May 8,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 19

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Does the hon. the Minister of Finance have leave to address

the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the House today, in

her new capacity as Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Tell them she was our choice, too.

MR. BAKER: She already, Mr. Speaker, has a long history

of accomplishments: being admitted to the Bar, being elected as an MHA for

Humber East, the various times that she has had to defend that particular

position, and her terms in Cabinet for, I believe, close to ten years as

Minister of Education and Minister of Justice. Now, Mr. Speaker, she has taken

the next step and has become leader of her party and Leader of the Opposition.

Both carry tremendous responsibilities with them and we wish her well in her new

job. We promise to co-operate as much as we possibly can to make sure that the

House functions as it should and that the business of the Province gets done. We

will co-operate - I pledge to her our co-operation in that regard, and I hope

that there will always be an open line of communication between her and the

government.

We wish her, Mr. Speaker, very well - and the House will

excuse me for saying, and I am sure she will understand if I say `not too well'

- and we wish her a long and a fruitful stay as Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to thank the Deputy Premier for his gracious words of

welcome and congratulations. I intend to pursue my new position as Leader of the

Official Opposition with vigour; I wish to reciprocate his pledge of

co-operation in the interest of good government for the people of the Province,

and I assure him that my list of accomplishments is not at an end. I will be

working very hard to ensure that my stay in this job is relatively brief and

that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: - after the next election I intend to be in a

new job occupying a seat which today, and all too often lately, has been vacant

on the government side of the House in the front bench.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before proceeding with the business of the day, I had a

ruling I wish to make that was held over prior to Easter.

On April 5, the question arose in this House concerning the

tabling of documents by a private member, in this case, the hon. the Member for

Kilbride. Arguments were ably and persuasively presented on both sides of the

issue and I indicated that I would take a little time to consider the matter.

First of all, there is a difference between a private letter

or memorandum and a document. A document, or the word at least, infers that the

paper in question has a formal or official character. Accordingly, the rule

differs with respect to ministers and private members.

Erskine May and Beauchesne both confirm the requirement that

a minister must table any document that is quoted. This rule, which is not

written in our Standing Orders but has been followed in practice, is intended as

a safeguard to discourage ministers quoting out of context.

In the past, there has been the impression that members may

read from and refer to documents provided that they table them. In one instance,

a member of this hon. House, who shall remain nameless, was fond of quoting from

a certain cookbook containing cucumber recipes. The demand was made to table it

which by my recollection was done by consent thus ending the recipe reading.

The precedences are clear, however, that private members have

neither the right nor the obligation to table documents. Documents may be tabled

with the unanimous consent of the House and I rely on a decision of the House of

Commons of March 29, 1995 when the hon. Jean Charest asked the House to consent

to the Member for Kootenay West tabling a document relative to the proposal to

privatize the Toronto Pearson International Airport. The Speaker, referred to

the unusual nature of the request but asked for unanimous consent which was

refused.

One of the arguments offered in support of a private member

tabling documents was that if a member were not permitted to do so reports, for

example, could not be filed. However, the tabling of these reports is

specifically provided for by our own rules and is an exception to the general

prohibition.

Finally I refer to a decision of my illustrious predecessor,

the hon. Member for Bonavista North, who ruled on this point at much greater

length and with considerable more eloquence on December 5, 1990. I take comfort

from the fact that I concur with his views and am spared the necessity of

further research.

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today marks the Fiftieth Anniversary of the end of the most

devastating war of modern times. On May 8, 1945, the last German forces

surrendered to advancing allied troops ending the war against Hitler's Germany.

Throughout Canada and across Europe, this weekend has been

marked by celebrations and acts of remembrance.

The significance of the V-E Day celebrations was nowhere more

evident than in Holland. The Dutch people had endured five years of brutal

occupation and experienced first-hand the terror of the Nazi Regime. Most of

Holland was liberated in late 1944 but the northern portion remained in German

hands throughout the winter. Food was scarce and the people were forced to

scrounge for anything that could be eaten. As local resistance grew, the German

occupation forces carried out acts of reprisal against the civilian population.

The parades held this past weekend were almost exactly like

accounts and photographs of the sights that met allied forces in 1944 and in

1945. Civilians swarmed into the streets to shake hands with their liberators

reducing the parade to a single file of soldiers then and grey-haired veterans

today. For those of us to young to remember the war-years or those born after

the war, those scenes of joy and celebration come as close as one can to

conveying the true meaning of liberation and V-E Day.

To mark the 50th Anniversary of their liberation, the people

of Holland have provided a gift of 1,000 tulips to the people of this Province.

They have been planted in front of the Colonial Building. My colleague the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation hosted a ceremony on Friday to

dedicate that bed as a permanent memorial to the liberation and as a place of

remembrance and reflection on the impact that the Second World War has had on

our people and our country.

During the Second World War, thousands of young men and women

from Newfoundland and Labrador answered the call for volunteers. They served in

the Royal Navy, the Royal Artillery, the Royal Air Force, the Commonwealth Armed

Forces, the Merchant Navy, and the Forestry Unit, each of them contributing to

the allied victory.

From the Murmansk convoys to fighting the Germans and

Italians in the deserts of North Africa, battling U-Boats and the elements off

the Coast of Newfoundland, or flying Mosquitos over the Normandy battle where

their comrades from home were fighting on the ground, Newfoundlanders gave

unstintingly of themselves to restore peace and freedom.

There is no accurate count of their numbers, because for

every Newfoundlander who enroled at home there were undoubtedly more who

volunteered where they happened to be when war came, whether it was Canada,

England, South Africa or the United States, but we do know that they numbered in

the thousands and every one was a volunteer. When their fellow citizens needed

them, they did not have to be asked twice.

We do know that thousands gave their lives, and as we

celebrate the 50th anniversary of victory in Europe the memory of that sacrifice

cannot be far from the minds of their friends and families. It is not far from

the hearts and minds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians across the Province.

What we are remembering this weekend is 50 years of peace,

freedom and prosperity that came out of the allied victory in the Second World

War. That is the enduring legacy which each veteran has given us. The countries

which banded together to defeat the axis powers formed the United Nations,

itself a remarkable and visionary effort to enhance international co-operation

and promote the peaceful settlement of disputes. While it has not always been an

overwhelming success, the UN has helped to foster a climate in which war is

irrelevant as a means of setting differences among nations.

Today we should also remember that men and women from our

Province are still at work around the world continuing the job started in Europe

50 years ago. Our soldiers, sailors and airmen on peacekeeping missions or

supporting humanitarian operations in places like the former Yugoslavia are our

modern-day liberators. They are working through the United Nations - very often

risking their lives - to improve the quality of life and to bring peace to

troubled places in much the same way that our armed forces 50 years ago worked

with our allies to liberate Europe from tyranny.

Members of the House of Assembly know that most of the

officials who serve as commissionaires for the House are veterans of the Second

World War. The Sergeant At Arms, for example, was a young gunner fifty years ago

with the 166th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery. He saw action in North Africa

and Italy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Others served in the Armed Forces of Britain

or Canada, or like most Newfoundlanders joined the Royal Navy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in

congratulating these men and women and thanking them and their comrades for

their service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We owe each of you a

tremendous debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid or properly

acknowledged.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Opposition I would like to thank the Deputy

Premier for his statement. We would like to be associated with his way of

commemorating this 50th Anniversary of the victory in Europe and of

acknowledging the tremendous contribution to the victory of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. As the Deputy Premier indicated, over the six year period,

approximately six year period of the Second World War, many thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians served in the Navy, Army and Air Force of

Britain, Canada and even the United States. As well, Newfoundlanders in great

numbers served in the Merchant Navy and the overseas forestry unit. Also

civilians at home helped the war effort through the Women's Patriotic

Association and through countless individual contributions. According to Herb

Wells, a noted local military historian, approximately 1,000 Newfoundlanders

gave their lives in the cause of the allied victory. These are individuals who

were lost serving with the forces and in the Merchant Navy. In addition we have

to remember the 137 civilians who were lost at sea when our ferry Caribou was

torpedoed by the Germans crossing the gulf.

Newfoundland made an enormous contribution relative to our

population and resources to the allied victory in Europe and as the Deputy

Premier said, those of us who are here today owe an enormous debt of gratitude

to the Newfoundlanders of the Second World War period, those who remain with us,

such as our Sergeant At Arms and those who lost their lives in the cause of

peace.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I don't have a

prepared statement but given the nature I assume members on the other side will

be able to respond. I want to draw to the attention of the House that since

we've last met death has taken two distinguished Newfoundlanders from our ranks:

Moses Morgan and Charles Granger. I would like to say a word or two if I may

about each and then ask the House to take the appropriate action. No doubt

members on the other side will wish to speak.

With Charlie Granger's passing - and while he may have been

the hon. Charles Ronald McKay Granger, Member of the Privy Council, Officer of

the Order of Canada, we all knew him as Charlie. With Charlie's passing

Newfoundland and Labrador has lost a fine man and a fine citizen and a fine

public servant. He had a long and distinguished career in public life in this

Province. Perhaps the beginning of his public career was as the editor of The

Fisherman's Advocate which in those days was the voice of the fishermen in

this Province. Published at Port Union and part of the Coaker heritage. In due

course he became president of the Fishermen's Protective Union.

After Confederation Charlie Granger went to Ottawa as what

was then called the private secretary - we today call it the executive assistant

to the chief of staff - successively to the two men who represented Newfoundland

secondly Jack Pickersgill.

In 1958 Charlie Granger entered the House of Commons. There

weren't many Liberals who entered the House of Commons in 1958. That wasn't a

good year for the Liberal Party of Canada. That was the year Mr. Diefenbaker won

his massive victory. Charlie was elected in Grand Falls - White Bay - Labrador

in 1958, and returned, re-elected, in 1962, 1963 and 1965.

In 1966 he entered this House as the Member for Gander and

became a member of Mr. Smallwood's Cabinet as the minister for Labrador affairs.

A year or so later when Mr. Pickersgill resigned from the Cabinet of Canada and

from the House of Commons as the member for the Bonavista - Twillingate

constituency, Mr. Granger sought election and was elected as the member for -

I'm not sure if it was Gander - Twillingate or Bonavista - Twillingate at that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It was still Gander - Twillingate?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bonavista (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Bonavista - Twillingate still at that state.

He entered Mr. Pearson's Cabinet and then Mr. Trudeau's Cabinet. His public

political career came to an honourable end in 1968 when he was defeated. He lost

in a bid for re-election.

