May 18,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 27

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the

public galleries of the House of Assembly, twenty-four Grade VI students from

Greenwood Elementary accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Helen Day and their

chaperons: Josie Brenton, Josie Lewis, Joan Lewis and Linda Murphy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

My question is to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations.

Over the past week I have asserted that Marine Atlantic has a

premeditated hidden agenda to close the Newfoundland Dockyard.

Can the minister confirm today, that yesterday, while we were

debating the Private Member's Resolution in this House, debating the survival of

the Newfoundland Dockyard, that Marine Atlantic asked all of its management

staff to take their holidays until further notice?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I say to the hon. member, I cannot confirm what the

member is saying now. This is the first time I have heard that.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister

another question then. Can he confirm that the bidding, contracting department,

all personnel in that department at the Newfoundland Dockyard have also been

told by Marine Atlantic, directions from its head office in Moncton, to take

their holidays until further notice?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: No. I have not, Mr. Speaker, and I can say to

the hon. member perhaps those who did know, had they informed me, I might have

been able to make some enquiries and ask some questions, but what the hon.

member is saying is totally news to me.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the reality is becoming

clearer of what Marine Atlantic's intentions are for the Newfoundland Dockyard.

First, they disallowed the Dockyard to bid on international work; second, they

disallowed the Dockyard to bid on national work in other provinces in Atlantic

Canada. I can tell the minister for sure that as of yesterday while we were

debating the private member's resolution 95 per cent of the management staff

were told to take their holidays; in effect, a lay off notice. The contract and

bidding department was also told to take their holidays; in effect a lay off

notice.

Do we have the time and luxury, Mr. Minister, to wait for Mr.

Morrison to come back from his trip to Europe? Will you now phone Brian Tobin

today and request an emergency meeting between himself as the minister for

Newfoundland and Labrador in the federal Cabinet and the Minister of Transport

to discuss today - not next week, not next month - the survival of the

Newfoundland Dockyard?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to

the hon. member that this government has been in touch with the ministers in the

federal government who would assist this government in underlining exactly what

we've already said, I say to the member. This government's position is that we

are not - and I say it again, not - supporting the closure of the Dockyard.

Absolutely not. The member should know, and other hon. members opposite know,

that there is a system in which to do this and do it properly. This government

has taken on that responsibility. We will continue to meet with those who we

need to sit down with. I've told the member - I said it yesterday - that we will

bring a proposal to Marine Atlantic to put in place a task force to report back

in ninety days, which would include all the main principals. This government is

not going to stand idly by and watch the Dockyard close. We are going to do

everything we possibly can to keep the Dockyard open. So let the member

understand that and relax on the grandstanding.

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

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

the Premier. Will the Premier admit that his economic development record has

been a dismal failure, in large part because he made a stupendous strategic

mistake in neglecting traditional industries for which Newfoundland has a

natural advantage? Why has the Premier edged the St. John's Dockyard out of

provincial government priority attention, the repair and service facility that

has a tremendous natural advantage of a geographic location thrust into the

northwest Atlantic shipping lanes, two steaming days away from the competing

facility in Halifax? Why have the Premier and his Minister of ITT and his guru

Doug House been so dazzled by businesses that employ two people and ten people,

and why have they been so docile, dormant, and dismal by contrast when it comes

to the St. John's Dockyard which has employed 700 people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am not sure where the Leader of the

Opposition has been for the last three years. In the last year, in particular,

Mr. Speaker, government has been showered with accolades about its Economic

Development Policy, and well-deserved, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: There is great jealously expressed in

other parts of Canada because of the course this government is taking, great

commendation coming from both labour and management sides of the economy about

the tremendous development that is taking place, so the comments that the Leader

of the Opposition prefaced her variety of questions with are totally without

merit, Mr. Speaker, and I felt that should be said.

There was such a barrage of questions that I could not keep

track of them, but I think the gist of it is, why have we not taken the

John's Dockyard?

Mr. Speaker, we simply don't operate that way. The St. John's

Dockyard, like Marystown Shipyard, has to be able to function on its own, and

function effectively. Governments cannot continue to subsidize it forever and we

John's Dockyard interminably than we would agree to arbitrarily subsidize

Marystown Shipyard, if it were not producing, and costing the tens of millions

of dollars as it has in the past. But the difference the government's policy in

relation to Marystown Shipyard and the Federal Government's policy with respect

to the St. John's Dockyard is marked.

We have put a lot of money and a lot of effort into

recapitalizing and restructuring the Marystown Shipyard to give it the best

possible chance we could give it at being economically successful.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you ask (inaudible) the same for

the St. John's Dockyard?

PREMIER WELLS: If the hon. member wanted to put a

question, I am sure his leader would have asked him. She asked me the question

and I think he ought to have the courtesy of letting me answer it, Mr. Speaker.

On the contrary, as I view the St. John's Dockyard, the

former Federal Government and the present Federal Government, have both failed

to restructure that dockyard and recapitalize it, and provide it with the

up-to-date and modern equipment that it needed to be efficient and effective.

They seem to have let it run down to where it can't compete and then decided

because it can't compete, it ought to be sold or closed. I feel they have an

obligation, Mr. Speaker, to give it every possible chance by recapitalizing and

improving the physical plant and facility so that it will have a fair chance at

competing. Then, if it can't compete on its own, I don't ask them to subsidize

it forever.

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

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary for

the Premier.

The Premier asked where do we think he has been for the last

three years? We know he was nowhere near the St. John's Dockyard. I ask the

Premier, Why have you given up on the St. John's Dockyard? Why are you aiding

and abetting the Federal Government in closing the St. John's Dockyard? Don't

you value the natural advantage that ship repair and service facility has

because of its geographic location? Don't you realize that if the St. John's

Dockyard goes down, jobs will be lost from this Province to the mainland?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, not one single one of the

premises that underlay her question is truthful or accurate. So all I can say is

there is no question to answer.

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

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier

why he is assisting the Chrtien Government in scuttling the St. John's

Dockyard? Is it because the Premier has now decided to retire from politics and

is courting Mr. Chrtien for a lucrative Federal Government ambassadorial or

judicial appointment? Is the Premier putting his own personal career -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I mentioned to the hon. member on another occasion that it is

fair to ask questions on issues and facts but the hon. member can't impute

unworthy motives to another member of the House of this sort. So the question

cannot be asked in the House in those terms.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if she has another

question.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask

the Premier: Why he is not representing the interests of the Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is supposed to represent?

Why is he not protecting the jobs and the services at the St. John's dockyard in

the interest of the people of this Province he is supposed to be serving?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, quite apart from the

offensive diatribe that preceded the question. Again, the underlying supposition

is totally without foundation. So I cannot answer a question as to why I am

abandoning the interests of the people of the Province because I am not. So the

underlying supposition is totally without foundation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Environment.

Mr. Speaker, in February of 1989, Albright & Wilson made an

announcement that they were going to close. They finished production in August

of that year. It will soon be six years, and after two EIS studies, numerous

interventions by companies, towns, unions, etc., I am asking the minister today:

When will his department let us know the decision on the cleanup of Long

Harbour, please?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

question from the member. I know he is concerned about the future of Long

Harbour, as is the government.

This has been a process that started out in 1989. It has been

a very involved process which has required a lot of consulting work to be done

to figure out what the proper solutions are for the cleanup of the industrial

site. It is and has been quite a problem over the past number of years, and what

we are trying to do is ensure that we get the right solution, and that we do it

right and make sure that when we do make the decision for Long Harbour it is one

where they are able to move ahead and they are able to develop their community

locally.

There has been a lot of work done. We believe, in the next

few weeks, we will have a recommendation for government to consider. But we want

to make the right decision, and we want to make sure we have all the

information, and that is all the process. That has been part of the problem. It

has taken some time to get that information all put together and finalized, but

we are just about there, and I can assure the member that the decision that will

be made will be one that I think will be to the benefit of the people of Long

Harbour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the minister saying he is prepared to make the

right decision. I can trust him; the others in Cabinet I am not too keen on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I didn't say I didn't like you, I said I'm

not too keen on you - there is a difference.

The minister knows that the submissions have been made by the

town. Other attitudes and things have been put forward by the company - the town

is fairly well in the middle - and the union has asked lots of questions and

made a number of suggestions.

One of the big concerns is what the company's people had

said, that the groundwater would not - some of the contaminants in the soil

would only move a few metres. There are questions, now, whether it has moved

some ninety metres in the groundwater which comes to bringing it about fifty

metres from the original shoreline. Some people have expressed a lot of

concerns. I want to remind the House that I didn't work there and there is lots

of stuff that I'm not familiar with down in Long Harbour, but there are a lot of

expressions of concern about contaminants in the groundwater. Would the minister

be able to address that subject please?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The information that the

member is talking about is part of the information base that the consultants

have been reviewing, that our environmental assessment officials have been

reviewing. All that information is going into the final report that will be

given to my office shortly and for government to consider. It is very important

that we have the right scientific information so that government can make the

final decisions for the future. This is a big project. It is a project where the

company involved has already spent approximately $20 million in cleaning up the

site, and there is going to be a lot more money spent in the future in the

cleanup of this site.

In order for us to make the right decisions our environmental

assessment officials have gotten and have put together the scientific

information from the best that you can get. Government will have that

information shortly with recommendations so that we can make an appropriate

decision. We are more than concerned about the site and the future of the site

and the proper procedures that are going to be used in the cleanup of the site.

We are going to make a decision very soon. It is one that has taken some time

but it has only taken time because we are trying to do the right thing for the

people of Long Harbour.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some time ago

Tenneco, the parent company, sold off Albright and Wilson. I would like to ask

the minister whether Tenneco has assumed promise of a liability for what has

happened down there and if that liability is going to be in the form of money to

be set aside. That the parent company is going to put their money where their

mouth is. Thank you.

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

MR. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is another important

question which the government is dealing with. Discussions have been ongoing

with the company and they have committed themselves to the cleanup of this site

and the liability for it. The final paperwork in the final agreement is being

worked on and we hope that will be finalized in the next few weeks also, at that

same time, basically, as a decision is made.

