May 26, 1995                HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLII  No. 32


The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for the Premier. I would like to ask the Premier why he is ending the spring sitting of the House of Assembly prematurely leaving most of the Order Paper, thirteen of seventeen bills listed on the Order Paper, unfinished, and abandoning earlier plans to proceed with electoral boundaries and education reform legislation? Why has the Premier decided to restrict the agenda for the remainder of the spring sitting to four simple bills, including an amendment to the judicature act? Is it because the Premier is impatient to leave the Premier's office?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will deal with the part of the question that at the very least has some level of credibility: Why is the government proposing that we will probably end the session of the Legislature sometime - when is it?

MR. ROBERTS: Next week I would assume.

PREMIER WELLS: Next week sometime. It is fairly simple, Mr. Speaker. We are not yet ready to bring the education reform legislation before the House. It is fairly simple. I've been corresponding with the churches just in the last week. I've had telephone conversations with Archbishop MacDonald. My office has had telephone conversations with other representatives. They are not in a position to respond. They've asked us for more time to allow them to get some further legal advice on the issue and we've agreed with that. What I may have to do is have a public disclosure in somewhat more detail of the positions that the government has taken because I believe the public has a right to know. They shouldn't be kept without that knowledge for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

As to the other matters, no, there is nothing that is of an urgent nature. Now in terms of time, I remind hon. members that we sit at least 50 per cent longer in point of time than they sat under the former administration of which the Leader of the Opposition was at that time of course, one of the leading members.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I have further questions for the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I cannot hear the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and I cannot hear her at this point because of some of her own members; if we could have order, please.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the Premier have an understanding with the Prime Minister of Canada that the Premier will get a lucrative federal appointment before the year is out, and is the Premier planning to resign soon in anticipation of the federal appointment?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have greater respect for the taxpayers of this Province than to waste their money giving credibility to such stupidity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Premier why he has abandoned the taxpayers of their province by aiding and abetting the federal government in cutting funding services and jobs in this Province? Why is the Premier going along with the federal government's plans, for example, to close the St. John's dockyard and the Canadian forestry research services in the Province at a loss of a total of 1,000 jobs? Is it because the Premier has been courting the Prime Minister for his own personal gain?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member cannot impute to another member unworthy motive such as personal gain, so I will disallow the question.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, related to the Newfoundland Dockyard.

Is the minister aware that recently the dockyard won a contract to do a refit on a DFO fisheries patrol boat, the Teleost, and that the contract was awarded; however, there was one stipulation, that the Newfoundland Dockyard must provide a written letter from its parent company ensuring that it will remain open. Is the minister aware of that?

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

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

No, I am not aware of it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this is a government that is aware of very little - very, very little.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, recently the dockyard won a contract to do work for the federal Department of Fisheries. Federal fisheries said you could have the contract based upon receiving a letter from Marine Atlantic stating that you would be open. To this point, management at the Dockyard have requested such a letter and, as of this morning, they still have not received it. Can the minister check into the situation to determine why Marine Atlantic has not provided such a letter to ensure the Dockyard can get the work it has already been awarded?

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

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

The member is fully aware that on Monday morning, the Premier, the Minister of ITT and myself will be meeting with Mr. Morrison to discuss the Dockyard in its fullest context. We will deal with all the issues, and I say to the member that talking about hidden sources and what may or may not happen - he made a statement publicly that the last group had broken off negotiations with the Dockyard and there was nobody interested in the Dockyard if it is to be privatized. Now, the member knows he was found out last night, despite these hidden sources, that statement is incorrect. So the member needs to be more responsible. Let this government do its negotiations; this government will do its negotiations and we do have an agenda to try to keep the Dockyard open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me respond by saying, Mr. Speaker, that the statements I made about the privatization of the Dockyard, I stick to, and it will pan out within the next couple of weeks, that what I said was correct. When I talked about what he called `hidden sources', I certainly would not jeopardize anybody in terms of providing the information. Now, let ask the minister again: When you are meeting with Mr. Morrison on Monday, will you ask him why he has not provided a written letter to the Newfoundland Dockyard to ensure that they would receive the work from another Federal Government department? Will you ask him why he has not done that?