He was one of the only two Newfoundlanders since

Confederation, Mr. Speaker, who have served both in the provincial Cabinet and

in the federal Cabinet. There were two men who served in the federal Cabinet who

were also in the provincial cabinet before Confederation: Gordon Bradley and

Bill Brown. Both served in the Cabinet before Commission - different parties -

and then served in the Cabinet in Ottawa after Confederation, again in different

parties.

I knew Charlie Granger very well. He and I were colleagues,

we were political allies, we were personal friends. He was a man of courage and

compassion. He was dedicated to the public weal and to the interests of the

people of the Province and of Canada, and we are all the losers because of his

death.

Like many if not all the members of the House, I also knew

Mose Morgan very well. Perhaps far more members knew Mose Morgan well than would

have had the pleasure and the honour of knowing Charlie Granger well. Mose

Morgan, or Mose as he was called by all of us, was a man of integrity, a

gentleman in every sense of the word. He was passionately committed to an ideal

of truth and learning and knowledge and to Memorial University of Newfoundland,

and because of the University and through the University to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

His contribution was immense. I think it is fair to say that

it is difficult - in fact it is probably impossible - to conceive of the

Memorial University of Newfoundland as we know it today without giving a large

part of the credit, a large part of the responsibility, a large part of the

praise, to Mose Morgan. It would be a far lesser institution without him. There

are thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, many of them in this House,

who were touched by Mose Morgan either personally or through his work as the

president of the University, and his work before that as the dean and the

vice-president and a professor. The lives of all he touched are better because

of it.

Death in claiming Mose Morgan and Charlie Granger has taken

two of our finest sons. We, in this House, Sir, should mourn their passing and

honour them for their contribution. I would ask that the House - and someone on

the other side will speak, but I have no doubt they will ask to be associated

with these words - I would ask that the House send the appropriate message of

sympathy to Mrs. Morgan and to Mrs. Granger and to the families of these two

fine men.

Thank you, Sir.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader spoke eloquently for all of us in

paying tribute to Charlie Granger and Mose Morgan, and we wish to be associated

with the Government House Leader's remarks and with his call for messages of

condolences to go to Mrs. Morgan and Mrs. Granger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the absence of the Premier this afternoon, I will direct

questions about the Trans City scandal to the Premier's chief operative in this

affair, the Deputy Premier, the minister the Premier appointed to head the

special Cabinet committee on the matter.

Will the Deputy Premier confirm, it was the Premier who was

responsible for orchestrating the convoluted series of transactions that

involved the government breaking the Public Tender Act? Will the Deputy Premier

admit that the Premier insisted that the three lucrative, hospital construction

contacts go to the firm owned by Tom Hickman, Bill Case and Joe Butler?

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

Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, there

were so many inflammatory words used in there, I don't quite know where to

begin.

Mr. Speaker, the process was not overly convoluted. We

decided to take a different route in terms of tendering for I believe, it was

five - we were originally considering five projects; we went for an open

proposal call and we went through a process that we recognized from day one, Mr.

Speaker, was different from the normal process. And we did go through it. The

decision was made on reasons that have been explained so far, and very logical

reasons or several decision points. The first was the analysis of the projects

or the proposals and then there was a decision point in terms of the structure,

so a decision was made on the recommendation of the civil service that we go

with brick, steel and then there was an additional analysis done of the brick,

steel proposals and the recommendation was that the most cost effective and

overall better proposal was won by Trans City; hence, it was awarded.

Before the award, once the decision was made, we sought a

legal opinion as to whether this was satisfactory under the Public Tender Act

and received our legal opinion, which in fact it was. Since then, there has been

a court case and all these things, the hon. lady knows, were brought out in the

court case, and she knows them all. There was a decision by the court that there

was a contravention of the Public Tender Act, but, Mr. Speaker, we have appealed

that decision with very good grounds, and I am assuming that this will be

handled expeditiously by the Court of Appeal, and we will see when the Court of

Appeal deals with it, whether in fact there was a breach of the Public Tender

Act.

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

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the Deputy Premier has said: We made a decision, we

sought a legal opinion. He might have added that: we ignored the legal opinion;

he might have added that: we ignored pointed warnings and advice from other

public servants besides the senior lawyer they consulted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, my question: Did the Deputy

Premier use the `royal' we? Was it the `royal' Premier who orchestrated this

whole sleazy affair? Was it the Premier who sent down orders which the Deputy

Premier carried out, that no matter what the legal opinion, no matter what the

advice from senior public servants, those contracts were going to Tom Hickman,

Bill Case and Joe Butler?

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

Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader

of the Opposition read the legal opinion, which I tabled in the House. It says:

`In

summary, Cabinet does have the authority to award these contracts to Trans

City Holdings Limited under

section VIII of the act, even though it is not the

lowest or preferred bidder; however, this will require the tabling of the

reasons for the contract award in the House of Assembly.

That is the conclusion of the legal opinion, Mr. Speaker, and

the hon. lady knows how to read a legal opinion.

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

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I note, the Deputy Premier is avoiding answering my pointed

questions about the responsibility, the personal responsibility and culpability

of the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Premier has selectively lifted a

quote from the legal opinion. He failed to read the

section of the legal opinion

warning of violation of the spirit of the Public Tendering Act and possible

infraction of the letter of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary for the Deputy Premier: The

Deputy Premier is, for whatever reason, trying to protect the Premier. Now, if

the Premier wasn't directly responsible for orchestrating this whole affair,

what is the responsibility and blame that should be assigned to the Deputy

Premier himself and the three other ministers who served with the Deputy Premier

on the committee? Those three other ministers are now the Minister of Education

and Training, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and Your Honour,

the Speaker. Is the Deputy Premier expecting anyone to believe that the gang of

four acted without express direction of the Premier himself?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out, I am

disappointed with the Leader of the Opposition. I did answer her question. Her

question was simply: were we given direction by the Premier to ignore the legal

opinion and proceed against the legal opinion? I simply pointed out that the

legal opinion, in fact, says that this could be done under the Public Tender

Act, so that is an answer to the question. It is a very direct answer.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of apportioning blame, I would like to

advise the Leader of the Opposition that in this process we have three buildings

that have been constructed and are still operating, providing employment for

hundreds of people. We got these buildings at the cheapest possible price. We,

as a matter of fact, got those buildings at a price that was cheaper than we

could have done ourselves, and the information has been tabled in the House, so

I am perfectly willing to accept the blame for that. We have done what was in

the best interest of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So is the Deputy Premier saying that he, personally, is

taking the Premier's blame for breaking the Public Tender Act, for being ordered

by the Supreme Court Trial Division to pay approximately $3 million of scarce

taxpayers' dollars in damages for giving three hospital construction contracts

to Liberal bag men and contributors in an arrangement that saw not one extra

construction job, not one benefit to the people of this Province, and a deal

that is going to cost the Treasury, despite what the minister is trying to hide,

millions of dollars additional compared to what those three same facilities

could have been constructed for?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

is on a wrong track here, totally. That was a good financial deal. We do have

the buildings operating, and they are providing good service. I would like to

remind the Leader of the Opposition that the contract amount was about $26

million - she keeps saying hundreds of millions, or $100 and-some-odd million -

about $26 million, and that the total cost of the contract plus the interest we

will pay over thirty years when these buildings then become our property,

totally paid for, is in the vicinity of $96 million. That compares with the

expenditure on Sprung of $24 million which over thirty years will cost us an

additional $75,700,000 in interest. At the end of the thirty years the total

cost will be $99.8 million and we will still owe the $24 million that that

fiasco cost us. So, Mr. Speaker, if you want to compare that to something else

to relate it to effective spending, I am very proud that we have done something

here that was effective spending.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a further

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Deputy Premier, if this was a good deal, why did the

Supreme Court of Newfoundland rule that the government broke the Public Tender

Act and order the government to pay $3 million in damages? If this was a good

deal, why is the Premier refusing to have a public inquiry into the whole sleazy

affair?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Isn't it because you know that you did wrong

and that you squandered millions of scarce taxpayers' dollars for no benefit for

the unemployed workers or the sick people in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have to point out to the Leader

of the Opposition that there was a decision in the Supreme Court that made an

indeterminate award; the amount was not specified, and the amount, if it stands

up, will have to be determined by the court. So her $3 million is, I suppose, a

number she is coming up with which is a maximum amount. We will see perhaps what

that is going to be, but I would also like to remind her -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

One question at a time.

MR. BAKER: - that a court decision has been appealed. The

process is still with the court, and that is why I have to be sort of careful as

to the kinds of details I go into, in terms of that appeal. The process is still

with the court and the final decision has not yet been rendered. In spite of

what the hon. lady says, the final decision of the court has not yet been

rendered, Mr. Speaker, and that is the reality of the situation. The hon. lady

knows well the court process and cannot refute that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

direct a question to the Minister of Health.

Now, restructuring our health care system has been ongoing

for a long, long time and there is currently a lot of anxiety out there in the

system. I ask the minister: When is the reorganization plan for the Health Care

Corporation of St. John's going to be decided and released to the public?

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

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

Thank you for the question. It is not a new question. The

hon. member asked that question on a previous occasion and more than once.

The St. John's Health Care Corporation assumed their

responsibilities April 1. They have a significant mandate of rationalizing,

probably reorganizing, certainly, administering in as efficient a manner as

possible, the health care system for which they have jurisdiction starting with

Bell Island and coming right on through to St. John's six, seven or eight

institutions. They have collapsed six boards into that corporation and I can

tell you that they are moving on quite vigorously and quite swiftly, I would

anticipate, in reviewing the whole spectrum of health care in the St. John's and

metro region. And at what time they have developed some ideas as to what the

reorganization should look like, I am sure they will bring it to government,

they will bring it to my office and government will look at it and we will deal

with it. The reorganization is an evolving process and we have nothing to report

to you today. We can't tell you that this is going to happen or that is going to

happen, other than what you already know. When we make decisions that are firm,

fixed and final and in the best interest of health care, you will be amongst the

first to know.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question will be ongoing, I guess as long as we are

waiting for the reorganization plan; that has been some time. There has been an

executive director in your office, reporting directly to you for the past ten

months and I am sure progress has been made in the past ten months and it is

about time the public knew. Now, I say to the minister, surely he knows how many

people are going to lose their jobs. Will the minister tell this House how many

jobs are going to be eliminated within the eight institutions here in the St.

