The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

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

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

The few comments that I have to make are a bit belated, but there are a couple reasons for it. Number one, I was out of the Province for a few days and the second reason is that I thought the Minister for Forestry and Agriculture would be already on his feet, but seeing that he is not, I am going to say better late than never.

Mr. Speaker, an historical sports event took place recently, historical as far as rural Newfoundland is concerned, when the Herder Memorial Trophy was played for by two rural teams, one from Badger and one from Flatrock and, needless to say, I am here today to first of all, congratulate the team of Badger, they played an excellent tournament.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I also want to compliment the people of Badger for their support of their hockey team. But my biggest congratulation, Mr. Speaker, really goes to Flatrock, my hometown. They played a terrific series and I am really proud of them. It was beyond my wildest dreams, that I would ever see Flatrock play for the Herder Memorial Trophy. For anyone who doesn't know, the Herder Memorial Trophy was awarded by the Herder family, sixty-seven years ago, and for the Premier and my hon. colleague here, it was first won in 1935 by Corner Brook. The first Herder Memorial Trophy went to Corner Brook and this year, after a couple of years lying in the dust, Flatrock and Badger played off.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it was good sportsmanship all around, competitive but good sportsmanship. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say before I sit down that our constable, Constable Kennedy, the constable who sits here in the House, played in goal for Badger. He played between the pipes for Badger. And, he was, as he is always, terrific, Mr. Speaker, terrific. He is of professional calibre, although in the last game which went into overtime, Flatrock outshot Badger by a real wide margin. Only for the constable of the House, I am sure today that the Herder Memorial Trophy would be in Flatrock.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, what a backhanded way to congratulate the Herder Memorial winners! Everyone knows that the Herder Memorial Trophy is symbolic of hockey supremacy in Newfoundland, and we think of teams like the Buchans Miners, the Grand Falls Cataracts, the Conception Bay Cee-Bees. I understand the name of the hon. the Member for St. John's South is on that trophy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: I want to associate myself with most of the remarks made by the hon. member representing Flatrock, but I want also to tell the House that I attended three years games and I showed more sportsmanship than he did. I attended the games in St. John's and he came over and dropped the puck to start the series. I want to tell you, I attended the three games and I was fortunate enough to be in Badger for the presentation of the Herder Memorial Trophy. I want to go on record as, number one, congratulating the Badger Bombers for winning the trophy, I want to congratulate the Flatrock team for making it to the point where they could compete for the Herder Memorial, and I want also to congratulate the town of Badger for hosting the event. I understand the visiting team appreciated very much the hospitality and the kind of true sportsmanship they found in Badger.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to suggest that Your Honour send messages of congratulations to all members, subject to the concurrence of the members opposite and the Member for St. John's East to the artists honoured by the Province's Arts Council at the Arts Awards ceremony last night. It was good to see the Minister responsible for cultural affairs presenting some of the awards.

The artists honoured were Tim Borlase of the Labrador East Integrated School Board, who was awarded the lifetime Achievement Award and Ron Hynes from the Southern Shore, the noted singer and composer who was named Artist of the Year.

The following three artists were inducted into the Hall of Fame: Christopher Pratt, the internationally known painter and print-maker, Denys Ferry of St. John's for his contribution to amateur theatre in the Province, and Emile Benoit from Black Duck Brook, the well-known and well-loved fiddler and composer.

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

MR. HOGAN: I would like to join with the hon. member and endorse her comments of congratulations to the five award winners last night, and also to the entire Arts Council for their participation and contribution to our heritage, Mr. Speaker.

The arts people are doing a tremendous job in this area, under some trying circumstances. One of the award winners last night, Mr. Denys Ferry, pointed out that the communities had a struggle all through the years in attaining their successes. I guess it is the nature of the beast that they probably will continue doing that. No matter how much you can do for the community, the artists will have to strive and work even harder to attain success.

Notwithstanding that, this government continues to broaden its support in the very near future. I am sure that members of the House will see, and so will the general public, that there are better things ahead for the arts community, and this government will continue to support them.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for St. John's East have permission of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On an aside, I am not sure it is required, as unanimous consent was not requested for the other previous speakers.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. I thought the hon. member was speaking to what the hon. members had previously raised.

MR. HARRIS: That was my intention, and as it was not a ministerial statement I did not understand that unanimous consent was required for only the Member for St. John's East and not the previous speakers.

But to the point, Mr. Speaker, I do wish to join in and make unanimous the congratulations of this House to the fine artists and performers who were recognized by the Arts Council awards last night. Of course, these artists are well recognized by hon. members as contributing a great deal by their artistry and to the culture of this Province. It is unfortunate that, as the minister has said, quite often artists are placed in the position of being struggling artists as opposed to people whose valuable contribution is recognized by proper and appropriate programs.

Mr. Speaker, I do look forward to the day when we don't have to refer to our artists as struggling artists but rather as recognized contributing citizens, and that appropriate levels of support are in place for them.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to routine business, the Chair would like to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the public galleries today of the hon. Geoff Scott, Member of Parliament for Hamilton-Wentworth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also we would like to welcome to the public galleries today twenty-one students, grade six to nine from the St. Thomas School in Grand Le Pierre in the District of Fortune - Hermitage. They are accompanied by their teachers: Mr. Ronald Buckle, Principal and teachers Mr. Wayne Rumboldt, Mr. Harold Colebourne and Peggy Wiseman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, when the Hughes Commission Report was made public on April 24, no comment was possible because circulation of the report had been severely restricted and time was needed for analysis of the recommendations. I now want to inform you of what progress has been made.

I am pleased to inform the House that the Deputy Ministers of Justice and Social Services have been directed to review all the recommendations of the Hughes Commission and, in consultation with relevant officials, to provide information and advice on implementation. I can further report that good progress has already been made with respect to many issues identified by Judge Hughes, and numerous recommendations are already in various stages of implementation.

Mr. Justice Hughes made recommendations concerning the training of social workers and police. Mr. Speaker, training of police in child abuse began in 1984 and has been subject to continuous review ever since. In 1989-90 more specialized training was undertaken jointly by Social Services and the RNC and 1991 saw further revision and improvement of the training program. A new joint program has now been designed by Social Services and the RNC and has been delivered twice in St. John's, once in Corner Brook and is to be given in Labrador in May. This training will be delivered on a regularly scheduled basis. In addition, several years ago the RNC acquired videotaping facilities. A review will now be undertaken of both the technical capacity of the facility and the training requirements for more effective use of this capacity.

As a result of the Hughes Report, contact has been initiated with the Public Service Commission to explore the potential role of that agency in further improving interdisciplinary training programs.

Mr. Justice Hughes expressed concerns about the reporting of child abuse. Mr. Speaker, for some years officials in the Departments of Social Services and Justice have been working with educators and those involved in the delivery of health care to heighten awareness of child abuse and to educate with respect to the reporting requirements.

The Department of Social Services is in the process of developing an information system which will enhance the ability to collect, retrieve and analyze information and facilitate the appropriate sharing of information in child protection cases.

Interviews of suspected victims of child sexual assault are now conducted jointly by police and social workers, and there are regular mechanisms in place to identify and address operational and other concerns as they develop. The current policy of both police forces requires them to report all cases of child abuse to the Director of Child Welfare.

Several years ago government initiated a review of the Child Welfare Act and the difficulties arising out of the time limits for prosecution for failure to report abuse under Section 49 of the existing Child Welfare Act, and concerns which have been expressed with respect to the necessary rewording of that section will be dealt with in a revised act.

Mr. Justice Hughes also expressed concern with respect to caseloads, both in the Department of Social Services and the Department of Justice. Mr. Speaker, the increased incidence of reported child abuse is tragic testimony to the success of efforts to encourage recognition and reporting of abuse. In response to the stresses imposed upon the system by this increase, some steps have already been taken. In 1990 the Department of Social Services increased its complement of social workers involved in child protection by forty-four, and aggressive recruitment by the Department of Justice across Canada resulted in the filling of all but three existing positions with the Crown prosecutors office. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that five new Crown prosecutor positions have recently been approved to deal with increased caseloads.

In 1990 a special Sexual Offence Unit was established at the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary dedicated to the investigation of child abuse and sexual offenses. Staffing levels of this Unit were increased by three in 1991 and one clerical staff was added. This Unit has a present complement of eight officers and a staff sergeant and it is hoped to add one more officer to this Unit shortly.

Mr. Speaker, work has also begun on other recommendations made by Judge Hughes. A new draft policy manual for the Child Welfare Division, started in 1991, should be ready for review and comment by regional committees by June 30 of this year.

Preliminary contact has been made with the Law Society of Newfoundland with a view to forming a committee to address concerns raised with respect to court delays, and the Society has agreed to participate. The advice of the Judiciary will also be requested.

Government has committed itself to the establishment of a Police Complains Commission and funding has been allocated for this purpose and the position of Director of Public Prosecutions was created several years ago.

Notwithstanding the withdrawal of federal funding, Mr. Speaker, a Victim Assistance Pilot Project is currently underway in an effort to address the concerns voiced by Judge Hughes for victim witnesses making their way through the court system.

And, Mr. Speaker, the recommendations requiring amendments to clarify the Child Welfare Act will be addressed in the revised Act.

Mr. Speaker, the analysis of the recommendations of the Hughes Enquiry by the Deputy Ministers and their officials is being done on a high priority basis. As soon as their analysis is complete, government will make known its position on all recommendations and will take the appropriate action.

Thank you.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government's response to the chronic and growing problem of child abuse is terribly inadequate. There has been some improvement, some of what the minister just reported, but the improvement has not been in proportion to the increase in demand. What is happening, Mr. Speaker, in too many cases is that victims of child sexual abuse and victims of other kinds of child abuse, are being further victimized by the criminal justice and child welfare systems. Justice and social services workers in too many parts of the Province are overloaded, they cannot cope. A community worker in Stephenville said to me the other day: The problem is out of control.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked recently to both justice and child welfare workers in the field and they are not aware of any action to respond to the Hughes Report recommendations. A child welfare worker in rural Newfoundland asked me on the weekend how he can get a copy of the Hughes Report. A worker in the criminal justice system said to me this morning: I don't know what is happening in our department.

So, Mr. Speaker, many people who are working to combat child sexual assault and to give assistance and support to victims - and I might note that many of these work voluntarily - have the feeling that government is simply paying lip service to the problem, that the decision makers simply do not have an appreciation of the gravity of the problem.

The other day we listened to the Premier responding to questions about the inadequacy of counselling services to child sexual assault victims. The Premier responded by saying: That is not my responsibility, that is up to Treasury Board. This is the Premier of the Province, Mr. Speaker.

Now, a few years ago not many people had a real idea about the extent of child sexual abuse, but thanks to the womens' movement, thanks to the news media and thanks to the televising of the Hughes Commission hearings when the Mount Cashel and the foster home victims testified, most of our citizens now understand the terrible and long-lasting damage that victims suffer. Citizens want to see a better response from their provincial government. They don't want a slick public relations exercise, they want real action.

Now, I will come to some of the specifics in the minister's statement. He acknowledges the recommendations calling for a revision of The Child Welfare Act and he does say that work on a revised Child Welfare Act began years ago.

When this administration came to office, the first Minister of Social Services, the Member for Port de Grave, told me that he was going to have the new Child Welfare Act before the House of Assembly in the first year. Mr. Speaker, it has now been more than three years. The minister points, in particular, to the need to overhaul the reporting requirement and offense provisions of the act. That is a priority, and let us do it in this Spring sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions I want to ask the Premier related to his answers in Question Period yesterday and his comments concerning the issue of a moratorium which my colleague asked him about yesterday. It is clear from reading Hansard, I guess that the Premier, as many people in many quarters suspect, has been advocating that a moratorium be imposed upon the deep-sea fishery. I guess the question is, surely if one is suggesting that that should be the case, then one should have spent considerable time assessing what the consequences might be. So can I ask him: if there is such a moratorium, what future does he see for the fishing company that we know of now as FPI? How many jobs would be lost, how many plants would be closed, and so on throughout the system? Surely he has given this some thought.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The thing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should rely upon is Hansard, not the false and fraudulent press release issued by the Member for Grand Bank yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, the position in Hansard - and I will dig it out now - is very clear. I will stand behind that position. But it is totally different than the false and fraudulent presentation done by the Member for Grand Bank.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No no, it's not - I stand by what is in Hansard. What I denounce is the false and fraudulent press release issued by the Member for Grand Bank, where he announced that I called for a moratorium of one to five years. I said no such thing.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Member for Burin - Placentia West particularly to restrain himself. The Premier is answering the question. The Leader of the Opposition has asked the question. We will give the Premier the chance to address it.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I apologise for that but it is difficult when someone is closing down your district.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can get the precise wording from Hansard in answer to the question. My recollection is that I said very clearly that we must protect the inshore fishery on which this Province has relied for 400 years. We must do that. The federal government and this provincial government, and even the former provincial government, supported the allocation for the inshore fishery to protect their interests. We must do that. The national government policies are still consistent with that, so far as I know, and if they aren't, they should be.