The company has always indicated its commitment to the

cleanup of the site. We expect them to maintain that commitment strongly and

when a decision is made we hope to have all the decisions around the whole

project finalized. They haven't indicated anything otherwise and we believe

their commitment is strong. They've been in discussions with our government over

the past number of months to ensure that question will be settled before or

after or as soon as the decision is made on this project. Like I've said, over

the past few years they have spent a lot of money. We know they will have to

spend more. That question will be answered in due course.

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

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

a question for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. I'm sure the

minister is aware that the community of Charlottetown in the District of Eagle

River in Labrador has a process ongoing where it is attempting to get an

industry for their community. I understand there is a private fish company that

is willing to go in and construct a multi-species fish plant there to do some

processing and create some employment. Is the minister aware of this process and

application and could he inform the House of the status of the application, and

if his department has made a final decision?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I am aware of the

application and the proponent and what they have suggested for the Charlottetown

area. One of the decisions was easy to make, and that is with regard to the

transfer of certain licences. There will be no transfer of licences to the

Charlottetown plant, but other aspects of their proposal are still being looked

at.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the

minister inform the House what other part of the application is being looked at?

My understanding is that there is a request to establish a plant with private

dollars. There are as I understand it five harvesting licences there for crab.

They want to get into some other species. Could the minister inform the House

what other aspects of the application, of the proposal, are still under

consideration?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Indeed the application does call for the

establishment of a processing plant in the Charlottetown area and until we are

in a position to make some serious decisions with regard to their realignment of

the processing sector of this Province, vis--vis their resource availability,

there will be no move on that application at this time.

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

supplementary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, if I may.

I understand Minister, that the community of Charlottetown

has received notification from your department that they will not be receiving

any capital works funding this year to carry on with a water system as I

understand it; phase one is completed, they have been denied further funding for

future capital works funding because the community does not have an industry or

any employment.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is getting advice there now.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I know the minister was interrupted

there by the member.

The community does not have an industry or any employment is

what I have been told, they have been denied funding or will be denied funding

because of that. Can the minister confirm whether that's true or not?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I can't confirm that. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that

there is no community in the Province, not that I know of, certainly not under

my signature have they been notified that they will or will not receive any

capital funding this year. It will take some time for the final decision to be

made on the infrastructure program. We are spending $25 million on the capital

works program, and I think most people in the Province know who can qualify for

that so I have to plead ignorance here as I don't know what the hon. gentleman

is talking about. There are, absolutely, no letters gone out to any communities

saying that you will not receive any funding this year. If Charlottetown has

applied, they will be considered like everyone else but other than that, I don't

remember that particular request so I am lost to the hon. member's question.

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

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I note the minister said there has been no letter gone out to

the community.

I wonder if the minister is aware if any official of his

department has informed officials on the community council of Charlottetown,

whether or not their application and their needs will be put very low on a

priority list because they do not have an industry and because there is no

employment in their community? I guess the real question to the minister and to

the government is: here you are as a government, denying them an opportunity to

establish an industry which will employ fifty to 100 people, and on the other

hand you are telling them you can't have any capital works to get essential

services because you don't have any employment. So the question to the minister

and the government is: what are you saying to the people of Charlottetown and

people in other rural communities in Labrador and the Island portion of this

Province, do they have to languish in poverty and unemployment and do without

essential services or get out? Is that really the message this government is

giving to rural Newfoundland?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, that was quite a plea I guess, on

behalf of rural communities in the Province of Newfoundland and I commend the

member and I totally agree with everything that he says with regards to rural

Newfoundland and he knows where I stand and where this government stands with

regards to rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, he had me sort of confused to begin with, but

when he said Charlottetown, I am assuming that Charlottetown was under the

Labrador agreement, which is not under infrastructure or not under capital

works. Charlottetown applies each year under the Labrador agreement, which is a

special agreement, Mr. Speaker, with which I am sure a lot of members in the

House are familiar; there is a Native agreement and a Labrador agreement which

is funded by the federal government in conjunction with the provincial

government, and there is an independent committee made up of representatives

from Charlottetown and members of councils and groups of people up and down

Labrador, who make decisions every year for the federal government and send

their recommendations to me and then I make them to the federal government where

money should be spent.

I have been in this position now for over two years, there

has been, I think three Labrador agreements handled since I have been in the

position and, Mr. Speaker, without any hesitation, I have not once interferred

with where the money should go and I don't have any authority to say whether

Charlottetown or Nain in regards to the Native agreement or any other community

on the Labrador Coast has or should get money, and I am being honest here today

and say to you that if Charlottetown qualifies under that Labrador agreement, I

am certainly sure that Charlottetown will get their money.

I do say though, Mr. Speaker, quite honestly, that this

government, as well as the Member for Grand Bank, is concerned about rural

Newfoundland and we will continue as a government to be concerned about rural

Newfoundland, with Charlottetown included.

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

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

direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

It was public knowledge in 1993 that the groundfish

moratorium would be extended beyond May 15, 1994. Now, on April 19, 1994,

ministers Axworthy and Tobin announced a new TAGS program at Hotel Newfoundland.

Details were established for applying, and an appeals process was announced six

days later. Now, more than a year later, there are still thousands of people

awaiting appeals at different levels of the process. In fact, almost 200 people

still have not had their appeals heard at the first stage, which is Level I.

Now, does the minister feel that it is unfair that more than a year after a

program is announced people's files still have not been picked up by HRD people?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suppose anyone would have to be concerned if their question

or concern was not dealt with in a year, but I am not so sure the problem is

exactly as the hon. member puts it, but I can assure you that both federal

ministers are aware of the problem, and the issue has been addressed recently

with a new appeal process being put in place. I am convinced and quite satisfied

that the federal officials are going to be looking after the problem in due

course.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question was, the Level I process that is in place since

the program began, almost 200 people - 175, I was told yesterday - have not been

picked up for initial examination, and the program started back in May of 1994.

That is what I asked the minister.

Now I will get to the Level II process. The Level II process

began in November of 1994, and the ten Level II appeals offices around this

Province have dealt with between 1,000 and 2,000 cases. One individual, in

particular I know, has dealt with over 1,700. Now, almost all of these cases

were denied by HRD, and they are now going to go on to the third level, which

only started hearings this week, I say to the minister. In fact, positive

recommendations from Level II will be dealt with by Level III first, and then

negative recommendations will be dealt with later. It will be 1996, I say to the

minister, before many people will know if they are eligible or not.

It is unfair, I say, to have families without income, and

turning to social assistance, and leaving this Province because of two years of

bureaucratic red tape when he knew the program was being continued.

Will the minister do the honourable thing, take up the fight

with his federal counterparts, and go to bat for the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: I am not quite sure that there is a question

here. I congratulate the hon. member on a great speech; it was quite something

else during Question Period.

I think, if the hon. member will recall, back some weeks ago

I led a delegation to Ottawa to discuss this very issue with both federal

ministers and, as a result of that, the third level of appeal was put in place.

As I said before, I am convinced that the whole process is on track and is

working, and will be dealt with in due course.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On April 25, 1994, HRD and DFO conducted a technical media

briefing on the TAGS program at the White Hills dealing with aspects such as

eligibility criteria, extenuating circumstances, and duration of benefits. It

was stated, and circulated here - and I have a copy; I was there - that fishers

and plant workers may drop one year of attachment from their five-year reference

period without penalty. Furthermore, it went on to say, in designated areas of

catch failure, fishers and plant workers may be able to drop two years of

attachment without penalty.

Now, HRD and DFO are falling back on their commitment. They

are not living up to the commitment that they gave. I ask the minister: Will he

address it with his federal counterparts and ask them why they are eliminating

people from this program when they indicated that duration of benefits one year

could be exempt and the other four years averaged? They are falling back on

their word, and will the minister do something about it to ensure that they keep

their promise?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can inform this

House that hopefully as early as next week I will be in Ottawa and I will be

meeting with both federal ministers on this very issue once again. The concerns

raised by the hon. member indeed will be addressed without question. The hon.

member is quite well aware that there has been some difficulties with the

interpretation with regard to catch failure and some other issues. Those issues

were addressed when we had the earlier meeting in Ottawa on this very issue and

the issues will again be addressed next week. I will be very happy, Mr. Speaker,

to take with me the comments and concerns raised by the hon. member because I am

equally concerned with the process and I appreciate the hon. member raising it

in the House today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the report from the Internal Audit

Division of Treasury Board into the payments to review commissioners at Workers'

Compensation Review Division. I would like to point out, I have only two copies

available right now. There are some others being taken off and as soon as the

rest of them are available I will provide them to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. minister. I don't know

if the House heard the latter part of the hon. minister's remarks.

Notices of Motion

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

Provincial Affairs.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act to Amend the City of

St. John's Act." (Bill No. 19)

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

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

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

Benefits Act." (Bill No. 18)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

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

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

Act and The Mineral Holdings Impost Act." (Bill No. 21)

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

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

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

Act."

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago the Member

for Waterford - Kenmount asked some questions with respect to the growth of the

budget for our Human Resources Division in the Department of Education and

Training. I had the matters checked out. I should tell the hon. member that

there is no growth in the total salary or the operating budget of the department

except for some extra money for the implementation of the Royal Commission. But

the hon. member was concerned with the Human Resources Division and he pointed

out that under salaries, we have gone from $256,000 in this years budget or last

years budget to $289,000 in next years budget. Now, Mr. Speaker, there was a

reorganization in the department where three different divisions were changed

into two, it went from three to two. As a result of that we were able to cut out

a position in management, however we ended up having to put back in a union

position. So the increase there, the explanation of that, there is a union

position which drives that from $256,000 to $289,000 but if the hon. member will

look across the page to the administrative support he will see that salaries

under administrative support went from $321,000 down to $240,000. So that is one

of the problems right there.

The other

section that the hon. member had problems with was

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the decorum in this

House has gone down since the leadership changed over there. You can hardly get

a word out but you are interrupted or you are jeered, Mr. Speaker. I think we

are going to have to talk to the new leader and see if she can control her

members over there.

The other area that the hon. member had concerns with, Mr.