John's region?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. minister

does not know how many jobs are going to be affected, and that is a question

that can only be answered after certain restructuring decisions are made. It is

just not sensible for the member to conclude, to think, or to make the

proposition that I know if there are any jobs to be affected, or how many in

fact will be. Will there be less jobs, maybe, in institutions? Maybe there will.

Will there be more jobs on the community side as a result of restructuring? Yes,

there will be more jobs, but what the balance will be I do not know, nor does

anybody else. If anybody tells you they have the answer to that question today

you can be suspect of the information that you receive. When the information

becomes available, when the plan is developed, when restructuring occurs, when

all things fall in place, as I said before, this House will be amongst the first

to be advised of anything in that regard.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows as well as I do, and people in the system,

that he is not being up-front. I say to the minister to come up-front and tell

the public how many jobs are going to be eliminated. We know there are going to

be several hundred jobs. Now, many of these people have twenty-five to thirty

years of service and they are not eligible for pension because of their age. I

ask the minister if there is any plan in place to make arrangements for those

people who do not meet retirement because of their age for some type of early

retirement benefits for those displaced after twenty-six and up to thirty years

service?

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

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

The number that the hon. member puts forward is a number that

he has arrived at from his own calculations, which I hope is better than the

arithmetic that his leader can do. In any event he has come up with a number and

I have no idea where he got it. I cannot attest to its validity. I cannot even

comment on it because reorganization has not even taken place. We have not even

got to the first stage of deciding exactly how it is all going to be done.

The new Health Care Corporation is dealing with that issue,

amongst a lot of other issues. They have only been on the ground a month and I

am sure the member understands that. Now, as to how we are going to deal with it

in the event that there are displacements of persons, government has a plan in

place to deal with redundancies. We have a process in place to deal with people

who may be displaced. The unions have certain rights with respect to employees

who may be adversely affected with restructuring, and if and when that happens

all of these mechanisms will take over and will work, I am sure, to the

advantage of employees to the greatest extent possible, and certainly there will

be fairness, balance, and things will be done in a proper, orderly, and in an

organized fashion.

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

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

My question is for the Deputy Premier.

Five weeks ago, based on questions I asked in the House, the

Deputy Premier stood and indicated that the government would be conducting an

investigation into the allegations and evidence that I laid to the table of this

House and to him, dealing with double and triple billing by the chief review

commissioner, Eric Gullage, and other review commissioners. Can the Deputy

Premier inform the House today what is the status of that investigation and when

will it be tabled. Can he inform us of that, please?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I received an interim

report on this. I had a look at it. We asked a number of questions and had a

number of things to be investigated, and there was one question that was not

dealt with, so I sent it back and asked: could you very quickly come back and

deal with this final question? I am expecting the final version sometime this

week.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it has taken a long, long time

for this investigation to be completed. Can he tell the House and the people of

this Province, and especially injured workers, did the scope of his

investigation include in all, or in part, the quality of decisions made by the

chief review commissioner or any of the part-time review commissioners?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the work plan involved reviewing

sections of the Workers' Compensation Act pertaining to the Compensation Review

Division and the Orders in Council, and so on, to meet with the officials and so

on to obtain an overview. Remember, this is being done by the Internal Audit

Division of Treasury Board that has nothing to start with, to document the

billing process in detail, to determine in consultation with the Department of

Justice what should constitute a case, determine the method used by

commissioners to support billings, perform a review of the fifty-nine cases and

any or all others - and the review was extremely extensive in terms of listening

to tapes and the whole thing - and prepare a report outlining the results of the

review.

One of these questions wasn't fully answered and I suggested

that it should take another couple of days to make sure that all of the

questions were answered. That is the basis of the internal review.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Three and a half

weeks ago I asked the Deputy Premier to table the terms of reference for what

the conduct of this investigation would be. He would not. He just reads from it.

I thank him for reading from that today and ask him why he hasn't tabled it

before.

I would like to bring another piece of information to the

Deputy Premier's attention. It may be another question that he would want

received. As we all know, a case reviewed by a commissioner - whether it be by

the chief commissioner or part-time commissioner - supposedly is paid $500. I

have information here, Mr. Speaker, that shows that - I have lots of cases but I

brought one to the House, and I want to ask the minister this question. One case

in particular came from the Internal Review Division at Workers' Compensation

where there is a ten-page typed report on the worker. It was reviewed by one

Eric Gullage, the chief review commissioner. The front page is different, the

two lines or twenty words on the back page are different, but the ten pages in

between are completely plagiarized word for word, sentence for sentence,

paragraph for paragraph, page for page.

Let me ask the Deputy Premier this. Does he find this sort of

conduct by the chief review commissioner - plagiarism of cases, not reviewing

the case in detail on behalf of an injured worker that he should have, and

getting paid $500 - do you find that acceptable?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame, shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind members

opposite that when we came to government there was no review process. There was

no independent review. There was no outside review, okay?

MR. TOBIN: Why should we (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: We were under great pressure -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) another Senate is what you have

got set up over there!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: What used to happen - I would like to give a

full answer, Mr. Speaker, if I may. What used to happen is that the same people

who made the decisions in Workers' Comp handled any feedback. So in other words

they were reviewing themselves. The argument was made that this wasn't quite

right and you should set up an independent review process. We eventually did.

The first process we set up was found to be unsatisfactory and we were paying in

terms of either hours or days. I forget which that was spent.

Then the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations at the

time decided to come up with a different process because of problems we were

running into. His process involved paying a flat rate per case, whether the case

took three hours or whether it took a week. There was a flat rate per case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I'm trying to do a sensible answer if the hon.

member will let me. Okay?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: We decided on a flat rate per case. Then the

question becomes: Is there abuse of that system of the flat rate per case? I

guess the key is the definition of what constitutes a case and so on. In order

to fully make a decision on this we needed somebody to have a look at it, to go

back and listen to the tapes, to go over all of the information, to do a report

and to provide us with

definitions that we could use. We needed to do that.

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we are in the process of

doing. I will tell the hon. member that is close to being finished. There was

one question that wasn't fully answered and I asked them to answer it. I've had

nothing to do with the process other than that. Purely done by the Internal

Audit Division. When that report comes before us then it will be given to the

Premier and then decisions will have to be made. I hesitate to go back and

comment on individual cases now brought up in light of this review that is going

on. I expect very shortly to get that final report and I've indicated to the

House that very quickly after we get it the information will be made available.

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

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

a question about another scandalous Liberal giveaway to the Minister of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. It pertains to the recent Canada-European Union

fisheries agreement, that infamous, scandalous fisheries agreement, I say to the

minister. I am wondering if the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I say to the Minister of Education

and Training, and so do a lot of other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today

have a lot of different opinions on that agreement.

Does the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture have a

copy of the agreement? And if he does, will he undertake to table it so that all

members of the House can have a copy and familiarize themselves with the

contents so that we all know just what a giveaway this agreement really is?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe I should say that had the previous administration been

on their toes back in the eighties, and had Mr. Crosbie dealt with this problem

properly, we would have had fish to catch today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: When my colleague from Grand Bank was the

minister, he should have been on his toes and prevented some of this problem

from happening, but obviously he wasn't with it and that is why we are where we

are today; however, I do have a copy of the agreement and it will be my pleasure

to table it in the House, in fact, to provide a copy to everybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't have it with you?

DR. HULAN: I don't have it with me today, no, Sir, but I

can bring it tomorrow.

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

House Leader.

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

I just hope, now that the minister has confirmed he has a

copy, that he takes the time to read it and find out what he and the Premier and

the government really supported on this scandalous deal where they gave away so

much turbot to the Europeans.

I want to ask him a question specifically about the

Observer's Program.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, could I ask for protection

from the proud Canadian, the proud Liberal, the Member for Eagle River, who is

not quite as proud today or he wouldn't be shouting across the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If we are going to proceed in an orderly manner, I think we

don't need shouting across the House during Question Period.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The question I have for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture, is that I have information that Canada is sharing some of the cost

of the Observer's Program. I want to ask the minister, since he has obviously

been very close to the negotiations and the agreement, can he confirm for the

House that Canada, indeed, is sharing some of the cost of the Observer's

Program, and could he inform the House what cost Canada is paying for when those

observers are European and have not been trained by Canada? Could the minister

confirm we are paying some of the cost, and perhaps inform the House of really

what the costs are that we are paying for?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I should say that the agreement that the hon. member

so incorrectly calls a terrible agreement, and has attached other words to it,

are absolutely not the case, of course, and we would be happy to address that on

another day, but under the circumstances the agreement is a good agreement.

Probably we would have liked to have seen some different things in there, but

under the circumstances we got a good agreement and I am very happy that we have

that agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a heck of a lot more than you did.

DR. HULAN: Indeed, a heck of a lot more.

Canada will be participating in the Observer Program, without

question. The exact dollar figure I cannot put on it right now - that will be

provided at a later date - but indeed Canada will be participating in the

Observer Program.

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

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A final supplementary to the Minister of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. He is praising the agreement, saying how great

it is. Could he inform the House why the provincial government thinks it is so

great that our share of turbot on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks has gone

from 60 per cent under this agreement to now 11 per cent? Could the minister

stand in his place and inform this House and the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, why this Premier and this government supported an agreement entered

into by Brian Tobin and Jean Chrtien and the federal government that has

brought our share of the turbot on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks from 60

per cent to now 11 per cent? Could the minister now do that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Grand

Bank is using a play on words. I did not stand praising the agreement as he

said. I said it is a good agreement; under the circumstances, it is a very good

agreement. Maybe we would have liked to have seen some other different things in

it, but for today it is a good agreement and we should be very pleased to have

the agreement that we have in place.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: I didn't, Mr. Speaker, try to win an election

by buying chicken, I say to the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: I hereby table the annual report of the

Commissioner of Members' Interest for the year 1994-1995.

Notices of Motion

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills entitled:

"An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act"; "An Act To Amend The

Liquor Control Act"; and "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act."

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions

relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of certain loans made under the Loan

and Guarantee Act.

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

move that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider

certain resolutions relating to the guaranteeing of certain loans under the

Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957.

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

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Social

Workers Association Act."

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will

on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills entitled: "An Act To

Amend The Hospital And Nursing Homes Association Act"; "An Act To Amend The

Tobacco Control Act"; and "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act."