Now if fishing deep-sea is going to destroy that fishery for the next 400 years, then we should put a moratorium on it, for one year, two years, three years, if that is necessary. If it is not necessary, we should not do it. Now for the Member for Grand Bank to falsely and fraudulently present a press release suggesting that I called for such a moratorium now is utterly false and irresponsible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier can use all the verbal illusion and all the verbal trickery that he wants to use. He has become an expert at it. The reality is, this Premier supports the idea of a moratorium! That is the reality!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: He can be as slippery as he wants with his answers. But tell us this: if there is a moratorium, what happens to FPI? How many plants will close down? How many jobs will be lost? Tell us that!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me read from Hansard: "Now, we have to protect that, and if that means putting a moratorium on the directed deep-sea cod fishery for a year, two years, three years, five years, whatever is necessary to rebuild the stocks, then we must do that because we must protect our basic fisheries in this Province, and if that is necessary to do it, then we must do it; but if it is not necessary, then don't do it."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, for the Member for Grand Bank to issue that press release announcing that I called for a moratorium is a shameless, fraudulent political misrepresentation and he has to accept political responsibility for it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say, I stand behind and I still support the words I expressed yesterday. Now, to answer specifically the question of the Leader of the Opposition: what does he think will happen to FPI and the deep-sea plants if we destroy the fish stock? What's going to happen to them then? Along with the inshore fishery? He wants to destroy it all!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. If ever I heard a case of the pot calling the kettle black when he referred to the Member for Grand Bank making fraudulent political representation, this Premier has become an expert at fraudulent political representation, Mr. Speaker, and there are reams and reams of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Now since he can't answer my question directly or he is not prepared to answer the question directly, whatever the reason is, I asked him what happens to FPI, if there is a moratorium. He didn't answer that. He couldn't answer that question.

Let me ask him another question, Mr. Speaker. Something very specific, and something that he can answer if he wishes to. Everybody knows around this Province and in this economy these days businesses are losing day after day, suffering all kinds of losses. For certain, fishing industry businesses are losing money. In fact FPI just announced a $1.5 million loss or something in the first quarter. Now one of the reasons, one of the causes contributing to those losses is this government's introduction of a payroll tax on the fishing industry just a few short weeks ago in the middle of all of this. Now could I ask the Premier: will he consider exempting the fishing companies from this payroll tax that they put on just a few weeks ago, at least until the current crisis is over and we return to more normal situations in the fishing industry? Will he consider that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The question that he raised, Mr. Speaker, is what happens to FPI. If there is a moratorium on northern cod and FPI are not permitted to catch northern cod it will reduce FPI's operations by about 30 per cent. The northern cod represents about 30 per cent of their operations, so the specific answer is it will reduce it by about 30 per cent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the more pertinent question is what happens to FPI if the norther cod are destroyed completely, if there is no moratorium if one is necessary? That is the more pertinent question.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the second part of the question... was the payroll tax imposed on the fishery? There was no such thing. All of the businesses were relieved of the responsibility to pay property tax for school tax. All businesses were, and in place there was a payroll tax imposed. It applied to the fishery as well as every other.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, it is like pulling hens teeth. You can't get a straight answer from this Premier. I don't know why. He loves to play games with words, I suppose. He has become so good at it.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier sarcastically responded to a sincere question by the Member for Grand Bank when he asked what is this government going to do to respond to the crisis today that we have in this Province, the jobs that are gone. What is this government going to do? He sarcastically responds by saying: Oh, that is the federal government's responsibility, Mr. Speaker. Now it is all fine and dandy to be over in Europe telling the Europeans what they should be doing, but the crisis is here in Newfoundland and Labrador. What is the Premier going to do to help all those thousands of people in the fishing industry as well as all those who are losing jobs in spin-off activities? What is he going to do? Is he just going to sit back, throw his hands up in the air and say: We can't do anything. We got no money. Is that what he is going to continue doing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will deal with the first question. It is not that you can't get a straight answer. The reality is that the Opposition can't cope with a straight answer. That is their problem, they can't cope with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the second part of the Opposition Leader's question: What is the provincial government going to do to deal with the hundreds of people who have been thrown out of work because of the reduction in the fishery - the thousands of people? What are they going to do? I keep pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that this government in 1990 and 1991 and again this year when it was necessary put forward proposals and we will continue to do that. We were the ones who provided real help for people as a result of the decision in 1990. What I don't understand, and what I cannot understand is why it is that the Opposition keeps insisting that the impoverished people of Newfoundland should take the financial responsibility for relieving the federal government of what is the consequences of their action in the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: What taxpayers are they working for? The taxpayers of Ontario and BC or the taxpayers of Newfoundland? What taxpayers interests are they protecting? We know what they are doing for their own selfish political motives, Mr. Speaker. They want to keep pressure on the provincial government instead of keeping the pressure on their political cohorts in Ottawa, with whom they are working to cover up their failings, with whom they are working on a daily basis and in touch with Mr. Crosbie and the Prime Minister on a daily basis, to cover up their failure in the fishery and attempt to blame it on this government. Mr. Speaker, it won't work. It is as transparent as the clearest window glass.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is the same Premier who does not hesitate for a moment to spend tens of thousands of dollars travelling to Europe, down to New York, over in Vancouver, but -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - but

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: - but he is not prepared to spend one red cent to help the fishermen in Grand Bank or the fishermen in Fortune or in Marystown -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind hon. members on both sides of the House that Question Period is not a period for debate. One would not realize it right now but it is not a period for debate, it is a period for asking questions and I ask hon. members to abide by the rules please.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Why don't you cancel the car allowance for ministers then you then you won't have to worry about it at all -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: - and I will take my loss too as the Leader of the Opposition, I am quite prepared.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Sure I will, and I will take a 10 per cent cut in salary too!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier was able to control his backbenchers, maybe we could get on with the serious issue that I have been trying to question him on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has become an expert, an expert at blaming everything else in the world for all the problems. If it is not the feds, if it is not the previous administration, if it is not the unions, if it is not the press -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SIMMS: - well, this is sort of a part of the question. Is not the Premier aware that he has become an expert in all of those areas, Mr. Speaker? Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is what the Premier is doing all the time and the government is like it and he knows it, and the people out there in the Province by the way, are beginning to realize it too.

Now the question is this: Nobody is suggesting that the federal government is not responsible for the fishery and has the major responsibility in jurisdiction and should provide major help in terms of the fishery, we called on the federal government to do that. I asked the Prime Minister to do that a few weeks ago when I met with him in Ottawa, so do not play little games, Mr. Speaker, with the lives of the people of this Province. The question is: when is this government and this Premier going to live up to its responsibility and its obligations and help the people who are in trouble? That is the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I had to deal with all of the aspects that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised including the cost of travel. Now I remind the House that the government undertook - I undertook to travel to UNCED, in part at the request or at the very least, the express support of the opposition, who recommended that we should be doing it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is right. - recommended that we do it, requested that we do it; the difference is he wanted to go himself and I felt that that would be detrimental -

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

PREMIER WELLS: - Now, Mr. Speaker, this government will put its responsibility and its response to its obligations in terms of the fisheries side by side with the political cohorts of the opposition in Ottawa and what they have done, any time for examination. But what we will not do, Mr. Speaker, we will not be goaded by the Opposition to imposing an impossible burden on the taxpayers of this Province to relieve the federal government of their responsibility for the disastrous economic consequences they have caused to our fishery. We will not do that. We will not do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: But, Mr. Speaker, we will leave no stone unturned to make sure that the federal government discharges fully its responsibilities. Absolutely! We will stop the Opposition from sheltering the federal government in the way in which they are, in trying to protect them in this way and trying to cover up their failure because they are the political cohorts of the Opposition. We know that they are in touch on a daily basis, endorsing their failure in order to bring pressure to bear on the provincial government because we are their political opponents. Mr. Speaker, that is a shameful way to treat the taxpayers of this Province to whom they are answerable for what they do.

The Province, Mr. Speaker, will use the maximum of the resources available to assist all of our people in this Province whether they get their living from the sea, through fishing or fish processing, or otherwise. We will discharge fully our responsibility. But we will not relieve the federal government of its responsibility because it manages exclusively the fishery resources of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The Premier is aware, and I suppose everybody in the Province and possibly in Canada today, as a whole, are aware of the plight of the Lundrigan's group of companies in Corner Brook. The Premier is also aware that the loss of the Lundrigan group of companies in Corner Brook on the west coast of the Province will be very devastating to the west coast and the Province as a whole, I might add, because the trickle effect is even felt out here on the Avalon Peninsula.

Today there are 280 employees employed with the Lundrigan group of companies in Corner Brook. Just a few weeks ago there were eighty-five to ninety laid off at the gypsum plant, and, seasonally, another 250 to 300 workers. But as of today, 280 permanent employees with the Lundrigan group of companies in Corner Brook.

Could the Premier tell the House if he has had any consultation with the Lundrigan people and, also, if he has been requested by the Lundrigan Group for any help from the government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I thank the hon. member for his question. It is a very sensitive question on a very important matter, something that is very important to the Province.

I would go further than the hon. member and remind members that for sixty years the Lundrigan family made a tremendous economic contribution, not only to western Newfoundland but to all of this Province and, indeed, to the nation. But more significantly, Mr. Speaker, they did so in a manner that left them with the widespread support of all of the people of this Province and the great respect of all of the people of this Province because of the businesslike and gentlemanly manner in which they always conducted their business affairs, because of their concern for their employees, and because of their concern for other people in the community that they wanted to help.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in that circumstance the government must be disposed to give the situation every possible consideration. I have to say to you that I have been in discussions from time to time, and so has the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Development, with representatives of the Lundrigan companies since last December. The first thing I did was ask the bank to take into account the consequences of their decision on other creditors, other businesses in the area, the consequences of their decision on the Lundrigan family and the operation, and the consequences for Newfoundland as a whole. I express appreciation to the Bank of Montreal for their courtesy in taking the time to do this extra review of it.

So we looked at what the government could do to help alleviate the situation. But, Mr. Speaker, here are the circumstances. The Lundrigan group of companies have, for a number of years, been disposing of many of their business assets to discharge their fairly substantial debt obligations and now there are these assets left: A rent-a-car company that has five or six direct competitors in the Province, a car sales company that has numerous competitors in the Province, a concrete production company that has numerous competitors in the Province, a building materials company that has numerous competitors in the Province, and they were all under the one company, different divisions.

MS. VERGE: The gypsum company.

PREMIER WELLS: I will get to the gypsum. I am aware of the gypsum and I will get to that in due course. All of those are competitive businesses. Every single aspect of the Lundrigan operation with one exception, the gypsum, had competitive businesses elsewhere in the Province. Now, the government cannot simply put money into a business operation that has widespread competitors in the Province and assist them financially, because the next day all the other competitors are in saying: What are you doing, assisting financially our competitors? They are putting us out of business. They can give lower prices than we can and they are going to put us out of business.

You just cannot do that unless you are going to be prepared to provide financial assistance to every business that has trouble with its banks. The one exception of all the aspects of it was the gypsum business so we talked to the company about that, worked with them for two or three months to try and find a means of providing some assistance to make sure that the gypsum operation would continue. I do know they tried to work out a number of proposals through Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador but in the end there was no proposal for an adequate equity investment of it that would justify the government putting money into the gypsum business as such under those circumstances. Now, maybe the circumstances might change tomorrow, the next day, next week, or next month, I do not know, and the government is keeping a constant watch on what is happening because we want to make sure that we preserve the gypsum production business in Corner Brook. I may say the Lundrigans - Mr. Harold Lundrigan, Mr. Arthur Lundrigan, and Mr. Bennett are all working diligently to see that they do that because throughout this whole discussion of the last few months the greatest concern expressed by the Lundrigans was for their employees and the creditors. Government has the situation very much in mind and are working with it on a constant basis, watching it on a constant basis, and we will provide whatever level of help it is proper for us to provide, but what we cannot do is provide competitive assistance to competitors of existing businesses that might drive other businesses out of business in the Province.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I am also aware of the competitive nature of some of the holdings of the Lundrigan group. The Premier touched on one that is an exception and that is the Atlantic Gypsum Plant in Corner Brook but there is also another one, specifically Atlantic Design Homes in Stephenville. Albeit it is not working right now but just a few short months ago that provided 100 jobs for six months and added a $25 million total to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, no small lot as I am sure the Member for Stephenville can attest to. The other part, as I am sure the Premier and everybody else is aware of, is the management group in Corner Brook alone, the Lundrigan head office. It is not just a natural head office as in any other company, they have expertise to deal with national projects, international projects, and so on, so I would like the Premier to take that into consideration as well if and when they are requested by the company to do something in the next short while.