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

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, you can be sure that we will ask Mr. Morrison anything and everything that deals with the problem at the Newfoundland Dockyard. This government intends to sit with Mr. Morrison, ask the questions, and put forward some suggestions. As I keep telling the member, he is not helping the situation at the Newfoundland Dockyard - I say to the Leader of the Opposition, the Newfoundland Dockyard - he is not helping the situation by getting on with innuendo and irresponsible comments. We will do what we can to keep the Dockyard open, viable and looking for capitalization to ensure that Newfoundlanders will be employed in the future in the yard. Thank you.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

The minister's Budget projected economic growth for this Province this year of 3 per cent, the document said strong economic growth is expected again in 1995. The Conference Board of Canada is now forecasting sluggish growth of only 1.7 per cent; I would like to ask the minister, what implications The Conference Board of Canada projection has for his Budget and if The Conference Board of Canada prediction turns out to be more accurate than the minister's, will this not mean considerably less revenue for the Provincial Government this year than is built into the minister's Budget and, instead of a current account surplus, which the minister is calling for, possibly a deficit?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess, to answer the last part of her question first, obviously, if the growth projections that we have made are not achieved, then that will have an effect on the bottom line, and we will have to wait and see, so the logic is okay. However, I would like to point out, the premise that The Conference Board of Canada is correct, I believe, is wrong. I believe The Conference Board of Canada is way off, because I believe they don't have access to the information that we have; they are basing this, they claim, on the sluggishness in the resource industries in the Province and we simply don't see that.

We have been through - the last couple of years in the fishery, for instance, have been low years; we see an improvement in the landed value and the employment in the fishery, so we see improvement in the fishery, generally. We also see improvement in the iron ore, the forestry industry and so on during this year. We see this year being a year that has a high level of employment and a high level of investment in terms of the Hibernia project, so we see this year far more positively than does The Conference Board of Canada. The other institutions which have done their analyses as well, also see it in a far more optimistic view than does The Conference Board of Canada. So I believe that The Conference Board simply is dead wrong about this year.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

I ask the minister, has he received any complaints or concerns regarding the hiring practices or the importation of workers at the Hibernia project?

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

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is fully aware that the Hibernia project is a national project. The dollars that were put forward in the Hibernia project have come from many sources. I think the last figures, and I stand to be corrected, were somewhere in the vicinity - I know I am not very far out when I say that about 92 per cent of the workforce at Bull Arm are Newfoundlanders, and we are very proud of it.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the minister know, or is the minister at all concerned that the same Calgary company, Kenonic Controls, the company that caused the labour dispute at the Hibernia site a few months ago, is now again advertising for labour to come to the Hibernia site, labour which exists in this Province here today?

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

MR. MURPHY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.

As the member knows, the tenders that go out from the Hibernia project, go out nationally, and if a Calgary-based company should win a tender, or a Montreal, Toronto, or a St. John's company, they have a right to choose their supervisors, as any company would on any tender. They must conform to the building trades agreement between HMDC and the building trades, by hiring, of course, those individuals who are unionized people. Now, their supervisors, of course, are there at their own discretion.

When any company bids a job, surely heavens they have a right to put supervisors in place, and if they put those supervisors in place who are not competent, then they always run the risk of losing money on that particular tender. We cannot take out of the hands of any company who wins a tender, who is a viable company and is seen by the managers at Hibernia as being competent - obviously, they wouldn't be there if they were not - and this government cannot dictate to companies to say who they should, and who they should not, hire as supervisors.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the minister that I am not talking about supervisors. We are all aware of that. This problem was brought to the minister's attention before, about people coming to the Hibernia project and not doing supervisory work but doing hands-on work. And once again the ad appears in a paper advertising in Alberta looking for pump mechanics, millwrights, electricians, Mr. Speaker. Our union halls around Newfoundland are full of those people. Our people have worked all over the world doing exactly this type of work. So I call on the minister to be responsible and make sure our own Newfoundlanders get our own work right here in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: The member knows only full well that the building trades comprise fifteen huge unions involved in both civil and mechanical trades - the business agents, the shop stewards out there are not sitting on their hands. Any time that any company brings in labour that can be supplied in this Province is totally unacceptable to the building trades. We have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. MURPHY: If the member is going to ask a question - I didn't interrupt him. Give me the courtesy of answering. What the member should realize is that we have right now two people on staff who investigate all complaints from the Newfoundland public. The member knows that there are about 4,200 Newfoundlanders on site now and there are about 42,000 Newfoundlanders who would like to be on site. It is just impossible to accommodate all those people who want to go to the Hibernia site. We are working along with both union and management to ensure that the job site agreement is in place and will continue in place, and we are there to ensure that qualified Newfoundlanders will have first opportunity at the job.