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that:

Whereas the issue of fire safety among the residents and

owners of property in the older row housing units in St. John's is a prime

concern;

And

whereas many of the row houses in this area have

inadequate fire blocks between attached houses, in some cases with common attics

and no fire blocks at all between houses;

Therefore

be it resolved that the provincial government

devote more of its financial resources to instituting programs and policies

which would assist in the refurbishment of existing units and buildings, both

private and publicly-owned, in the downtown core of St. John's and other

communities with similar safety problems with row housing.

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Animal

Protection Act."

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Works, Services And

Transportation Act."

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in giving this notice, I say to

the members opposite, it has nothing to do with what went on in Fogo Island. I

give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An

Act To Amend The Evidence Act."

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can see many reasons why the minister would want to change

The Evidence Act. I can certainly see that. He hid his shares in Fortis and

NEWTEL and everywhere else until we found out.

Anyway, it is my pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition

on behalf of 287 residents of Burnt Cove, St. Michaels and Bauline South, in my

district. I will read the prayer of the petition:

`To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask the House

of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned residents of the communities of Burnt

Cove, St. Michaels and Bauline in the district of Ferryland, do hereby petition

the House of Assembly to direct the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation to upgrade and pave the main road from the Southern Shore

Highway, Route 10, to the end of Bauline South.'

I have an accompanying letter here for the minister. Mr.

Speaker, this particular stretch of road was constructed in 1972. That is over

twenty-three years ago and it is now in a deplorable condition. I asked the

minister before and he assured me - whether he did, I am not sure - he assured

me he would travel up to my district and take a look at the deplorable condition

of those roads. There are five in particular, I say to the minister.

MR. EFFORD: Liberal or Tory?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is - almost all Tory the last time

and hopefully less the next time, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Less Liberals.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, less Liberals the next time. We are

looking at eradicating Liberals in that end of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the road was constructed twenty-three years ago

and it is deplorable. There are huge potholes and it is eaten away at the sides.

It is in a prime tourism area. Now, the infrastructure for roads in this

Province is falling down around our ears. We had $50 some-million of provincial

money spent in maintaining highroads and secondary roads around this Province.

Since 1989, we have seen an erosion from over $50 million to, today, only about

$7 million of new provincial dollars going into roads in our Province. Now, how

do we expect to promote tourism and bring people in over our highroads when the

roads are in a deplorable state?

I say to the minister, I think it is very important that we

maintain a certain infrastructure here in this Province. It is conducive to

bringing tourist back to our area. The road conditions are causing major

problems for people in our area, especially in terms of damage to buses

travelling over those roads and damage to private vehicles there, much more

damage lately, I guess, since inspection standards are not there. They actually

shake apart, those vehicles now that don't have to be inspected anymore. They

are creating a hazard, not only to the drivers and passengers, but to

pedestrians and so on in this particular area. There has been no road

construction for the past three years in my district and those secondary roads -

we have had a few bridges built in our district, a few badly-needed bridges, but

we have had no road construction and the twenty-five-year-old roads are in

terrible shape.

So I ask the minister - and the people in this area are

justified -and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations would know, he

has a summer cabin up in the area, and he should certainly be able to attest

that he travels over this road occasionally, maybe once a month, to visit his

temporary residence there. I say to the minister, you should take the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation along with you, drive down to Bauline

South, Burnt Cove and St. Michaels and just see the terrible road conditions.

The minister can vouch for that. When he sits around the Cabinet table and doles

out funding for roads, there is no greater need, I can assure you. I have seen

just about every single road in this Province over the past three-and-a-half

months and there are none worse than those roads in my district, I say to the

minister.

So let's do the honourable thing now and allocate funding on

the basis of need, not on the basis of political preference. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me a

pleasure today to get up to support my colleague.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: We will see, it's not over until it's over.

It gives me pleasure today to get up and support my

colleague, the Member for Ferryland, on a petition put forward by the people of

Burnt Cove, St. Michaels and Bauline South. That area needs upgrading and

pavement. With less money this year, $15 million to be spent throughout this

Province, we have come back a long way from $50-odd million in 1989. I thought

they were wanting to put people on their feet. They are going to put them out of

vehicles so they must be wanting to put people on their feet. There was talk

that there is a deliberate resettlement program. Well, there are all kinds of

scenarios going on about this government, and the monster not the minister, the

monster of Works, Services and Transportation is one of the chief culprits over

there.

I mean, in an emergency, waiting an ambulance, one extra

minute is enough to put someone in the graveyard and wherever they are, if they

take a longer time to get there, it is going to jeopardize those people and

their health.

MR. SULLIVAN: The road is too bad to send an ambulance up

there, to tell the truth.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, the road is too bad to send an ambulance

up there.

Minister, how can you sit there and be responsible? He is an

irresponsible minister. These people have every right to decent roads to travel

over, every right. We heard earlier today about the rights some people paid for,

and paid for with their lives. And the minister, every now and again, gets in

jabs about political stripes. Very small, Minister - you are a very small

minister. We have seen how insignificant you are when you talk about money on

the South Coast in perpetuity, and the other ministers (inaudible) about the

small minister. But worse than a small minister is a small-minded minister.

Well, I have the pleasure today to support the people of the

Southern Shore who want nothing but decent services. And people on the Southern

Shore are no different from those in your district, Minister, or the district of

anybody else in this House, they deserve a decent road to travel on; and

tourism, is going to be waving `bye-bye' at us. Who is going there? The Minister

is allowing $15 million for road upgrading and maintenance this year, far, far

less than we have ever had before, and it won't go anywhere near what we need.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Listening to the two hon. members opposite reminded me of the

numbers - that hundreds of times I stood on my feet from 1985 to 1989, four

years, and asked the then Minister of Transportation, the then Minister of

Municipal Affairs about money for the district of Port de Grave.

From 1985 to 1989, we had a total sum, in the district of

Port de Grave of $20,000, in four years, for your Municipal Affairs and

provincial capital works program for roads. Now, the members opposite are over

there saying that we should be concerned about roads. We are. We are concerned

about roads.

First of all, we have to be concerned about the amount of

money that we have to spend on roads, and if I had a portion of the $585 million

a year that we pay out in interest on money which that government owe, that that

crowd over there, when they were in government, put us in debt, I would be able

to build roads in every corner of this Province. I would even be forced to think

about building them in Tory districts if I had that kind of money, but we don't

have the money. We first have to pay off the debt from when those people over

there mismanaged the Province for seventeen years.

Now, the other problem we have is to try to catch up, Mr.

Speaker, with the neglect in certain areas around this Province for seventeen

years and - yes, my colleague from Labrador; no money going into the area of

Labrador at all. We are trying to find some money to build the Trans-Labrador

Highway. At least you have roads; in Labrador they don't have roads. So our

priorities, Mr. Speaker, are in the right area.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If members on both sides have exhausted themselves on this

issue for the moment, we will go on now as we said we would and -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend, the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, that in the fullness of time even he will be let into the

secret, and I hope that he will be the very first to congratulate Judge Noel on

the very splendid way in which he carried out the commission given to him by the

government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the

Government House Leader full credit for anything he does. It is not Judge Noel

we should congratulate on the way the boundaries are split up, it is the hon.

minister who deserves the congratulations because he is the man who chopped up

the districts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is letting his

mouth run away with his mind again so we will deal with this. The report is the

report of Judge Noel and it will be tabled in exactly the form in which Mr.

Justice Noel presented it to the ministry.

Your Honour, would you please be good enough to call Motion

1, that is the Budget Debate. When we adjourned the gentleman for Mount Pearl,

my friend from Mount Pearl had the floor and I assume he will carry on. He

certainly has the right to, so we look forward to hearing whatever more he has

to say on the point. If you would call it, please, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the Budget Debate.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me first of all respond to the Government House Leaders's

note which he just sent me. He is living in hope that I will finish today. I can

assure the hon. minister that I will not be finished today but my voice is going

to finish long before 5 o'clock. I am afraid I am not going to last that long,

so you are going to get a break, otherwise I certainly could go on for several

days.

MR. ROBERTS: There will be another chance.

MR. WINDSOR: There will be another chance. There

certainly will be many more opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to once again revisit

the question of the Budget, although I have had two opportunities prior to the

Easter break, but perhaps by now some of the government members opposite would

have sobered up a little bit and taken a second look themselves at what is

contained in the Budget document. They were all in too much of a hurry to

support this document when the minister brought it into the House back in March,

I guess it was, March 24, when the minister tabled his Budget for this year.

They were very anxious to support it then, but perhaps on

sober second reflection on the document they have realized that it is simply

another great feat in smoke and mirrors. The minister has tried to sell his

Budget document far and wide across the Province as a Budget that indeed has no

tax increases and has no borrowings, and neither statement is even close to the

truth, of course. As we have already seen from comments made earlier I don't

think it is important to go through these again.

The minister tried to tell us, of course, that he achieved a

$25 million surplus last year

whereas in fact he was predicting a $26 million

deficit. Well, certainly the books show that there was a surplus, Mr. Speaker,

and the fact of the matter is that comes from one-time windfalls, in changes in

transfers, adjustments for prior years, transfer of funding, and as well from

the sale of the ferries on the South Coast that we have heard a great deal

about.

It is far from over, Mr. Speaker, the sellout of the federal

ferry service on the South Coast of this Province. Now, we see it is being

replaced by private enterprise, by private ferry service and I guess time will

tell how satisfactory that is, but we are led to believe that neither is the

service satisfactory nor is it cost efficient. In fact we have every reason to

believe that it will be far more expensive in the long run than the former

the Province of the ferry service.

Now, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

assured the people of the South Coast that the funds would be put into a fund to

be used in perpetuity, to ensure a high level of service to the people of the

South Coast, but we soon found, Mr. Speaker, that not only was that not to be

the case in the future, but that indeed last year the Minister of Finance took

$31 million from that fund, applied it to general revenues, and that was part of

the reason for the so-called surplus at the end of the year, again smoke and

mirrors, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the same is true for this year, the minister is trying

to tell us that he is not doing any borrowing, but he is taking $70 million from

the sinking fund surplus. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact the Auditor

General has been recommending that for some time, that where we have sinking

funds in place for particular borrowing and where those funds have developed

surpluses in excess of what is required to retire the debt when it matures, that

it is not good and prudent financial management to leave that money in an

account and to be borrowing on the foreign market. The Auditor General is quite

right, and the minister is quite right in taking the $70 million and using that

for government purposes.