Having said that I wonder if the Premier would, through his office, request a meeting with the Bank of Montreal and the Lundrigan group of companies, the Lundrigan people, although I realize he said this has already been done, but there may just be something, the banks may be just looking for a signal of some kind or another, or someone else that may be interested in the gypsum plant itself. Maybe if he initiated something right now through his office, not guaranteeing anything, not prejudging anything, but sit down with the three groups involved, government, Lundrigans and the bank, and there just might be some ray of light there, something just might come out of the meeting that might be beneficial to the Lundrigan group, and more specifically, Mr. Speaker, to the employees. We have an awful lot of people on the west coast of the Province today who are depending on this, so I would ask the Premier, on behalf of the employees and the Lundrigan group of companies, to make at least one more stab at it and if it is at all possible to help out in whatever way. He did not get an inch with Atlantic Gypsum but at least make one more stab and see if there is any help available.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. members knows, Atlantic Design Homes is closed up. They have been closed up for years. They came into operation for a specific purpose, to create buildings for the Bull Arm facility. The plant and facilities are still there.

In terms of all of these divisions, these operating divisions to which I referred, to the best of my knowledge all are profitable operations. That is the knowledge that I have, and all will probably be sold. So the 280 jobs to which the hon. member refers are not at stake. Those businesses will continue under some other ownership, no doubt. Some have already been sold. Some businesses that they have held have already been sold.

I have told the hon. member, I thought, in the answer to my first question, that we are continuing to monitor the situation. One of the first people that I spoke with last December was Matthew Barrett, the Chairman of the Board of the Bank of Montreal. I went to him first and asked him to look at it. He was not familiar with it personally. I asked him to deal with it on a personal basis. As a result of that, they have been carrying on discussions for several months to try and find a solution.

The bank, I am told, has made an application to the Supreme Court for the appointment of a receiver. The bank itself has not acted to appoint a receiver. That is a matter that is before the courts, and I make no comment on it. The outcome of that will be whatever the court decides the outcome should be; but as I have told the House, there is no lack of willingness or disposition on the part of anybody on this side of the House to make the maximum possible effort to help sustain that company. By the same token, we cannot do it in such a manner that causes unfair competition to other business interests in the Province that are competing with those businesses and paying the taxes that would be used to provide any assistance that was provided. So we have to keep the thing in perspective.

I remind the House that the people who understand that perspective more than anybody else are the Lundrigans themselves, because that is the comment I had directly from Mr. Harold Lundrigan when I spoke with him about it. So I can assure the House, and assure the people of the Province, that the government will make every possible effort that it can properly make to aid in finding an acceptable resolution of this problem that will protect the interests of the employees, protect the interests of other creditors who will be affected if the bank gets its money and the other creditors are adversely affected, and also to protect the interests of a great family of entrepreneurs who have contributed tremendously to the economics and to the welfare of this Province for sixty years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary to the Premier, and I will be more specific. With regard to the Atlantic Gypsum plant itself, that is one operation that is not in competition with anything in this Province, and I would say probably in Atlantic Canada. There is another little place, I think, in New Brunswick somewhere. Anyway, I had the understanding, and was led to believe that right up until last Friday there was a possibility of a sale there. Could the Premier be more specific with regard to that particular part of the operation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am aware that there were at least four possibilities of sale of the Atlantic Gypsum operation. I have been informed, and I am hesitant to give any detail that may be improper for me to give at this stage, so I will be cautious about it.

I am aware that there were four significant expressions of concern. To the best of my knowledge, just yesterday there were engineers in Corner Brook looking at the plant and facilities with a view to purchasing it - engineers representing a major gypsum operation; and there are others that I know are interested.

There were two other, what I might refer to as local proposals. One local proposal that would have provided for a takeover of the operation, but in a peculiar kind of way because there is a single corporate entity; these are all operating divisions of the same corporation. There is also another bank involved with the gypsum assets, and there are charges on those assets separate and apart from the main bank, which is the Bank of Montreal. We looked at a possibility, but there was not a level of equity investment that was even anywhere near what one might describe as somewhere near normal level of operation, and the amount that would have to be injected by government would be very substantial. It was being put forward on a basis of no interest, a non-interest bearing loan, and we could hardly justify that because it was not going directly into the gypsum assets itself. So if we are going to provide that kind of assistance we might just as well be up front about it and do it directly with the company and say what we were doing. We have to be very careful and make sure that we do it right, but there is a level of interest, and I believe - I have a high level of confidence - that we will find a solution to the gypsum operation as well.

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

Before going on to other matters, the Chair wants to remind hon. members of our rules with respect to parliamentary language. In the heat of debate in Question Period today there were a couple of words used that I ought to bring to hon. members' attention. We have these rules to try to keep tempers down. Sometimes we may use words that can be offensive, and that cause a stir of excitement.

I refer to Beauchesne, Page 149, Section 492, which comes up to 1987 with a list of words and descriptions that have been invariably ruled to be unparliamentary. We have here false statements and fraudulent.

The Premier made reference to the statement made by the hon. the Member for Grand Bank as being false and fraudulent. For the benefit of decorum in the future, the Chair wouldn't want members to be making these statements because it is another way of saying that it is a lie.

The Leader of the Opposition used the word `fraudulent' later, and I will come back to that. I don't know the sense in which he used it. Hon. members might think that statements are false and fraudulent and they might, indeed, be, but we are not permitted to use those words in the House.

So I wonder if the Premier could withdraw or explain the sense in which he used the word?

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any improper statement that I make. If it was improper to use `false' and `fraudulent', I withdraw them.

Except, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Beauchesne says, "Since 1958 it has been ruled parliamentary to use the following expression: Fraudulent, Debates, November 9, 1964, p. 9880."

Mr. Speaker, let me explain -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not clear what the Premier is speaking on. I would like to have some guidance. Is it a point of order, or is he entering into debate on the Speaker's ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: The Premier is just making a point. I have asked him to explain and he is explaining.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw without reservation any improper statement, because I think it is unacceptable to be making improper statements in the House. But I do say, Mr. Speaker, it was quite improper for the Member for Grand Bank not to quote exactly what I said, but rather to express his interpretation of it, that I was calling for a moratorium.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: And that is the sense in which -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On unparliamentary language, a member is allowed to make a brief comment -

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. SIMMS: It's a speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Not very long ago. The hon. the Premier has withdrawn. He is making a brief explanation, and that is permissible.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, you asked me to explain the use of it and I withdraw any unparliamentary use. I explained that the basis on which the language was used was to reflect the fact that the member put his own totally wrong, totally incorrect construction on it and released it as a news release, claiming it to have been a statement by me.

Now, I ask the member to show the like courtesy that I am showing to him and release a statement of exactly what was contained in the debate, and I accept full responsibility for that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used the word `fraudulent', but I don't know in which context he used it. I should say to hon. members, as well, that there is no list of words that we can say that are unparliamentary that is permanent. It is used in the context, so a word might be used today and be parliamentary and tomorrow could be used in an unparliamentary sense. The Chair has to take into account the context and the temperament in which it was used.

So if the Leader of the Opposition would know in which way he said it or could withdraw it, then that would relieve the Chair of further investigating it. I have asked the Leader of the Opposition - he probably didn't hear me. I said, the Leader of the Opposition used the word `fraudulent', but I didn't get -

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

MR. SPEAKER: You didn't use it?

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if I am given the same courtesy as the Premier - and this is too silly to talk about, anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Because the Speaker ordered him to withdraw and he couldn't do it, he wasn't man enough, he had to get up and give some silly explanation!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: It's silly, too childish to talk about. Mr. Speaker, I quoted the words that the Premier used, and said that the Premier used those words -

MR. MATTHEWS: And accused me!

MR. SIMMS: - in accusing the Member for Grand Bank. That is what I used.

MR. MATTHEWS: He accused me of using fraudulent statements.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of motion, seconded by my colleague from Grand Bank:

WHEREAS recent statements by the Premier calling for a moratorium on the deep-sea fishery will mean 7,000 Newfoundlanders will become unemployed; and

WHEREAS the deep-sea fishery has already been significantly reduced;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House support an allocation of fish for the deep-sea plants.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of answers that I want to give. One is to a question that was asked by the Member for Kilbride about my travel between September 17, 1991 and October 15, 1991.

In that time, Mr. Speaker, I took a number of trips. They wanted the cost. One was to Ottawa, it lasted two days. It involved a meeting with the Prime Minister, it involved an address to the Law Society of Upper Canada, and an address to the Memorial University Alumni, Ottawa Branch. The air cost was nil, because the air expenses were incurred by the Law Society of Upper Canada who had invited me at that particular time, and I took advantage of being there to meet also with the Prime Minister and to address the Memorial alumni. The cost was very minor.

The second one was to Goose Bay on September 27. That was for two days and it was for meetings in Goose Bay and Sheshatshit. Mr. Dornan was with me. During the period that I was there, Mr. Ray Hawco, who is the assistant secretary to Cabinet for native policy was also there, but he didn't travel with me. He was in Goose Bay at that time for negotiations on the Labrador Inuit land claims, so he took advantage of it to attend the meetings.

The third time I moved during that period was a trip to Halifax for a one-day meeting with Premier Cameron. On the way back I stopped in Deer Lake. I flew to Deer Lake from Halifax on the way back, got off there and I went to Stephenville for a day. There are no expenses in connection with that trip to Stephenville, because that was for a Liberal Party function, so the Liberal Party paid the expenses for that. I came back to Corner Brook and I a couple of days work in Corner Brook on constituency work, and another day - this is on a weekend. It was the long weekend, the Thanksgiving Day weekend. Then, while I was there, I went for one day to Baie Verte. There were no expenses in connection with that because it was a Liberal Party activity. Then, from Corner Brook, I also went to Gander to address the Federation of Municipalities.

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

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we are interested in the information from the Premier, but the reason why it was put on the Order Paper is that in cases like this, where answers are lengthy, you prepare it and it is tabled, then we can get the information.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I surely do like it, I tell hon. members, but I don't like anyone abusing the rules of the House, that's all. That is the only reason I make the point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I accept the member's point of order, I do not quarrel with him on it.

Mr. Speaker, the second answer is in response to my undertakings of a couple of days ago to provide information on the Public Libraries Board, on questions that were raised. I undertook to do a complete examination on it, bearing in mind the member's comments. I won't read it, I will just explain. I have sheets prepared to be distributed. I will explain that the first sheet is the budget as was submitted by the Public Libraries Board. Members will note that the only significant increase was in salaries and wages were there was a $307,000 increase requested.

The second, third and fourth pages are the explanation by Treasury Board as to how they dealt with it. I would specifically draw members' attention to the last paragraph which explains exactly how it was done, and that the additional amount for increased salary cost and so on were taken out of the request because, Mr. Speaker, not only were wage rates frozen, but positions were also frozen. This reflected increasing the number of positions.

The final sheet, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Humber East raised the question of the relative cost and suggests that Newfoundland made the lowest contribution of any province in the country. That, Mr. Speaker, is completely wrong. I saw an excerpt from statistics. That is the figure. Now, I'm glad the hon. member is going to raise that, because all she has to do is take the Budget figure and divide by our population and she will get $10.73, instead of $8.14 as is shown on that paper. So it doesn't matter what that is, it is wrong information. I don't know where she got it, but it is wrong information.

Now, if the hon. member can't divide, I will get her a calculator. You take the precise budgeted amount and divide by our population, and you come up with the figure of $10.73, not $8.14 as it appears on that statement. Now, Mr. Speaker, that told me that I couldn't rely on those figures, so I had people call the four Atlantic Provinces to find out precisely what was spent on budgets. We find that of the four Atlantic Provinces, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland is the second highest. Newfoundland last year contributed $10.73, New Brunswick $10.44, Nova Scotia $9.22, and PEI $12.98 per capita.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there is one other thing that people ought to remember. Newfoundland and PEI, I believe, are the only provinces where the provincial governments pay the full shot. In other provinces -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: There may be some contribution in space, but in other provinces, Mr. Speaker, much or most of the expenditure -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I can only say to the people, maybe Mr. Penny has mislead me in that, but I have his statement here and I can read it to hon. members.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I can only say I am presenting the information I got from Mr. Penny. Now if it isn't correct, I will go back and ask Mr. Penny to verify it. But he says: 'When considering the provincial statistics the approach is one of the total contribution of public library services. Spending per capita is based on the total cost of the service, of course, overfunding is provided almost entirely by the province.' He notes that in other provinces such as Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC, the municipality is primarily responsible for the service with the province providing the lesser amount. Newfoundland and possibly PEI are the two provinces that are funded by the provincial government.

Now, if Mr. Penny is incorrect - I don't want to mislead the House - I will go back and ask him to get that information again. But I will point out, Mr. Speaker, that clearly, Newfoundland is well ahead in the Atlantic Provinces, but is probably well behind by comparison with the rest of the country. So I'm happy to table that information, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to report to the House on activity travel-wise in the same period asked for by the Member for Kilbride: September 17 to October 15.