There are 4,549 on site right now, Newfoundlanders. There may be a single case here and a single case there. We are addressing that. That always happens in a site of that size and magnitude.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources pertaining to the reactivation efforts of St. Lawrence fluorspar mines. Can the minister update the House as to what the status of that reactivation situation is right now? Is there someone in there looking at the scene, the site, doing an analysis? Could the minister inform us what progress if any has been made?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to do that. A few months ago we gave an option to the St. Lawrence property to a company based in Saskatchewan but led by a former Newfoundlander. We gave that option to extend until next April 30, 1996. Since we issued the option to him he has moved into St. Lawrence, he has occupied the offices. As of April 1, the end of the fiscal year, March 31, as of April 1 he took over covering all expenses at the site to maintain the properties there until he completes his analysis. I know he is doing a thorough evaluation of every aspect of the underground mining operations that went on in St. Lawrence previously and looking at how he would best bring it back into operation in the future.

The other major aspect is looking at the markets and I know that he has been doing a significant international marketing effort to identify companies that would be interested in buying the product. He has made some good contacts there. Over the next few months I hope he has success in putting a good package together. Right now the markets for fluorspar seem to be on a slight improvement trend over what they were a couple of years ago when we had the close down. I'm positive and optimistic that something can come out of this in the next year.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary for the minister. In the analysis that the company is doing, is it looking at processing of some form, utilizing the processing mill that was put there by Minworth, not just mining the fluorspar in raw form and shipping it out? Will there be processing done? Is the intent to do processing in that processing mill at St. Lawrence?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The main reason of course to maintain the mill is so that the ore that is mined would be concentrated and refined to as high a grade as possible and to basically be a final product that can go to companies like Alcan and Dupont and others that would normally use fluorspar in their processing operations. So yes, that is certainly my understanding. They would take it to as much processing as they can to concentrate and make a very pure fluorspar concentrate.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Has your department received any complaints regarding the 1995 tax assessments, especially in light of the fact of the promise by yourself of an up-to-date more efficient computerized system?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, I suppose. Every year we receive a number of complaints from municipalities in regard to the assessments, early assessments, late assessments, no assessments at all. That happens almost on a daily basis, so the answer is yes, we have.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern, a supplementary.

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

I have a copy of a letter to the assessment division from the Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove complaining of discrepancies in the overall assessment, and many questions which need answers. The letter talks about financial burden to the towns, extra work for staff, late delivery of assessment to the town, which forced the town to borrow. The assessment roll was delivered April 24 with a deadline date of April 28 to be forwarded to the taxpayers. When will Municipal and Provincial Affairs get an act together with regard to assessments, which has been promised for years?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, just three weeks ago the Federation of Municipalities made a presentation to Cabinet, and one of their recommendations was to privatize, or do away with the assessment division of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. That, of course, will cause serious problems for the community referred to by the hon. member.

If we allowed a small community in the Province to do its own assessment, the cost of actually doing that assessment in that particular case, in that particular community, would cost that particular community anywhere from five to ten times the amount of money they are paying to the department.

As the hon. member realizes, because he sat on council, the reason we have a division, and the assessment that we are doing, the cost that we are charging municipalities around the Province, is spread out between the larger cities and towns and the smaller ones, which makes it a more equitable cost to at least the smaller communities in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I will say to you quite honestly that that whole question of the assessment division in my department is being reviewed. I will be meeting on next Thursday with the hon. Minister of Finance to discuss problems that we are having in the assessment division, and those problems have been relevant, I suppose, and predominant in the assessment division long before 1989 when I was elected. In fact, they started back maybe ten to fifteen years ago.