Speaker, was under purchase services which went from $9,000 to $86,000 and that

indeed does seem like quite a jump. This is explained that all the staff

training which used to be done - each division would pay for some staff

training. That was all brought together under purchase services, Mr. Speaker, so

that now instead of each division providing training for its staff, it will be

all done through this vote of $86,000.00. In actual fact, I think you will find

a substantial savings by streamlining our department. I thank the hon. member

for bringing these things to my attention. I will have them checked out and I

trust he is satisfied.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education and

Training is trying to give the impression that administrative support - actually

$273,000 was the expenditure last year and it is down to $241,000 not $321,000

trying to give the impression that they saved $80,000 when it is only $33,000.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have a point of order? I take it there

is no point of order.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present another petition on behalf of

my constituents with regard to the electoral boundaries issue. This petition is

signed by seventy-three residents of Green Bay, from Springdale, Harry's

Harbour, Jackson's Cove, Silverdale, and Robert's Arm.

The prayer of the petition is as follows:

WHEREAS our communities have been in Green Bay for many

years, and

WHEREAS a recent government proposal would see some of our

communities assigned to the Baie Verte district,

THEREFORE we the undersigned petition the hon. House of

Assembly not to entertain or approve any proposal that would see our communities

removed from the Green Bay district.

Mr. Speaker, this makes several times over the last number of

days that I have presented concerns of my constituents through petitions in the

House, from communities in Green Bay that do not want to be assigned to another

district, and from other communities who do not want to see their friends and

neighbours assigned to another district, Mr. Speaker. The petitions came as a

result of actions on the part of the joint councils of Green Bay, and on behalf

of the Green Bay Economic Development Association. Both organizations have an

interest in seeing the existing district boundaries maintained and the existing

community of interest maintained as well.

I also received in the mail yesterday, relevant to this

issue, a copy of a letter to the Premier from the Mayor of the town of Grand

Falls-Windsor protesting the electoral boundaries report and the effects it

would have on the newly amalgamated town of Grand Falls - Windsor. The mayor

states: " This division perpetrates the old division we have been trying so hard

to remove." He says as well that the use of the names Windsor - Springdale and

Grand Falls - Buchans, ignore a fact of history.

Mr. Speaker, you have communities in my district that do not

want to see Green Bay district split and have a number of communities assigned

to the Baie Verte Peninsula. You have communities in Central Newfoundland,

especially the community of Grand Falls-Windsor, a newly amalgamated town,

amalgamated at much expense, and debate, does not wish to see itself split again

along the old borderline of the railway track, between the old towns of Grand

Falls and Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, very few people in Central Northeast are happy

with the outcome of the electoral boundaries procedure. They have not had an

opportunity to have a comment on this. The House Leader on the government side

has asked why I am bringing these petitions forward all the time. The fact of

the matter is this is one method whereby the people in my district can bring

their concerns before this assembly because they were denied the ability to have

a say in this matter in the most recent electoral boundaries report.

The government treatment of this issue, and the fact that it

continues to waffle on the issue, and not bring forward a clear position as to

what it is going to do with regard to electoral boundaries is simply not good

enough, and it is time some people on the other side had the guts to stand up

and speak their mind on this issue as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise today to

make a few comments on behalf of my colleague and support his petition. I have

had a chance to talk to some of my colleague's constituents about this

particular matter because, of course, it relates to both of us as it being the

district that is being split. Right now, to explain a little of the geography of

it, if the change does go ahead as proposed for the forty-eight seats, I will

take in eleven or twelve communities from the Green Bay side. The geography part

of that, Mr. Speaker, is driving to the Trans-Canada and then driving over and

down through Springdale again.

Now, there is no comparison really when I talk about the

Member for Fortune - Hermitage, who I heard in the media talk about how he would

have to fly to Gander and then fly to Stephenville down to the western part of

his district. The more I heard about it, the more I speak to people, and the

more people try to get the logic out of it, the more ridiculous it sounds. Also,

a comment that is made, and is starting to be made more frequently than ever, is

the whole process, the process in which we finally arrived at the stage we are

now with the proposal that we see before us with forty-eight seats. Any member

here in this House of Assembly and the Premier included would say that there was

a public perception there and the public knowledge that people would like to see

a reduced number of MHAS, a trimming down of government in this Province. I

think we all agree with that, and nobody has a problem with that. What people

would say then is that: Fair enough, if that is what the people want in the

Province that is what they should get. Let's do it independently and let's take

it from there. That is not where it stopped and that is not how this unfolded.

What has happened here is a process that was tampered with

and intervened. That is as simple as it was. It started with the forty-four

seats - actually, with forty seats first, and then into forty-four, and

independent. Now the Premier makes the argument of one person, one vote. Fair

enough, democracy and that type of thing, except for Labrador. So one for one,

one for all. That is what I say.

There are two other considerations in this rock, this Island

part of Newfoundland and Labrador, that should be taken into consideration. The

most obvious and blatant one that jumps out at you is the geography of the

Province and the geography of the different regions, so that each region is

represented fairly by their member. Myself as well as my other colleagues, and I

know members on both sides of the House, travel their districts a lot by road. I

do. With twenty-one communities now to branch onto to with the poor road

conditions on top of that it is very difficult. I like to get into the smaller

towns as well as the bigger towns, especially in the summertime. My colleague

for Bonavista South will have thirty-five communities.

Besides the geography

part let's just take a quick comparison

to, say for example, my colleague for Kilbride. He can drive around his district

in twenty minutes, twenty-five minutes. It will take me eight hours to ten hours

to drive around my district. Also, the next consideration, the logical one on

top of that, is that I have to deal with the twenty-one councils, the fifteen

fire departments, the five development associations. These are not

exaggerations. These are just simple, straightforward facts. That is what I deal

with as compared to an urban MHA. I think any of the members will agree.

There is a difference and it should have been taken into

consideration. Now what I will end up with is thirty-three communities or

thirty-two communities, I think it is, separated where I have to travel to the

Trans-Canada and down another trunk road and then branch out again. It just does

not give you the chance and opportunity to deal with a district which I deal

with now. I will try my best and if the changes go through I will work as hard

as I can for the people who I will gain out of the Green Bay District.

The point I'm making is the process that was started should

have stayed independent and not tampered with, and touch on any political lines,

and second of all the geography and the number of communities should have been a

high priority and a high consideration in making the boundaries. That is the

problem. We are not saying the reduction of seats is the problem. We've all

rationalized that, and if that is what the people of the Province want, a

leaner, trimmer government with lesser seats - but in all fairness, how can we

say that it is anything significant to go from fifty-two to forty eight?

From what I can understand, the amount of money we've spent

on commissions will take up the four salaries of MHAs. Really, there is no

rationale or purpose to it. All it is is the perception. It is a perception that

was tampered with and fooled with through the process. If it is going to change

let's take the independent one that started from the beginning, stick with that,

and we will all suck in and do what we can when we have to change our

boundaries. But we are not going to support something that started out

legitimate, as far as I'm concerned, and fair and done independently, and now

take up a cause where it has been tinkered with and bambled around because of

different arguments that came up from all different members.

It is hard to get all fifty-two members of course to agree on

that because we are all going to be affected in some way. But when it comes to

the geography point of this I can certainly see the Member for Fortune -

Hermitage standing in his place and saying: My God, this is almost impossible -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you. By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. SHELLEY: No leave from the House. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers on the petition?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, no further petitions? I'm

sorry, I thought I heard Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I asked if there were any speakers on

this petition and no one rose. Then I asked if there were further petitions.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you Your Honour. I'm sorry, I thought

I heard you say that before. Would you be good enough to call the Budget speech

which is Motion No. 1 on today's Order Paper. I think my friend for Placentia

was enlightening us. We look forward to phase two.

MR. SPEAKER: The Budget speech, Motion No. 1.

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to

continue where I left off the other day. I told people here before, that I'm

delighted to be able to speak on the Budget. I would just like to let people

know that the Government House Leader does have a heart. That is contrary -

MR. ROBERTS: It is well hidden.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, well hidden, but every now and again I

see it. I keep telling the man that he should be using it more often.

Anyway, to continue on with the litany of broken dreams and

promises of this Administration. The other day I was up and mentioned about the

Social Services cutbacks. People have been regulated who never before had to

draw on social assistance.

Social services - I see where their investigators are doing

well. If someone is deliberately gypping the system, yes, catch them, but how

many of these people who are being caught and ostracized are just poor managers?

As I said to the Minister of Social Services a few weeks ago about cutting out

not paying the light bills, if someone is gypping the system that is one thing;

if a person is a poor manager and they fall behind on light and power, they

should be taken on an individual basis, but no, what we see is cart blanche by

this government, throwing other poor devils to the wolves.

We heard the other day about the crab fishermen. There are

crab fishermen in the district of Placentia as well, and they want the best

prices they can get. Not all of it can be harvested here, and if it is an

advantage for the crab fishery and the people, or something that will benefit

the economy of this Province as well as the people who are catching the crab,

that is the right and fair thing to do. We all know that with NAFTA,

progressively, as the years go by, we are going to be able to get more finished

product into the United States. We have not reached that plateau yet, but it is

a plateau that we should be working toward.

This year, Fitzgerald Park was opened shortly after the first

phase-down in Argentia started to take place in 1968-'69. Because of blow-downs

in a storm over a month ago, Fitzgerald Park will not be open for the May 24th

weekend. They have brought in a couple of extra people from other parks to try

to do the cleanup.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there a Woodford Park? There is no

Woodford Park, is there?

MR. CAREEN: No, not yet, but there is a Fitzgerald Park,

called after the Member for Bonavista South.

A number of people from the Placentia area, Trinity area,

points east and west, use that park, and they are disappointed that it is not

going to be open for the May 24th weekend, which is a very big weekend for

people to get away, the first long weekend of the Spring. A bit more planning

should have been done when they ran into that sleet storm that knocked down

those trees. There could have been something done with the seniors, under

supervision. If they wanted wood, they could have been supervised. You can't

leave it open to everybody to come in and take wood, because someone would say,

`This fellow got this, and some other fellow got that', but if they had picked a

segment of society they could have had that place cleaned and done. The reason

why it is not being opened now is because the fallen trees pose a safety hazard,

and nobody wants their safety jeopardized.

For members here, if you are not aware, the Federal

Government is chewing into more things. I suppose you are all aware that in the

regular student programs, federally, half the money is being cut out. Are you

aware that in

section 25 they are taking the material money out of it? that all

your people, private businesses, non-profit organizations within your districts

will not get one more cent of material money, the money that is very important

to add a piece on or do another phase of what people in your districts intended

to do and had been doing for years? The projects as they now stand are mostly

good for private businesses, but we had numerous, thousands, across this

Province of non-profit organizations that built infrastructure and added on to

that infrastructure and did other phases of projects, but the private businesses

never did, and I say, changed, will never do, and now they find themselves going

to have a harder time. They always were cash strapped, and

section 25 could help

them over the hump, but that is not there anymore. What is there is just the

labour money for

section 25.