Mr. Speaker, I had six trips in that period, mostly lasting for a couple of days. One was out of the Province to Boston and my deputy accompanied me on that trip concerning Cabot's 500th anniversary. Other than that they were within the Province. I might note an error on this particular document that was provided to me. At the time I was the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and because I was asked to report on officials who travelled with me on these trips it shows a visit to Fogo Island by the deputy. He did visit Fogo Island but it was not with me. It was a trip on his own, so in the context that I was asked of officials travelling with me, I was not with him on that particular trip.

Also, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Peckham, the Assistant Deputy Minister accompanied me on a trip to Gander to attend the Federation of Municipalities Conference, as did another Assistant Deputy Minister, Art Colbourne, in Ontario. And finally, Mr. Callahan, Director of Public Relations attended with me visits to the West Coast, Stephenville, Port aux Basques, Harbour Breton, and Grand Falls, and that is reported, as well. My executive assistant accompanied me on one trip and that is shown, as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: To where?

MR. GULLAGE: To Port Saunders.

MR. BAKER: Order 10, Mr. Speaker.

The continuation of the debate on Bill 17.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I only have a few minutes to go over this again. The last time I spoke on this debate on Bill 17, I made some remarks concerning the Member for Naskaupi. I reviewed those remarks, I had to look at them, I didn't say anything I didn't mean and I don't see anything there that was unparliamentary. If I had found anything I would have certainly apologized to the hon. member but I did now see anything. I did leave out one very important thing that I didn't know at the time, Mr. Speaker. I didn't know that the Member for Naskaupi does have, on file with the Speaker's office, a note from the doctor as to the reasons why he is off sick. I didn't know that at the time, I did not mention it, but I do want to mention it publicly here today to clear up any misunderstanding that I was personally attacking the member himself. It was not the intention, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Which member was involved?

MR. R. AYLWARD: The member was Mr. Kelland, the Member for Naskaupi. I was not personally attacking the member, it was just what was happening at the time.

I just want to put that on the record, to say that the hon. Member for Naskaupi does have on file with the Speaker's office, I have been told, a letter from the doctor saying why he is off sick. I think it is important to say that because if the hon. member is sick, and obviously he is if the doctor says so, I wish him well and I hope he recuperates in a hurry, Mr. Speaker.

I think we are talking about Bill 17 and the amendment that the Member for Harbour Main moved to have this referred to the Government Services Legislation Review Committee, a step we take with all other bills, and I don't understand why we would not take it with this bill. If we put it to a Legislation Review Committee we would certainly get some public input on the bill and maybe we would get some ideas for the government as an alternative to Bill 17. The union leaders were in here and had some discussions with the Premier and the President of Treasury Board, and the President of Treasury Board laughed at them and told them what they were saying was no good. If they didn't want to hear what the leaders were saying maybe we could refer this to a committee and hear what the general public servant would say. We could have some public servants come before us and give -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

When we talk about a bill like Bill 17 we are talking about trust. A prime example happened in this House today and yesterday about trust and trusting this Premier, the Premier that we have in this Province.

The Premier says something one day, which he did with Bill 16 last year - he signed contracts - and he denies it the very day after. He said in this House today - I do not know how anyone could possibly believe him any more, or how anyone could trust him - but he said in this House today that he did not suggest there should be a moratorium in the deep-sea fishery. He actually said that today in Question Period.

I have a copy of Hansard, unedited transcript, May 6, 1992, on page 1, and this is what the Premier is saying. Premier Wells these comments are attributed to. He says -

AN HON. MEMBER: Page 1?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Page 1 it says on this. Yes. There are two page 1's, for whatever reason.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: The tape number is 1111.H and here is what it says, among other things. The Premier said several things, and he went on to say at the end of it: If that means putting a moratorium on directed deep-sea cod fishery for a year, for two years, for three years, for five years, whichever is necessary to rebuild the stocks, then we must do that.

Now if that is not calling it a moratorium on the deep-sea fishery I do not know what is, and I do not know how he can stand here in his place today and deny that he said it. He certainly cannot suggest that Hansard misquoted him. It is on tape. He can go up and listen to the tape if he wanted to. Every time he does not like something that is on the media he says he is taken out of context or they misquoted him, but I cannot see how he can - well he certainly cannot say that Hansard misquoted him, and he is suggesting here that if necessary there should be a moratorium on directed deep-sea cod fishery for a year, two years, three years, five years, whatever is necessary. These are the exact words that he used.

It is not only public servants that cannot trust this Premier. Apparently anyone who is dealing with him, anyone who asks him a question today and asks him the same question the day after, you are likely to get two completely different answers - one completely contrary to the one that was given before, if it suits him at the time. If that is what suits the particular time for the Premier, and it is not bad the way he might be trained. A lawyer will go into a court and argue today, if they are representing me for murder, they will argue today that I am innocent. Whether I am innocent or not they will give me a good defence; but the next day, if they happen to be the prosecutor, that same lawyer would be arguing that I was guilty. That is what the Premier of this Province seems to be still doing as a lawyer. He probably thinks he is still in court and he believes he is making, what he is trained to do, his presentation. Today he will argue that a person is guilty and give some facts and figures. They will dig out all kinds of things to argue that a person is guilty, and the next day he will be arguing that the same person is innocent, if he happened to be the client. Now he could not do it as direct as that, because there would certainly be a conflict of interest for the same person, but that is what a lawyer will do.

The first one who brought this to my attention was the Member for Humber Valley. I remember him saying it here in a debate one time. Two lawyers are trying to prove that one of them is a liar every time they go to court. Those are the exact words that the member used, and that is exactly what they have to do. One of them is trying to prove the other is a liar. Now we have one in this House of Assembly sitting in the Premier's seat, a lawyer I mean, a lawyer. If it was parliamentary I would use the other word, Mr. Speaker.

That is the point of this whole Bill 17, and the betrayal of trust of the public servants in this Province. It is not only for the public servants in this Province. It is for the deep-sea fishermen, trawlermen, and it is for the fish deep-sea plant workers. Maybe the Member for Fortune - Hermitage does say something to the Premier in Private, that he does not want a moratorium on the deep-sea fishery. Maybe he says that. He just cannot say it publicly, and I think he probably would say it in private to the Premier. He will not say it publicly because he will never get in Cabinet if he embarrasses the Premier.

Also the Member for Burgeo, is it?

MR. TOBIN: Burgeo, yes.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Burgeo and Ramea.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, he has two deep sea plants; he should be saying to the Premier after he heard this statement yesterday or certainly, after his reading it now, that this is not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By leave? Just to clue up for one second Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: To clue up for one second, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that this bill, the same as happened last year on Bill 16, this Bill 17 is a breach of trust to the public servants and I do support the amendment put forward by the Member for Harbour Main, to have this bill forwarded to the Legislation Review Committee, so that we could get public presentations on this bill in order that we might get some solution so we do not have to do it next year.

It is going to come this year again, I said that last year it was going to come, it is going to come this year, if we could get some public hearings maybe we would get some solutions and you would not need to do it next year, because, Mr. Speaker, if there is an election before the Budget next year and the Premier wins the next election before the Budget next year - I do not think he will but if he does, Bill 18 will be in place by this time next year.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: It is sad, Mr. Speaker, I thought members opposite might want to participate in a debate dealing with such an important issue, but apparently they have all spoken I guess, according to the Member for St. John's South -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: - that is not quite true now I say to the Member for Exploits. Most of us have not been here for two weeks because the House was closed for two weeks, so I realize he would not be able to relate to that, it will take a little while.

Mr. Speaker, I did miss the opportunity earlier to speak on the bill when it first came up for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that I have been travelling around the Province, unlike some other party leaders who travel around the world, I have been travelling around the Province, Mr. Speaker, and listening to people and listening to their concerns, and as a result of that, it has been impossible to participate in debate because of commitments that I had made publicly. But nevertheless there was no hurry to rush back and speak in the debate; we are speaking on an amendment now and then we can speak on further amendments, we can speak on sub-amendments, so there is no hurry or no urgency related to this debate, so the fact that I had not spoken last week is irrelevant. I will speak this week and that will be relevant.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is still irrelevant.

MR. SIMMS: It is still irrelevant according to the Minister of Finance. Now, Mr. Speaker, the first thing I did by the way, in trying to familiarize myself with the issue a tiny bit or to recollect some of the things that were said in the past and how this all began and what this mess was all about, I decided to go through Hansard of last year, March 19, 1991, page 362, when the President of Treasury Board at that time, then introduced the legislation dealing with An Act Respecting The Restraint Of Compensation For Public Servants In This Province, then known last year as Bill 16. So I went back to see what the President of Treasury Board had to say - I also by the way, tried to see what the Minister of Finance had to say and I note with delight, that he did not have much to say at all, I do not believe, other than what he read in the Budget debate.

But here is what the President of Treasury Board said: Bill 16 does two things. First of all, from April 1 1991 to March 31, 1992, the wage scales are frozen - the wage scales are frozen for a year, is what the President of Treasury Board said in March of 1991, for a year, then it gives choices, Mr. Speaker, because there are many different situations here. First choice, unions who have signed contracts; the first choice was for unions who had signed contracts. At the end of the freeze period, which would be one year, they can choose to jump immediately to the end of their three year contract. That is what they said, Mr. Speaker, the last year in their three year contract and simply remove the middle year, that was the option and the choice that the President of Treasury Board gave to the public sector unions of this Province and the public servants of this Province.

Then of course, the other choice which would be as a result of the legislation, the other choice: they could simply take two years of their contract that are left and stick them on the end of it.

So the point that the President of Treasury Board made and he harped on all throughout the debate, because of questions that were being asked by members on this side of the House and by public servants and so on, the point that he continuously made to emphasize the government's position was that this action that they were taking last year under Bill 16 will be for one year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board in Hansard last year said a number of other things. He talked about how they were very open. In the whole process they were very open with the public and with the unions. This is what he said last year. And the reality, of course, as we all know by now, having had the benefit of history for the last year or so, is that that is certainly not the way it was perceived or seen by the people on the other side who didn't feel that the government was being very open, who didn't feel that the Premier was very open and who didn't feel that the Labour Department, the Minister of Labour, was being very open and so on.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I know for a fact that there were Cabinet Ministers floating around this Province last year, 1991, privately saying: I wish we had frozen the wages for two years. We would have been a lot better off if we had frozen their wages now for two years, so we won't have to face the fuss next year, which is the fuss they are now presently facing. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that doesn't give you an indication that this government knew exactly what the situation was financially a year ago - they now claim they didn't know, of course. They are saying they didn't know, that this all crept upon them. But the reality is they knew it all a year ago, because ministers were privately going around saying: We shouldn't freeze the wages for one year, we should freeze the wages for two years. Since we have got to go through legislation, we should do it now so we don't have to go back and face the public again in a year's time. Now, those are the real facts, Mr. Speaker, and those are the things that I read just to refresh my memory on some of the things that happened last year.

The most startling bit of information that I came upon, Mr. Speaker, was an extract, not an extract but the actual policy on labour as put forth by the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador three years ago in 1989, in the little Liberal Party manifesto booklet that was given to all candidates a little over three years ago, in April of 1989. They had a whole raft of policies. We remember them all. Hospital beds shouldn't be closed. Remember those kinds of policies that the Liberal Party had and brought to the election and duped the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with.

Here is another interesting one. The member need not dig it out because I have a copy of it right here too. Yes, there it is, look: We shall not close hospital beds, etc., etc., etc. But here is their labour policy. Now, this is what I found most startling. After reading what the President of Treasury Board had to say last year in Hansard on Bill 16 and after having ministers slowly creeping around the Province and asking -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, on a point of order.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, some time ago, as a matter of fact I think it was either this time last year or - I am not sure - it may have been in the old House, Your Honour made a ruling in respect to the displaying of signs, that the language on the signs is totally unparliamentary. Now, that is twice this afternoon I have seen it, Mr. Speaker, and I know it is unparliamentary. I would ask the Chair to ask the hon. member to either leave it in his drawer with the rest of the -

AN HON. MEMBER: This one here?

MR. MURPHY: That is the one I am talking about. That is it. I would ask that a ruling be made on it, Mr. Speaker, because it should stop and it is unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the hon. member is correct, that displaying of signs and placards on desks is not permitted in the House, and I ask hon. members to refrain from doing so.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a well known tactic by the Member for St. John's South. Just as I am getting in full speed, the Member for St. John's South often uses this tactic of interrupting on silly little points of order to throw you off stride or something. Mr. Speaker, I shall not be thrown off stride. I shall not be moved. I will say what I want to say and ignore the Member for St. John's South as more and more of his constituents seem to be doing.

So, Mr. Speaker, before I was so rudely interrupted, I was talking about the Liberal Party's policy on labour, which I hauled out today from my Liberal Party policy manual. Let me just read for Your Honour, because I know Your Honour will be hard pressed to stop from showing a smile or a curl in his lips. He might even be hard pressed to stop from snickering. But I know Your Honour will show great restraint, and not.