What I say is wrong is in trying to say to the people of the

Province and to this House that he is not doing any borrowing, because indeed he

is. He is borrowing to retire debt. Something in the order of $104 million will

be borrowed this year to retire other debt that becomes due. Now, whether you

take that $70 million and put it into current account, or whether you take that

$70 million and pay it against the debt and then borrow to balance your current

account, obviously it is six of one and half-a-dozen of the other, but one is

much more honest. One is more straightforward and is closer to the truth of what

actually is taking place here, so it certainly is misleading for the minister to

stand in his place and try to indicate to the House that indeed he is not doing

any borrowing and that he has a surplus on capital and current account of some

$2 million, or close to $2 million, that he is predicting for this year. We know

that is not true.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that there are additional one-time

funds that are included here. I am talking about the additional, I think, $13

million that will come from that ferry sell-out this year that will not be

available next year, and it leads to a very, very important question that the

minister has evaded thus far - he has not even attempted to address - and that

is: Where will he find the funds next year to meet the projected deficit? And

the deficit next year will be a far more serious problem than it was this year,

because we have already been told through the Federal Budget of the cuts in

federal transfers that will be applicable to this Province. I think for next

year it is something in the order of $115 million. Now, you add to that the $70

million that was taken from the surplus on the sinking funds that will not be

available next year, you take several other one-time revenue sources that we see

for this year that will not be available next year, and without any increase in

the cost of service, without any increases at all, we are already looking at a

$200 million problem for next year.

Now the minister has taken no action whatsoever to prepare

for that. If he is hoping that next year something else will happen, he will

find another $70 million somewhere else, and $30 million somewhere else, and $50

million somewhere else, he indeed is waiting for the lottery to come home to

roost, I suspect, and it is not going to happen.

So where is the great long-term plan, the great economic plan

that has been so touted by this government as being the saviour of our Province,

going to bring us back to fiscal security, there is no financial plan here even

in the short term. The minister has a one-year budget, no long-term plan of

dealing with the financial problems facing this Province.

Another major issue, obviously, that will have to be

addressed is the unfunded liability of the pension fund. The minister paid lip

service to it here and said, we will be dealing with it. There are no answers;

there are no suggested solutions, even, to dealing with the tremendous unfunded

liability, that tremendous debt that every man, woman and child in this Province

bears in the pension plan, not to mention the insecurity that gives to those

persons who have been contributing all their lives to this pension fund and

expect - and have every right to expect - that at the end of their service to

the Province they will be entitled to and will receive a pension which is

appropriate for their years of service and their contribution into that fund.

So these issues are major, major issues that the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board is dancing around. He has not dealt with them, he has

made no attempt to deal with them, and he has not even pretended to deal with

them. He has paid lip service to them. He has at least recognized them, there

will be problems next year, but he is not giving us any hint of how he is going

to deal with that.

It is all very well and good to come in this year and say:

Well, not only did we balance last year's budget, but we had a surplus of $25

million which is, of course, we all know, not accurate. It is all very well and

good to say we are going to have a surplus on combined current and capital this

year, which we also know is not true, but unless you are going to deal with next

year and the year after, unless you can project down the road the strengthening

of our financial position, then you have done nothing to secure the image of

this Province in the money markets of the world, nothing whatsoever. You have

done nothing to assure our ability to finance capital works in the future. You

have done nothing to assure that investors will want to come to this Province

and invest in this Province, to create industry because there can be no

assurance of financial integrity and without that kind of an assurance,

obviously no enterprise, no investor or business person will want to take a risk

of investing in this Province and this is a real role, Mr. Speaker, of the

Minister of Finance. The real role is to create confidence in the economy of our

Province, to build a financial structure, a taxation system and incentive

programs of various kinds that makes it attractive for private enterprise to

build here and to invest here. It makes it attractive for local businesses to

expand, it makes it possible for them to expand, to thrive and to prosper in

this Province and to do business and to be competitive with companies in other

parts of Canada and indeed today around the world, Mr. Speaker.

We have some fine examples of Newfoundland companies that in

fact, despite some of the disincentives, some of the disadvantages of doing

business in Newfoundland, despite that, they have proven themselves to be highly

competitive in the world marketplace, to be very efficient and effective at

doing what they do. In fact, capturing a significant portion of the world market

for their particular product to service and I believe we can do more of that,

Mr. Speaker. The role of the government is to create that economic climate and

we have not seen it. We have not seen the economic climate improving. We have

not seen programs put in place. We have had words, lip service, through great

economic recovery plans. We have had all kinds of expressions of intention of

what this government might do. We have seen welcome mats put out, Mr. Speaker,

but they are bare. They offer no great incentive.

The great EDGE program seems to be the end all and the be all

of saving industry and attracting new industry to this Province, Mr. Speaker. I

suspect that all we are doing here is providing short term incentives that will

not cause these companies to be here for the long term. In conversations with

business people, over the past number of months particularly, Mr. Speaker, it

has become very clear to us that businesses do not want government hand-outs.

What business wants today is less interference from government. Remove some of

the red tape. Remove some of the cost of doing business in this Province and a

very significant part of that cost is the overall administrative burden that is

placed on the private entrepreneur by government regulation. I can testify to

that.

I am in the process now of establishing a new small business.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the paperwork that is involved in establishing

this very small business is incredible. I suspect that it will take - when I get

it up and operating, right now it is - even when the business is operating, I

suspect it will take a good part of one day to deal with the administrative

affairs to run that small company. With all of the returns that have to go to

various government departments by the twentieth of the month or you will get a

fine of fifty dollars if you don't have your tax return in. All of these sorts

of things, Mr. Speaker, that are very essential. I understand where government

is coming from. No doubt I had a role in putting some of them in place myself.

We also had a plan, Mr. Speaker, some years ago of trying to

reduce some of this paper burden because it is indeed, very, very difficult to

building on Duckworth Street, the Sir Humphrey Gilbert Building, to apply for a

GST number and I not only got a GST number, I got a business number, an

employer's number, a payroll number and I believe one other. I now have a file

of five numbers, all federal, all of which require returns of one sort or

another each month.

AN HON. MEMBER: One number would do it.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, they have consolidated that into a

business number so each number is an extension of that number so that is a move

in the right direction, nevertheless, there are still all of these rules and

regulations that one has to follow, and I don't know how a small operation, a

Mama-Papa corner-store-type operation is able to deal with some of the paper

work that is put in front of them. I have a university degree, I am not the

brightest in the world but I am not the most stunned in the world either, and

there are a lot of business people out there who do not have university degrees

or formal training in business, unfortunately, and this is one of the problems

in Newfoundland, that too few of our business people have formal business

training. But that's changing very quickly. Nevertheless, there is a tremendous

paper burden there that must be awesome to some people starting out in small,

private enterprise and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there should be some

way to streamline that for the very small enterprise.

GST attempts to do it. If you are under a certain amount each

year, then you only have to file once a year; larger businesses have to file

quarterly or even monthly I guess, so there is some attempt to do that but I

think there is a long way we can go yet, and I think we need to co-ordinate and

co-operate between the federal and provincial governments so that you don't have

this tremendous duplication, it is just incredible. I am putting in place a

small tourism facility. I had to get permits from the Department of Environment,

the Department of Health, the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the

Act; I have to have a retail sales tax number, a GST number and all these other

numbers that I just talked about, Workmen's compensation, not to mention

insurances and all the other things that are in place for a very simple, little,

tourist operation and it is mind-boggling, Mr. Speaker.

All very well and good; it would be difficult to fault any of

it but when you add it all together and you look at the file that I have on just

these things alone, of what has to be gone through to satisfy all of the

requirements. Now if I were in the municipality, I would have another step to go

through, maybe two, to deal with the municipality and get permits there so it is

quite an incredible process, Mr. Speaker, for anybody.

To get back to where I started, when I was talking about the

EDGE corporation, all that is being provided here is some tax incentive up front

and that is good as far as it goes, but I have a great fear as I said when we

debated this legislation. I have a great fear that at the end of that ten or

fifteen-year period, that those companies are going to say: you have to extend

this tax exemption otherwise we can't continue to be here. The only reason we

are here is because of this tax exemption and if we lose it, then we have no

reason to stay and will have to look elsewhere.

Government will be hard-pressed then, Mr. Speaker, not to

comply, very hard-pressed or run the risk of losing that company and it may be

very socially unacceptable to lose that company at that point in time; so I

suspect even though it may, I am not sure that it is responsible for attracting

businesses. Obviously any business that can take advantage will take advantage,

but I am not sure that the EDGE Corporation is really attracting business. I am

not sure how much of an advantage it is over other parts of Canada but it gives

us a selling feature.

I wish the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board was here,

because you talk of giving incentives here. We had a program in place for a

three-year incentive, a three-year forgiveness of taxes for small businesses for

the first three years of operation and if I am not mistaken, that has now

expired or is about to expire. It was always in place for three years and was

extended each year for a further year so that there was always three years down

the road. If I am not mistaken, that has not been extended and is probably not

now in place. I wish the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board were here so I

could ask him some questions in that regard, and other questions indeed that I

would like to ask this afternoon if I can last at all. I am not doing well.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education and Training is here

so I would like to engage him for a few moments because the Budget impacts very

heavily on education in this Province, even though the minister has tried to

downplay it and say: No, we are doing more with education, and we are going to

be improving education. We are going to restructure and therefore we are going

to save some money, so that is how we are reducing the overall expenditure on

education this year.

We are starting to see already the impacts of it. We are

aware that we are seeing lay-offs already, particularly in post-secondary

education, in some of the community colleges. Cabot College last week, I say to

the minister, I am told, laid off sixteen instructors in adult basic education.

Mr. Speaker, this government talked so much about improving the quality of

education in this Province, about improving the educational standards of people,

about attacking the literacy problem in our Province, it appears to me, of all

things to eliminate, adult basic education... Many people are in those courses

in adult basic education, but I suspect the majority of them are people who,

through no fault of their own in their younger years, most likely because of the

socio-economic conditions, were unable to obtain education at that time in their

lives, and now in later years, somewhere down the road, they are trying to

better themselves. It would seem to me that this government should be doing

everything possible to help those people - everything possible.

I have a constituent who called me late last week, who is a

single parent, and she has basically raised her family now so that they are

almost independent of her but not quite, and she has been going to Cabot College

doing adult basic education, and working three nights a week to help her and her

family survive, and she has been doing very well to try to upgrade herself. Now

that she basically has her family moving on their own, about to stand on their

own two feet, she now wants to upgrade herself, to provide for herself a better

life. All of a sudden last week the adult basic education course at Cabot

College was eliminated. She was told: You can go to any one of the private

schools and get that same education - and I have no doubt that is true - but she

was paying $70 a semester at Cabot College and she would have to pay $200 per

semester at the private educational institutions.

