Horton's franchise, or services from a franchisee at the Health

Sciences - as they know they are, because I was in there Sunday and saw it

myself - then I can only commend the Health Care Corporation for being one of

the leaders in participating in the broad economic plan that we have laid out as

a government, and that is to strengthen and encourage and have involvement of

the private sector in every area of public service, including the selling of

donuts at the Health Sciences, if that is what it takes.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Peachy of the Health Care Corporation said they are also

looking at buying a Wendy's franchise, and she also indicated the cafeteria is

not making money. Now if it is not making money and there are no profits, that

means that health care dollars that are allocated there are being used to offset

the cafeteria, for health care services.

Now recently the Health Care Corporation spent $100,000 to

buy a franchise, and renovations to accommodate it. They just spent $250,000 in

Happy Valley - Goose Bay, including a house and renovations, without a

cost-recovery plan. Now does the minister feel that such expenditures as these

are acceptable use of health care dollars?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the institutional side of

health care spends about $600 million a year. That is what it takes to run the

hospitals and long-term care homes of the Province. The boards that we have in

place -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The eight institutional boards and the

four community health boards have been given a broad mandate with significant

responsibility to deliver a whole range of services from the institutions that

they have responsibility for managing. One of the services that has to be

managed and provided in a health care institution, in a hospital, is food

services, whether it is dietary to the room, or whether it is cafeteria type

services for patients and other people to use, they have the responsibility to

provide that, and I have every confidence that the activities of the Health Care

Corporation in St. John's with respect to delivering on that part of its mandate

is consistent with good fiscal management, and consistent with meeting a need on

an appropriate basis, and the moment if and when it ever turns out that is not

an appropriate thing then we will address it then.

The hospital in Goose Bay, I have indicated in the House that

in my judgement, and in the judgement of government, the house situation in

Goose Bay could have been probably something that they should not have gotten

involved in, at least not providing the services free, and that is being

corrected; let me assure you, and if anything else is taking place

inappropriately it will be addressed as well, but the Health Care Corporation is

doing fine, and I commend them for what they are doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister's appointed health care boards are designed to

give the boards a perceived arm's length operation from government, and then

those boards can advance health care towards a privatization process. Now I ask

the minister, is this part of your plan to get health care boards to do

something that government does not have the political guts to do?

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

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

I am not sure where the hon. member's mind is really. In one

breath he is criticizing us and wants the government to get directly involved in

the direction of selling donuts over at the Health Sciences and in the other

breath, he is asking me whether or not, we are trying to get them to do

something that we don't want to do.

No, we are not. We have put health boards in place because

health boards represent the community by virtue of their existence and their

structure. There are people in the community who have an interest in and have

knowledge about health care.

The health care boards have a broad mandate, a significant

mandate; they have a lot of responsibility, they spend $600-plus million a year

and we are not asking them to do something that we would not do. We are asking

them to deliver health care and provide services on a basis that is consistent

with government policy and on a basis that we can support them in the way they

are doing it, and we work together as a partnership in health care not in an

adversarial relationship or in a relationship that you do this because we don't

want to do it. That's not the case.

We are very much a partnership-type structure in health care

and this government generally believes in partnership, private sector,

community-based services, community involvement in various aspects of what goes

on out in the day-to-day life of our Province and the boards are doing a good

job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland, on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister operating at perceived arm's length has just

kicked out a private enterprise contract and now is operating a state run Tim

Horton's franchise here. If that is promoting private business, I got the

signals from the minister all mixed up, I say to the minister.

Now, it is common practice that large corporations donate to

worthy causes and to institutions to gain access for their products. That's a

commonly accepted thing across this country.

Now, is the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, to the

minister's knowledge, the recipient of any contributions or kick backs from any

such companies?

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

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

I am fairly comfortable -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I am confident that the Health Care

Corporation is not involved in receiving kick backs from people with whom they

are doing business, but it is an interesting question as to whether or not they

are getting any type of a charitable contribution or donation. I do know that

Tim Horton's organizations across Canada have a foundation and they do a lot of

good things in terms of children's services, in terms of children's camps, that

sort of thing. I would only think it would be very magnanimous of them if they

made a contribution to the health care system; I would be happy to hear that

they were doing that in our system but to the question, I will undertake to find

out if in fact there is an arrangement there that is in any sense out of the

ordinary, and if it is, I would be the first to certainly share it with the hon.

the member.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The adage: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

We are trying to promote healthy eating and focus on wellness

and prevention rather than sickness and treatment. We are trying to remove

non-health foods from our school system and from the workplace where possible.

Does the minister feel that allowing fast food operations in

our hospitals flies in the face of his department's quest for a healthier

lifestyle?

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

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

I can't comment in any great detail as probably my colleague

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture might be able to do as to the

relative value of the content or the mixture that goes into a donut. I do know

this, that donuts are tasty, I know they are attractive to look at, I know that

there are a lot of them sold and a lot of them eaten.

We are not promoting them as being an item that will

automatically translate into a healthier lifestyle, but neither are we at a

circumstance where we are going to condemn them as being something that is not

fit to eat. I think they fit somewhere in between.

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, and it is a question regarding the snowplough

operators.

Has there been any safety training courses provided to the

one-man operators now that the wingman and the mechanics are let go?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Has there been any training for the one-man

operators?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I had difficulty hearing the hon. member's question but I

believe he asked me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask hon. members to refrain from interjecting and

from talking across the Chamber while Question Period is in progress.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I understood the question right, have there been any

training programs put in place for the operators of the ploughs, for one-man

plough? Yes, there has.

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

on a supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday there was a training course at Spaniard's Bay which

approximately twenty-five operators attended, including operators from

Whitbourne, Avondale, Placentia, and the Heart's Content area. Could the

minister confirm this and explain to the House why there was such poor planning

regarding safety training, and these people getting training after our first

major snowfall?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that there was

a training program that went ahead in Spaniard's Bay yesterday. I would hope it

did because it is good for my district, but if it did I commend the people out

there for having the wisdom to put a training program in that area because there

are a lot of ploughs out there in the Conception Bay area, but that was not the

beginning. If it happened in Spaniard's Bay yesterday it was not the beginning

of the training. We started training programs back early summer once the

decision was made to take the wingmen off the ploughs, to have one operator. We

do not need two men to drive one truck. When we made that decision we decided to

put some training programs in place. They have been ongoing all summer and they

will continue, even after the second, third, fourth or fifth snowstorm, which I

am sure we are going to have later on this year.

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

Extern on a supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Just another example of the poor planning

of this government, to give people safety training after the fact. The layoff of

the mechanics and the wingmen was to save money for Works, Services and

Transportation. Could the minister inform the House how much extra money has

been spent on equipment, how much extra money has been spent on training, and

how much extra money is now being spent on television ads under the minister's

signature?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: I cannot tell the hon. member how much money

is being spent on all of the things he said, but I will answer the question in

this manner. First of all there was a very good decision made when we took the

wingmen off the ploughs. We have only so much money to run the Province. We do

not have the ability and we are not going to go borrowing money like drunken

sailors. We are responsible financial people, so if we went out and borrowed all

the money that hon. members are saying we should be borrowing instead of having

a $7 billion deficit we would have a $12 or $14 billion debt. That is the way

you would do it.

Now, what we are saying is that we are taking the money that

we would otherwise spent on having two people driving the one truck and we will

give it to the Minister of Health so he can provide a better health care system

in the Province, so we are spending taxpayers dollars more wisely.

As for the ads on television I think that is money well

spent, a few thousand dollars, collectively by the way, government is not

spending all of that money. As a result of the accidents last winter, and the

hon. Member for Mount Pearl said we were murdering people, that is what he said

last year, I called all the industry together, trucking companies and everybody

sat down in a meeting, and collectively they said they would contribute towards

ads, because one of the difficulties we have is drivers changing from summer

driving to winter driving. December and January months are the worst months for

accidents, especially December month, so we are running a few ads: adjust your

speed according to the conditions of the roads. I think it is money well spent.

If we can spent $20,000 and save one life it is worth it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour but

he is not here today, nor is the Premier or the Minister of Finance, so I will

ask, because of the urgency and seriousness of the issue, I will ask the acting

Minister of Employment and Labour to respond to the question.

Mr. Speaker, the town of Baie Verte and the surrounding

communities have a long history in the mining industry. As a matter of fact the

asbestos mine first started its operations in 1962 under Advocate Mines. The

last company to operate the mines is a company known as Terra Nova Mines

Incorporated which ceased operations November 13, 1994, over a year ago. Now,

since that time thirty-five miners who have worked at the mines for over thirty

years and who are over the age of fifty-five have been trying to obtain benefits

from the federal/provincial agreement under POWA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to

ask the acting minister and get an answer quickly on what the status is for

those miners.