We see what TAGS is doing to the people of this Province ever

since its announcement last year. We saw originally, the Northern cod - DFO

having it, and it took them a good while to get a lot of the bugs out of the

system, then we saw it going to HRD, passed from DFO because the new minister

didn't want to be saddled with all the negative problems in this Province, so he

didn't keep it within DFO when he got there, it went to the hon. Lloyd Axworthy

in his department and there, ran into more bugs, more glitches on their

machines, their computers, and more people falling through the cracks. We also

see in places in this Province, on the Burin Peninsula now and on the Northern

Peninsula, where they are passing it over to the Fishermen's Union for those on

pilot projects and I wonder, will they have to go through the same mistakes that

DFO and HRD went through, thereby frustrating the people who need the money

worse, frustrating them even further.

We heard a while ago about the fire-fighters and the law suit

going on in Bell Island and the Member for Humber Valley, up asking questions:

What is this going to mean to the volunteer fire-fighters all over this

Province? a very, very important question; very, very important. These people

serve every nook and cranny of this Province and they need protection. They will

hardly volunteer to go and put out a fire if they have a chance of being

lawsuited, and while the judge is now making up his mind on what was presented

to him, is this government moving to put anything into the legislation that will

safeguard the volunteer fire brigades of this Province when they are doing their

volunteer duty?

We see the Caboto group flying all over God's farm; the

Caboto group who is not accountable, the `come fly with me' group, the group

that sent six or seven people some time ago to Genoa to see where John Cabot was

born. But they became a bit disturbed when the Member for Bonavista South and

the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes dared asked questions about some of the

elite of this Province. Heaven forbid that we should ask questions! Well, some

of those people in some of those high places have to be reminded that we are

still in a democracy. They might not act like it but we have to. They are no

more than the rest of us.

We note that Memorial University still doesn't have to be

accountable. We are not wanting to get into the classrooms to see what they are

spending their money on and what they are teaching but we certainly should know

where they are spending their money. Somewhere around $125-$130 million a year -

and we don't have to know. Well, I say that this House, we who represent the

people of this Province, should know.

The electoral boundaries, now that is another dandy.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Absolutely, for a couple of minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: A few minutes.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

The electoral boundaries issue, it seems like someone took a

gallon of paint and spread it over a map of this Province. I have seen what some

members are going to propose to do. Like the Member for Fortune- Hermitage - he

has to travel by car, plane and boat, wear out a couple of pairs of boots to get

into parts of his district which is ludicrous! They are making exceptions for a

couple of places on the Labrador. Now, I don't begrudge them that, but the

Member for Fortune - Hermitage has a very, very distinct problem up in his

district as well.

MR. EFFORD: Why?

MR. CAREEN: If you had been here you would have heard

why. You read Hansard or get someone to read it to you, I say to the minister.

The man from Port de Grave has more problems than that; now he won't have to

travel very far, he is going to travel very far. He is going to see what Santa

Anna got at Santa Jacinta.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. CAREEN: You are going to come up against someone who

is waiting for you.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, no, well you didn't - you turned your

back on them and they are just waiting for a chance to get back at you, tit for

tat.

AN HON. MEMBER: From Upper Island Cove.

MR. CAREEN: Upper Island Cove, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are going to do the job on him.

MR. CAREEN: UIC - Upper Island Cove.

They started off with the electoral boundaries, the

announcement, then Judge Mahoney and Judge Mahoney again, then the Government

House Leader, then Mr. Jones and now Judge Nat Noel who is trying to keep up

with the Jones. The representation - and the money they have spent to date has

been one waste of money. Rural Newfoundland is losing some six seats and St.

John's is picking up two. With the exception of a couple of members who are in

here from St. John's, particularly a man from St. John's South, I say gets a

number of calls. I say you do, Sir - now, I might be guessing but I am probably

guessing right. I say the Member for Kilbride who has urban/rural gets a number

of calls and the Member for St. John's East Extern might get a number of calls

but there are a number of them here who might get two or three calls a week

while the rural members, no matter what side they are on, are getting

twenty-five, thirty-five, forty-five calls a day. If anything is happening in

your district, when some contactor or other is starting work you might get sixty

or seventy calls a day. Now, with all of these changes coming in, what do you

expect - to get 100 calls a day and frustrate people even further? I say, Mr.

Speaker, to err is human but to really foul things needs the influence of this

government. Thank you very much.

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

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

in the debate on the Budget Speech and pass on a few remarks concerning the

overall approach that the government has taken, and the news, I suppose, that

was announced to the people of this Province, that `We've balanced the Budget.'

`We've balanced the Budget,' and that is designed to send

thrills down the spines of the people of this Province, but really it only

pleases some people. It only pleases the bondholders, it only pleases the

international financial markets, but it doesn't please the people of this

Province who are without employment. It doesn't please the people of this

Province who are receiving social assistance and have not seen an increase in

rates for social assistance, and the overall general rate of social assistance,

since this government came in in 1989. The only thing that has happened is that

there has been an addition of $50 a month in the winter months for those

requiring a heat supplement and an additional $50 a month for a single parent.

Those are the only increases in the rate of social assistance since this

government came in.

What is happening is that this government have turned their

backs on the people who need help from government in order to be able to

survive. There is continuously - and my friend, the Member for Placentia talks

about calls that members receive from constituents about problems. The kinds of

calls that are received are, more and more, calls about people who can't make it

on what they are receiving in social assistance, who can't get proper housing,

who are unable to get by on what they are being provided by the Department of

Social Services - constant complaints about the inability to survive in rental

accommodations because the rent is too high and there is no accommodation

available from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

I had a letter recently from a woman who is receiving a total

of $628 per month from Social Services and who lives in an apartment where she

has to pay $475 a month rent. I passed the complaint along to the Minister of

Social Services expecting the minister to try to find a solution for the problem

that this woman had. The solution of the Minister of Social Services was to

write me back and say that the reason that this woman had no money was because

she was paying too much for housing, that she was only allocated $149 a month

for housing with an additional $61 supplement, for a total of $210. As a result,

this woman, according to the Minister of Social Services, was taking money away

from her regular assistance to use towards rent. The advice of the Minister of

Social Services was that this woman should find accommodations in keeping with

her budget so that she would have sufficient money to be able to live.

This is a fifty-eight year old woman who has already raised

children and is now unable to support herself - she has no means of support. And

that is the answer of the Minister of Social Services and of this government for

people who are in need. Mr. Speaker, the people in need in this Province are not

only those who are on social assistance. I had a call the other night from a

family where there is a husband, wife, and three children. The husband is

working full-time for the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation and yet, even though

working full-time, this family has to go to a food bank to get sufficient food

to be able to properly feed their children, and that only happened after some

family members noticed that the wife of this couple had lost some twenty or

thirty pounds, Mr. Speaker, and was underweight through malnutrition. The family

member said, you had better go to the food bank, because you can't allow

yourself and your health to deteriorate.

Now, this was a family where not only was the husband, the

man of the house, as it were, working full-time, but this family was in

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing paying subsidized rent and the man still had

to go to a food bank in order to feed himself and his family. Those are the

kinds of conditions that are going on.

MR. ROBERTS: They are not paying attention to you.

MR. HARRIS: The Government House Leader says that the

Opposition are not paying attention to me. I think the Member for Bonavista

South is paying attention because he is a person who is very interested in those

issues of social assistance. I see the Member for Ferryland, although he is

writing, has his earphone in and is listening to every word. Perhaps he is

writing it all down, taking notes, so I say to the Government House Leader that

perhaps he is wrong when he says they are not paying enough attention. The

Member for Ferryland is actually taking notes on what I am saying.

MR. ROBERTS: He is taking notes of the hon. gentleman's

speech.

MR. HARRIS: He has his earphone in and he is taking

notes, and well he might, Mr. Speaker, pay attention,because this is a very

serious issue.

We have, in this Province, a large number of people who are

poor, and when I talk about people who are poor I want to refer hon. members to

the Statistics Canada low income cutoff. Now, there has been a lot of talk about

that. In fact,I heard the Member for LaPoile say - he either said it in the

House or on television one time, that this Statistics Canada low income and

poverty rate was so cockeyed that even a member of this House who had two or

three children would be below the poverty line.

Well, Mr. Speaker, let me disabuse the Member for LaPoile and

any other members who think so, of that notion. The Statistics Canada low income

cutoff for 1993 for a family of four is $20,000 for rural areas, and would be

most of the communities in this Province, because there is a separate category

for communities of less than 30,000. But for rural areas the low income cutoff

for a family of four is $20,800 and for a family of six, which would be four

children - where the Member for LaPoile lives, in Port aux Basques, the low

income cutoff for a family of six would be $24,749.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many children the Member for

LaPoile has, but if he has four children then the low income cutoff for a family

with four children, a family of six, would be $24,749. I think I get paid the

same amount of money as the Member for LaPoile gets paid and let me tell you

that the low income cutoff of $24,000 is nowhere near -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: He probably gets a lot more because he picks

up travel allowances similar to what the Member for St. John's South picks up

for travelling back and forth to his district.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who does?

MR. HARRIS: The Member for LaPoile. So he may actually

get about the same as the Member for St. John's South. But we are not talking

about that, we are talking about basic MHAs' salaries, and there is no

comparison between the low income cutoff and the MHAs' salaries of which we

speak.

What we see is that in this Province - and we are not unique

and I don't think we have to go around saying that Newfoundland has more poor

people than any other place; we don't. We have a significant number of people

below the poverty line. In Newfoundland, sixteen percent of families are below

the poverty line, the low income cutoff, and that is down a little bit from

1992, but it is up considerably from 1989 when it was at 12 per cent. So when

this government came into office, 12.9 per cent of Newfoundland families were

living in poverty, and in 1993, the last year for which stats are available, 16

per cent of Newfoundland families were living in poverty.

When we look at the unattached persons, unattached

individuals, single men, single women, older people, who may not be living in a

family unit, 41 per cent of unattached individuals in this Province live below

the low income poverty line, and that is not very much money. The low income

cutoff for a single individual in rural areas of Newfoundland is $10,500, and

the reality is that unattached individuals - 40 per cent of all unattached

individuals in this Province - have less than $10,000 on which to try to live

and support themselves.