I will admit to the member that there are problems; there is no two ways about it. I am having problems in the division, and I think it comes down to the fact that maybe we should look at the whole assessment division, and maybe after talking to the federation and debating what we can do, I may be able to stand in the House some time in the future and say the problem is solved, maybe to the extent that the community you are talking about can do their own assessment. Then, Mr. Speaker, God help them when it comes to paying for the cost of that assessment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern, a final supplementary.

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

With respect to the cost to the towns, the towns now across the Province have to pay thousands of dollars each year for basically a copy of a previous assessment each year.

The Town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove supplied a list of over sixty concerns or questions on specific properties themselves. They are expecting a flood of appeals. Once the errors are corrected and appeals are heard, Council is requesting a new 1995 assessment roll. Will the minister commit to investigate and address the concerns of the town and to supply a new, proper, and more accurate assessment roll for 1995?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I will do whatever I can to accommodate the hon. member's request and the town's request. I cannot stand here and say that I am going to do this. I have to go back and ask the people in my division what happened and what exactly the story is on that. I am not saying that the hon. member is not putting his facts to the table correctly, but I will certainly look into it and do whatever I can to accommodate the town, and I guess the member's request. I have no problems with that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health.

I was contacted by a relative of a person who resides in Chancellor Park. Now that person there has exhausted all savings. The minister indicated in this House on Wednesday that such a person would not be eligible for funding under the enriched needs program because Chancellor Park is one of about seventy personal care homes in the Province.

The minister said, and I quote from Hansard: We have about sixty-nine, seventy, or seventy-one personal care homes in the Province. Chancellor Park is one of these homes. We do not, as a government, by policy, provide enriched needs to people living in personal care homes. I say to the minister, Chancellor Park is not a personal care home. This was acknowledged by your department over one year ago. In fact, it was acknowledged as an independent or a congregate unit.

Now this individual is placed along with others at the top of a waiting list for admission to nursing homes here in this city. I ask the minister, why are these people not eligible for enriched needs program the same as others out in the community? It will cost government 50 per cent less to provide it to people in Chancellor Park as opposed to out in an apartment or in their own home in the community.

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

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

The hon. member may, by his definition, determine that that facility known as Chancellor Park is not a personal care home but in terms of licensure by the Wila Board, which comes under the Department of Health and handles the licensing for the government, it is a personal care home. Congregate housing is simply another form of a personal care home. So the hon. member should understand that if he doesn't and if he does understand it he should acknowledge that he understands it and accept it for what truth is in it.

Now as far as providing enriched needs into personal care homes, I have already stated that it never was and it is not governments policy to put enriched needs into personal care homes on a continuing basis. There may be a few instances where, over time, we have delivered enriched needs on an emergency or temporary basis to personal care homes but it is not governments policy to do that as a matter of course and as a matter of policy.

In terms of the expenditure that he alludes to as being so much cheaper to do it in that particular facility as opposed to in the community, I can only say without getting into an elaborate and long answer - which I am sure nobody wants at this point - that he is totally inaccurate and totally incorrect. I would also make to him the offer that if he wishes to come to my office and sit down I will give him the facts and figures relative to the cost of an enriched needs on any basis that he wants to discuss it. The information is available through my office. The information is clear and if he wants it he can come and get it. Then when he asks a question he can be factual in the assumptions and the premises on which he bases his question.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do have the cost of providing enriched needs and for nursing homes cost too in the Province for each particular facility, I say to the minister. I ask the minister to go back to his department in a letter in March of 1994 in which he classified that and it stated as not being in the personal care home category.