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, just briefly to say that I don't

know the details other than that I do understand that the applications under the

Program for Older Worker Adjustment that the hon. member refers to sometimes do

take a fair bit of time in verification of dates and so on. If it is that period

of time we will have it checked out and I will get a report for the hon. member.

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

Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the minister

has to take it under advisement and he doesn't have the details, but he said he

is aware of it. I can tell you I'm aware of it because I get calls on a

continuous basis every time I visit my district.

These miners who have worked for over thirty years are

deserving of a compensation package as well as anybody I can think of in this

Province. I have been in continuous contact with these workers and their

families, and I can tell the minister here today that they are at the end of

their rope. Their UI has expired. By the way, for a lot of them it was the first

time they've ever claimed UI after thirty years of working. Just over the last

few days and few weeks these men who have worked for thirty years - I know them

personally - had to go the welfare office to try to pick up a check to get

through this winter.

This is over a year from the day. I would ask the acting

minister now - and as a matter of fact, I will plead with the minister - on

behalf of the thirty-five miners on the Baie Verte Peninsula to take quick

action with the Minister of Human Resources Development in Ottawa, Mr. Lloyd

Axworthy, to resolve this problem immediately so these miners can retain their

dignity and not have to go to social assistance after thirty years of slaving in

a mine.

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will try to

undertake to do exactly that. As a matter of fact, I will have a call placed to

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations' office this afternoon to see if

we can get an immediate update as to the status of it.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If my memory

serves me correctly this House passed the amendment to Term 17, the education

referendum question, passed this House October 30 or October 31. I'm just

wondering if the Government House Leader could inform me as to when that

particular resolution was forwarded to the federal government.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, first of all a statement, and

then a statement of understanding. The resolution was sent forward by the Clerk

of the House at the direction of the Speaker because that is the appropriate

channel of communication.

My recollection is it was adopted here on a Tuesday night and

it went - Tuesday afternoon - and it went the following Friday week. I'm having

my gown tugged, I'm not sure. It went very shortly thereafter. It was necessary

to have it printed in a formal way, because that is what protocol requires in

this case we are told, and then a letter that was done from the Clerk of the

House, or the Clerk wrote a letter and sent it to the Clerk of the Privy

Council, the hon. Ms Bourgon.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

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

would gather that the resolution was forwarded to probably the Privy Council.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, the Clerk of the Privy Council.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, but I just want to ask - the

Premier has told the people of this Province and told this House that he

expected the resolution to pass the federal Parliament by the end of this

calendar year.

My question for the Government House Leader is: Has there

been any monitoring of the situation in Ottawa? Could the minister tell us

indeed where it is, when the Parliament of Canada is expected to deal with it?

Because my information tells me that it has not yet reached the Speaker's level

up there. The order would be the Privy Council, Speaker, Clerk of the Commons

Committee, and then to the Journals branch to be placed on the order paper. It

is not yet at the Speaker's level. I'm just wondering if the minister could

comment on that.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I can't respond to the details

of the hon. gentleman's statement because I don't have that knowledge. What I

can say is that I understand the Premier has had conversations with Mr. Tobin.

The Premier's statements -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. gentleman for Bonavista South

doesn't want to hear the answer I'm still prepared to give it. Mr. Speaker, the

Premier has had conversations with Mr. Tobin who is the Newfoundland member of

the Cabinet of Canada. The Premier's public statements speak for themselves. The

Prime Minister I know has been away from the country. I know, we all know. I

believe yesterday was his first day in the House of Commons in the last two or

three weeks, so I don't know whether the Prime Minister has made any response of

any sort on it as yet.

The other point I would make is to say to my hon. friend that

whatever the protocol chain may be - and I don't pretend to know that; he may

have had more knowledge than I because he was part of an Administration, if

memory serves me correctly, that actually effected a constitutional change by

means of

section 43 back in 1987 but the important thing is to get the

government to allocate time of the House of Commons because the time in the

House, as here, is largely within the control of the government. Now I cannot

give him more information because I don't have it but he can be assured that,

(

a) we are pressing and (

b) we have every reason to believe, as the Premier

said, that the matter will be dealt with expeditiously and quickly.

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

for one quick supplementary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me

ask the Government House Leader this, and it is only supposition, if this matter

does not past the House of Commons and the Senate by the end of the calendar

year, is it government's intention to proceed with reducing the number of school

boards in the Province from twenty-seven to ten? Could the Government House

Leader comment on that or give us an answer or whatever - in the absence of the

Minister of Education - because there is a desire, it seems a willingness in the

Province, for a reduction in the number of school boards. So is it government's

intent to proceed with reducing those numbers anyway, even if our resolution

does not pass the federal system?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I learned a long time ago not

to attempt to answer a hypothetical question and my hon. friend from Grand Bank

acknowledged that his question is hypothetical. What I can say to him though,

which may help to give him the information that he may need to use, is that the

school boards are constituted by the present Schools Act. They in fact take the

form of a

schedule to the act. The act says they cannot be changed without the

consent of the denominational education commissions. So should the

constitutional amendment not be accepted and not come into effect

MS VERGE: Change the act.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we could change the act

but we cannot change Term 17. That portion of the act, I say to the hon. lady

from Humber East, who was Attorney General and I would have thought was aware of

the legal position but let me lay it out for her in case she isn't. She was

Education Minister as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. The constitution of the school

boards is very clearly a Term 17 right. The Schools Act, in that particular,

simply puts into statutory form one of the very clear Term 17 rights. That is a

right that the denominations possessed at March 31, 1949. So whether we could

change the act or not is of no consequence because this House cannot change the

boundaries of school boards or any matter in Term 17 without the consent of the

denominations.

What I would say to close, is to quote a remark that Mr.

Pearson used when he was Prime Minister, he said, `That's a bridge we will fall

off when we come to it.'

Notices of Motion

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, move,

pursuant to Standing Order 50, that the debate or further consideration of

second reading of Bill No. 31, entitled "An Act To Amend The House of Assembly

Act And The Electoral Boundaries Act", standing in the name of the hon. the

Minister of Justice, and any amendments to that motion for second reading of

Bill No. 31 shall not be further adjourned, and that the further consideration

of any amendments relating to second reading of Bill No. 31 shall not be further

postponed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MS YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide answers to

questions received from the hon. the Member for Menihek concerning the

unfortunate misprinting of a fax number in our departmental phone directory.

Client information was inadvertently sent to a Wabush company instead of our

Wabush district office because of this error. In September, the company involved

informed our Wabush district office that they were receiving our faxes, and the

Wabush office attempted to make this error known throughout the department. The

attempt to correct this error was not successful in reaching all fifty of our

offices and our facilities throughout the Province.

In light of this problem, new procedures will ensure this

type of unfortunate mistake need not happen in the future, and all staff are now

aware of the correct fax number for our Wabush office. Unfortunately, we could

not accurately be provided with the number of faxes received, or the dates on

which they were received; however, the company did assure us that all faxes

received were either forwarded to our Wabush office or destroyed. I would like

to commend the company for acting in a responsible manner.

I would also like to assure the member opposite that we will

be contacting clients who were identified in these faxes, to inform them of the

information which was sent in error. Since information about clients is

confidential and personal, I am sure he will agree that it would not be

appropriate to discuss it in this public forum.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this is Private Members' Day

and it is the turn of the members who sit to Your Honour's right. I understand

my friend, the Member for Green Bay has succeeded in putting his motion into a

form that is acceptable to the Chair, and perhaps then you would be good enough

to call it, Sir.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader is correct. I guess the general

form of my motion is what can be described as a non-confidence motion in the

government. I was advised to tone down certain of the phrases in the resolution,

and the resolution as amended - i.e. toned down to lessen the damage to the

Liberal Party - reads as follows:

WHEREAS the government's balanced budget is now a deficit

budget; and

WHEREAS part of the budgetary problem is caused by cuts in

federal transfers about which this government has said little; and

WHEREAS another part of the problem is due to the

administration's failure to cut waste in government; and

WHEREAS the government has also failed to keep its commitment

to reduce costs by significantly decreasing the number of seats in the House of

Assembly; and

WHEREAS government's answer to its budgetary problem has been

to download the burden onto municipalities and severely cut front-line health,

education and social services;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this hon. House condemn this

government for:

a) its approach to Ottawa;

b) its handling of government's finances; and

c) the effects of its actions on the well-being of our

citizens.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, this is a general motion which

expresses non-confidence in the government, basically in its handling of the

Province's affairs.