Now, that low income cutoff goes up if you move into a larger

community. If you move into a community of between 30,000 and 99,000 people, the

low income cutoff is increased to $13,200, and in a community of between 100,000

and 500,000 it is $13,572. In either case, it is not very much money. In fact,

the low income cutoff for an unattached individual is not much more than what

the minimum wage would get someone at forty hours a week for fifty weeks of the

year. So there is a great disparity of income between those who are below the

poverty line, whether they are in families or are unattached persons, and the

average income of a Newfoundland family, and we have to do more - government has

to do more for people who do not have the basic needs for their families and

society met.

I have a letter here from a woman who lives with her

ten-year-old daughter. She lives in a private home where accommodations are also

rented to bedsitters. She has a very small apartment with no toilet facilities,

and she and her daughter have to share bathroom facilities with strangers who

occupy bedsitting rooms in the same house. This woman is on social assistance,

and she is trying to get an apartment where she doesn't have to live in those

conditions. She can't get one, Mr. Speaker. She has her name in for Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing but she can't get a house because one is not available for

her.

It is wrong, Mr. Speaker, that people have to live in those

conditions when we have the possibility of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

redirecting their priorities so that people who have social housing needs are

paid attention to over and above people who want to have ski chalets out in

Corner Brook.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I'm listening to the minister. I know what

the minister is going to say. The minister is going to get up and say at some

point: Look, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is going to recoup every cent

that it puts into the ground out in Corner Brook, and I'm sure they will.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: This is amazing! The minister says they are

not spending any money in Corner Brook. I don't know how the minister can say

that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is not spending any money. Who does he

think is paying for all the ads that are in the newspapers asking people to

apply for housing? They are not spending any money. They are not spending any

money in Steady Brook. They are not spending any money at all developing the

project, not spending any person-hours of time of the officials of Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing. Nobody at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing has anything

to do with it. They don't spend any of their time involved with that

development. I find that hard to believe, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the minister -

MR. REID: Aren't you competing with Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing? How many houses do you own in the city of St. John's? How many

apartments do you own in the city of St. John's?

MR. HARRIS: There is nobody competing with Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing who can meet the social housing needs of the people of this

Province, Mr. Speaker. The people who need housing are people who can't afford

to pay the market rent for housing in this city.

The Minister of Social Services told a woman who wrote to me

that she should get out of her $475-a-month apartment and find something within

her budget. The Minister of Social Services said that this woman should find

accommodations suitable to her budget, and her budget, according to the Minister

of Social Services, had an allotment of $210 for rent.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now if the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations wants to get up and give us a list of the apartments available in St.

John's that are fit to live in for $210 a month I would be very happy -

MR. MURPHY: None.

MR. HARRIS: None, the minister says. The average rent for

a one-bedroom apartment in St. John's, I say to the minister, is $475. That is

the average rent. If the Ministers of Social Services and Employment and Labour

Relations think that the answer for individuals who have housing needs and who

can't afford to rent at the market rent is to go somewhere else, or find

accommodations suitable to their needs - the answer is that Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing should be paying more attention to social housing than it is

paying to the development of Marble Mountain.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: If the minister of wood stoves has a point to

make, he should get on his feet and tell us all about wood stoves and how many

wood stoves it takes to make a million dollars. Tell me how many wood stoves it

takes to make a million dollars and how many applications have you got to send

off to CHIP or CHAP or whatever they were -

MR. EFFORD: CHIP.

MR. HARRIS: CHIP, was it? Okay. He is going to get up and

tell us how many wood stoves it takes to make a million dollars, and he can make

his speech when his time comes.

I'm talking about a very serious issue here and that is, the

need for housing amongst my constituents who are calling me trying to get into

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and are being told - and I am not being lied

to - they have been told there is a very long waiting list, so I suggest that

perhaps the minister can ask his officials to concentrate a little bit more on

that area.

I know they have some houses that are rented at market rates.

I know Elizabeth Towers and housing down in Pleasantville and some housing in

Churchill Square are rented at market rates, and I am assuming that the incomes

from those houses are used to cross-subsidize some of the other programs and

that's a good thing and may be an argument against selling off some of these

premises, but it is a good thing that at least, Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing has some income with which to help offset and provide a subsidy for some

of the social housing and meet some of the social housing needs.

While I am on my feet, I want to compliment Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing -

AN HON. MEMBER: What? No.

MR. HARRIS: Well, anybody who has driven around

Buckmaster's Circle in the last year or so, around Ricketts Road and

Buckmaster's Circle and Livingstone Street, and I drive around that area

practically every day, they have done a marvellous job on refurbishing those

apartments and those houses there. They look 150 per cent better that they did

before; they look like homes as opposed to what might have been called, five

years ago, run-down tenements. They look like homes, they are very attractive

looking and I know that the people who live in them are feeling an awful lot

better about their living accommodations, and have much more pride in themselves

in living in a place that looks attractive and decent and reasonable instead of

looking the way they had in the past in terms of being run down, and I would

suggest that anybody who is interested in social housing and infill housing and

those kinds of programs should go and have a look.

The Member for St. John's South I am sure, has had a look at

the Buckmaster's Circle refurbishing that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing has

done. Livingstone Street and Ricketts Road and McKay Street, a marvellous job;

they look really good and I am sure it makes a big difference to the people who

are living in them that they have a place that's better looking and more

conducive to a sense of pride in the place where you live and obviously has a

better atmosphere all around for families and children to grow up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It is a job to keep them up, says the member.

Well, I say to the member, if a job like that is done it is certainly a big

incentive to have them kept up and I would also say to the member that some of

the best kept public housing in this Province is in the member's District of St.

John's South on Shea Heights, some of the best kept public housing in this whole

Province is on Shea Heights. I worked up there, Mr. Speaker, a lot of it is

public housing but the people who live in those houses have a great deal of

pride in their homes and I have been in many of them and can testify and I dare

say the Member for St. John's South has probably been in as many or probably

more than I have, and they do have a special pride of ownership, a pride of

living space because they don't own them obviously but they certainly have shown

their appreciation for the most part. I mean obviously, there are a few

exceptions but for the most part the public housing stock is very well

appreciated and well kept up in the Shea Heights area.

We do see, Mr. Speaker, a real lack in this Budget of

feeling, for the needs of ordinary folks trying to struggle by without a proper

income, without any income from employment. We don't see any responsibility

being taken to provide employment programs that are going to meet the needs that

exist; we do see a little bit here, a little bit there. I see the Minister for

Natural Resources making more notes about how many trees he is going to plant

this year but that is a drop in the bucket, in terms of the needs that this

Province has for employment and employment programs.

We cannot go on, Mr. Speaker, seeing our industries laid

waste. The Premier, according to his speech today in response to questions from

the Leader of the Opposition, seems to be prepared to see the dockyard go the

way of the Great Auk, Mr. Speaker, if it has to be subsidized, if it cannot meet

its obligations, if it cannot be profitable on a year to year basis. The Premier

seems to be prepared to see the Newfoundland Dockyard go the way of the Dodo.

Does that make sense, Mr. Speaker?

We heard the stats read yesterday. The Member for Kilbride

presented us with some valuable information about the financing of the dockyard

and the payroll of the dockyard and the obvious common sense answer is that if

the dockyard needs to be subsidized to the tune of $3 million a year to be able

to have a $28 million payroll, well sobeit. Let's do it because we are going to

get $8 million in taxes between the federal and provincial governments in income

tax. All the money they spent is going to be GST paid to the federal government

and PST paid to the provincial government. So if it takes $3 million a year to

keep the dockyard open, sobeit.

Is that cockeyed financing, Mr. Speaker? Is that cockeyed

financing to say that the dockyard, at a $3 million subsidy should be kept going

because it benefits 800 people with employment and their families, the houses

that they build and the money that they spend? Is it cockeyed economics to say

that a $3 million subsidy to produce a $28 million payroll for 800 people,

providing them with an income and a return in taxes about three or four times

the subsidy, all told when you add it all up? Is that cockeyed financing or is

the cockeyed financing the one that says it is losing $3 million, shut it down?

That is the cockeyed financing that the Premier is promoting here today. He said

today that if it cannot make a profit, if it cannot make a go of it, if it has

to be continued to be subsidized well then it might have to go. I don't think,

Mr. Speaker, that the people of this Province can afford to have this Provinces

industries laid waste like that by the attitude that was expressed today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) it needs capital.

MR. HARRIS: We all know it needs capital. It does need

capital but there should be no excuse, Mr. Speaker, for that dockyard to close.

If it needs $3 million a year to stay open then the money should be provided. If

it needs capital well then surely that capital can be financed over a period of

time, paid for over a period of time and reap benefits to this Province in the

meantime. So I hope that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is

going to get beyond Rod Morrison and get to the real decision makers in Ottawa

to ensure that the dockyard does not get laid waste by the federal government as

they are trying to lay waste CN, as they are trying to lay waste Marine

Atlantic.

They have already conned the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, sure they already conned him on the South Coast. Where is the

$60 million? Where is the perpetual fund that the minister promised the people

of the south coast? Where is the $60 million fund that the minister promised the

people of the south coast that he was going to have, that he was to bring down

and he was going to put it in the bank? It was going to be a solid trust. It was

going to be a trust. The interest alone was going to provide a subsidy. In

perpetuity he said, in perpetuity and what happened? What happened to the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation? He has egg all over his face

because the Minister of Finance took that $60 million and claimed to have a

balanced budget with his $60 million fund, his trust fund which was supposed to

be the perpetual motion machine for the South Coast ferry service.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Eagle River wants to dump

the Labrador coastal ferries too I suppose. Is that going to happen with the

assistance and support of the Member for Eagle River? Is the Member for Eagle

River going to support getting rid of the coastal ferries in Labrador? I

understand the Member for Eagle River wants to join Svend in Ottawa. I

understand the Member for Eagle River is planning to go to Ottawa to join Svend

in the Parliament of Canada. He is just waiting for Uncle Bill to be appointed

to the Senate and then the Member for Eagle River will be off to Ottawa to join

Svend Robinson and the other MPs in Ottawa. I do not know what he is going to do

when he is there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Well, I think we will have to see whether or

not the people of Labrador would be interested in having the Member for Eagle

River go to Ottawa. I say they would have their doubts about him now. He has

been back and forth to Ottawa a lot. He probably spends more time in Ottawa now,

rending cars in Hull, renting cars every week, more time there now than he

spends in Blanc Sablon, and more time than he spends in his own district. He is

busy going back and forth to Ottawa at the behest of the Minister of Fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, the Premier.