Now I want to ask the minister another question, in 1986 the Nycum Study showed that there is a far higher instance of elderly people in the Clarenville area then anywhere else in this Province. Now the study recommended, in 1986, another fifty beds for the Clarenville area in addition to the fifteen long term beds that are at the GB Cross Hospital there. Now this area was high on the priority list of government for a number of years and there are still no beds. Now I ask the minister, if Irene Baird of IMB Associates presented a report to the hospital board over a week ago in Clarenville that is confirming and will the minister confirm that this report calls for a fifty bed chronic care facility in the Clarenville area?

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

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

The Clarenville Hospital Board, some time last year, asked for a long term care study to be done in their region. Last fall after that had commenced and after I moved into the department, I asked them to have that report or that analysis expanded to include the whole region from the Burin Peninsula to Bonavista. I done that on the premise and on the basis that the new regional board would cover that geographic area in the Province. All of the acute care and long term care needs in that area would become the responsibility, in the first instance, in terms of developing policy and looking at needs of that new board and so that report has been done. The IMB Associates Incorporated have delivered their report to me, they have delivered a copy to the Clarenville, the Bonavista and the Burin Peninsula Health Care Boards and they have also put it in the hands of the new chair of the new regional board and at what time we have done our analysis on it and we deem it to be appropriate we will - if it is appropriate - release it for public consumption and information. At this point we have not reviewed it and I have not released it to the public so I am not prepared to make it available to the hon. member yet.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This report I understand also indicates that there are more then 2,100 people in that area over sixty-five years of age and the need is there. Now there are also more than sixty people from the Clarenville area residing in homes in St. John's who want to be near their families. I ask the minister, will the minister ensure that future nursing home beds are provided in areas where there is a definite need and where those needing care can be close to their families and loved ones?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we will ensure that to the greatest extent possible, that long-term care beds will be made available where they are needed and to the closest proximity that we can to the area in which these people are coming from. I will also point out to the hon. member that, in that particular area we have just recently developed the Golden Heights Manor in Bonavista, there are ten beds there that are not occupied; we have a project for redevelopment underway at the Blue Crest Interfaith Home in Grand Bank to provide extra beds. We have put a fantastic facility in St. Lawrence, a new health care centre there with some long-term care beds that are not all occupied, and it is our responsibility to ensure that the beds that are presently in the system are used appropriately and properly before we commence adding additional beds to the system; but we are not unmindful of the need for long-term beds and we will do it as is needed and as is appropriate, with all due care and consideration given to where the residents are coming from.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the House of Assembly, twelve ABE Skills For Success students with their instructor, Donna Adams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Report of the exceptions to the Public Tender Act, for March, 1995 and April, 1995.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report of the Advisory Council on the Economy for the period, from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again I stand to present a petition on the proposed changes to the electoral boundaries.

Today, I present the last 424 names in my possession, bringing the total signatures presented to well over 1,000 names. I present all the names because today, is probably one of the last opportunities to do so. The government has indicated that the House will soon take its summer recess without, apart from my petition campaign, dealing with the electoral boundaries issue.

Mr. Speaker, it is too early to tell if the voters of Green Bay who want their district to remain united have had a victory in this matter. Certainly the voters of Central Newfoundland, who will soon be going to the polls in a by-election, will not have had their future boundaries clarified; however, Mr. Speaker, this House will soon be closing early in an anticipated atmosphere of change.

One of the few bills we will be passing before our recess is a bill to create an additional Supreme Court opening; one has to wonder if the Premier's much talked about, the judicial appointment, is about to happen. Indeed, the Premier seemed to smile in this House yesterday, a rare enough event, to lead one to speculate that he may soon be relieved of the burdens of office.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party, facing the by-election are afraid of the negative publicity from Question Period. Whatever the case, Mr. Speaker, the electoral boundaries issue is put off until the fall if not forever. I thank the people of Green Bay for asking me to present their concerns on this matter, in this Assembly during this short, spring session.

Mr. Speaker, I have occupied a political office here in Confederation Building for twenty-one years; I have participated in many elections and by-elections and was very active in two successful leadership campaigns. As the Liberals will probably find out, pretty soon, leadership campaigns can be exciting but they are no comparison to meeting your political foes in a real election. Mr. Speaker, I wish you and my colleagues in this House, a very pleasant summer and no doubt, I will see some of you on the battle lines in the electoral District of Grand Falls.