The first

WHEREAS refers to the fact that the balanced Budget

is now a deficit Budget, and this has become a repetitive pattern with regard to

this particular Administration. They have a tendency to bring in relatively rosy

Spring budgets. Somehow, God, Mother Nature, the feds, or somebody throws a

monkey wrench into the works somewhere throughout the summer and they have to

bring in a fall correction to an otherwise rosy budget picture.

Mr. Speaker, I remember some years ago when the Assembly was

in the Chamber upstairs, the Member for St. Barbe district had been in charge of

the House and made somewhat of a technical faux pas in the handling of the

House's business and got caught out on a boat. The Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes, at the time, put together a little poem, `The boy stood on the burning

deck\Wracked with indecision\He called out Point of Order and he should have

called Division.' While there is another poem that you might call the Liberal

right of spring: `The boy stood on the burning deck\Wracked with indecision\Bite

the Budget bullet now or await a fall revision.' Mr. Speaker, that is what we

are into now, the annual fall revision. `Bite the Budget bullet now or await a

fall revision,' Mr. Speaker, that is what we are into. I will sing it at the

conclusion of today's remarks.

Mr. Speaker, we are, as I said, into a repetitive pattern of

rosy budgets. Unfortunate news throughout the summer months culminating in an

admission by this government that they didn't know, or someone tricked them,

someone pulled a fast one on them, or the economy of Ontario dipped or something

happened to bring about a deficit which they have to deal with later in the

year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you make that up?

MR. HEWLETT: Yes, I made it up. At the time this Budget

came down, I did a story with my local newspaper in the spring and the headline

they put on that story was simply, `Is this an election Budget?' I remember

flying on the airplane out to Deer Lake to visit my district and I sat next to

the current Minister of Education. I was talking to him about it and I said, the

way you painted this rosy picture, one would think that you are going to go to

the people in an election probably later in the spring or maybe even in the

fall, and the minister said, `Oh, no, no, no.' Ordinarily, I think that would be

the case, but the current Premier we have is fixated on four years and we

couldn't possibly go to the people under four years. Any other Premier, we

possibly could with such a rosy Budget.

So, Mr. Speaker, obviously, this rosy Budget was somewhat of

a public relations event. I sat here in my seat and watched the former Minister

of Finance say that for the first time in history since we joined Confederation,

the Province is bringing in a balanced Budget. The government members,

especially the Member for Eagle River, were on their feet with a standing

ovation, a big round of applause, reminiscent of the round of applause they gave

Brian Tobin for driving the Spanish off the high seas. We all know, Mr. Speaker,

what happened there. The Spanish left but when they left they took their fish

and their fines. They took everything back and now they are suing us for false

arrest. And that round of applause for Mr. Tobin had about as much validity as

the round of applause for the Minister of Finance.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we have is a fictitious yearly spring

right where they bring in a false, cooked up, doctored budget which, as the year

goes on, unravels and they have to bring in some corrective action in the fall.

Now, one of the reasons given for the Budget shortfall, of course, were federal

transfer cuts, various cuts, health, education, equalization from the Federal

Government. Most of the provinces in Canada, especially the poorer provinces,

their Premiers and their governments have a tendency to stand up and fight the

actions of the Federal Government when it negatively affects their particular

province. This government has been singular in its absolute silence in the way

it deals with the Federal Government. Now, the Premier, at times, seems to

wholeheartedly agree with certain policy positions on the part of the Federal

Liberal Government, which are impacting negatively on the Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have a relationship with Ottawa that is

too cosy, that is really unhealthy for the well-being of this Province. We are

always seeing the best of situations in this Province when you have a government

at the provincial level generally whose political stripe is different from the

one in Ottawa. This allows the Provincial Government to stand up and fight for

things related to the Province more freely than if it is constrained, especially

if the two governments at both levels tend to be Liberal.

Liberal governments of whatever, be it municipal, provincial

or national stripe, have a tendency to stick together and put party stuff before

the relevant jurisdiction involved. We have seen this time and time again. When

the Liberals were in Opposition, they didn't mind nailing federal PC

governments. They were always easy on federal Liberal governments. Now, in

office, they are even easier on federal Liberal governments. So, part of our

problem is not only the cutbacks from the federal level, Mr. Speaker, but the

quiet, acquiescent way that this particular government roll over and play dead

every time they gets bad news from Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, this government claim and pronounce themselves

loudly throughout the Province that they have good management of the Province's

fiscal situation. They admit they are top-heavy in terms of the management in

this government. There are a good many managers, far too many managers for the

number of front-line employees, and I gather that may be one of the groups that

will take a hit when Budget adjustments are made shortly. While there has been

an official freeze on hiring through the Public Service Commission, literally

hundreds of Liberal Party hacks and supporters have come in through the back

door and been put on the government payroll in terms of temporary employees.

There are a lot of temporary employees on what is called a long-term temporary

situation, if that is not a contradiction in terms. One would hope that when the

Budget axe starts to fly in a few weeks, these people would be among the first

to go, insofar as their position in the system, not being direct political

staff, was achieved illegitimately by doing an end-run around the Public Service

Commission.

We have other instances of waste. We had a lot of money

spent, millions, this summer, on the referendum. Last year, we saw several

million dollars spent on a failed plan to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro. In the first term of this government, they spent millions trying to force

amalgamation down the throats of many municipalities in the Province. They have

construction projects on the go that seem to boggle people's mind, like Philip

Place. The Minister of Health described the hospital project in Gander as a sort

of long-term construction project. One has to wonder if the purpose of that

particular project was health care driven, or was it because it was in the

former Minister of Finance's district, some sort of glorified make-work project

not so much based on health care needs but based on the political needs of that

particular minister who has since departed this House.

Certainly, in the by-election in Gander, had the truth about

the hospital project and the truth about the defence cuts that were coming, come

out, I don't think the result would have been as it was. George Baker on the

federal scene was only too willing to point out the cuts coming in UI and the

military cutbacks, but on election day in the Gander by-election, George was on

the phone the entire election day getting long-term supporters of his on a

personal basis to come out for the current Liberal Member for Gander.

So, Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder just where the waste is.

So far, most of the cutting in government has been on the front-line, and the

middle ranks of this government have been swelling, if anything, over the past

little while.

Another part of the budgetary problem with this government is

that they promised a significant reduction, probably something in the order of

$1 million a year with regard to this Assembly, a matter we are debating now, a

matter on which the Government House Leader brought in a closure motion this

afternoon to limit debate, having slugged it through two nights until 10:00,

mainly to cover up their shame. They want to get this through the system

quickly, they want it to be in place for the next election. It was doctored to

make it as good as they could for the Liberal Party. Instead of saving $1

million on an annual basis they spent $500,000 to come up with a paltry saving,

but to develop a set of districts tailor-made to the convenience of the Liberal

Party.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line on all of this has been cuts in

government services to the people of the Province. The cuts in terms of

government have been in layoffs on the front-line in health, education, social

services. The people who deliver services to the general public have been the

ones to take the full impact of the Budget axe since this government has come to

power.

Municipalities recently got a big hit in terms of their

Municipal Operating Grants, the grants to municipalities have been eroded

steadily over the last number of years. This government, in failing to get its

own house in order, has found it convenient to pass its problems down the line

to municipal governments on an ongoing basis and, as I said, the recent

pass-down to municipal governments was severe and caused considerable outrage

and uproar among the mayors and municipalities in this Province.

Health care - what more can be said? On a daily basis, there

are questions in this Assembly about continuous cuts in health care, absolutely

abysmal planning in health care, and one has to wonder where it is all going to

stop. It has gotten to the point now where there are not sufficient nurses and

service deliverers are on the front line in health care. One has to wonder where

they are going to cut next. I would suggest, in the upper echelons of the health

care system, at the management level if there has to be further cuts, but it is

no good just to cut, alone, Mr. Speaker, we need some significant planning, some

prioritizing of what needs to be done in health, but the watchword of this

particular government has been, clumsiness with regard to their spending

activities, planning activities have been practically non-existent, and they

have been lurching around from one crisis to another.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we have, in a nutshell, is a government

who have basically failed to keep their house in order in terms of the finances

of the Province. They have done, I will give them credit, a fairly good public

relations job in pretending to be tough-minded managers of the people's money

but, for the most part, it has all been a charade, it has all been a public

relations facade and what we have behind the scenes is a total lack of planning,

crisis management, a wimpish approach to cutbacks coming from the federal level

of the government and just a general callous disregard of the effects of all of

these items on the general public of the Province.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation keeps

making speeches about how we have only so much money and we have to do this and

we have to that. He says that every year several months after the balanced

Budget when the so-called fake, rosy, balanced Budget has all gone to pieces and

they have to do emergency patch up on the situation. If the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation is a senior minister of this government and

understands the fiscal realities as he claims to do, then, Mr. Speaker, why

can't he have some influence around the Cabinet table at Budget time, and bring

in a realistic Budget that will last the whole year through?