Here is the labour policy of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to my colleagues. I know they are not interested in listening. The member over there, the Member for Humber Valley, has a copy. Well, just listen to this, I say to my colleagues. The labour policy. It is only a page, not very lengthy: in recent years economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador has been impeded by an unsettled labour climate which has resulted largely from the failure of the government to recognise the essential role of unions in our society.

Great words, wonderful words. As the hymn says, wonderful words. Then it goes on to say, now just listen to this. If you can keep your tongue from inside your cheek, just listen. The next paragraph: the record of the Tory government in dealing with labour has been dismal. I don't hear too many sniggers over there now, normally they would be laughing and pounding and everything else when I repeat that. The next sentence is this: its adversarial approach has created some of the worst moments in this Province's trade union history.

Well, by golly, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you this, if our adversarial approach as a government prior to 1989 created some of the worst moments in this Province's trade union history, I wonder what kinds of moments the adversarial approach of this government have caused in just the last three years. We had been there for seventeen years.

Then they say; a Liberal government will be determined to create an atmosphere of realistic cooperation in developing labour legislation and in dealing with the public service unions. Determined to create an atmosphere of realistic cooperation. The Liberal policy of fairness and balance will be the basis of negotiation with its public sector unions. Fairness and balance, ho, ho, ho!

We will talk a little bit about how fair and how balanced this government's approach to labour relations and negotiations have been. We will talk a little bit about Bills 16 and 17. But I cannot get into it yet until I finish reading the labour policy for Your Honour, because I know Your Honour is deeply interested in all these matters.

They go on to say: while the rights of all workers must be protected it should not be at the expense of the trade union movement and its members. What a joke. It has all turned out to be a joke. Here is one of the biggest jokes of all: a Liberal government is committed to full consultation with labour and management in the creation of competent legislation. A Liberal government is committed to full consultation with labour - what an absolute joke. A Liberal government will also seek to enhance harmonious relations. Can you imagine after what we have seen over the last couple of years?

So, there is what the President of Treasury Board said last year, and there is what the labour policy of the Liberal Party is. So -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I just started. Half an hour, maybe.

MR. GRIMES: Time's up!

MR. SIMMS: So, Mr. Speaker, no, I beg to differ with the hon. member. I should tell the Member for Exploits, he will be delighted to know this, he has been in the House three years but he obviously doesn't know anything about the rules. I have an hour for which I can speak on the amendment. Then I can have another hour when we get back to the second reading motion, whenever we do, whenever that might be. Had the Member for Exploits not interjected then and tried to irritate me by saying "time's up", those silly little interjections, I might have been prepared to make my points and then take my seat. But, Mr. Speaker, if he and his colleagues continue to interrupt and interject, well then naturally that is just going to extend my period of time because I want to make my points, and I haven't even come to my first point yet. Most of what I had to say so far is the preamble to my comments and remarks on Bill 17.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is reasonable for all of us as MHAs in thinking about Bill 17 not to just slough it off, and not to just sit there as backbenchers on the government side, for example, and try to defend this because it is very hard to defend the legislation. The legislation, not the wage freeze. There are two different things here as we all have come to find out. The wage freeze issue is one issue, and that is an issue that they can deal with as they see fit, and wish to deal with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The wage freeze. We had a wage freeze ourselves. So that is not the issue. I didn't say I didn't mind it, but I said that isn't the issue. It does take money out of the economy as the minister knows, tens of millions of dollars out of the economy in the middle of a recession. That is not necessarily the right thing to do. So you have to give it a lot of serious thought. But that isn't the major issue that we are dealing with here today in Bill 17. The issue, as the minister rightly knows, I suspect he knows, is the taking away of the rights, the breaking of the collective agreements, signed, sworn to, negotiated collective agreements, and the precedent setting that that does for our Legislature indeed for any province, the seriousness with which that kind of action is seen and perceived by people, and how it could affect not only public service unions negotiating with the government, but anybody who decides or dares to make an agreement or sign a contract with this government, anybody in the private sector, anybody who makes an agreement. Anybody in the private sector if they make an agreement with this government. Why should they believe, why should they bother, why should they even think that it will never be broken, Mr. Speaker. So this has precedence.

The point here, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill deals with the wage freeze, and that is not the big issue. The big issue is collective bargaining. That is the big issue. That is what members should concentrate on. If I were a member of the Liberal Party and a member of the government over there I would feel pretty sheepish about this. Now they may want to stand there and try to defend it because they see that as their role and their responsibility. But I find it almost impossible to defend, Mr. Speaker.

So why are they at this stage? Why did we reach this position? Well there are a number of reasons why we are at this point, Mr. Speaker. First and foremost is the fact that this government bargained dishonestly and deceptively with its public sector unions. That is the first main reason why we are at this point, because the government bargained dishonestly and deceptively with all of its public sector unions when they negotiated agreements in late 1990 and again early in 1991 because, Mr. Speaker, at that time they knew full well that they were facing a very severe financial situation, and they knew full well that one of the options they had before them was the option of a wage freeze. Therefore their negotiations, Mr. Speaker, were deceptive and dishonest. I think that is unforgivable.

They certainly knew, Mr. Speaker, what to expect when they cancelled agreements in 1991, because as I said earlier Cabinet ministers were going around this Province privately saying: God, we should have imposed a two years freeze. We should have done it now instead of having to come back next year with another bill or another law. So they were deceptive in their negotiations as a government, Mr. Speaker, and I say that they could have bargained more honestly instead of bargaining dishonestly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, another reason why we are at the stage that we are at today with respect to this legislation and this law is because the government refused to consider any alternatives that were put before them, and any alternatives given to them by their own public service advisors, their deputy ministers and so on, who I am sure provided them with all kinds of alternatives. While they laugh and toss aside suggestions like cutting a minister's salary, or cutting the car allowance for ministers, they cast that aside and joke about it, the reality is it could save $250,000 or more, fifteen Cabinet ministers, that is not going to cover their deficit or anything but it is symbolic, it is real, and it does save $250,000 which you could perhaps provide to some group like the Consumers Organization for the Disabled who just need $10,000 or $15,000 to keep an office open, or whatever.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Libraries Board.

MR. SIMMS: The Libraries Board who are short a couple of hundred thousand dollars. There were alternatives, Mr. Speaker. They could have discussed perhaps a bit more intensively and more honestly with the public sector unions the concept and ideas of job sharing, early retirements, attrition, unpaid leaves of absence. There were other alternatives. Departments, as far back as 1989 anyway, and before, I guess, had discretionary funding. Their government departments have, I think it is about a 2 per cent discretionary funding in their departments, so they could have taken a cut in discretionary funding in each government department. If they really wanted to it might have saved a couple of million dollars. They could have held off on the $2 million renovations to Exon House for offices for the Department of Fisheries. That certainly was not necessary immediately or right away. They could have cut back on discretionary advertising for the Economic Recovery Commission, $25,000 or $30,000, whatever it might be.

MR. WINSOR: Or eliminate it.

MR. SIMMS: Well, we will get to that. They certainly could have done that if they did not want to eliminate the Economic Recovery Commission as my friend for Fogo suggests. They could have cut back on public relations expenditures, hundreds of thousands of dollars in departmental budgets in total for public relations expenditures. And when you are going through the exercise that this government is trying to go through, of trying to convince people of the importance of restraint, then those things would not only have been symbolic, those things would have been real and you could have saved a few million dollars here and there. There are probably dozens of others that we have not had a chance to go through without having access to the books. They had other alternatives but they totally ignored and refused the alternatives. They could have demonstrated, of course, their willingness to negotiate with the unions. They could have bargained with the unions. They did not simply have to hold a gun to their heads. They could have bargained with them. They could have negotiated with them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Well, this government said, yes, yes, back in 1989. As soon as it assumed office, it said yes, it said yes, it said yes, and that is what got them in the trouble they are in, Mr. Speaker. That is precisely why we are at the point we are at today in this situation. They could have done a number of other things, there were lots of other alternatives. They could have bargained honestly to begin with, but instead they held a gun to their heads. There are other reasons why we are at the point we are at today, Mr. Speaker. They did not consider any other options, by the way. In their mind there were three options only. It was the option of borrowing and they try to give the impression that the Opposition wants them to borrow their way out of the recession when nobody ever said that on this side, certainly not me.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: I did not, Mr. Speaker. I said we could have some cautionary increase in borrowing. I did not say you borrow your way out of the recession. They like to give the impression that they are opposed to borrowing but when they brought in their own Budget they have a $29 million deficit. That is borrowing. They obviously agree with borrowing. It is just a question of how much you can borrow and to what extent. What we are saying is if you can borrow $30 million maybe you can borrow $50 million and it would not kill you, and that extra $20 million you could put into your job creation program and offer some incentives to the private sector to create some jobs. Use some imagination, which is another option.

The second option was that they could cut expenditures. Well, they certainly did that but as far as I am concerned they did not go deeply enough into the system because I think there is an awful lot more that could be cut in the system in government departments. Ministers never get the time, nor Treasury Board, and certainly not the Premier, to actually scrutinize the government department expenditures. Haul in the deputy ministers, haul in the directors, go through the Budget. Take the time, that is what is required, take the time. The problem is time. If you sat down and went through it I bet you would find $2 or $3 million in any government department that is probably there for programs that have been there for thirty years or twenty-five years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: It is too bad that the President of Treasury Board wants to make a joke and wants to joust with me, but I am trying to be sincere in offering some suggestions. He is not interested in listening. I am saying there is more there that can be done. There are other alternatives. The point is, there are other alternatives. Borrowing he said was one alternative. Cutting was another alternative. Three alternatives, the only other alternative he said was increasing taxes. Well they certainly did that. They were not hesitant about that. They were not hesitant about cutting, and they were not hesitant about borrowing, because they borrowed themselves. They like to paint the picture that we are the ones who want to borrow. They do not want to borrow. They borrowed $29 million for their current account.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Nobody said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Nobody ever said that.

The President of Treasury Board sits too close to the Premier, because he is getting caught up in all this verbal trickery that the Premier is used to using. He is not as good at it as the Premier.

I want to say this to the President of Treasury Board. Those are three options that he kept talking about. We only have three options - cut, increase taxes, or borrow. Correct? That is what he always used to say, and the Premier used to say the same thing, but there is a fourth option. There is a fourth option. They could have used some creative thinking, used their imagination, or that of the highly paid public servants who advise them, and they could have brought in a plan and a program to assist in creating jobs - getting the economy moving. They could have done that. Let me say they could have done that. That is the fourth option. Use some creativity. Use some imagination. Bring in something that will create jobs, therefore providing revenue, therefore providing revenue to the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, Mr. Speaker, not snap your fingers. I just finished saying, use some creative thinking. But the problem is they cannot use it. They are not prepared to even look at it, because all they say is, oh, the only way you can do it is get money, and you do that by snapping your fingers so we cannot do that. They will not even look. Let's not even think about it. Let's not even think about it. That is their stand pat answer. You spend money to create money. You spend money to create money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does the money come from? How can you get it to spend?

MR. SIMMS: If the minister had been listening, I would have told him. I gave him twenty options.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, it was not foolishness. You see, that is the problem. If anybody dares suggest an alternative or an idea to this government, to the Premier, it is all foolishness. Nobody knows anything only them, and that unfortunately will lead to their demise one of these days. That is the kind of attitude, to be perfectly frank, that our government had after seventeen years in office. You have only been there three years and you have exactly the same attitude, and look what happened to us.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you have changed.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have changed. No question about it. One thing that a few years in opposition does for you is give you a chance to sit back and look at the mistakes that you made, and believe me we made mistakes. Nobody denies that. This government is making mistakes. The only difference is they do not very often admit that they make any mistakes. But I will tell you one thing, they have reached a stage in their political lives that it took the other party, our party, seventeen years to reach. Now I say that in all sincerity to my friend, the Member for Gander. That is a fact, and I will tell you, in three years, after one term in office, for a government to have the kinds of criticisms cast upon them as this government has all around this Province, it is unbelievable.

Now they may not lose the government. I do not know. We will see. Time will tell. If they did that, that would be absolutely unbelievable. Because most people think most governments historically have the second shot at it and all that kind of stuff. But we shall see. Because there are many factors. It is not just the Premier's popularity, if that is what they are all hoping to hang their hats on. It is going to be done out in the constituencies, in the districts, that is where it is going to be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, we saw the polls in England. Every pollster over there predicted Mr. Major's defeat. So we all know about polls. So anyway, I say to the President of Treasury Board, there were not only three options, there was a fourth option. You could have done something to create a bit of wealth to get something going, create some jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I told you how to do that. There are ways of getting the money. By the way, listen! There is a myth out there that they are trying to perpetrate, Mr. Speaker, on the people of the Province. They did not have any money. You had $3.5 billion. So you had money, it is a question of your priorities. That is the whole point. I thank the President of Treasury Board for interrupting me and reminding me. The whole point is, you had $3.5 billion and you could have used some of that $3.5 billion if you wanted to.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a good point.