Thank you.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of my people from my district in the communities of Trepassey, St. Shotts, Portugal Cove South and Biscay Bay.

The prayer of the petition reads as follows: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

`We, the undersigned, do hereby request the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to provide funding to generate desperately needed employment in our communities.

Once again, we stand and bring forth a petition from people who are looking for some type of employment in communities, especially in rural Newfoundland. I ask the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to accept this petition today on behalf of those people and to bring forward, in whatever way possible, some funding to alleviate the desperate situation that people in my district, and I am sure, many districts of the Province, find themselves in.

For the past number of years we have succumbed to the problems brought upon us by the closedown of the most important industry in our Province, and indeed, the most important industry in the district of St. Mary's - The Capes, that is, the fishing industry.

Many people who were involved directly in that industry have been successful in qualifying for NCARP and then the TAGS program, and those people had some compensation while they worked through the problems associated with the closedown of the fishery. At the same time, many people in the district and, indeed, in all those communities indirectly involved in the fishing industry, the people who worked in the restaurants, in the stores, on the wharves, the people who were babysitting in the communities, and all those people who are unemployed for reasons we may not understand, cannot now find any source of employment, because the indirect jobs afforded through the fishery in those communities are not there anymore.

That is why those people are now looking to government, looking wherever they can, hopefully, for some sort of program. We are not looking for some short-term assistance. Those people would like to have access to a program that would offer some training, some work experience, not just something that would allow them to qualify for unemployment insurance; that is not what people are looking for. They are looking for an opportunity to further their skills.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, in a lot of cases that I deal with on a daily basis, is that people on the TAGS program or some other type of federal or provincial assistance, are allowed to avail of training programs; whereas other people, who through no fault of their own, have no extra funds, or do not qualify for any of those programs because they are not on TAGS or some other type of assistance, cannot get into training.

I had a group in to see me a couple of weeks ago, twelve people from a community in my district, who wanted to do some type of training, but because they are not on the TAGS program, or receiving some type of help from HRD, they cannot get into those training programs. So, really, they are being dealt a double blow in that they have no compensation for the loss of the jobs they had through being indirectly involved in the fishing industry and are unable to partake in the training programs.

I think it is a very serious situation, Mr. Speaker, and I bring forward the concerns of those people today to the House and hope that the minister, in his wisdom, will address those concerns, and hopefully alleviate some of the despair that those people are experiencing at the present time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I have just a few comments on what the hon. member had to say. First of all, he is very much aware of the 50/50 arrangement we have just negotiated with the Federal Government, for a total of $20 million. We realize that amount of money is not - let me say, we could use more. We have just finished negotiating and I have sent every member a package on that particular program. There are other programs we are currently negotiating, the early retirement for fishers and the processors. We are also very much involved in negotiations with HRDC and CEC on the availability - and I say to the member, he should pay attention to this one, because I think the Green program that is out there now, and CEC, are now accepting and taking proposals from communities and people in communities.

The real value and advantage of the Green program to the member's community, or any other community, is through ensuring that at the end of the program, it leaves some real jobs. I think what the member needs to understand is that it makes it easier for this government to negotiate with our federal counterparts when we can say that those people who were in the fishery and cannot return to it for some period of time - we don't know how long that it is - but that, at the end of some of these programs, there are some real jobs.

So it is up to their imagination. As the Premier has been saying time and time again at different functions, it is now time for the private sector to put their imagination to work and say: Listen, these are the kinds of ideas that we feel are advantageous for long-term employment throughout the Province.

I say to the member, he should pay attention to that specific program. There is some $290 million in it. It all depends on how well we do our homework, and I encourage him and people in his community to take advantage of that particular program. There are other programs that we are negotiating with our federal counterparts. As a matter of fact, this time next week we have a meeting with Mr. Axworthy to discuss some other issues. Let me say to the member, he can be assured that this government is very cognizant, very aware of the problem in rural Newfoundland, and we are doing everything we can with our federal counterparts to address those problems. Hopefully, as we go along, we will have some more meaningful and productive programs to identify and collectively say to the populace throughout Labrador and throughout the Island portion of the Province: Look, take advantage of this.