Instead, Mr. Speaker, we are stuck with the Liberal right of

spring: `The boy stood on the burning deck\Wracked with indecision\Bite the

Budget bullet now or await a fall revision.'

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I came in at the end of the hon.

member's few remarks. Make no wonder, Mr. Speaker, at the problems in this

Province that we have.

For an hon. member to introduce a resolution in this House as

he did today - which is his right; he is an Opposition critic, and he has a

responsibility to the people who elected him to perform his duties as an

Opposition member, but at the very least, he also has a responsibility, as does

every Opposition member, to perform those duties which some level of credibility

- and that's the key issue here, some level of credibility.

Now, when I hear the hon. member saying that I, as the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, playing a role as a minister in

the government, should not be wimpish in making decisions, should make a

decision, in budgetary decisions, and in regards of what happens in the rest of

the year, to follow through with those decisions, not to be able to react to a

certain situation if the Federal Government decides, in our mid-year of a Budget

being announced, that they are now going to change the transfer or equalization

payments to the Province, that we should not react to that - that is what I mean

by a level of credibility because, the people of this Province elected us to be

the government, to make a decision on behalf of their best interests for the

future.

They had long enough to put up with these wrong decisions,

with these foolish decisions, with seventeen years of decisions that drove us

farther and farther and farther in debt. Now, if we have a massive debt in this

Province, we have to live with it but we have to do something to be able to

control it and not let it grow any larger, and no government is going to be

popular in making decisions that are going to cause a deficit to be under

control or cause a debt of a province to go down. And that is what we are doing,

causing a debt of the Province to be under control, not to enlarge it, not to

let it expand so that, as I said so many times, that the future generations will

have to pay the piper. That is what it comes down to.

We can go on and on, and be as irresponsible as was the

former government members when they were on this side and not sitting where they

are now. Thank God, they are over there and not over here now, because if they

were over here now and acted the way they say we should act, then you know there

is only one thing that would happen, the debt would grow, and grow, and grow. We

do have a difficult time in this Province. I have often referred to it as if I

were back in private business and I knew of a company that was going into near

bankruptcy, or having major financial troubles, and I made a decision to take

over that business. That is a sensible thought, that you want to expand your

business and you are going to try to pick up a business that is now in financial

trouble because, number one, it comes pretty cheap, but the first obligation

that you have when you take over a business that is in financial trouble is to

put it back on its feet before you do any major expansion. You have to run the

business on a day-to-day basis, you have to keep it afloat so there is a certain

cost to that, as the government is trying to maintain a level of service now and

there is a cost to that.

Before you go out and make any major expansions, or any major

changes to that existing business, get its financial position under control.

Operating a government is no different, get the financial position under

control. We cannot go out and borrow money which we cannot pay back. That is

only common sense. I could not, if I were operating a business, go out to a bank

and say I want a loan of X number of dollars - hundreds of thousands of dollars

- when the business is not capable of paying that money back. That is what it

amounts to. It is a simple business financial decision.

Now, the hon. member opposite introduces his resolution to

try to discredit the government for the decisions that were made. I don't need

to be argumentive about it; I need to state a few facts. I need to talk about

the debt we have. I need to talk about the revenues that are coming in. I need

to talk about what would happen in the future if we were not making these

decisions. I think the one thing we are comfortable with is that for the most

part, the average citizen in this Province - the citizens of this Province,

understand the position the government is faced with.

They understand that revenues are down, the demand for

services are the same as they always were, the transfer and equalization

payments from Ottawa are less, but we still have a responsibility to provide a

reasonable level of service. That is not difficult for anybody with any level of

common sense to understand, with any degree of common sense. Everybody would

like a raise. Every civil servant in this Province would like to make more

money. Everybody in private industry would like to make more money. We all, as

human beings, have that little bit of greed in us where we want more, and there

is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with people wanting to get

more than they now have. There is nothing wrong with people working harder to

prove they are capable of doing the job and expecting more remuneration for it,

but the bottom-line is that government has a financial problem, the same as most

financial corporations.

I remember just a few short months ago one of the larger and

most successful businesses in this Province, Newfoundland Telephone, Newel, had

a financial problem. Things were happening there and they knew they had to make

some changes to get their house in order. They didn't go to the markets and

borrow more money to pay off those problems. They made some rational, logical

decisions in reorganizing its operation, making the essential operations more

cost-effective, and at the same time, deliver the services to the people.

In some of those instances, they made some cuts by way of

layoffs, but what they did was, they looked at the people on staff and those

people who were close to retirement they offered an opportunity to be bought

out. It was a private company, a private business in this Province which had

some financial problems. They couldn't give the raises that the people wanted,

they couldn't give the bonuses that the people would normally get - they had to

make some hard decisions. And everybody in the general public and the people who

work with Newfoundland Telephone, NewTel, co-operated and understood.

Now, compare that to what government has to do. It has the

same problem. We have, not the same, but a similar problem where there are major

financial responsibilities and decisions that must be made. Could we go out and

offer everybody a 5 per cent or 10 per cent or a 15 per cent raise? Could we go

out and give everybody bonuses? Could we go out and say: You did this last year

and we are going to give you more things in your collective agreement? We can

hire more staff here. That is not sensible. It doesn't make any sense in my

book. So we said: Let's bite the bullet for a few years. Because the good part

about is, Mr. Speaker, is there are better times ahead.

That is why hon. members on the opposite side are losing

credibility. Because they are preaching doom and gloom all the time. They don't

look at -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell them about the new poll that's out.

MR. EFFORD: Do you have it there? I will read it. They

don't look at what is ahead for us. They don't look at the point, given two

years down the road, when Hibernia comes on stream, when we start pumping oil,

when Voisey's Bay comes on stream, when there is a new smelter built, when Terra

Nova starts to be developed, when the fishery comes back. And that is not a

long, long ways ahead. I can go on and on. Look at all the new businesses

started up in this Province over the last four or five years, the number of jobs

that have been created by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to

create a whole new economy - new waves in the future businesses, it is now

happening.

There is where the Opposition is losing credibility in not

being able to understand what this government is doing is called short-term pain

for long-term gain. What they did was short-term gain for long-term pain, the

complete opposite. Because they made political decisions, major expenditures of

money, for their own political advantage, which is what I'm calling short-term

gain, but caused a long-term pain on the Province. That is what happened -

long-term pain on the Province. That which we are going through now is what I am

referring to as long-term pain. That is the reason why we have to make the hard

decisions. That is the reason why we are in a major financial mess today,

because the decisions were made for short-term gain inflicting long-term pain on

the people of this Province.

They didn't do it to me as a minister, or an elected member

for the District of Port de Grave. They did it to the taxpayers of the Province.

I'm only one small piece of the whole system or the puzzle. Every man, woman and

child in this Province is a part of the problem. They are suffering. The major

financial decisions that were made by the former Administration are now being

suffered by every man, woman and child in this Province, and will be for some

time in the future. Thank God, we are here making some hard, fast decisions that

are in their best interests to try to get it under control.

If we could only get that $585 million that we are paying out

in interest. If I had that in my capital budget next year to put into road

construction, to put into building construction, to put into building

maintenance across this Province, just think about the number of jobs that would

be created across this Province. That is only one year. We pay out each and

every single year in excess of $550 million to $580 million in interest payments

alone. Mr. Speaker, that is one awful lot of money in anybody's context, in

anybody's imagination. That is one awful lot of money.

When they took over in 1972, the debt of the Province was

less than $1 billion. When they completed their term after seventeen years the

debt of the Province was in excess of $7 billion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Joey (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: At the end of Joey's days, with all the

infrastructure being built up in this Province, new schools, new hospitals, and

other things being built, there was less than $1 billion. At the end of the term

there was in excess of $7 billion. Now, we have a population of less than

600,000 people - 550,000 - with a total debt of in excess of $7 billion. Now, I

don't know where I am living, if I am living in the real world or not, but I,

for the life of me, cannot understand how anybody can stand in this House on the

opposite side and demand that we spend more money, or be critical of a

government that is making decisions not to further increase that debt.

As I said last week in another speech, in another debate in

the House, just let us imagine if we were going to borrow more money just to

make people happy. If I went out to my district tonight and I made an

announcement that I am going to spend $1 million next month, in Port de Grave;

the next month $1 million in North River; the next month $1 million in paving in

Clarke's Beach or whatever, I would be a great fellow. I would be one of the

most popular ministers or MHAs that ever was in the district that they

represent.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are, you are.

MR. EFFORD: But not through spending foolishly. The

margin of victory that I got in the last election was simply because they trust

me and have confidence in me as one individual in the system making decisions in

their best interest. They trust me and they know that I have some credibility in

protecting the interest of their future, that I am not going to be an individual

persuaded by the forcefulness of the Opposition, persuaded by the indecisiveness

of the Opposition, to make the right decisions.