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, that's only in your view. I don't expect the President of Treasury Board to admit ever that we make any points over here. Never. I certainly do not expect the Member for Exploits to admit it because he does not know what is going on at all anyway. He does not even know what is happening out around the Province.

MR. GRIMES: I know who is going to get (Inaudible) 10 per cent of his salary (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I am quite willing to do that. If the minister will accept my challenge here today, if he wants to keep it up, I would be quite willing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I'm putting it in now. I will challenge the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations here now, if he is prepared to take a 10 per cent cut in his salary and advise the Speaker tomorrow morning, I will do the same thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I will do the same thing. Now, does he want to do it? Put up or shut up! Is he prepared to do it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I am prepared to do it. Is he prepared to do it?

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) Question Period -

MR. SIMMS: Yes I am. Are you?

MR. GRIMES: I made no (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I didn't think so, Mr. Speaker. He is world renowned, he is nationally renowned, he is certainly renowned in central Newfoundland, as somebody who is not prepared to put his money where his mouth is. Roger the Dodger. Here he is again, conveniently dodging the challenges.

We are debating an amendment to Bill 17 at the moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, it's not the hoist, I say to the President of Treasury Board. I am not surprised that the President of Treasury Board doesn't know what's going on in the Province. He doesn't even know, as the minister responsible for running legislation through the House, what we are debating.

MR. TOBIN: That's for Roger.

MR. HARRIS: Roger was wearing that button at the NTA convention.

MR. TOBIN: He wore it at the NTA convention.

MR. SIMMS: What, the other day?

AN HON. MEMBER: Roger the Dodger.

MR. SIMMS: Oh yes? I am told, Mr. Speaker, this is unparliamentary, so I won't - just a quick flash for Your Honour so you know what we are talking about. Bill 17.

MR. HARRIS: It says, it means, I don't like Bill 17, it says.

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we are debating an amendment, and the amendment is to refer this Bill, refer this law, this legislation, to a committee of the House.

Now that is not such an unreasonable request. It is not an unheard of request, for sure. If we are prepared, for example, to put out the question of changing the name of the Province to a select committee of the House - not even one of the current sitting committees, we created a select committee to deal with that issue, which is an important issue; and if we are prepared to send out legislation and bills almost routinely to our standing committees on various areas, Government Services, Social, and so on, we send out legislation to them almost routinely - then why wouldn't we be prepared to take a few weeks?

It is not urgent, it does not have to be passed by next month. People are getting their salaries and all that stuff, that is the argument the Government House Leader will try to use. But it could be held for a few weeks. Give one of the committees of the House a chance to have some public hearings on the thing, even if he just held it in St. John's - public hearings, and give people a chance to come forward and offer their views of this unprecedented move. It is not unprecedented anymore, Mr. Speaker, because it happened last year so the precedent was set last year with Bill 16. We think that is a reasonable request and that is why we move the amendment, to give members opposite a chance to give it some serious thought.

MR. BAKER: Very reasonable.

MR. SIMMS: Very reasonable. I thank the President of Treasury Board. It is very reasonable.

Now, the hoist, which is another amendment, can be moved in second reading and, really, it is meant for a different reason; It is, in my view. When you bring in the hoist amendment, it is meant to try to delay the thing, but referral to a committee can be done in a month. It can be back in a month; they can be given a mandate to report back by -

AN HON. MEMBER: In one day.

MR. SIMMS: Exactly, whatever. So, that is why we move the amendment and that is why we are debating the amendment but, in reality, of course, we are going to debate the entire piece of legislation. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet spoken on second reading, so I want to conclude my comments on the amendment for now and I will be back later to speak in second reading, whenever that is, tomorrow or Monday or whatever, because the press are waiting for me to do - they want to ask some questions today, so I have to leave, and my colleague, the ever popular, wise, articulate, knowledgeable Member for Burin -Placentia West, with whom I just spent a day on the Burin Peninsula, who is, by the way, probably one of the safest members in this House - tremendous support down there. And I noticed with interest that the Liberal Party is going down there, June 19, or something for an executive board meeting and I look forward to the response after that meeting, the press and the coverage of the Liberal Party's Executive Board meeting in Marystown. I am looking forward to it very much.

A lot of people down there, when we had our public hearings on Tuesday, mentioned to me that they were looking forward to Roger Grimes coming down and a few other names they mentioned, a few other teachers mentioned their names to us, so I look forward to that. My colleague, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, now, Mr. Speaker, will speak, and I will speak later on second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we had twenty-six.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin Placentia - West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the member, actually, I have two of the briefs here to which I may make reference during my speech. One group has just been penalized by the wage freeze, the unionized workers at the Marystown Shipyard and the other group, had some very choice words for this administration, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Member for St. John's South, quite sincerely, that if this Premier and this government would take the type of action to do something for the Marystown Shipyard, that Mr. Crosbie took last week to try to save the St. John's dockyard then something might happen, Mr, Speaker, but Mr. Crosbie comes down here and he takes the St. John's dockyard, he gives it to a Crown corporation with a mandate to make it work. This government takes the Marystown Shipyard from 685 employees in 1988 to less than seventy unionized employees today, that is what this government has done for the Marystown Shipyard. They have reduced it from 685 -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. TOBIN: That is not true?

AN HON. MEMBER: No (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will get Gary Brenton to check on this and show the member where it is true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Maybe two, Mr. Speaker. When Brian Peckford became Premier of this Province, he started constructing trawlers on speculation, that is what Brian Peckford did. Mr. Speaker, how about this? There are 200 workers from the Marystown Shipyard who will run out of UI benefits before this year is over.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I cannot find it right now but I will find it for him, I tell the member. If only this Premier would do what John Crosbie has done, then we would have a great opportunity.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have this agenda before us today, this amendment to the resolution. I don't think anyone would be asking a whole lot if we asked this government, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is right, Mr. Speaker. The member - I have to admit I was wrong and that the Minister of Labour was right. Starting in 1989, the unionized work force at the Marystown Shipyard stood at over 625 people. In addition to the 100 senior administratives and supervisory personnel, which has now been reduced to less than 100 at present, the unionized work force would today number approximately 60 to 70 employees. It has gone from 625 in 1989 to somewhere between 60 and 70 today.

Now, is this what this government takes pride in? Is this what makes this administration happy? The President of Treasury Board just said to our leader: 'tell me what we do. How can we generate employment.' Put the work force at the Marystown Shipyard back to work, Mr. Speaker. There are people from all over that district, as far away as Terrenceville, Mr. Speaker, and Grand La Pierre who work in the Marystown Shipyard. Yes, there are people from the Fogo district who live and work in the Marystown Shipyard. I believe there are people probably from Carbonear who work in the Marystown Shipyard. But this government, Mr. Speaker, have reduced the work force in the Marystown Shipyard from 625 to less than 70. That is a record to be proud of. That is the accomplishment that the Member for Placentia should not be very proud of. I don't think he is. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I find him to be a very decent minister. I find him to be genuinely and sincerely concerned about the needs of rural Newfoundland. I wonder how he can stay with this crowd, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what about a raise? What about Bill 17? Does that affect them? As my colleague pointed out, during the past week we had the opportunity to travel to the Burin Peninsula, and we had, I think, twenty-six or thirty presentations, something in that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-six.

MR. TOBIN: Twenty-six formal presentations, Mr. Speaker, like these two I have here in my hand. All we could hear was people saying there is a need to do something for this part of the Province. One person, Mr. Speaker, summed it up with the words: 'The Wells Administration have abandoned the South Coast of this Province.' Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, as well, that person was not and has not been a supporter of mine in the past. I can tell the members opposite, the person who said that was not a supporter of mine. The person, Mr. Speaker, who has never supported me and probably never has supported this party said: 'The Wells administration have abandoned the South Coast of this Province'- people thrown out of work day in and day out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Say it yourself. 'Eric', say it yourself. Mr. nice guy over there - get someone else to shout your messages across the House.

This administration has abandoned not only the South Coast, Mr. Speaker, they have abandoned the Province. How much money did the provincial government put into the fabrication yard that was announced for Port aux Basques?

AN HON. MEMBER: I told you that once (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: How much money? Tell me!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Tell me, how much.

AN HON. MEMBER: I already told you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, they turned their back on the member, that's what they did.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: They turned their back on the Member for LaPoile. They can't get up and say how much money went into it. Tell us. Tell us, Mr. Speaker, what the government did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is what happened. This past weekend, not only did we have a forum on the Burin Peninsula, on Friday and Saturday myself and the federal Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Crosbie, met with delegates, councils, joint councils, union leaders right throughout the Burin Peninsula. My colleague from Grand Bank joined us for some of the meetings and we heard the same messages - that the government in this Province is a bad government.

What did the Premier say to the press today? He asked: 'How can this Province do something for the fishing industry? How can we say to the fishermen and fisherwomen in this Province - '

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I heard him: 'How can we say that we are going to do something for you? '

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: 'How can we make you special?' That is what he said to the press. 'How can we make the people involved in the fishery special when someone -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) stretch limousine (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I wanted to buy a stretch limousine, it is none of his business.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No more, Mr. Speaker, than it is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I believe the Minister of Health is drunk again, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: I believe the Minister of Health is drunk again, Mr. Speaker, drunk with exuberance. I am sure he knows where I got that phrase, by the way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, it is a direct quote.

MR. FLIGHT: 'Look, Premier,' he said. 'Look (inaudible).'

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture - wait until he tables his report. Wait until he tables his expenses and see if the taxpayers of this Province paid for him on political campaigns in this Province? Wait until he tables it and see if he has abused his powers as a minister. He has, Mr. Speaker. He abused his powers as a minister first when he came in, but it is a different story now. Let me say that to the minister - the same rules. If I were the minister I would be irritated because the same rules do not apply to you -

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - as apply to Ed Roberts under the conflict of interest legislation.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member it may come. It may come, but I have never been turfed out by my constituents yet. It may come. It may happen to any of us, but I can say to the member that I have won three successive elections.

MR. FLIGHT: I have had four.

MR. TOBIN: You never won three successive elections in your life, and you never will.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) take you for granted.

MR. TOBIN: That is why I don't, and I won't!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Because I can tell the hon. member that on Friday night past I had over 500 people, I believe it was, out to a dinner.

MR. FLIGHT: You had 500 people?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, indeed I did, and I will have more out next year. All I have to do is get the Minister of Forestry on television more often and we will all do right. If we can continue to get you on to let the people of Newfoundland see an example of the arrogance, the incompetence, the lack of security that this Cabinet possesses, if we can keep him on we will be extremely lucky.

Yesterday the Premier of this Province stood in this House and called for a moratorium on the deep-sea fishery.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. TOBIN: He called for a moratorium on the deep-sea fishery. What did he say? Here is what the Premier said yesterday: '...if that means putting a moratorium on the direct deep-sea cod fishery for a year, two years, three years, five years, whatever is necessary.'

Mr. Speaker, why attack the deep-sea fishery in this Province? Why always the deep-sea fishery? How can the Member for Bellevue go out to Arnold's Cove and tell the people that he supports what the Premier said? How can he?

Mr. Speaker, what does he have in his hand? We were almost ready to call the Constabulary to get you.

I don't know what was being said, but I can say one thing, that that is what the Premier of this Province said, if that means putting a moratorium on the deep-sea fishery for a year, two years, three years, or five years, then do it. How can the Member for Bellevue explain that to the men and women who were laid off in Arnold's Cove? How can the member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If that happens they will not go back June 1. A moratorium for five years won't bring them back June 1.

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

I want to remind the hon. member about our rules for relevance and ask him to abide by these rules, Standing Orders.

MR. TOBIN: I know, Mr. Speaker, exactly what you are saying. What I am talking about is how this government can generate revenue so they can pay their employees a decent salary. That is the point I am making.

MR. WINSOR: If you shut down the fishery how are you going to pay your employees?

MR. TOBIN: That's right. If you shut down the fishery, how are you going to pay the employees? How does the Member for Fortune - Hermitage explain to the people of Harbour Breton and Gaultois if the Premier gets his way and puts a total moratorium on the deep-sea fishery? If this Premier gets his way with what he said yesterday and puts a total moratorium on the deep-sea fishery, what happens to the men and women of Harbour Breton and Gaultois, Mr. Speaker? Will the member then try to weasel his way back across the House like he did already? Will he?

No. How can you stand by and watch a premier destroy the south and southwest coast of this Province? That is exactly what he is doing. That is his agenda. How can the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir support a premier who calls for a five year moratorium on the deep-sea fishery in this Province? How?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you support John Crosbie?