MR. HARRIS: Oh, the Premier. Does he take the Minister of

Fisheries with him?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. HARRIS: So, we have two, we have a Minister of

Fisheries and we have an emissary. We have the emissary to Ottawa in the form of

the Member for Eagle River.

But, Mr. Speaker, I have been diverted from my concerns about

the devastation being wreaked on services in this Province by the Government of

Canada, with the willing co-operation of the Liberal government of Newfoundland

and Labrador. They did it with Marine Atlantic on the South Coast and there

seems to be other plans afoot about the Lewisporte service. They even have this

great idea that during the great influx of tourists in 1997, and the Member for

Placentia, I am sure, is interested in this, they want to take the ferry away

from Argentia for 1997 so they can bring more people to Port aux Basques. I do

not know whose idea that was. Perhaps the Member for LaPoile was behind that

one, to see if he can get more people to come through LaPoile and through Port

aux Basques and nobody go to Argentia. That is one of the great ideas of Marine

Atlantic, to devastate the coastal service in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to see, and the people of

Newfoundland do not want to see, the kind of willing co-operation and

understanding they are getting from members opposite for their plans to cut back

once again on their services. We have seen the kind of cockeyed economics, and

cockeyed accounting that allows Marine Atlantic to regard the Newfoundland

Dockyard as a waste of money, a waste of subsidy, and a waste of time.

MR. CRANE: (Inaudible)

MR. HARRIS: Well, I say to the Member for Harbour Grace

that the dockyard accounting seems to be a particular brand of accounting all

its own, the cockeyed dockyard accounting. Rod Morrison's salary is probably

included as part of the dockyard's expenses. I would say that a portion of Rod

Morrison's salary is included in the expenses of the dockyard, and maybe it

should be, but the question then becomes, what happens to Rod Morrision's salary

if the dockyard is closed? Does that then make the rest of Marine Atlantic even

less viable?

They had a subsidy of $94 million last year. If you applied

their version of economics to that, and said, well, we have to look at a

stand-alone-enterprise they should shut the whole thing down and have no

services, have no coastal service in Newfoundland, no ferry services in the

Gulf, nothing anywhere. Perhaps all they should do is have a big enough subsidy

to subsidize the head office in Moncton. Have the head office there, the senior

executives paid, and have no services provided, and they will cut their subsidy

down to about $3 million. All they would have then is a $3 million subsidy, no

services, and they would be saving themselves $95 million. That is the kind of

cockeyed economics that you can get into if you start looking at the way that

Marine Atlantic is looking at the Newfoundland Dockyard.

I think what has to happen, Mr. Speaker - and the Member for

St. John's Centre, he seems to have gotten wiser since he left the Cabinet, for

some reason, said yesterday in his speech that there should be an effective and

honest cost-benefit analysis of the Dockyard to this Province and to the

community of St. John's before anything is done. Before the federal government

is allowed to put to an end this great industry in St. John's that has provided

not only work but also training and skills development for thousands of workers

down through the years.

The Newfoundland Dockyard can do a lot of other things. There

was someone on the radio the other day - I didn't agree with everything he said

- but he had a few things to say about diversification. That the Newfoundland

Dockyard with the skills and with some new equipment could be engaged in other

areas of manufacture, as has been done in other dockyards in Europe. What we are

really talking about is a heavy industrial fabricating plant. It is a heavy

industry fabricating plant with skills and a skilled workforce which is probably

its biggest and largest asset. The greatest asset of the Newfoundland Dockyard

is the skill of its workforce. Working together in teams which showed their

effectiveness last year in building the cement barge, the batch plant, for the

Hibernia project.

We all know, we are being reminded all the time, what great

standards they have at HMDC. The highest standards in all of industry. They

demand near-perfection, if not perfection itself. They were singing the praises

of the project to produce the batch plant ahead of time and meeting the exacting

quality standards HMDC has placed on its work and on its workforce.

So we know from our own experience in the last six months

that the Dockyard workforce and management have the capability of doing superior

work when given an opportunity and a chance to do so. We look forward to a great

campaign by this government, and by members on both sides of the House, to

ensure that that workforce is allowed to do what it is trained to do, is allowed

to continue to operate within an industrial base which is well positioned -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes to

finish up?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to

conclude my remarks and go back to the general theme.

The Dockyard is one example of where the people of this

Province have the ability, the skills, the training, and the desire to be

productive and be engaged in modern, world-class, if you want to use the old

clich, activity that they've demonstrated their capability of being a part of.

Yet the government which owns the operation is not prepared to give them that

chance. The Government of Newfoundland, which doesn't own it, they have a far

closer public trust for the people of this Province, they have an obligation to

ensure that this industrial opportunity is not laid waste.

We need more than just a sit back approach and hope that

things will happen. You know, we have the Strategic Economic Plan and the EDGE

corporation. Some of those can be effective in offering certain incentives to

allow things to happen, but there are other areas where the government has to

make things happen, and the dockyard is one of them, and if we don't have that

kind of proactive stance from the government we are going to see the further

devastation of our workforce, and further deterioration of our unemployment

rate, and further pain and suffering, and more expenses, and more cost to the

public treasury, to support the people who are therefore unable to be productive

members of society, and that is crime if that is allowed to happen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I get into an analysis of the Budget in a major way, I

would like to draw to the attention of members a news release issued by the

Premier earlier this afternoon. It is quite astounding. The Premier is saying

that all five former Cabinet ministers to whom some representatives of the media

attributed concern about the decision by Cabinet to award a contract to build

three health care centres to Trans City Holdings have expressed to him their

confidence that Cabinet made the decision that was in the best interest of the

public.

So it seems as though the Premier has either browbeaten the

five former ministers into submission by threatening expulsion from the caucus,

or by other negative or positive inducements, or else he has issued this

statement without their knowledge and consent.

What is astounding is that the five Liberal members would not

be speaking for themselves. Here we have the Premier presuming to speak for the

Member for Twillingate, and the Member for St. John's Centre, and the three

other former members.

AN HON. MEMBER: The five mouseketeers.

MS. VERGE: The five mouseketeers have either retreated

into their mouse holes, or else the Premier has pulled a fast one on them. It

will be interesting to see how they react over the next few days.

Mr. Speaker, regardless of what those former ministers and

the others who took

part in the 1991-'92 decision to do the deal with Tom

Hickman, Bill Case and Joe Butler, regardless of what they are saying now, the

fact of the matter is that none of them should have been part of making that

deal. It is obvious it was wrong. It has been judged by the Supreme Court to

have been a violation of the Public Tender Act, and it is not only going to

amount to an unnecessary cost to the taxpayers of the $3 million in court order

damages; it is going to tally a much higher total of waste of scarce taxpayers'

money.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the government cannot back up

its preposterous claim that the deal was in the best interest of the taxpayers

because they are not prepared to subject it to an independent analysis, and they

have never produced any statistics or calculations showing that it was less

expensive than the alternatives that were available to the government.

This statement by the Premier is absolutely scandalous. Make

no wonder none of the five former ministers is in his seat now. I would suggest

either the five of them are hiding their heads in shame, if they know about this

statement; if they don't know about it, perhaps the Premier sneaked it out while

they were absent, but we will find out in the next day or so because those five

members will be called to account.

It will be interesting to see if the Member for St. John's

Centre really has recanted, or whether he has the courage to continue to make

the assertions he made in his news release a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget that is before us for debate is one

that amounts to a very great distortion of the fiscal reality. This document is

extremely misleading in attempting to show a bottom line current account surplus

for the last fiscal year of some $25 million, and in claiming a projected

current account surplus for the new fiscal year of about $130 million.

Mr. Speaker, these figures are not real, they are

illusionary. They were concocted by the taking into current account one-time

transfers by the federal government for the downloading from the feds to the

Province of the South Coast and White Bay ferry services, transfers that the

minister responsible earlier said would be invested with the interest earned

being used for the ongoing annual ferry operations.

Mr. Speaker, the block payment by the feds to the Province

for the future operation of the ferry has been spent. $31 million received last

year was already consumed by daily needs last year, that's gone, and some $13

million that will come in this fiscal year as a second instalment from the

federal government for the ferry operations, has been taken, according to these

projections, for meeting the current requirements this year. So, Mr. Speaker,

the provincial government has distorted the budgetary facts by taking those

transfers that were intended for investment for ongoing ferry operations, and

using them for daily requirements last year and this year.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the government has taken

substantial amounts that were earlier invested in a sinking fund to retire debt

for current requirements last year and much more substantially this year. Now,

Mr. Speaker, what the government has done is misleading; they have basically

attempted to trick the public into believing that they have been fiscally

responsible. They have falsely made the claim that the Budget was better than

balanced last year with a small surplus and that it will amount to a fairly

hefty current account surplus this year.

Why the government is making such a distorted claim is

difficult to understand. The only explanation is that they are interested in

short-term political advantage and they are somehow willing to forego presenting

to the public an accurate and complete Budget picture so, Mr. Speaker, the first

comment about this Budget is that it is not for real, it is illusionary. There

is trickery involved in concocting rosy bottom lines when the fiscal reality is

something else.

The federal government payment for the ferries should be

invested and the revenue used for the ongoing ferry operations. The investment

made earlier in the sinking fund should be used for the purpose intended, namely

retiring debt. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the government has attempted to

exaggerate the bottom line of this year's Budget by projection one-time gains

from sale of assets as coming into current account. On an individual basis, Mr.

Speaker, each one of us could be cash rich and asset poor if we sell our house

and for a year or so spend the net proceeds on groceries and entertainment but

that won't last very long, so we have to ask what's the government, in a couple

of years going to do, what are we going to do after we win the next election.

We will not inherit as fiscally sound an operation as this

present administration is attempting to make the voters believe, but, Mr.

Speaker, the people of this Province are beginning to catch on to the techniques

of the Premier and his adminstration. Granted, this is a government that has

employed with some short-term success, a cadre of public relations specialists.