That is what I was talking about when I said at the beginning

of my remarks that the hon. member is not being seen as credible, to put a

motion on the paper which he did today, not being seen as having any

credibility, because when you simply ask a question: How much does the Province

owe - not the government. Premier Clyde Wells and his ministers don't owe the

money any more than the Page and any more than the members opposite, or any more

than any citizen of this Province. We all owe the money. We are only hired by

the voters of this Province to administer and make the right decisions - simple,

not hard to understand - and if we don't do that, come the next election they

will fire us; they will vote us out - simple - and if we make the right

decisions with their best interest in mind, then they will have the good, common

sense to re-elect the people who are making those right decisions, basically

hiring and firing, basically having confidence in the people you elected to make

the right decisions. Politicians are normally regarded as not being capable of

making the right decision. Why did it happen? It happened because they spent

seventeen years being`mix-mangled', `twingled' and `twangled' around by a group

of people opposite who couldn't make the right decision, by a group of people

who drove the debt of this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. EFFORD: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. EFFORD: By leave just to clue up?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Can't take the truth!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave; the hon. member doesn't have

leave.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few words on this

resolution introduced by my colleague, the Member for Green Bay. Nothing is new

with regard to the speech just given by the hon. the Member for Port de Grave -

absolutely nothing new. The only suggestion I would make is that he should get a

tape made, and we will allow him to put the machine on the desk, and just push

the button and play it. Every time you get up to speak, put on the tape and it

is the same thing, seventeen years of Tory mismanagement. That is all you hear.

Well, the hon. member talked about our children today as

paying the price for those seventeen years, from 1971 or 1972. The children of

today are paying a price since 1989. Since 1989, six years of complete

mismanagement - no governing, just housekeeping, that is all, absolutely

nothing. Two years spent on the Constitution, absolutely nothing, no government

at all, none.

Mr. Speaker, if we had back the $700 million or $800 million

a year that is coming from Churchill Falls in this Province, we would pay the

interest plus pump another $200 million or $300 million into the economy of this

Province every single year. That was done by a Liberal government, that was a

Liberal policy. When I looked at the Quebec Hydro's report three years ago and

saw $870 million in profit going to another Province and we here looking for a

hand-out from Ottawa, we looking for equalization payments from Upper Canada

from the so-called well-to-do, from the Albertas of the world, the Quebecs of

the world and the Ontarios of the world, and we here begging on our hands and

knees and an administration of members opposite have the gall to stand in this

House and talk about mismanagement over the last seventeen years. Mr. Speaker,

wake up and smell the roses! Wake up!

The people of this Province should be reminded of that every

single day of week. It is the worst travesty ever, the worst travesty and

tragedy ever, Mr. Speaker, to be bestowed on a Province. It was done by the

Liberal Party of this Province which members opposite are affiliated with. So

don't get up talking about seventeen years. Talk about the last six or seven

where you could have done something. For a minister of the Crown to come in here

today and talk about a $60 million deficit - something that has occurred nine

months after you brought down a Budget? God help this crowd, Mr. Speaker, if

they are in for seventeen years, if they got a $60 million deficit after nine

months. God help the people of this Province, the children of this Province and

our grandchildren, $60 million in nine months and don't know what's wrong.

Everybody in the Province knows what's wrong, Mr. Speaker, there is nobody

working. If you don't work there is no revenue. If you don't work there is

nothing to come in.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A good one to talk about the debt of

seventeen years, putting her in $60 million in six months.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is time the people of this

Province - and it is going to have to be told day after day, week after week,

month after month until it gets through to people. This Administration has done

nothing to stimulate the economy of this Province and everything to stymie small

business in this Province today. There is no one working.

I was talking to a university person in Corner Brook the

other day who went over on the ferry October 15 or 16, went across the Gulf, and

every year for the last eight or ten years he went over to meetings in Nova

Scotia. He said you can walk around the boat anywhere. There was hardly anybody

on it. This year when he went, the ferry was filled with people leaving

Newfoundland and Labrador and going to the mainland, somewhere in Upper Canada

or out west. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is happening every day of the week, and why is

it happening? The minister got up and talked about the Opposition preaching

gloom and doom. Mr. Speaker, you can look at television any day of the week and

see the Premier of this Province preaching gloom and doom. Who spoke to the

Board of Trade a few weeks ago and said that this Province should be very

careful over the next two years, we are in for hard times over the next two

years? Is that not gloom and doom? one of the ministers of the Province who

speaks at functions in this Province and talked about the economy over the next

six months to a year. What about the Atlantic Provinces, the forecast from the

Economic Council on the gloom and doom for Atlantic Canada over the next two

years? Is that the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker, it is like our Federal Government today, we have

no Opposition in Ottawa today, absolutely none. We have one member in all

Atlantic Canada who is speaking up for the people in Atlantic Canada and that is

George Baker, whenever he speaks up. But there is absolutely no one else. The

only Opposition in Atlantic Canada is George Baker, when he does open his mouth.

Mr. Speaker, our job here as an Opposition is to oppose but

oppose constructively. You are not supposed to be up just beating your chops and

opposing for the sake of opposing, for the sake of opposition. You have to do it

constructively. And we will get the message out there. People realize what is

happening in this Province today. We won't be talking about the hon. member

talking about polls. There is only one pole that the hon. member is familiar

with, and that is the one that Harry gets by in the morning when they let him

outdoors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: I can understand why the hon. member is

always singing about polls. Every morning he has every pole down around where

the Premier lives, every pole around the block is contaminated - I don't know if

from the dog or the member. Takes Harry for his walk in the mornings.

Mr. Speaker, don't let members opposite take too much heart

from and too much belief in polls. I remember going into a general election in

1989 twenty-six points ahead in the polls. Great feeling, lovely feeling. Three

weeks later we know what happened. I remember going into a general election in

1993 - 13 percentage points, and members opposite up around 39 percentage points

- no, 42 percentage points, or something like that. At the end of the day it was

45 versus 43, or 46 versus 43 percentage points, something like that.

Look at the Gander by-election, with the new member now

sitting in the House. Three to one. Forget putting the member there, no need of

running anybody, he is a clean sweep. Forget it. At the end of the day when the

Liberal vote in Gander dropped out over 3,000 - just squeaked through with

forty-odd votes. The Member for St. John's North, I hear him every now and again

bragging about the next election. I say to the member, and anybody else who

wants to listen, you had better not stand in this House bragging about what is

going to happen in your district, I guarantee you that. Because the electorate

has the last say. They can make polls look pretty spindly, I say to the members

opposite. The people in your district, people in any district in this Province,

are not to be taken for granted anymore. I say to members opposite, they had

better start governing in the next year to two years, or I'm going to tell you

they are going to have an awful lot to answer for.

If we had, like I said, just half the monies that are lost in

Churchill Falls in one year - half! - we could pay the interest on the debt, and

every other dollar that is coming into this Province could be used to stimulate

the economy or to put back into some sort of infrastructure or some sort of

public works, public infrastructure - which is nothing. There was nothing there

last year, nothing there the year before, and there is going to be nothing there

next spring.

What are we saying to the Federal Government in Ottawa?

Absolutely nothing. They can cut health care, they can cut education, they can

cut UI, they can cut absolutely what they like and there is nothing said. I

remember back in the Spring of 1993 when there was a $33 million shortfall for

equalization payments for this Province. The Federal Government of the day

offered to spread it out over three years. We had just about every Cabinet

minister and including the Premier off to Ottawa day after day, on television

night after night, complaining about the $33 million that is going to be spread

out over three years to help the blow that it would cause to the fiscal regime

of this Administration.

Now, we have $50 million, $60 million, $110 million, $150

million forecast to be cut to the Province and there isn't a word. The Premier

stood in his place the other day concerning the changes in the UI program and

said: I will have something to say after the fact, I will have something to say

after the rules are made. You don't jump into a lake and then call out for

someone to throw you out a life-jacket. Your best chance is to take one with you

when you are going because there may not be anybody there and you may not get

it.

I can assure you and the people of this Province over the

next week to ten days that what is coming down the tube from Ottawa for this

Province, and absolutely nothing being said about it by members opposite,

nothing, because of their political cousins in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, it is going

to be devastating for this Province. This $60 million shortfall we have now from

last year's Budget, just to be picked up in the next few months, will be peanuts

compared to what is going to happen next year in this Province if something is

not done about it. If we don't start kicking this Administration opposite which

was elected to represent the people of this Province, and to pick up for the

people of this Province, to defend the programs we are supposed to get in this

Province against whoever might be in Ottawa, whether they be Liberal, PC, NDP,

Reform, Bloc, whoever, and we are not hearing a sound.