MR. TOBIN: I can tell the member, Mr. Speaker, that there would not be a deep-sea fishery in this Province today if it was not for John Crosbie. It is time for someone, and it is time for the member to tell the people of Arnold's Cove whether he supports John Crosbie's position or whether he supports Clyde Wells' position. Because they are two opposing positions. John Crosbie said: keep the deep-sea fishery open, we cannot totally wipe out rural Newfoundland; and this Premier, and I will read it again said: if -

AN HON. MEMBER: If! If!

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker: If that means closing down the deep-sea fishery in this Province for a year, two years, three years, five years, whatever is necessary to rebuild the stocks, then we must do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want to rebuild the stock?

MR. TOBIN: Then the Premier goes on to say, to add insult to injury, that it is relatively a new technology. The deep-sea fishery in this Province is relatively a new technology, new innovation. That is what the Premier of this Province called the deep-sea fishery, relatively - tell that to the men and women that are laid off over in St. John's South, Mr. Speaker. The NatSea plant. Tell that to them, Mr. Speaker, that it is relatively a new technology and the deep-sea fishery should be closed down. Tell that to the men and women in Arnold's Cove. Tell it to the men and women who were laid off from the Catalina fish plant, or the Trepassey plant, or the Grand Bank plant. Mr. Speaker, keep track of it.

MR. MATTHEWS: What were you saying about Grand Bank?

MR. TOBIN: That's what I am saying.

MR. MATTHEWS: What about Grand Bank?

MR. TOBIN: Tell it to the men and women who were laid off last year in Grand Bank that this government cares about the deep-sea fishery.

MR. MATTHEWS: They don't care about anything. They don't care about the other one, either, (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Care about nothing, Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing. I would venture to bet that there will be more people trying to crawl out under the limbo stick. Afraid to admit, to stand up with the courage of their convictions, afraid to stand up for the people who elected them, afraid to stand up for the principles that brought them to the House of Assembly, the men and women who sent them in here to take a stand. There will be more people who will weasel out under that stick in the next few days.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I have never, ever betrayed my constituents. I have never, ever refused to stand on anything I believe in, I have never, ever run away from this House, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: Yes, the Member for St. John's South. We will see where you stand when this resolution comes before the House. We will see where you stand.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: You never worked in your life. The Member for St. John's South, never worked in his life. The hardest work you did was drive around in a car owned by Fishery Products. Tell me what you did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, there is some (Inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: There are some welts on your hands, alright.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the biggest contribution he made to safety was to carry around the briefcase for the Member for Placentia, who taught you everything you know. He taught you everything you know about safety, and I doubt if he knows very much.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, you drowned them.

MR. TOBIN: That's right. What my colleague for Grand Bank -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not hear the Member for Placentia - there are a lot of other things, you know. You hear the Member for Placentia talking about the economy. He still does not know his position on New York garbage. The Member for Placentia has not made up his mind yet on New York garbage, whether it is good or bad. He talks about safety. Time for him to make up his mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're against it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against them?

MR. TOBIN: What, am I against it? Am I against New York piling up garbage and shipping it in here? Mr. Speaker, the member should ask that. I am with the majority of the people in your district on that issue, and if you don't know what that is then you are not very bright.

Now, to get back to this piece of legislation. That this government has put the hobnailed boots once again to the working people and to the professional people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think someone kicked him in the head with them. I think that is what happened to the Member for St. John's South, someone kicked him in the head with the hobnailed boots.

MR. MATTHEWS: What?

MR. TOBIN: The Member for St. John's South. I think someone kicked him in the head with the hobnailed boots.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what about the teachers in this Province? The Member for St. John's South said... what was it he said? If the teachers want to get at me, let them come on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on! Come on!

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Do you know something? They just might. That is enough said about that. Now, the Member for St. George's should realise that this Bill 17 is being used against him in his own district by a candidate handpicked by the Premier to run against you for the nomination.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Right?

MR. MATTHEWS: Met him on the elevator a couple of days ago.

MR. TOBIN: Handpicked by the Premier to run against him. The same as the Premier has handpicked, I would suggest, a member to run against my friend for Baie Verte - White Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the same thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The same, Mr. Speaker, as there is a candidate picked to run against the Member for St. John's -

AN HON. MEMBER: South!

MR. TOBIN: Centre. No, not South, Centre. I have heard St. John's Centre, Baie Verte - White Bay, and St. George's. The Premier has selected candidates to run against.

MR. DECKER: Boy, it's some boring, I can't stay awake.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you something. The hon. minister would do the House a favour - if the people of this Province ever deserved a favour, it would be for the hon. Minister of Health to fall asleep, and to stay asleep until I wake him. I tell you something, if Rip Van Winkle is now in the record books, he would lose that record.

But Bill 17 is what I want to get back to. Let me say what is interesting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what is happening in this Province today is sad. It is sad. When this government has seen fit to turn on everybody who works directly or indirectly for this government. When this government, Mr. Speaker, decides to turn on everybody directly or indirectly. How could the Minister of Labour in all sincerity stand on the steps of Confederation Building -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, I thought he was sincere, Mr. Speaker. I didn't question his sincerity. When I saw the minister when he was President of the NTA stand on the steps of the Confederation Building, break down and cry -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Labour. When he had to ask someone if they had a tissue to wipe the tears from his eyes because he was so distraught. So upset and so distraught because the teachers were probably only going to get a 3 per cent increase. When I saw that minister so distraught and upset that he cried because the teachers were only going to get a 3 per cent increase I thought he was sincere. I said, boy you know he is not a bad fellow. That is what I said, Mr. Speaker, weeping willow. I thought he was sincere.

Now he comes into the House, joins the Cabinet and what is the first thing he does? Tears up the collective agreement, Mr. Speaker. Catches the collective agreement belonging to the teachers and rips it up, tears it up, Mr. Speaker. That is what he did, him and the member for Environment.

AN HON. MEMBER: He gets carried away. He tore up the paper.

MR. TOBIN: Yes. I will tear it all up, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, he went into the Cabinet and he tore up their agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Crocodile tears.

MR. TOBIN: Then, Mr. Speaker, he said one year. That is not enough. You can give them two years. Give it to them for the second year, Mr. Premier. Lay it on them. Nail the teachers for another two years. That is what he said, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Late Show.

AN HON. MEMBER: No Late Show. We are going right on.

MR. TOBIN: I am going on. I got a half hour. They got an hour.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes I am. That is right.

I will tell the member, and I hope the minister doesn't start to cry.

It is some hard to speak here.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education was over (inaudible) and he was saying you could meet him somewhere right. He used to go around to the teachers and shake hands with them -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: - a couple of years ago, and he would say: isn't it terrible the way the government is treating the teachers?' Now, Mr. Speaker, he comes in here and joins the Cabinet and puts the boots to the collective agreement. Puts the boots to the collective agreement, that is what you did. Then he went down to their banquet and he expected the teachers to applaud him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, you got an applause. You got a big applause coming. I hope you are ready for it when it comes too. Mr. Speaker, I won't mention any names, but it could even be someone I know very well who might give you that applause.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You will find out what is going to happen in Placentia too. I have another cousin over there who is interested.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that is what is happening. That is what is happening in this Province, the hypocrisy. The collective hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, of a group of individuals. That is what is happening in this Province. Then you have people like the Minister of Labour who knows the difference and does it. He should be blamed. You have the Minister of Forestry -

AN HON. MEMBER: You know what the Minister of -

MR. TOBIN: Wait now. You know the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Education, the President of Treasury Board, they should be crucified, Mr. Speaker, because they knew the difference, but the Minister of Forestry should be pitied because he don't know the difference. Mr. Speaker, he is like a dog on a leash, he goes wherever he is pulled. That is what the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture is like. He is incompetent and intolerable. All of the characteristics that make up someone who is no good is you. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the long and short of that. Then you have the Minister of Social Services, another fellow.

MR. GULLAGE: Should I take a bow?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, you should take a bow and I should be behind you when you take it. I should be there with the hobnailed boots when he takes that bow, and a lot of social workers would like to be there with the cat-o'-nine-tails when he takes that bow because has he ever betrayed the social work department in this Province. I only have two minutes left but I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that I have never been in front of a judge yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I know, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you that when he was before the judge it was not because it was anyone his own size, or my size. I want to apologize to the House that I should not be distracted by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I am dealing with a very important issue and that is this government putting the boots to the public servants of this Province, like talking about the Minister of Social Services and what he has done to the social work department in this Province. How he has gone out there and not provided them with the front-line social workers who are needed today in the field.

The minister admits that it is needed and we hope that he will be able to convince his colleagues because I tell you one thing and I say it in sincerity, it is not going to be easy to convince the rest of the Cabinet to do something for social services. You will find that a lot of other departments will probably take precedence around the Cabinet table for the few dollars that are around rather than your own, so make sure you do the right lobbying, get a true social policy, and get it brought to Cabinet. I will also give you another little bit of advice, make sure you use Treasury Board the best way possible because, and I know where the minister is coming from, it is not going to be easy to get things like that through Cabinet. What he has to do is do his lobbying. I can say that I know of nothing else that is more important in this Province today than having social workers ready, able, and capable, and willing to do the work that needs to be done for the protection, particularly of our young people. The minister knows what I am talking about. He knows what I am saying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want the hon. member to take his place for a moment. Hon. members know this is Thursday and for the purposes of proper procedure there was no notice before the Chair for adjournment so I am just going to carry on the same as an ordinary day until 5 o'clock when we would normally adjourn. Is there agreement to carry on until 5 o'clock?

AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member may continue. I do not know how much time he has left.

MR. TOBIN: Ten minutes, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is not aware that the hon. member has used up his time yet.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have five or six minutes left.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to carry on and I will check with the table.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, you have no worry because I will tell you when I think my time is up.

In the couple of minutes I have left I will clue up, Mr. Speaker. I want to get back to the point I was making, and I want the President of Treasury Board to hear this in particular, when the Minister of Social Services goes to Cabinet with a paper to hire additional social workers, they will go along with it. Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, must go along with it.

MR. GRIMES: Is that right?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, because, Mr. Speaker -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Is that right! That is all you care about the -

MR. TOBIN: Who said that?

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Labour, again, down there. Who else?

MR. TOBIN: Well, if the Minister of Labour doesn't care, Mr. Speaker, I can tell him that I do, and a lot of people in this Province who need the services of the Department of Social Services care and, Mr. Speaker, the minister cares too. There is a crisis brewing in this Province because we do not have enough social workers. The Member for Placentia is not staying to hear me finish?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have been informed by the table that the hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Let me finish my statement. There is a crisis brewing in the Province in social work if the minister is not supported in Cabinet and provided with the additional staff that is needed. That is happening in this Province, Mr. Speaker. The social workers are overworked.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair said the hon. member's time is up, and nobody gave the hon. member leave.

MR. TOBIN: They did, Mr. Speaker. The President -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: There is leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, okay! All right. The hon. member may carry on.

MR. TOBIN: I am beginning to feel abused myself.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that upsets me. I had leave, Mr. Speaker. It upsets me. I will just clue up by saying, support the social workers, destroy Bill 17 and let the Province move on.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

You know, the hon. member makes some sense. I would agree totally, 100 per cent, with the hon. member, that the Province has always needed it. He knows only too well that we have always needed more social workers. They may need more social workers now than they needed twenty years ago, or they may need more social workers now than they will need next year when we get most of this straightened way, but the hon. member makes much to-do about nothing when he talks about `all of a sudden'.

Now, I sometimes question the sincerity of the hon. member because he takes different stands. As a matter of fact, sometimes you can almost accuse him of being a spin top. He goes around in different circles. If a point is convenient, he takes the issue. Now, the hon. member knows full well, as all other hon. members in this House know full well, that the money is not in the system to do what really needs to be done.

You hear the hon. Member for St. John's East jumping up and he wants money for arts. That's nice! He wants money for this and he wants money for that. The Member for Humber Valley, rightfully so, representing his district, wants money for rural development. He wants more money associated with farms. The Member for Harbour Main wants money for everything. He doesn't care where it comes from, as long as he gets more money. Every member wants more money, and it would be grand if we had it, Mr. Speaker. It would be great if we had that money.

Now, there is a lot of money that has to be assigned to some problems associated with this statement by the hon. Minister of Social Services today. We have to find money now to look after the terrible, terrible situation - and we should talk about it, it needs to be talked about - that took place in Mount Cashel and took place around the Island over the last years that we know of. God knows how long it has been going on. We need money to be assigned to look after the needs of a lot of those young men and women who were abused. We really need that money, and we tried to find it today. The minister got up and he talked about new positions associated with that, new judges and our new support staff in Justice. He talked about new social workers. Everybody, Mr. Speaker, needs more money.

Now, I remind the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, who had the responsibility of government thrust on his shoulders when he took the task of becoming the President of Treasury Board some years ago - and it wasn't an easy task, I know, you have to be here a while to appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member knows because he has not been up in this debate yet and he, within himself understands the problems that this government is faced with in trying to find the adequate funding without running off to the money markets of the world and putting this Province in a very serious, precarious position, that if this time next year, we need a few more dollars that we just will not be able to pay the interest.