Mr. Speaker, obviously that is totally out of reach of this

person, and I suspect most others that are in a situation of trying to get adult

basic education. There may well be exceptions, but I suspect most of those

people are not in a financial position to finance their own education here, and

they are scratching and clawing at everything they have to try to improve

themselves so that they will be less dependent on government and better able to

provide for themselves and their families. Now, of all things to eliminate, I,

for the life of me, fail to understand why government would eliminate adult

basic education.

I am hearing other stories. Down on the Burin Peninsula, I am

told, they have eliminated beauty culture and auto repair. Is that because there

is no take-up down there? Is there no interest in those courses? I doubt that

very much.

I heard just a few moments ago that somewhere between fifteen

and twenty-five positions are being eliminated at the Grand Falls community

college. How many are going to be eliminated in community colleges all across

this Province? And why are they being eliminated? Is it because there is no

interest in those courses? I doubt it, Mr. Speaker.

My own son had an interest in doing a course. It was offered

in Ontario and he wasn't able to get in there. And while he was here on a

Christmas vacation - because he had gone away to work for a couple of months,

but he came home for Christmas - the course that he wanted to do was offered at

the Stephenville community college. `First time, going to try it; will be

offered if there is enough interest.' So he applied quickly, eagerly, and was

accepted subject to the course going ahead and the seat being available to him.

Well, we waited. He stayed home. He didn't go back to the job he had in Ontario.

He stayed home waiting every day to see if he could get into the West Viking

College in Stephenville. We didn't hear. Finally, his mother called to find out

when we might hear. She was told: The course has started already. He wasn't

notified because there wasn't a seat available to him.

Why wasn't there a seat available to him? Because every seat

was taken up by Canada Manpower and by the TAGS program - paid for by taxpayers,

every single seat. This young man who was quite prepared to pay his own way was

not able to get in. Do you know where he is now? He is in Hollywood, California,

doing that course at a cost of $10,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the course?

MR. WINDSOR: Audio engineering. Ten thousand dollars -

that is what we have had to pay - tuition - for him, plus getting him there,

plus his living expenses, ten thousand dollars that we've sent to Hollywood,

California. No doubt the top-ranked school in the world, sitting right downtown

Hollywood. The Musical Institute, I think it is called.

The course was available here. He could have done it here in

his own Province. And I doubt if he will ever come back, quite honestly. I

suspect he will stay down there. He will get a very high level of training

there, I have no doubt, a very high quality training, but there will also be so

many opportunities available to people with his particular skills that he may

never come back.

So here is what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker. We are

talking about privatizing the educational system when it gets out of the

secondary schools. That's what is happening. More and more courses will be

offered by the private institutions, and more and more, the minister is going to

cut back on funding for the community colleges, forcing people to go to these

private educational systems. That is fine for those who can afford it, Mr.

Speaker, but those like my constituent, this lady who is trying to drag herself

up - having struggled through life to support her family, she now wants to

improve herself, and she gets the legs cut out from underneath her. Just when

she is really starting to move forward and improve herself a little bit the

minister cuts out adult basic education.

It is not a luxury course. This is not some airy-fairy course

that could be considered an optional course, something that might be interesting

to do, but adult basic education. It is about as basic - pardon the pun - as you

can get. It pains me to see that sort of thing taking place and the minister

trying to tell us that we have a surplus and we are not doing any borrowing.

What a wonderful Budget it is! What a deceitful Budget it is, Mr. Speaker!

MR. SULLIVAN: What about the South Coast ferries there,

were they not going to put that into a separate fund?

MR. WINDSOR: Well, the minister was quoted as saying the

funds for the South Coast ferries would be put into a separate fund to be used

in perpetuity to ensure an adequate level of service for those ferries.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, my

friend is quite right, move closer toward him so that he can see his picture

when I hold it up to him. `Don't dwink and dwive.' It is okay to dwive a weck

but don't dwink and dwive. That is why I moved closer, and pretty soon I am

going to move closer over there. And one of the big reasons will be the Minister

of Work, Services and Transportation. We have thousands of vehicles on the road

now that are not safe to be on the road. Once again he is playing with the lives

of the travelling public in this Province.

MR. EFFORD: You got yourself in trouble on this one.

MR. WINDSOR: No, I got the minister in trouble. I wish I

had a nickel for everybody who called me and said, `You are absolutely right,

the minister is a disgrace. Snow clearing in this Province is a disgrace and the

minister is putting the travelling public at risk.' I wish I had a nickel for

everyone who called me and every letter that I got.

MR. EFFORD: How come you couldn't enlist the delegates?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish I had nickel for each one of the 450 Tories that came

out in Port de Grave to elect our delegates, the 450 that are sworn to defeat

that member in the next provincial election and are going to defeat him soundly.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, definitely - Dr. Powell!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: They are going to defeat him soundly, and

Dr. Powell might just be our candidate. He may be.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, yes! (Inaudible) together.

MR. WINDSOR: He may be. We will see. Mr. Speaker, between

his .05 legislation -

MR. EFFORD: I am shivering in my shoes.

MR. WINDSOR: They will get him.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) your leader. You (inaudible) to

your leader.

MR. WINDSOR: I have to remind the hon. member that my

leader is sitting right here but not for very long because she is going over

there as well.

MR. EFFORD: No thanks to you. If everybody delivered like

you did she wouldn't be there.

MR. WINDSOR: Ah, I see. Those 495 Tories in Port de Grave

will tuck you away.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will deliver (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: We will see how he delivers.

Now, Mr. Speaker, while the minister is so anxious to shoot

off his face, maybe he will tell us what kind of a cosy little deal has he got

with the federal Minister of Transport to sell out other ferry services in this

Province?

MR. EFFORD: You will never know.

MR. WINDSOR: I will find out, I say to that minister, and

the people of this Province will find out. The people in Lewisporte would like

to know what kind of deal the minister has cooked up with the hon. Doug Young to

sell out the service from Lewisporte to Goose Bay. The business people in

Lewisporte would like to find that out, Mr. Speaker, and the people in Goose Bay

would like to find that out. Tell us, Mr. Speaker. If the minister wants to say

something, tell us, what is his intention? Is he serious when he says he wants

to privatize the Northeast Coast ferry service? Is he right when he wants to

sell out the service from Lewisporte to Goose Bay and transfer that money into

the Trans-Labrador Highway? Is that what the minister is saying? Because if it

is, it is not what the Premier is saying, and we would like to find out the

truth here.

MR. TOBIN: You will never find it out from them.

MR. WINDSOR: What kind of a deal does he have? All we are

seeing here is the government ministers opposite playing cosy little games with

ministers in Ottawa. Every day the Government in Ottawa does something, not a

word comes out of them. A couple of years ago they wouldn't stay quiet.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Now, the minister shouldn't attack the

Chair.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: The minister doesn't like the questions,

does he? He is very uncomfortable there now, very uncomfortable, and so he

should be, because he shot off his face saying he was going to privatize that

service, and the Premier, I think, has put him in his place. I hope the Premier

has more sense than that minister does. You are talking 500 jobs dependent on

the Northeast Coast ferry service in this Province.

MR. EFFORD: You don't know what you are talking about.

MR. WINDSOR: I don't? Well, in that case, Mr. Speaker,

the members of the CN union that I met with this morning don't know what they

are talking about. Maybe the minister would like to tell them they don't know

what they are talking about.

MR. EFFORD: Bring them over. (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: They would love to.

MR. EFFORD: Send the union over.

MR. WINDSOR: They tried to get a meeting with the Premier

and it was cancelled.

MR. EFFORD: That's right, it was cancelled (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, it was cancelled because the Premier

said: There is no need for a meeting. Whatever the minister said was wrong, so

there is no need for a meeting. That's why your meeting with the Premier was

cancelled.

MR. EFFORD: Well, then, there is no need for a meeting is

there?

MR. WINDSOR: I would like for the minister to stand up

and have the fortitude to tell exactly what is being proposed by this

government. Put the people at rest in Lewisporte and Goose Bay, and all the

employees in the CN service; put their fears at rest. Tell them that their jobs

are secure, that the service is secure, and ask the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation how he feels about it. Ask the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation what the impact is of that ferry service, and it is growing. The

Minister of Development will tell you the impact of that ferry service is

growing tremendously. The amount of travelling tourist traffic on that service

has increased tenfold in the last ten years, I suspect.

MR. EFFORD: You don't know what you are talking about.

MR. WINDSOR: I do know what I am talking about - just the

opposite to the hon. member opposite, and the Minister of Development knows that

I know what I am talking about, he knows that my numbers are right and he is

agreeing with me there, so the member should get the facts. If he had had his

facts before he brought in .05 he would not have brought in .05, because not one

fatal traffic accident was caused by a driver who had an alcohol level of

between .05 and .08.

MR. EFFORD: You are wrong.

MR. WINDSOR: I am not wrong. Not one was caused by a

driver that was below .15.

MR. EFFORD: You don't know anything.

MR. WINDSOR: I do know. The minister doesn't like the

facts, but you can't change them. The bottom line is that the minister didn't

have the facts. He is flying by the seat of his pants. He has done no research,

he has taken no advice. He just thinks it is the right thing to do and he went

ahead and did it, and he has destroyed the hospitality industry in this

Province.

MR. EFFORD: So you are saying we should build up the

hospitality industry by allowing people to drink and drive? Now, you are

sensible! You are getting worse all the time!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, there is nobody advocating

drinking and driving. The law of Canada says .08 is a safe level at which to

drive.

MR. EFFORD: That is not correct.

MR. WINDSOR: It is. The only problem here is that the

minister doesn't like to drink at all and he wants to impose his moral standards

on the rest of the world. I say to the minister, it's not your decision.

MR. EFFORD: What? I don't like a drink?

MR. WINDSOR: It is not your decision. Could I have some

water, please?

MR. EFFORD: I tell you what, get a bottle of scotch and

see won't it put you under the table.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: I was about to say, it sounds like he has

already consumed one, but that would be unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, and I

won't utter it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to where I was, dealing with

the economy. There are things that can be done to improve this economy, but one

of the problems today is that there are too few people working to support too

many - far too few. Too many people are dependent on government funding of one

sort or another, or are otherwise on the government payroll, legitimately

working, but the size of government in relation to the size of the private

sector, Mr. Speaker, is out of proportion. Too many people are being supported

by the public purse, either directly or indirectly, so we have to create jobs.