All we hear when members get up is this diatribe about years

gone by. Members should realize that in a few months time there may be someone

else over there talking about the last seven years, Mr. Speaker, and will we

ever have something to talk about, what happened in this Province for the last

six or seven years, since 1989. We will not have to compare it at all to

seventeen years. At least when people are working and paying their bills, Mr.

Speaker, they can see something at the end of the day, or the end of the week

for their week's work.

Students can see something when they come out of university,

or out of some post-secondary institution, where to go. What are they doing

today? Nothing, only clinging to a bit of hope, and as far as I am concerned

that is just grasping at straws. People go on wondering why there are 1200 over

here in a graduate program, 1206, 17,000 in undergraduate work going to

university in this Province. We have 1200 doing graduate work over at the

University. Why? Because it is too expensive for one thing. Some of them go

outside the Province to try and get their Masters or their PHD. Some will apply

over here and some will get turned down, but the majority I talk to can't afford

it, but yet they almost can't afford not to, because there is absolutely nothing

out there for them to do. Their only chance today is to try to stay in

university or some post-secondary institution until they get something. But they

don't have the means or the fiscal capabilities of doing it, so they are

stymied.

This is our generation. Those are the young people who will

be looking after us in another few years, who will be governing us and making

decisions so that we may get through the few years we have left in life, yet

they are stymied and we are doing absolutely nothing about it. Ottawa was going

to do this and going to do that in 1993 to help the student loan program, but

not a sound since. You go to the banks today, as I said the other day - oh, you

can get $5000 provided your parents sign for you if they have the fiscal

capabilities of looking after it for you, to guarantee it, but there is nobody

doing anything.

We are in here now debating a boundaries resolution, night

after night until eight, nine, or ten o'clock, for what? to reduce fifty-two

seats down to forty-eight, to save the Province what? and people out there in

this Province today are crying for help. We have other legislation on the Order

Paper here today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Does the hon. member have leave?

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

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

I am pleased today to have a few words in this particular

debate. Today is probably a bad day for the Member for Green Bay to be

introducing this resolution. Obviously, the resolution cannot be supported by

this side of the House for quite a number of reasons. I would like in the next

few minutes to have a bit to say about our approach to Ottawa, our financial

performance, and obviously, the well-being of our citizens.

When I read the member's statement, where he says that we are

not standing up to Ottawa as we should, I can't help but say to the hon. member

that he is obviously not living in the real times. Because when it comes to the

fishery, for instance, the Member for Green Bay, in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, the

Member for Ferryland was there with him, going out to Mr. Crosbie, talking about

the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, the fact that there was nothing anybody

could do on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

Mr. Crosbie said, I would have to be an idiot to think that I

could go to the international community and go outside of the Nose and Tail of

the Grand Banks and enforce any kind of fisheries regulations, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the Prime Minister of Canada came in November of 1993 and he said: No

way. We are going to live up to what the people of Canada told us to. The people

of Newfoundland supported the Liberal Party and we are going to do what has to

be done. We will extend the jurisdiction on the Nose and Tail of the Grand

Banks.

Mr. Speaker, within a few days after taking office, our

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Brian Tobin, gave notice to the international

community that he would be taking the steps to see that the Nose and Tail of the

Grand Banks were protected. Just last week, I got a copy of the latest NAFO

circulation letter. Now, I have been following those NAFO circulation letters

for some time, particularly the last six-and-a-half years, because in those

letters you see exactly what went on in the previous year on the Nose and Tail

and outside the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks in terms of foreign

overfishing, and I must say, it was a pleasant and very, very interesting letter

that I had in the last week on this particular issue because, when you look at

the American plaice that was being caught out there, when you look at the

Greenland halibut that was supposed to be caught out there by the European

community, Mr. Speaker, the note that was next to it was: There are no vessels

there anymore. There is no fishing to date on the Nose and Tail of the Grand

Banks this year, Mr. Speaker, for these particular species.

The first time in our history - and it was because the

Liberal Party of Canada, headed up by the Prime Minister of Canada, said that

this was the right thing to do, so they did it. So, no, we are not on today

saying to Brian Tobin, go out there and get rid of the vessels of convenience,

we are not on to Brian Tobin today saying get rid of the Spanish trawlers on the

Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks; we don't have to do those things, because the

reasons. So, we don't have the same kind of blustering now that we had when we

had to go up against Mr. Crosbie because we have seen a government brought in in

Ottawa that has acted, that has delivered, that has given good government to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the TAGS Program, when the

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans went to Ottawa in 1993, he asked: Well, where

is the Income Support Program for the fishermen and plant workers of Atlantic

Canada? because the fishery is not going to open. The officials there said:

Well, Mr. Crosbie and the Tory Government of the day said, there was no plan.

They did not have any kind of forecasting, they did not have any kind of a

budget allocated for income support for these 30,000-odd people in Newfoundland

but, did the Ottawa government of the day turn their backs on them? Did Brian

Tobin say: We are not going to give income support to those people? No, Mr.

Speaker, never.

They went and put a very, very solid package in place of $1.9

billion, the only measure of expense that was in the federal budget of the day

because we know we are in tough financial times but we did that. So, no, we

don't have to come in here today and go clamouring and shouting at Brian Tobin

and the Federal Government because they didn't bring in income support for our

fishermen and plant workers, because they did it. They did, they delivered

income support; they delivered good government to the people of this Province,

Mr. Speaker.

We don't have to, today, go and say to them as we did to Mr.

Crosbie when they had the NCARP Appeal Board in place that used to turn down 96

per cent of the applications, and even when the independent assessors used to

say yes to the client out there, the officials in Crosbie's office would say no,

and they would take them off, sometimes, I have heard, for pure, political,

partisan reasons, but when we made that point to Mr. Tobin we didn't have to ask

twice.

We went up there, the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture, along with other members of our caucus. We had a good solid meeting

with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and Minister Axworthy, and yes,

indeed there was action taken. There was a concrete proposal put forward, and

they responded in kind by setting up a fully independent appeals board which had

binding authority. It could not be interfered with politically, and it did the

job. So on every aspect of the fishery to date we have seen consultation, we

have seen action, and we have seen good government, so we don't have to come in

here as a government and be ranting and roaring, like the previous government

did when Mr. Crosbie and Mr. McGrath were up there. We didn't have to come in

here and demand things, knowing full well that Crosbie was up there and couldn't

get the support of his Cabinet. He didn't have a Prime Minister who cared a darn

about what happened in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we don't have that today

and we are thankful for that.

We fought hard to get the Liberal Party back in power in

Ottawa, and we fought hard to send our MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador up

there to represent us, and it has obviously paid off. We do have co-operation.

We have good government being delivered, and I know it is not what the people

opposite wanted to see. The people opposite want to see us fighting each other,

tearing each other apart, but I tell the members opposite that the people of

this Province have had enough of that. What they want to see is when you have

two governments, especially two governments of the same party elected, they want

to see you co-operating. They want to see you delivering. They want to see you

meeting the challenges of the day, and that is exactly what we have here in this

Province today. We have a government in Ottawa that we are pleased to have

there. We have a minister in the federal Cabinet who is giving us the time of

day, and giving the consultation that is required, and indeed is giving us the

action that we justly deserve.

In terms of fiscal and financial performance, again we have

no lessons to learn at all from the members opposite. It was pointed out here

today by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that indeed after

seventeen years of rule by the members opposite that this Province was really,

really, given a hard financial blow, one that hardly - if we did not get back,

as the Minister of Education has mentioned so many times, if we hadn't gotten

here in the nick of time, I would say that this Province now would be back in

the hands of a commission of some kind or another, because surely, the people of

Canada, and the international financial community would never have allowed the

previous government to continue another day. They could not do it.

Mr. Speaker, I have a copy now of the debt position, which

will clearly show people what has happened in very real terms. These are not

Liberal figures, or this government's figures. This is not something that is

done up for partisan reasons, but for the record it must be said and must be

acknowledged that in 1972, when the Liberal government of the day left office

under the Premiership of Joseph R. Smallwood, after twenty-three years in

office, there was a total provincial debt of $1.8 billion. Now, that was made up

of the total provincial debt plus the debentures and the guaranteed debt and

other liabilities, for $1.8 billion.

Can you imagine - I know many people in this House know it

well, I certainly do, of the new schools that were built during those

twenty-three years, the new hospitals that were built, the highway that was put

across this Province, and all the other essential services.

MR. ROBERTS: All the lights we put in.

MR. DUMARESQUE: All the lights that we put in.

MR. ROBERTS: The roads we built.

MR. DUMARESQUE: All the roads we built, and the vessels,

the boats and everything that we built.