Now the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West, you know it is tough to sit in your place and I suppose we should not comment when he is on his feet, we should leave him alone but it is extremely difficult to leave him alone because he attacks all the ministers of this government. He attacks the hon. Member for Exploits, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, attacks him without reason because I would say this to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House and to the people of this Province, I don't know another hon. member who is as qualified, dedicated and as sincere under these present circumstances to do what needs to be done for labour in this Province than the hon. minister. Then to look over and point his finger, I don't know, I would like to meet the member's wife, to sew his hands in his pocket because we might shut him right down, but he points at the Minister of Education, now, do I need to remind the members of this House and the people of this Province how long, how hard, how dedicated this minister has been to the youth of this Province, without question.

An old teacher of mine whom the hon. minister knows well, the late Mr. Maurice Quinlan, a dedicated man from Bay de Verde. I think the hon. Deputy Speaker will tell you Maurice Quinlan taught me in school and he used to say - well, if the hon. Member for St. John's East wants to call him Moss, yes that is what we called him, Moss - an outstanding teacher and Mr. Quinlan used to say, time and time again, that you have to burn the midnight oil and I will tell this House and I will tell hon. members, there is no Minister of Education who has burnt the midnight oil on behalf of the students of this Province like the present Minister of Education -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: - burn the midnight oil, Mr. Speaker, burn the midnight oil, that is what he did. Not only has he tried to do, but has done more for education in this Province since 1949 than any other single education minister, and I will be glad with the rest of the hundreds of Newfoundlanders, Mr. Minister, to shake your hand. It is too bad the hon. Member for Kilbride was not here with a few strawberry seeds while the Member for Burin - Placentia West was up, because those strawberry seeds would be that high now, we would not be able to see the opposition. No barbs, no barbs!

Well you talk about fertilizer, fertilizer comes in all kinds of forms, I tell the hon. member. He was up today on the wage freeze but yesterday he could not remove the land freeze. He tried, he got out there, and I respect what he said, I heard the hon. member and he said it with courage and conviction, however, he might want to think about some of the things he said and be a little more sympathetic to the needs of his constituents who are in there on land that will never be cultivated and the hon. member knows it and he should try and help. Now that is just a little answer to the hon. member.

But, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member for Burin - Peninsula West to stand in his place and criticise any minister of this government. You know the funny part, he was only there a short time but he should have had enough experience to realize that Cabinet is not an easy place to be. There are some tough decisions which have to be made there. The Member for Mount Pearl knows that, the Member for Grand Bank, he was up there for a while, he was up there a lot longer than his seat mate will be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, I do not know because I am not too sure after the debate by the hon. Member for St. John's East on dividing the House with the gender aspect of it. Didn't the Member for Grand Bank stand up and support that particular petition. In other words what he was saying was he was trying to get rid of his colleague from Burin - Placentia West. He would sooner have a woman sitting next to him than the hon. member.

Now is that fact or -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Everyone in the Legislature and almost everyone in the Province knows the position I took on that resolution as put forward by the member for St. John's East, and I did it for what I thought were all the right reasons.

AN HON. MEMBER: You wanted to get rid of your buddy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Not that it had anything to do with getting rid of my buddy at all. Perhaps I was willing to have the woman run in the district of Grand Bank, if the Burin Peninsula was consolidated, so no reflection on my colleague. He is doing a wonderful job for the people. But having said that, I just want to lightly react to the member saying I would rather have a woman sitting next to me than the Member for Burin - Placentia West, and I am not going to say any more.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand the Member for Grand Bank standing in his place and trying to clear it up. I understand it, but I also want to tell this hon. House that it had come to my attention the next morning that the hon. member's phone, at a very early hour, was ringing - ringing off the wall. Who was on the other end but the Member for Burin - Placentia West? Yes, sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: He was on the phone. 'What are you talking about,' he asked? 'What are you up to?' He whaled into the member, whaled into him. Now, that is the kind of rhetoric that the Member for Burin - Placentia West gets on with when he stands in his place, turning on the hon. members on this side of the House, knowing full well - he was in Cabinet, so he knows. He can't tell what goes on up there. He knows the trouble associated with not keeping your big mouth shut. You have to keep your big mouth shut when you are in Cabinet. You have to do it. Whether you want to or not you have to stay quiet. That is why I question whether the hon. member will be invited back into Cabinet in 2036 when the Tories take over the government again.

AN HON. MEMBER: That soon? Do you think they'll go back that soon?

MR. MURPHY: Well, I don't know. I have to be realistic. Somewhere along the way, the people of this Province in maybe the next thirty or thirty-four years, may decide this government, after we go through, as they have done in New Brunswick, after we have probably fifty-two seats, will go through the same quandary that the Premier of the Province of New Brunswick had to go through.

I suppose one of the biggest industries after the next election will be pulling up all the seats and trying to get them all straightened around, trying to get all the Liberals in the House - perhaps we will all have to face you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we will have to put all the seats this way. I don't know. But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the public of this Province, moreso than the member, realize the quandary that this government faces today. They understand it. They know. They know that we are doing the very best that can be done with the finances that are available to us.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have had not one, not two, but three constituents of mine who have come to me and said, 'Tom, how in the name of God does the Premier and Cabinet do it?' I said, 'Do what?' I thought they were going to say something nasty to me, and that hasn't happened in three years, Mr. Speaker, not one nasty word from a constituent in three years. It is as true as I am standing here. You are not allowed to tell lies in this House, Mr. Speaker. They asked me, 'How does the Premier and his government do it?' I told them, 'They do it because, number one, the dedication is there, number two, the desire is there, and three, the smarts are there.'

I tell my constituents, I offer them when they say to me - Somebody, not in my riding, made a casual sneer at me. I think we were coming out of a PC meeting or something. They said to me, 'You are not going to make it the next time.' I said, 'My friend, I ask you, who do you want to run the affairs of this Province, the Leader of the NDP' - and he grasped the rails and held himself up -'or the leader of the PC Party' and he went to his knees. He went to his knees! - then I said, 'or the Premier of the Province,' and he stood to attention and he said, 'The latter, the latter, the latter.' I thought I was going to have to go to the first aid kit and bring ammonia out to get up on his feet. He was distraught at the thought of the NDP when he -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member about relevance in this debate.

MR. MURPHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know what the Chair is saying and I agree with you, but if you stop and think about it, the sheer thoughts of his money and his taxes being spent in the wrong direction put him on his knees.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, it is not on my expenses, I remind the Member for St. John's East, nor is it whether he is a full-time member or not. Recommendation six, maybe we will debate that if the hon. member wants to debate it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a good idea.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, a good idea, all right.

Now, if the hon. member wants to stay within the realm of where we are, or if he wants to go somewhere else I will go along with him and we will see who will win.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MURPHY: Never mind, what, he knows what. I can talk about the Workers' Compensation Board and they are not getting a raise and why, and I can talk about other people who are not getting a raise and why. The Member for St. John's East had better stay within the realm of Bill 16 and 17 and not throw up my expenses until he throws up his own situation. Let me read something to you, Mr. Speaker, about money. John Crosbie has a message for the Premier. He is mad and he is not going to take anymore. Now, that is what the federal minister said. The federal Cabinet Minister took off the gloves of silence Wednesday and came out swinging at the government. 'I don't intend to be the fall guy for anyone,' is what Mr. Crosbie said. I am quoting what Mr. Crosbie said. He was angry and he said that the provincial government has been blaming Ottawa and everyone but itself for the financial crisis it claims to be facing. Now, that is what Mr. Crosbie said on February 26, 1987 and he was talking about the then Tory Government. That's who he was talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: This is the very man who, every time somebody stands in this House and defends Mr. Crosbie - I defend Mr. Crosbie. Mr. Crosbie is doing the best he can, however I am not saying it is good enough. I say I respect and defend Mr. Crosbie. I don't think he is wise sometimes. Now, if the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West would like a copy of this document to remind him of what the hon. Mr. Crosbie said to the previous administration - Mr. Crosbie zeroed in particularly on Mr. Peckford's statement that if Newfoundland does not get a better deal from Ottawa on such things as regional development, equalization payments, established program funding and fisheries jurisdiction - fisheries jurisdiction - Mr. Crosbie said this, the Province will face a 1933-1934 style of financial collapse in two years - one Tory to another, Mr. Crosbie to Mr. Peckford. Now can you imagine in two years, this is eighty-seven; two for the school teachers on the other side. Two. Eighty-eight; eighty nine. Eighty-nine what happened? We did not end up in a depression. We did not end up on a bread line. We did not end up six cents a day, because the people of this Province had the wisdom to put a Liberal government in the House of Assembly. That is why.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Now the hon. members can stand up and ballyrag about Bill 17 and Bill 16, and they can talk about the doom and gloom, that there might be a Bill 18. The reality is they know, and the people of this Province know -

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TOBIN: It cannot go unchallenged, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh that is very serious.

He said the people of the Province put a Liberal government in the House of Assembly. There is a member of that Liberal government who is not in the House of Assembly, and the reason why is because you and others were not competent enough to fill the position. So do not say the government is in the House of Assembly. Say some members are inside and other members are outside. Get it straight!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a statement in his speech, and he is perfectly entitled to make that statement. Probably if I had been making a statement, or the Minister of Health had been making a statement, he might have said that in the nick of time - in the nick of time - the people of this Province elected a Liberal government. I think that is probably a better way of expressing it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You know, history has a funny way of repeating itself. Some time ago -

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, a point of order but there is no ruling on the point that was raised -

MR. SPEAKER: That is why the Chair was consulting with the -

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I understand, Your Honour, but there was a point of order on the floor.

MR. TOBIN: I made a point of order, and a good one at that.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment.

The point of order was made in reference to a statement that was made. I rule that was no point of order. It was a point of difference between two hon. gentlemen.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, obviously a point of foolishness. That is what it is, a point of foolishness!

You know, the member offers some validity in what he is saying. There have been occasions and history has a way sometimes of repeating itself. Some time ago the Premier - a previous Premier - decided that he needed two young, fresh minds in his caucus and in his Cabinet. I have no idea why he decided that, but we will have to live with that as we have to live with the situation today. I refer to the late hon. Joseph R. Smallwood, when he invited John Crosbie and the now Premier into his cabinet. Several months later, Mr. Speaker, there was an election called and both hon. gentlemen were unanimously sent to the House of Assembly.

MR. TOBIN: How long ago was that?

MR. MURPHY: Well, it doesn't matter how long ago. I have heard hon. members get up and quote Machiavelli and Hitler. I don't know, how long ago was that? I have heard hon. members quoting Shakespeare. How long ago is anything?

What the hon. members opposite have to face - now the hon. member made a statement today. I stand to be corrected. I will get the nod from the President of Treasury Board. I do not think that the teachers had a collective agreement last year. I think their agreement ran out. They were in the sense of negotiating their agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Okay, alright, fine. If I'm wrong, I said I wasn't sure. I qualified myself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Their collective agreement wasn't signed until after the Budget.

MR. MURPHY: Ah ha. Okay. Their collective agreement was not signed till after the Budget.

MR. TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member can't go quoting what I said unless he is sure of what I said. What I am referring to are the teachers who had a re-opener clause in their contract.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order. The hon. gentleman used the time to clarify his statement.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know what the hon. gentleman is up to. He hates being upstaged, he hates hearing the truth, he can't stand sitting there hearing it the way it is. So he gets up on his silly little points of order. But those are the rules of the House, and so be it.

But here is the real crux of the whole issue. I said it before, I will say it again, I do not think - I know - there is not one hon. member on this side of the House who wanted to even look at, entertain, think about, Bill 16. The same thing with Bill 17. Nobody wanted it. You can stand up and amend it and twist it and move it around and you can do what you like with it. But the real truth, Mr. Speaker, is that hon. members know that it is necessary. If it wasn't necessary the bill would not be in front of hon. members.

Now we expect you to stand up and get on with your dissertation and get on with your little bit of whatever, but to amend it and struggle it and batter it around this House forever in time is costing the very taxpayers who they say they are representing an awful lot more money. So they would be a lot better off accepting Bill 17 in the reality that is brought forward and understand that we don't have the funding to do anything else. Stand with this government and pass it through the House of Assembly without question and without hesitation.

Mr. Speaker, if they amend it again I will be up just as strong to defend the bill. They can amend it until Gibraltar crumbles, but we will be over here defending what needs to be done. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out to hon. members that we will still continue the same enlightened debate tomorrow as we were carrying on today.

Mr. Speaker, the next two Estimates Committee meetings will be on Tuesday in the morning in the House, the Department of Social Services, and Tuesday in the evening again in the House, the Department of Environment and Lands. I apologize to members of the committee. There were two committee meetings scheduled for tonight. Both had to be cancelled, and we regret that. We are rescheduling them for next week.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday at 9:00 a.m.