There should be one focus for government, Mr. Speaker, no other focus, except to

create jobs in this Province. Stimulate the economy and you will create jobs.

Create jobs and you will stimulate the economy. They go hand in hand, Mr.

Speaker. If people are working, they have disposable income, it moves the

economy. If you can stimulate the economy, jobs will be created and people will

be working. It is the chicken and the egg situation, both are equally valid and

that should be the soul objective of this government, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I could go on and on all day about different items in

this Budget. I could talk about the Trans City proposal, I could speak about

that for two weeks. I can talk about rubber factories, I can talk about light

bulb factories, I can talk about chocolate factories, I can talk about all kinds

of hare-brained schemes, all kinds of them, but never did we break the Public

Tender Act and blow $40 odd-million to look after our buddies, Mr. Speaker,

never - didn't create one job, didn't create a building or a service that would

not have otherwise been created had the Public Tender Act been followed. The

ministers over there, Mr. Speaker, have supported it - or have they? Did they

support it? Did the ministers even know what they were doing? There is a real

question. I saw the former Minister of Finance on television Friday night and

heard his letter being discussed, a letter that he has written the Premier, an

interesting letter taking the Premier to task, asking the Premier, `Why were we

not made aware of the recommendations that the committee had before them? Why

were we not made aware? And I hold you responsible,' he said to the Premier.

It is one thing, Mr. Speaker, for a government or a Cabinet -

within the realm of Cabinet solidarity - to make a collective decision and all

ministers are responsible, that is the way our system works. If you are part of

the Cabinet and a decision is made you have the right to argue with it in

Cabinet. Once that decision is made by Cabinet, you go out and you defend it.

That is the principle under which the collective responsibility of Cabinet works

and if you don't like that you have one other choice, you resign from Cabinet.

So that is an onerous responsibility on every Cabinet minister. You are

responsible - and I hope all ministers realize it - you are equally responsible

for every decision taken by Cabinet, whether or not you agree with it and your

one alternative is to resign and say, `No, Mr. Premier, I cannot support that

decision and I have to take my leave.' That is your one way out.

Once that decision is taken you are all responsible but, Mr.

Speaker, one thing you should be able to expect, when you accept that

responsibility, is that you are fully made aware of all of the facts, when you

make that collective decision, that all ministers who are involved in making

that decision have all of the facts. It certainly appears here, according to the

Member for St. John's Centre, that not all ministers were aware of the facts.

This great Cabinet paper really shows what the Trans City deal was really all

about. The one Cabinet document - the Minister of Finance said he didn't see it,

but his signature was on it. He must have been sleep-walking when he signed it.

He didn't remember signing it. He didn't know it existed but found it in his

file, found the original in his file with the original stamp of the Executive

Council on it. Interesting! How did a Cabinet paper that was sent to the

Executive Council, stamped received by the Executive Council, get back into the

minister's files and nobody knew about it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, he was the President of the Council,

interesting, but there is no evidence of that paper having been distributed to

his colleagues, except the ministers on the committee. The ministers on the

committee said, `We don't think this paper reflects the facts. We don't think

this paper is accurate. So we will have it changed. We won't send it up at all.'

So, Mr. Speaker, hon. ministers opposite are sitting there

fully responsible for that decision, yet they were not given all of the

information. It was kept from them, it was hidden, it was denied them. Now, Mr.

Speaker, if I were a member of that Cabinet, I would feel very uncomfortable

about every decision that I made from now on. I would want to know, every time a

decision was being made by Cabinet, whether or not I had all the information.

What are you hiding from me now?

We can understand why government would keep as much

information away from the Opposition and out of the public eye as possible, but

it is frightening to think that we have a government and a Cabinet where

information is not being shared amongst the Cabinet ministers. The question is,

as my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition asked today, who gave the orders

to have that Cabinet paper hidden? Who gave the order to have that contract

awarded `come hell or high water'? Why were those orders given?

There is only one way to answer it. The only way to get the

answer to that is through a public inquiry, and we know that this government

certainly doesn't want to have a public inquiry. We know what they are hiding.

There is more yet to be exposed, and it will be exposed. So they are appealing

the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court said: You've broken the Public

Tender Act, you had no business doing it, you pay damages because the other

company had the right to have that contract, they were the low bidder. So the

taxpayers of this Province will cough up another $3 million for nothing, for

damages, for profits to a contractor to compensate it for lost profits as a

result of the Public Tender Act being broken.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, they haven't paid it yet because

they've appealed it. That is just another stalling tactic, that will delay it

another while. It also keeps it away from the Public Accounts Committee for

another while, I guess. We have a few members over there who are part of this as

well, a few back benchers who are part of this whole scam; the members of the

Public Accounts Committee - the Member for Eagle River was the chief puppet at

the time. He was the vice-chair of the Public Accounts Committee. He got his

reward. They silenced him, shut him up, made him parliamentary assistant to the

Premier. That will quieten him down. He was getting too cocky over there. He was

doing too good a job for his constituency by speaking up for them against

government, Mr. Speaker, so they bought him off, that's what happened.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. The hon. Member for St. John's South

was one step ahead of him. He left the Public Accounts Committee, went into

Cabinet, with a slight stay in the Premier's Office, but he went into Cabinet.

They are all part of this great cover-up, Mr. Speaker. We

have the four members of the Public Accounts Committee who muzzled the Public

Accounts Committee on this issue. We have the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation who was Minister of - at that time it was Public Works - I think,

the department has been changed. He refused to come to the Public Accounts

Committee, where the Minister of Finance and his committee of ministers, who not

only refused to give the information to the Opposition, apparently didn't even

give it to his colleagues, didn't give it to the rest of the ministers in

Cabinet. That is the greatest sin of all, Mr. Speaker, to ask his colleagues in

Cabinet to share the responsibility for that decision and not to tell them the

whole truth, and that is what is taking place here so, Mr. Speaker, that issue

will not go away.

The Premier would like it to go away; the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board would like it to go away, some other ministers and

backbenchers would like it to go away but it will not die, Mr. Speaker, because

the people of this Province know full-well that there is a serious injustice

here, that this government has willingly, knowingly and deliberately violated

the Public Tender Act to benefit certain supporters of the Party, and that is as

blatant as it can be, Mr. Speaker, so we will deal with that again in further

days and will get into many, many other areas that need to be dealt with.

I want to ask the minister, I guess it is the acting Minister

of Justice, we have not yet had any report dealing with the Hiland Insurance

deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't have a quorum here, do we?

MR. WINDSOR: Two, four, six, eight, nine. No, if you

people leave we don't have a quorum. Could we have a quorum call, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Quorum call.

Quorum

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There was a quorum present at the time I believe.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just needed to get some of the members back in

the House because so many of them were missing some of the important points that

I was making. I might have to start all over again. I might have to start over

where I started back in March, maybe. My voice is coming around. I swallowed the

frog, I am starting to get stronger. I could be good for several more days now.

I was afraid this morning. I said to my colleagues: I don't think I'm going to

be able to go too long because of the cold I have and the bad throat, but I

said: I might start having fun and stay there forever. I'm getting into that

range.

I wanted to ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board,

can he tell us what has happened with the Hiland Insurance deal and the

superintendent of insurance? Where are we now? What services are being put in

place to protect persons who purchase insurance in this Province? Will the

minister tell us then? What is happening there now? That is another area that

the government feels very sensitive about, tries to evade. We would like to know

exactly what is happening. Has there been an investigation ongoing? Where is

that investigation? Where is the report? The minister will go to find out.

While he is gone I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the

Member for Lewisporte is back. Because I was here trying to defend the town of

Lewisporte -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) your member.

MR. WINDSOR: My member. He is away almost as much as the

Premier but he is my member. I was trying to defend the town of Lewisporte

against the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation over there who wants

to sell out the northeast coast transportation system to the Government of

Canada. I want to know where the Member for Lewisporte sits on that, Mr.

Speaker. He is on record as supporting privatization. He confirms that, he nods

his head, the Member for Lewisporte. He is on the record as supporting

privatization of Marine Atlantic service from Lewisporte to Goose Bay. Yes he

is. He is quoted in the Lewisporte Pilot and I haven't seen him print a

retraction yet. He had better get out of bed in the morning and start dealing

with the issues.

We haven't heard anything more about the lighthouses either.

The Member for Lewisporte has been a good spokesperson.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: On the lighthouses. The member has been a

good spokesperson on that. I have to give him credit. He has done his bit. But

we haven't heard any policy from this government as to whether or nor they

the lighthouses. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation hasn't

opened up his mouth, at least not to say anything sensible. Certainly not to

oppose that. The Member for Lewisporte has. If we didn't have the Member for

Lewisporte opposing it we would have nobody over there opposing it.

What has the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

said? Will the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation table any letters

that he has sent to the Minister of Transportation in Ottawa?

MR. EFFORD: No!

MR. WINDSOR: No he won't, because he hasn't sent any, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is the Member for Lewisporte going to be

able to stop this?

MR. WINDSOR: The Member for Lewisporte has no impact. He

can shout and scream and bawl, and that is all he can do. The Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation speaks for government on these issues but he hasn't

spoken up. Yes, we had a cleverly worded resolution in the House that was

passed. Why wouldn't it be? Motherhood issue. It is easy, Mr. Speaker, for all

members opposite to support a motion in this House, but where is the action? Has

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation been to Ottawa to speak with

the federal minister to say: Do you realize what a mistake you are making? Or

does the minister even care. That is the question.

I'm really amazed at the Member for Lewisporte on the CN

Marine issue. We haven't heard him yet. We haven't heard him speak up. We've

heard him say he is in favour of privatizing but we haven't heard him oppose it

yet. We haven't heard him defend all of the business people in Lewisporte who

will be affected, the hundreds of people who will lose their jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have a selective memory.

MR. WINDSOR: No, I don't have a selective memory. I have

a very accurate memory when it comes to this sort of thing, very accurate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: A very selective memory he has.

We haven't heard yet from the Premier on his great

Federal/Provincial Committee on the Economy, this special committee that has the

Premier and the Prime Minister on it, and the Minister of Fisheries for Canada,

emergency crisis committee, is going to do wonders and come up with great, new,

innovative ways to solve the economic crisis in Newfoundland and Labrador. The

Premier has promised he will have a report for us very shortly. We haven't seen

that - or is that just more smoke and mirrors, more words with no action? That

is what we are seeing here.