MR. ROBERTS: The vocational schools.

MR. DUMARESQUE: All the vocational schools that we built.

I recently read Joey's book again, because he details it very well about the

number of schools. It is unbelievable that anybody - the University, the College

of Fisheries, trades schools. Twenty-three years of steady progress,

twenty-three years of building this Province and giving them essential public

services. We did that after twenty-three years for a net debt of $1.8 billion.

Now then. In 1973 we had the now infamous - probably be more

infamous as time goes on - Frank Moores come into the office of premier in 1973

for the Progressive Conservative Party. He was supposed to take over and the

Conservatives were supposed to have the fiscal responsibility as their primary

responsibility. He stayed for seven years. In 1979, in the year that he was

gone, the debt had then risen from $1.8 billion to now $4.5 billion. In seven

years. The total debt of this Province after twenty-three of Liberal rule, to

$1.8 billion, in seven years that debt then went to $4.5 billion. It more than

doubled. Four point five billion dollars in seven years, Mr. Speaker, $650

million a year.

Now then. Not to be outdone, in 1979 A. Brian Peckford came

on the scene. He was going to tear the place apart. He was going to be: Have-not

will be no more. He was going to be the end-all and be-all to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. He stayed around for ten years. Ten years later we

now have a situation where the total provincial debt has reached $8.4 billion.

One point eight billion dollars in 1972, after twenty-three years of rule by the

Liberal government, and then seventeen years later, in 1989, it is $8.4 billion.

At a time when all the schools were built, all the roads were built, the

hospitals were built, the colleges of trades and technology were built and

throughout all this Province, the University was built, the Fisheries

institution was built. We had built a tremendous infrastructure for our people

in this Province, but after twenty-three years we could still walk out of here

at $1.8 billion. Seventeen years later, $8.4 billion.

That is what we inherited. This government, under the

premiership of Clyde Wells, and this Administration came in in 1989, just six

and a half short years ago and we inherited that $8.4 billion. What have we

done? This is what this resolution is about. He is saying that we didn't handle

the finances well. I would like to quote from a document that was just recently

released in November 1995, just a document recently released a couple of short

days ago by the Investment Dealers Association of Canada. On the cover it says:

Canadian fiscal round-up. It says: The state of public finances in Canada today.

When you look under Newfoundland, Newfoundland's situation is very clearly laid

out. The first paragraph says: Newfoundland's deficit has declined in each of

the past four years, despite weak economic conditions.

So we inherited that $8.4 billion -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DUMARESQUE: - in 1989, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Time up already? Unbelievable, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Good news, I suppose, you just don't know

that the time is going.

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm actually quite

pleased to stand in my place today and support the resolution put forth by the

Member for Green Bay. This resolution goes right to the heart of the problems

that are caused in this Province today. The misery that is in this Province

today is caused by no other than the government of today. The government sitting

on that side of the House. Mr. Speaker, the incompetence of this government has

never been matched by any government before in the history of Newfoundland, and

we have the proof of the incompetence of this government. Every year we see them

coming down with budgets and this year they had a so called balanced budget, Mr.

Speaker, admittedly, by the Minister of Finance who said it was nothing more

then smoke and mirrors. This government is not able to manage the affairs of

this Province.

In the spring of the year we have a budget come down and in

the fall of the year we have the government coming out and announcing cutbacks

after cutbacks after cutbacks. Mr. Speaker, what is that doing to the people of

this Province? I will get back to that - what is that doing to the people of

this Province? What is that doing to the confidence of the people of this

Province? What is that doing to the morale of the people of this Province? We

have a time of year when we have people looking forward to Christmas. We have a

time of year when people normally spend much more money then they would normally

spend at any other time of year and we have a government come down and say we

have to have more cutbacks, we have to have more lay-offs, Mr. Speaker. It just

boils down to poor planning and nothing less than poor planning.

Now as I said, we have Christmas coming upon us and the

government depends upon revenues and they get revenues in the form of the RST

and the GST. They even have the RST on top of the GST which is more revenue in

itself. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a government here who is telling the people

not to go out and spend any money this year because you may not have a job next

week or next month. You won't have a job next week, next month or next summer

because of the cutbacks. There is nothing but doom and gloom from this

government. The Premier himself gets on his feet and talks doom and gloom. He

has done nothing but talk doom and gloom since 1989 when he was first elected.

We need people out there spending money.

I can give you an example of an individual, when talking

about what is going on in this Province today about the lack of confidence in

the economy, an individual who was retired this fall and got a severance package

from the government. They were planning to buy a vehicle for the husband and

then they come out with the cutbacks - they find out that her husband may indeed

be laid off. So then she would not go out and spend that $16,000 or $20,000 on a

vehicle which would have been another $2,000 in revenues for the government. And

that goes right on, right up through the whole scale, anywhere from buying a toy

at Christmas to buying a large product, such as a vehicle. It is because of the

lack of confidence in this government that people are afraid to spend money and

that goes to the very root of the problem. Now, Mr. Speaker, if people are

refusing to spend their money or are afraid to spend their money, of course, as

I mentioned earlier, we are not getting the revenues in taxes and that in itself

is causing jobs to be lost in this Province, jobs, jobs, jobs.

Now I remember back in '89 when this government first ran

they campaigned on creating jobs for the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker,

and what have we seen since 1989? We have seen nothing less than thousands of

jobs being eliminated from the civil service, we have seen thousands of jobs

eliminated from the private sector and what do we see this government do about

that? Absolutely nothing, they do nothing. All they do is sit on that side of

the House, add lip service and try to make quick comments or smart remarks, in

particular, like the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Now the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation gets

on his feet and to be quite honest and to be truthful, I am sick and tired of

hearing that old tired line that he uses. This government has been in power

since 1989, seven budgets and what have they accomplished? All they have

accomplished so far is the cutbacks, Mr. Speaker, cut, cut, cut to the bone of

people of this Province. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, as

I said, uses the old tired line, it is the fault of the previous administration.

I say it is about time that this government took the responsibility on its own

shoulders and start taking some of the blame for what is going on in this

Province today. They know that they have mismanaged the affairs of this

Province. They know that they did not come up with any new ideas to create jobs.

They know they have a lack of imagination and they have to start taking the

responsibility and the blame for that. To stand in their place and say it is the

fault of the previous administration is ridiculous. The government is living in

the past. This government was elected to manage the affairs of this Province

today and they are not doing it, Mr. Speaker, by any stretch of the imagination

they are not doing it.

As I said, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

gets on his feet and refers to the old tired line. What he does not talk about -

and I don't want to get into the past too much - but he says he blames the

situation problems today on $22 million that was spent on the Sprung facility.

Now, I have to make a comment with respect to that. I believe that you have to

have new ideas, you have to come up with new ways of doing things, you have to

use new technology, and you have to try and incorporate that into the affairs of

the Province in trying to create jobs.

I was not a part of the government at that point in time. I

agree that the magnitude, the degree to which the previous administration went

with respect to that project was too big. If they had probably created one

module and went with that, and expanded it if it worked, or if it had probably

been in a different location in the Province it might have worked.

What the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation does

not say and does not talk about is the affairs and the grandiose ideas of the

administration before the PC administration for seventeen years, the

administration, the Liberal government that was in power from 1949 to 1971 or

1972. They did create jobs, and they did accomplish quite a bit for the

Province, but just after joining Confederation, and with the monies that were on

the go at that point in time, if it had to be a PC administration, if it had to

be an NDP administration, whatever administration was in power at that point in

time would have accomplished the same. They would have accomplished the same

progress in this Province because the time was right and would just allow for

that to happen. We were coming from a colony of England and joining a large

country, Canada. There were monies made available for the joining up to Canada,

becoming the tenth Province of Canada, so in actual fact any government that was

in power at that point in time would have accomplished the same things, but they

did have some attempts to create jobs and to bring industry to the Province

which were major failures.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation always

declines to comment on that. It is only the previous seventeen years, but he

does not go on to the twenty-one or twenty-two years before that. He does not

talk about the rubber factories that were started up in this Province and

failed. He does not talk about the boot factories that were started up and

failed. We have one here now and it works fine, and it is creating jobs, and it

is a great accomplishment for the people of the Province, just one. We had an

orange juice factory that failed, I believe, Mr. Speaker, the biggest thing, the

biggest failure in the history of this Province, other than the mismanagement of

this government at this point in time, is, of course, the Churchill Falls deal.

Now when we bring that up and look at anywhere from $600

million to $800 million a year that could be going into the coffers of this

Province if the administration at that point in time, the Smallwood

administration, the Liberal administration, had worked out a proper deal and had

to have any vision at all - actually this government has no vision either; it

must go with Liberal administrations - but $800 million a year, $400 million of

that could be going now to compensate, offset, the interest on the debt of this

Province at this point in time.