With the help of these PR experts they've been able to manipulate the facts and

massage the figures to create an illusion that did impress people for a short

time. That effect is wearing off.

It began to wear off last year when the Premier launched his

effort to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Hydro privatization was an

initiative that most people in the Province opposed at a gut level. People might

not have been able to explain all the reasons why they felt selling Hydro was

wrong, but they knew deep in their beings that it would be disadvantageous for

the Province. People rose up, people spoke up individually and organized

themselves into a variety of citizens groups with coalitions of diverse interest

coinciding to pressure the government to back off.

Mr. Speaker, there was Hydro, then there was Trans City.

Thanks to the court case last fall the accusations that had been made by the

Official Opposition and the unsuccessful bidders at the time back in the fall of

1991 were revealed to have been true. Through the court proceeding the people of

the Province were made privy to a series of confidential Cabinet documents and

testimony of senior public servants which indicated that the Premier and the

`Gang of Four,' the Cabinet committee chaired by the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board, along with the current Minister of Education and Training, the

current Minister of ITT and the current Speaker, knew full well that doing the

deal with Trans City was wrong.

They knew full well that they were running afoul of the

public tender act. They were warned by the government's senior lawyer that the

Trans City arrangement would at the very least violate the spirit of the public

tender act, and would almost certainly lead to a legal challenge by the

unsuccessful bidders. The Premier and the `Gang of Four' knew from the senior

officials of the Department of Finance that there were cheaper alternatives

available to the government to get those three health care facilities.

Self-financing would have been substantially less expensive.

The Premier and the `Gang of Four' knew from the senior

officials of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation responsible

for the tendering process that the original tender call was unfair because it

was so vague and misleading. Those politicians headed by the Premier,

orchestrated by the Premier, knew that the original Trans City bid didn't even

meet the program requirements of the Department of Health. But in the face of

all that information and analysis, against all that expert advice by the senior

public servants in four government departments - Justice, Finance, Works,

Services and Transportation, and Health - the Premier gave the orders that his

buddy Tom Hickman was going to get those contracts regardless.

It is common knowledge around St. John's, in the St. John's

business community, that after the tenders were in and the public service

analysis ruled out Trans City on all the grounds that I mentioned - ruled it out

on legal grounds, ruled it out on financial grounds, ruled it out on health

program grounds - that Tom Hickman, vacationing in Florida, got word of what was

up and flew back in a rage, vowing that after all he had contributed to the

Premier's salary supplement when the Premier was Leader of the Opposition that

he was getting not one of those contracts, not two of those contracts, but all

three of those contracts. Tom Hickman flew back from Florida and he got the

three contracts, and he bragged about it afterwards.

The people of the Province understand now that that deal was

corrupt. The people of the Province are seeing now that the government is

slickly, slyly, manipulating the electoral boundary change process. The people

of the Province are being told about the government's interference with a

legitimate commission, the Mahoney Commission, about Commissioner Mahoney's

refusal to do the bidding of the deposed Minister of Justice, about the

minister's judge-shopping and now the government's attempt to rig or gerrymander

forty-eight districts to suit their own partisan needs.

So, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province, after the

experience of the last couple of years, aren't nearly as inclined as they might

have been earlier to swallow the Budget presentation. The Budget was packaged

slickly with the assistance of the core of public relations specialists. The

initial presentation was very positive - a current account surplus of $25

million for the last fiscal year, a projection of a surplus of $130 million in

the new year. Mr. Speaker, if that were true, most people in the Province would

be quite pleased, but what the Budget didn't indicate is that those bottom line

numbers were concocted by taking into current account amounts that didn't belong

in the daily operating budget, that the bottom lines had, built into them,

substantial amounts from Ottawa for the ongoing operation of the ferries for

last year and much moreso this year, very large amounts that were earlier set

aside to go against the debt, to pay down the debt.

MR. SPEAKER: I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but

under the standing rules it is 4:00 p.m. and I have to announce the questions

for the adjournment debate at 4:30 p.m.

The first question is to the Minister of Natural Resources,

re: claim staking, and that is from the hon. the Member for Green Bay. The

second question is to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, re:

fishing industry processing capacity reduction, and that is from the Member for

Grand Bank. The third question is to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture on the TAGS program and it is from the hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So I made the point that the Budget is misleading in putting

forward rosy bottom line, current account surpluses, when the reality is

something else - when large amounts that don't belong in current account were

inserted, when large payments that belong elsewhere, in debt retirement or in an

investment for ongoing ferry operations have been squandered for daily

requirements.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget also was calculated to deceive people

when the minister and other members of the government made the claim that there

were no job cuts. What has happened, of course, is that the budget provision for

block funding for institutions such as municipalities, Memorial University,

colleges, school boards and hospitals, were short-changed to the point that they

had to reduce their workforce by substantial numbers and cut their programs. So

the job loss contained in the Budget was not put forward on Budget Day in the

Budget document presented by the Minister of Finance in this House of Assembly.

That bad news was passed down to the agencies depending on the government for

funding. So it is only recently, that we have heard that municipalities are

harder hit than they were formerly. It is only lately we are hearing that the

university is having to cut personnel and programs. It was only last week that

we heard about the community colleges having to gut Adult Basic Education, and

we are only now getting the news about hospital personnel reductions and bed

closures. So, Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the government tried to represent in

the Budget, the effect of the figures contained in the Budget is a substantial

reduction in public service employment in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget was also painted in such a way as to

make people believe that there would be no tax increase. There certainly is a

tax increase in other names. One of the major provisions that will lead to a

substantial cost in consumer spending is the $20 million hit on Hydro. Hydro has

been a favourite target of this government. In their first year in office the

government began to phase out the $30-million-a-year subsidy to the power

distribution district, the subsidy provided for rural areas such as that

represented by the loudmouth from Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, that $30 million a year is now

all gone. It was phased out, $10 million in the first year, $20 million in the

second year, all $30 million in the third year. That is $30 million that the

Provincial Government used to provide Hydro to help out the cost of electricity

for rural residents. That was taken away.

Then, in the first year of its administration, the government

started charging Hydro a $10 million annual loan guarantee fee, so there is the

$30 million the government took away, the $10 million the government loaded on;

that is $40 million.

Then, the government started demanding that the Upper

Churchill royalties of about $5 million a year be paid by Hydro to the

government, so we have the $30 million, the $10 million and the $5 million -

that is $45 million - and now we have a $20 million hit. That is $65 million a

year this government has taken from Hydro, which Hydro has no choice but to pass

on eventually to electricity consumers. Hydro has to go to the Public Utilities

Board to seek rate increases to make up for that $65 million loss.

Mr. Speaker, $65 million a year, each year, every year,

thanks to this government, with the devious means of taking it, will be coming

out of the pockets of the voters and citizens of this Province. That is $65

million each year, every year. Now, the $65 million won't show up in any tax

bill, but it will be on the light bill - it will be on the bill from

Newfoundland Power - and it won't be because of Newfoundland Power's operations

that it will show up there; it won't be because of Hydro's operations that it

will be there; it will be because of decisions made at the Cabinet table of this

Administration, a Cabinet which started in at the electricity consumer in its

first year in office, and to date has added to the burden so that it now totals

$65 million a year. That is a whopping tax increase, a tax increase by another

name. It is an electricity rate increase imposed by the policy decisions of this

government.

So, Mr. Speaker, this Budget is grossly misleading by putting

forward current account surpluses which are illusionary, which are based on

tricky accounting. It is misleading because it hides the job cuts that it

forces. It requires the agencies depending for their operations on government

grants to give the bad news to people.

The bad news was dictated by the Premier and the Cabinet

sitting around the Cabinet table, but instead of the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board being up front with people on Budget Day and saying that the

Budget would lead to hundreds of public sector jobs being lost, it is only now

that the municipalities, Memorial, the colleges, the school boards and the

hospitals, coming to grips with their reduced funding from the government, are

making the decisions to lay off personnel and to cut programs.

Mr. Speaker, similarly, the Budget involved trickery because

it was represented in such a way as to hold the line on taxes when in fact there

is a whopping electricity bill increase just waiting to come with the extra

burden being loaded onto Hydro, which, as we all know, eventually has to be

recouped by Hydro from Newfoundland Power, who, in turn, will put it on the

light bills of all the people around the Province.

This Budget fails to come to grips with major challenges

facing the Province. One challenge which has been identified by the government

is the under-funding of the public sector pension plans. The problem has been

described, it has been calculated, but there is nothing in this Budget which

shows that the government has seriously started to address the problem.

There has been a massive cut in federal funding to the

Province. The projected drop in federal funding for the Provincial Government in

federal transfers to the Province for the next fiscal year, for 1996-1997, is

$110 million. That is a very substantial amount of money. There is nothing in

this Budget indicating preparation for that sharp drop in federal revenue. The

bad news is waiting to be fully revealed. The politicians who will have to make

provincial budgets over the next couple of years are going to have an extremely

difficult job which has been compounded by the actions of this government.

In the next couple of years - of course, it won't be possible

for, well, next year, let alone in two years time, it won't be possible for the

government to trump up current account by spending transfers from the Federal

Government for ferry operations, unless they have in mind accepting

responsibility for more ferry operations. Some of my colleagues are suspicious

about what the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation may be up to. We

can only sell Newfoundland Hardwoods once, we can only sell the Holiday Inns

once. Those proceeds are slated to go into current account and be spent on daily

requirements this year. What of investments in sinking funds to retire the debt?

At some stage don't we have to deal with the debt problem? Aren't we simply

postponing for later years, perhaps for other politicians, for a later

generation of taxpayers, the real problems?

Mr. Speaker, real challenges are not addressed in this

Budget. Now, the Budget is the product of considerable waste of money. Last year

the government and Hydro, funded by the government, or an agency for which the

government is responsible, squandered about $10 million in a misguided,

irresponsible attempt to privatize Hydro. Now, think of what that $10 million

could have provided if it had been invested to pay for future ferry operations,

to pay for future health and education services. That was $10 million

squandered, $10 million mostly spent on mainland professional firms, $10 million

that went in part to the Rothschilds, that went in another part to investment

dealers, that went in another part to a big downtown Toronto law firm, $10

million that mostly went out of the Province, $10 million that went, in some

measure, to members of the board of Hydro who, I would suggest, were in a

conflict of interest position and never should have been paid to do work

associated with selling the corporation that they should have been trying to

protect, as members of the board.