The problem we have over here, you see, is that there is no

unified approach. The Premier doesn't have the confidence of his back benches.

He doesn't even have the confidence of all of his Cabinet. In fact, he is not

sure how many groups he has within his Cabinet and his caucus. That is the real

problem over there. He has five or six former Cabinet ministers who are publicly

speaking out against what the government is doing. He has government back

benches who are meeting secretly outside of caucus - the group of twelve I

believe they call themselves, is it? Is that the group?

AN HON. MEMBER: The dirty dozen.

MR. WINDSOR: The dirty dozen, that meet secretly to

decide if we are going to support this piece of legislation or that piece of

legislation. An interesting concept, Mr. Speaker, we now have two oppositions in

the House, the Official Opposition over here, and the unofficial opposition in

the back bench over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which is more dangerous?

MR. WINDSOR: Which is more dangerous is true. This

opposition is more dangerous to the government; that opposition is more

dangerous to the Province, but they might not be because it may not be too long

before the Premier says: That is enough of this. Maybe we should have an

election and clean out some of these back benches over here. I wonder would he

do that? Would he have an election to try to clean out some of the back benches

over there? Or maybe he will test the waters in Grand Falls first.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are going to be a few nomination

papers not signed over there.

MR. WINDSOR: A few nomination papers not signed. Maybe he

will pass through Newfoundland and stop long enough to call a by-election in

Grand Falls to test the waters. Maybe he will do that so we can give him a

trimming out there. Maybe he will do that. It won't be long now. We will see who

is right. I am going to predict, Mr. Speaker, you will not see a by-election in

Grand Falls.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WINDSOR: I don't think we will see a by-election in

Grand Falls. I think we will have a general election before the Premier calls a

by-election in Grand Falls.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, we will see. The Premier is very

uncomfortable knowing who is sitting behind him right now, very, very

uncomfortable.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: You need not worry about what goes on over

here. You should pay attention to what is going on over there. The Premier just

hired you to watch his back. You are supposed to have the inside track with the

dirty dozen over there. That is your job now, to protect the Premier from these

intestine insurrections from within his own caucus. That is the job the Member

for Eagle River has, Mr. Speaker. That was his payoff to shut him up, to keep

him from speaking out against the government. The only one now left to speak is

the Member for Pleasantville. He still has the intestinal fortitude to stand up

and say what he believes in. He will be elected forever. God bless him, if I

lived in Pleasantville I believe I would vote for him. Now, he is not always

right, he is quite often wrong, but he believes what he says, says what he

believes, and is not afraid to stand up and be counted, but the rest of them

over there, Mr. Speaker, what a tired, beaten bunch they are.

They have all been muzzled. They have either been muzzled or

tossed out of Cabinet, one or the other, and they are over there licking their

wounds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: There is not a problem over here. Unlike the

party opposite we have one leader, one caucus, and we all have the one purpose

which is to move over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Over here we have a leader who does not have

a party. He is a leader of one. We have a dictator for a leader, we have two or

there others who think they are leaders, and we have at least two, if not three

caucuses over there.

MR. TOBIN: Herb Kitchen is the chief. He tells the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: The Member for St. John's Centre has written

probably the strongest letter I have ever seen written to a Premier by any

backbencher.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have a copy, too?

MR. WINDSOR: No, I don't yet but I will. The member can

rest assured that I will. In short order I will have it. In short order the

whole House will have it because it is a very important letter, a very powerful

letter, and it is coming out of the mouth of the former Minister of Finance when

he said: Premier, I was part of a Cabinet decision that I made without all of

the information that was available and you as Premier were responsible to make

sure that I had all the information. The Member for St. John's Centre is not

happy about that and I do not blame him, and I compliment him for having the

intestinal fortitude to speak up to the Premier.

He was not here a moment ago when I was telling other

ministers who were there how uncomfortable they should feel in every decision

they make now, that they cannot be sure they have all the information. You

cannot be sure you have all the information, and that has to be an uncomfortable

feeling because you were all equally responsible, whether you like it or not. In

every decision Cabinet makes you share the responsibility, and I would be just

as upset as the Member for St. John's Centre if I participated in a Cabinet

decision and found out later that a committee of Cabinet had withheld

information from me, or as the Member for St. John's Centre suggests, maybe the

Premier ordered them to withhold the information from them. Which is true? We do

not know but we will find out in due course.

I urge the Member for St. John's Centre to continue on with

his efforts to find out from the Premier exactly what happened, because whether

he likes it or not he is painted with the same brush, and he is just as

responsible as the Minister of Finance and the Premier for that decision. The

minister knows it was a wrong decision. He has indicated in this House, by his

questions and by his comments in the House, that he knows it was a bad decision

to make. The Supreme Court has told us that. The minister in his heart knows

that was a bad decision. He knows the Public Tender Act was violated. He knows

it was not in the best interest of this Province and he made that decision with

false information, information hidden from him.

I do not blame him for being upset and I do not blame him for

writing the Premier and saying: what is going on here, Mr. Premier? I wonder,

just in passing, if it had anything to do with the fact that he is no longer the

Minister of Finance?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. WINDSOR: The Member for St. John's Centre.

AN HON. MEMBER: He probably should be. What do you mean?

MR. WINDSOR: The fact that he does not agree, that he is

no longer in Cabinet. I wonder if that was it? I wonder if he found out that

this decision was made, because as Minister of Health he was very much involved.

Maybe the Minister of Health at the time found out that we've made a decision

and that information was held from us. I wonder is that why. Maybe we are

getting very close to the truth here now. Maybe this is what happened.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Neil, he didn't get much warning when he

was kicked out of Cabinet. He didn't get much warning.

MR. WINDSOR: No, he didn't get much warning. He was not a

very happy camper the day of the Cabinet shuffle.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He heard it on the news going to

Government House.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. It is an effrontery to withhold

information from a Cabinet minister, an effrontery to withhold information from

a minister in making a decision, but it is a supreme effrontery for the Premier

to advise that minister that he is no longer a minister via the news media. What

an insult. I don't blame the former minister, the Member for St. John's Centre,

for being upset. He had every right to be upset.

I don't think it has ever happened before. Even former

Premier Smallwood had the decency the day that he swore you into office to have

you sign a letter of resignation that he could accept whenever it was

appropriate for him to do so. Even that, at least he had that. At least you had

some knowledge that: I might get a call and say thank you, I've accepted your

letter and dated it today. The Member for St. John's Centre didn't even get

that. Heard it on the radio, we are told. Unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.

It shows again that members opposite - and have a look at the

back benches. Are there five or six ministers now, or seven ministers that have

gone in the last four or five years? They are like pawns in a chess game. The

Premier flicks them aside if they step out of line at all. If they make any kind

of an indiscretion, if they disagree with the Premier in any way, shape or form,

he flicks them aside like a mosquito, disposable. The Member for Mount Scio -

Bell Island finds it funny. He didn't find it so funny the night he was tossed

out of Cabinet, he was asked to resign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No he was not.

MR. WINDSOR: Alright, you go ahead and correct it. Either

way. I will give leave, Mr. Speaker. Let the member - because it won't change a

thing. Either way he was thrown out of Cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell

Island.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is he up on?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: He is up by leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALSH: No, I stand on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for - Mount Scio - Bell

Island on a point of order.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I don't want the hon. Member for

Mount Pearl who I've known for many years both personally and here in the House

to leave the House with the impression that I was asked to resign from Cabinet.

I repeat now what I said before: I was not asked to resign, it was not suggested

that I resign, there was no innuendo that I should resign. I made the decision

myself because I thought it was the proper thing to do at that time. I don't

believe the hon. member wants to leave the House with an impression that is

incorrect. I thought I should correct him.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order. Maybe a disagreement

between hon. members but there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly didn't

want to leave a false impression with the House, that is why I gave the hon.

member an opportunity to interject and to say that. It strikes me as queer

therefore that the member hasn't decided to put himself back in Cabinet then, if

it was his choice to resign. If the member was cleared supposedly by the

investigation - who did it? The Premier, was it, did the investigation?

MR. WALSH: The RCMP -

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, the RCMP.

MR. WALSH: Not supposedly.

MR. WINDSOR: Okay. So the member was cleared.

MR. WALSH: Not supposedly. (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The member was cleared by the RCMP

investigation. In which case, how come he wasn't put back in Cabinet? Why wasn't

he put back in Cabinet?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Can he answer that?

MR. WINDSOR: No, he can't answer that. Why was the member

not put back in Cabinet?

MR. WALSH: No, I can't answer that. I didn't make the

selection at this time.

MR. WINDSOR: No, you didn't make the selection this time.

But if he voluntarily said: Premier, I will step aside till this investigation

is over. If he volunteered to do that, which would be an honourable thing to do

and I am sure the Premier would be delighted if that is what you said to them.

The Premier would appreciate the fact that you volunteered to resign while the

investigation was on, as is the Minister of Justice. Are you trying to tell me

that the Minister of Justice is not going to pop back into his seat? He has not

left his seat.

MR. TOBIN: And there is some difference between what he

did and what the Member for Mount Scio did (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is right. Do you mean to tell me, Mr.

Speaker, that the Minister of Justice is going to have to wait until the Premier

invites him to come back and be Minister of Justice? Not likely.

AN HON. MEMBER: I declare it a good speech.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, Mr. Speaker, it is not a good speech. My

lungs are getting weary and the hon. gentlemen opposite, their ears are getting

weary.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are doing a good job. You are telling

the truth.

MR. WINDSOR: There are so many issues that we can deal

with. The Minister of Finance is gone again. I wanted to ask him some more

questions. Where is he gone?

AN HON. MEMBER: The electoral boundaries and all of that

stuff?

MR. WINDSOR: The electoral boundaries? No, I have not

touched on that. What happened to the electoral boundaries report today? Oh,

they are not coming until Wednesday or Thursday.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Caucus is going to meet (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: They had a long Caucus meeting this morning,

had a lunch brought in -

MR. SULLIVAN: And they did not get to the electoral

boundaries report.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, they did not get to it? The biggest

issue on their agenda, had already said publicly it would be here -

AN HON. MEMBER: Over the agenda they had a row.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, they had another row. The dirty dozen

did their deed again today. How many of the dirty dozen are going to lose their

seats if the gerrymandered forty-eight seat proposal comes through, I wonder?

MR. TOBIN: John Efford loses part of his.

MR. WINDSOR: It would be interesting to see what the cost

of all of that was. To go through that process of appointing an independent

commission chaired by a former