So we have $800 million that is never mentioned by the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. If we had that coming into our

coffers today we would not be in the mess we are in today, and can you compare

that, $800 million, to $22 million - $22 million over seventeen years, a project

that failed; no ifs, ands or buts about that, but we have $800 million now.

Well, we will give it $600 million, on the lower side - $600 million that could

be coming into this Province - $600 million a year. Now what could that do for

the economy of this Province? And for people to stand in their place and make

light of a deal that failed, but it was an attempt to do something. This

government is attempting to do nothing.

One of their big ideas was Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador. How many jobs did that create, really? The ERC, Economic Recovery

Commission, how many jobs have those two groups created in this Province? They

do not even match the number of jobs that the civil service has lost since this

government took over.

Then, when you talk about civil servants losing their jobs,

of course the amount of money that is paid out in pay cheques, in salaries, to

the civil servants is a great expense to the people of the Province, but you

have to look at the overall picture. How many of those people who were laid off

- supposedly laid off - have ended up on the welfare roles of this Province? I

have been led to believe, by the figures floating around this House, that the

social service rolls have grown from just over 40,000 to somewhere around

80,000. Now if we were paying people to be productive, which goes to their

morale also, Mr. Speaker, now we are paying people for actually not producing

anything. These people would love to be working and they aren't.

It is a very complicated picture, I suppose, but we have to

look at the overall picture when we are making plans. That is the problem with

this government, it doesn't make plans. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation over there usually sits in his seat and he doesn't say a lot, only in

question period when he gets up after someone has asked him a question and he

tries to bluff his way through question period. He says a lot about nothing,

just to waste the time of the Opposition. But when there are any serious issues

on the go - like, for the discussion today that is before the House, not today

but the past couple of days, is the electoral boundary issue. I've yet to see

the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation on his feet and say anything in

support or in opposition of the electoral boundaries.

That in itself will tell you about the workings of this

government, the electoral boundary issue. I've been up and speaking on that

twice in this House of Assembly. The government made a promise. Then it goes

back, I suppose, to the competence of this Administration. I would say it lacks

the competence to run a government. The electoral boundaries was supposed to -

when the Premier first announced it, it was going to be downwards of forty seats

from fifty-two seats. What do we have? We have now an administration proposing

forty-eight seats in this House when we had an independent commissioner go

around and recommend forty seats.

Too bad the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

just walked in. I'm after covering his poor, weak arguments that he makes with

respect to the running of this Province. Back to the electoral boundary issue.

We are cutting it by four seats, which is not a significant figure by any

stretch of the imagination. Four seats, when we had the government spend over

$400,000 on it. Again, it is just another poor, pathetic example of the way that

this government is trying to manage this Province.

Again I will repeat, what is wrong with this government is

that it has no heart. It doesn't show any compassion. It governs by looking at

the bottom line only. It is not looking at the affect that these polices have on

the lives of the people of this Province. We have people now who've worked for

twenty and thirty years in this Province who've contributed to society all their

lives, who reared families and what have you, and what are they finding today?

Their unemployment is running out. Any people who are on TAGS are being cut off

of TAGS. What do we have this government doing? All we see is: Yes, Prime

Minister. We don't have a government today in Newfoundland and Labrador that is

standing up for the people of this Province. It is not standing up for the

people of the Province which it is paid to do.

We see the Premier on a number of occasions stand in his

place and say that we have to take responsibility, that we have to take our

share. We need people in this Province today, people like the previous premiers.

Premier Joseph Smallwood, I will give the devil his due, he fought for

Newfoundland. The number one thing on his mind as far as I'm concerned -

AN HON. MEMBER: Churchill Falls.

MR. J. BYRNE: - is the - well, aside from the major

mistake of Churchill Falls, he did have the best interest of the people of this

Province at heart, Mr. Speaker. He fought for the people of this Province. We

had the previous premier, Peckford, who stood up and was counted. He stood up

and he took on Ottawa whenever the occasion arose. He took on Ottawa and he let

it know point blank, quite clearly, where the people of this Province stood and

what they stood for. The present Premier, all he does is bow to the present

Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: I can finish up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. J. BYRNE: No leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. J. BYRNE: Boys, I have about another six or eight

pages of notes.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in the

debate today. The hon. members opposite, of course, as is their due, would have

the people of the Province think that we are here to hurt people, that we are

here to do a bad job, and that we are here to do nothing of any benefit for the

people of the Province. One would expect that hon. members opposite would at

least give us credit where credit is due, and at least give us credit for having

the right intentions, and the right intentions we offer to the people of the

Province in getting elected, and the intention to try and do a good job for the

people of the Province.

Now, the hon. Member for Green Bay has said in this

resolution that we are doing badly because part of the budgetary problem is

caused by cuts in federal transfers about which we have said little. Well,

nothing could be further from the case, Mr. Speaker. We do not like the fact

that we have to bear an inordinate burden that the federal government has placed

on us. It is just that we are realistic enough about it to say, yes, the burden

is there and we have to deal with it. We could beat up on the federal government

and try to gain cheap political points, as has been done in the past and

sometimes justifiably so, using that tactic so to speak to be very popular in

our own Province.

Now, that is one way of going about it. Some would say that

is the way you would get yourself somewhere down the line as far as electability

and in trying to look good to the populous of the Province, but not necessarily

the way that will accomplish anything because we all have this problem in this

country and we share the financial responsibility for dealing with the

situation.

They have also said that we have failed, and on this one, I

suppose, there is no one who can espouse as having done a perfect job. We failed

to cut waste. There certainly is some waste in government that we, and others in

government who had the responsibility to the people of the Province, have failed

to cut. That one there I would say is not for lack of trying but there is a

certain element of failure in trying to cut the waste. That is something we

acknowledge and something that we constantly are tying to improve on. There is a

constant effort on the part of government and on the part of officials of the

different minister's departments, and all of those who serve the public, to

establish a regime where waste is something that is in the past and to try and

do as much as we can with the few dollars that are available, so I give them a

bit of credit for that part of the resolution.

Thirdly, saying that we failed to keep the commitment to

reduce costs by decreasing the number of seats in the House of Assembly. Well,

to look at the way this process has evolved, and I spoke about it last evening,

the process would now allow for the creation of a House with forty-eight seats.

To suggest that we could save a lot of money by going to forty or forty-four

seats, and as some members even of the Opposition stated last evening, then we

may have a need for additional staff to help with the administration of the

House of Assembly matters and to help with the administration that members do on

behalf of their constituents, because unlike other provinces Newfoundland is a

Province where members of the House of Assembly are called on to do an

inordinate number of tasks.

We deal with appeals on an non-legal basis, we deal with some

of the most unusual requests that members of provincial parliaments and

legislatures in other provinces would find to be things they would not normally

be even asked to do, because people utilize the private sector through law

firms, arbitrators and what have you as opposed to using their elected members

to do so. These are things we have to take into account but we must also, Mr.

Speaker, look at it, that you can't see the different things that they may

suggest.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Yes, I can see it now. Someone has been

playing with my notes, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Stop me in midstream.

There is one question which I wonder about and maybe they

wouldn't lend the money to me.

But anyway, looking at the fiscal situation we are now in

which is part of what the members of the Opposition have put forward, would the

hon. members associated with the House of Assembly here, lend the government the

money they have accumulated? Now, if you as members of the Opposition I would

suggest, would not lend the cash that you have on deposit in banks, in mutual

funds or whatever investments that you have. If you yourselves would not offer

the Government of Newfoundland that money to utilize on behalf of the people of

the Province, then really, there is no purpose in even discussing the issue.

Why should you suggest that we go to the bankers and the

financial institutions throughout the world to borrow money to run the affairs

of the Province when, some of you would not be willing to lend your own money to

do the same? So how can we justify lending the money to us as an institution to

undertake public services on behalf of the people of the Province? That's a

point I wanted to make.

Now the hon. member opposite also makes a point of us having

down loaded the responsibility for government and the cuts that have been made

to the other levels of government namely municipalities, health care

institutions, educational institutions and what not. Now, I ask you: What should

we do? What is it that we should do when we take a financial decrease on the

transfers from Ottawa? Should we automatically absorb it ourselves? Should we,

as the government then say, okay, we are going to have to do with less, we are

going to keep giving the same amount of money out to municipalities, we are

going to maintain our budgetary position and borrow all that money because there

are only three ways we can get it?

We can lower our expenditures and our expectations for

expenditure, we can increase the taxes or we can borrow it, and we have been

borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing in the past, and the one

thing about borrowing, it is only since this government came to office over the

last six years, and to the hon. Member for Humber Valley, who spoke eloquently

about the downfall of the financ