Mr. Speaker, last year we revealed the substantial payments

made to the board chairperson, Jim Chalker, and also to Roly Martin, who lives

in Halifax. So $10 million that was squandered last year out of the public

purse, whether paid for by Hydro or the government, could have been used for

other purposes, to meet current accounts, or it could have been invested, and if

that $10 million had been invested, we would be earning revenue from it that

would improve our current position for years to come.

The Budget is totally inadequate on the economic front. We

still have the government paying money for the foolish Economic Recovery

Commission and Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, ever since the

Recovery Commission was set up the economy has been getting worse. Some of us

objected to the word `recovery' at the time. Little did we think five years ago

that not only would the commission not improve the economy, but would actually

operate hand in hand with economic decline.

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador is an agency that the

government has poured a substantial amount of money in. There was a recent

expos done by CBC Television indicating the inadequate controls at ENL and the

amount of money that was recklessly loaned out and subsequently written off

because debtors did not repay their loans.

At the same time as the government went gaga over Doug House

and the new economy, and there may be some opportunities cited by those gurus

that are certainly worth pursuing, the government has grossly neglected our

basic, traditional, resource-based industries, industries for which we have a

natural advantage, and I am talking about the fishery, and I am talking about

the forestry.

There is nothing in this Budget that is calculated to make a

thrust by the provincial government in the fishery. The government has been

hiding from the fishery, even to the extent of burying the name `fishery' from

the name of the department. We have this pathetic name now of Fisheries, Food

and Agriculture, FFA. Similarly in forestry, we no longer see the word

`forestry' in the name of a department. Who in the Province knows today the name

of the provincial Minister of Fisheries? Who in the Province today knows the

name of the provincial Minister of Forestry? I would suggest there are people in

this House of Assembly who don't know, so how can we expect people outside to

know?

Mr. Speaker, this Budget is economically inadequate. On the

social front it is quite insensitive. We have a social assistance caseload that

has been growing and growing. When the Liberals came to power in May of 1989 the

social assistance caseload was under 20,000. The number of family units, the

number of individuals getting welfare at the time, was under 20,000. Now that

number has continued to rise. It has risen steadily year after year after year,

until now it is about double what it was six years ago - six short years ago.

Despite the constant, steady growth in dependence on social

assistance, the government has continually underestimated the social assistance

requirement. For the new fiscal year the government is projecting spending less

on social assistance than last year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, either the government is going to have to

supplement that amount later in the Budget year, as it has frequently in the

past, or it is going to seriously shortchange people in this Province who have

no means of a livelihood, no means of buying groceries, or meeting basic living

requirements other than getting welfare. Social assistance, as those familiar

with the rates know, is very meagre. People living only on social assistance are

barely scraping by and it is difficult for people depending on social assistance

to have a nutritious diet, so how the government can expect to operate this year

with a $10 million reduction on social assistance payments is beyond most of us.

I would suggest they themselves do not seriously expect to keep to that Budget

projection.

Mr. Speaker, while I am talking about social assistance I

have to once again make a point that I began to make when a very regressive

change was made by the current Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

It is extremely important for social support programs, for income support

programs to have built into their design an incentive for people to help

themselves, to do whatever they can that leads to income generation on their own

part. Today a large percentage of people on social assistance are used to

working, have worked in the past, and want to work now. The reason that we have

twice the social assistant caseload currently than we did six years ago is

because of the terrible economic situation in the Province, because of UI

changes, and people coming off TAGS.

Most of the additional social assistance caseloads, most of

the 20,000 family units who have been added to the rolls involve people who are

able to work and who can work, so it is very important that we build into the

regulations incentives for people to help themselves and do the best they can.

The regressive change I am referring to that runs contrary to a positive

incentive for people to help themselves is one made by the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation when he autocratically decreed that income from

court-ordered maintenance and child support, instead of being allowable would be

non-allowable.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that killed the incentive for social

assistance recipients entitled to court-order maintenance, and most of them are

single mothers, to even try to get a court order for child support. The meaning

of making maintenance non-allowable is that every dollar coming into a household

in the form of court-ordered maintenance is subtracted from the social

assistance entitlement. The reality is that social assistance recipients are

worse off now than they were six or seven years ago.

MR. EFFORD: That is not correct.

MS. VERGE: Six or seven years ago court ordered

maintenance did not return very much money to dependent families because there

was no effective mechanism to collect it, but one of the good decision I made

when I was in Cabinet, along with the Peckford administration, was setting up

the Support Enforcement Agency which is a division of the Department of Justice

dedicated to enforcing court orders for maintenance, and collecting the

payments, and forwarding them to the family members entitled to them.

Now, it was just a few months after the Support Enforcement

Agency was up and running, and producing good results for dependent families

that the minister took away the benefit from the families which needed the extra

income the most. Those families depending on social assistance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, under the former regulations that

categorize maintenance as allowable, the net gain to the social assistance

dependent families was only $115 a month. Now $115 a month is probably not very

much to somebody who owns shares in Rolls Royce but I assure you for a single

mother with three children getting only $400 or $500 a month from social

assistance, $115 a month is very significant. So, Mr. Speaker, the point I am

making is that that change took away the incentive for dependent families on

social assistance to even try to get a court order for maintenance. Now with the

change, even though by now both the Department of Justice is computerized and a

sophisticated computer set-up was provided for the support enforcement agency

when it started and the Department of Social Services has caught up with the

computer age and is now computerized but somehow the two are not synchronized.

What happens to dependents when the maintenance payments are

late is that they have a cash flow crisis. The social assistance cheques are now

calculated counting on regular on time receipt of maintenance payments through

the Support Enforcement Agency but when they are not received regularly and on

time then obviously the dependent family is short cash; cash needed for

groceries, cash needed for the basics. So there is a disincentive. Families on

social assistance now are actually better off if there is no court order for

maintenance. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot I could say about what is wrong

with this budget. In short, it is fiscally misleading and irresponsible. It is

economically inadequate and it is socially insensitive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I am debating the motion before

us which is a motion that the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

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

the raising of Supply. I wish to move an amendment that all of the words after

the word, `that' be struck and replaced with the following quote, `that this

House condemn the government for its failure to accurately represent the true

state of the economy of the Province and the governments consequential failure

to take appropriate budgetary action to deal with the real problems.' That

amendment motion, Mr. Speaker, is seconded by the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount who is sitting patiently in his seat. Mr. Speaker, in plain language

that is a non-confidence motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: That is a motion made on behalf of thousands

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that we have lost confidence in this

government!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: It is a motion that the 'real change' promised

by the Liberals when they campaigned for election in 1989 was indeed a change

but it was a change for the worse. It is not the change that the Liberals

promised. It is not the change that involved bringing every mother's son home

from the mainland. It is not the change that involved five new universities

being opened. It is not the change that involved opening more hospital beds. Mr.

Speaker, the people of this Province are sadly disillusioned by this government.

They no longer trust the government. They no longer consider that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: I am just trying to help the Leader of the

Opposition get something clear. She has now moved the amendment, is that right?

Has Your Honour ruled that the amendment is in order and so on?

MR. SPEAKER: No, the Chair -

MR. BAKER: I just want to get clear on what she is

speaking to now. I am assuming that she is now speaking to the amendment. So I

was wondering - we need some kind of a decision whether it is in order or not so

we can then proceed properly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has not seen a copy of the amendment. So if I could

have a copy of the amendment?

MS. VERGE: I will gladly provide a written copy.

MR. SPEAKER: I am not sure if the Clerk has seen it. I

think this is the standard type of amendment which has been accepted in the

past, so I rule that the amendment is in order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Not only is the motion in order I would submit, but it is

very apt and it reflects the feelings of most of the people in this Province.

People have lost confidence in this government and people will have a chance to

demonstrate their loss of confidence in the next election.

Mr. Speaker, I have two minutes to go before the Late Show

and I trust, Your Honour, will tell me when my time for today is up; I will

gladly continue in the morning, I say to the smiling Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation.

By the way, I wonder when the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation is going to tell the full story of his participation in the Trans

City deal, and I wonder if the Premier will be issuing a news release after he

speaks, saying that the minister has recanted, the way the Premier today issued

a release respecting the Member for St. John's Centre and Twillingate and

Windsor - Buchans, a release -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Oh yes. Hot off the wire, Premier Clyde Wells

said today that all five former Cabinet ministers, to whom some representatives

of the media attributed concern about the decision to do the deal with Trans

City, have expressed to him their confidence that Cabinet made the decision that

was in the best interest of the public.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What a bunch of wimps.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: What a bunch of wimps indeed, but the five

politicians-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - the five politicians are no longer even

speaking for themselves.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up and we are moving into the Late

Show.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, just for today. She adjourned the

debate and we will continue that when it's called again but we are now into the

Late Show.

Debate on the Adjournment

[Late Show]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The first question: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to express my dissatisfaction with the response from

the Minister of Natural Resources with regard to the change in policy for claim

staking on the Island of Newfoundland.

The minister confirmed in Question Period that the general

practice of staking claims on the ground for the Island of Newfoundland has been

discontinued and is to be replaced with a map staking process currently in use

in Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister was in Green Bay and spoke to

the local Chamber of Commerce there a couple of weeks ago and was generally

well-received by people who, for the most part were relatively well familiar

with him in his former capacity as a civil servant in the Mines and Energy

department. Many people involved in the mineral industry had the opportunity to

renew an acquaintance with an old friend from the mineral industry. The minister

at that time did not indicate to local people that there was going to be a

significant change in the claim staking mechanism in the Province, that is to

say, claims would no longer be required to be staked on the ground on the Island

of Newfoundland but rather from a map as is the case in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in the case of my particular district there are

a number of small companies who owe their very existence to the trade of claim

staking, and in any given summer one or all of these companies may well hire a

dozen or two dozen people, even in a slack year, this policy change could cost

my district fifty jobs in a given summer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister indicates that there are going

to be 1,500 to 2,000 jobs involved in mineral exploration in Labrador this

summer mainly as a result of the Voisey Bay discovery and I don't dispute that,

but those are jobs that would have occurred in Labrador regardless because of

the activity and the intense international concentration on the mineral

discovery in that area but, Mr. Speaker, in comparing the Labrador situation

wit