My department would be more than happy to liaison with any group out there, assist them, help them with applications. The Minister of ITT has people to assist and help. And I hope it is not falling on deaf ears. At any time, as the member knows, we would be more than happy to talk to any member about circumstances and/or situations in their districts. Because, what the real agenda is, is to help Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words to that petition, if I may, please.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there are so many people today wrapped up in that Bill 20, they are beginning to.... I want to -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No - the Speaker - no reflection on anyone in the House, I say to the Government House Leader. There are so many huddles around here. You have the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation going around with Bill No. 20 in his hand talking to all his colleagues about it. You've got meetings on the go everywhere. There he is up again, look, checking with someone else with Bill No. 20 in his hand, drumming up all the support he can.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, you know how important three votes are, I hope.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support the petition presented by my colleague, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: `Chuck' hasn't been in since the bill was introduced so he is ahead of the game.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: And `Beaton' is back.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I want to support the petition presented by my colleague and friend, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, signed by people of Portugal Cove South, St. Shotts, Biscay Bay and Trepassey, an area of this Province that is very familiar to me, as it is, I am sure, to the Member for Twillingate. Like him, I know full well that these are dedicated, committed and hard-working individuals who have for a lifetime been involved in the fishery of this Province, both inshore, middle-distance, I guess, and offshore.

People from these areas - there was no other employment in the area except the fish plant in Trepassey for many years. As we all know, not only has the fisheries dried up, but I believe the option of a future fisheries in Trepassey is in very big trouble. Because, as we all know, just recently the area sold their fish plant to a group of Americans who are now shipping all the plant, all the contents and everything in it, to some part of South America. So I believe that the opportunities, if the fishery ever returns, for the same type of a fishery in Trepassey may be somewhat restricted, but these people are asking that this government do something to create employment in that area.

Now, I listened to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and his answers. I wrote down his answers to the people of St. Shotts, Portugal Cove, Biscay Bay and Trepassey. His answers were a 50/50 federal agreement. Now how long is that going to give employment to the people up there, because there are very few working? Early retirement, there are some, I am sure, who will qualify for that.

He mentioned co-operation between HRDC and CEC, but he felt that the best program was the Green program. Then he went on to say that people now have to use their imaginations. Well, I am sure the people of that area are quite capable of using their imaginations. Let them be restricted by their thinking, as he is saying, or don't be restricted by your thinking; let your imagination fly. But I say to the minister, when they do that, as he says the Premier says so often now, people have to use their imagination, so don't be limited in your thinking. Let your imagination fly, and at the end of the day what jobs are you going to put in this humble little Province? What jobs are you going to put in the barrens of Peter's River or Portugal Cove South?

There are jewellery box factories, I believe, in Trepassey. I happened to be up there Easter, and for someone who was born and raised in Trepassey and don't get back as often as I would like - I don't have any family left there now, and I don't get back as often as I like - but to go up there and drive around, and to see the houses with the doors and the windows barred up. Many houses over where I was born and lived, on Daniel's Point, where you all get that great water -

AN HON. MEMBER: Great water?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that cold water that people have in their office comes from Daniel's Point, Collins Pond, my grandmother's property, I say to members opposite, but apart from that to see the houses over there, I would say Daniel's Point, which is now a part of Trepassey, but fifteen years ago there were probably fifty or sixty houses over there; I would not say there are fifteen over there today that are not barred up, and the Minister of Fisheries knows - or who should be still the Minister of Fisheries - the Member for Twillingate knows it well.

To see that, and to hear those people in here today, through a petition, asking government to do something, stirs some emotion in me because these are hard-working, dedicated, committed individuals who knew nothing for a lifetime but hard work.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. TOBIN: In conclusion, I would encourage the minister and the government to take the pleas of these people from St. Mary's - The Capes in the petition that was presented very seriously, and try to do something for them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we go on to the Orders of the Day as such, there is a momentous event that I have been asked to bring to the attention of the House, and I suspect my friend from Grand Bank would concur.

We all know Scott Chafe from VOCM, who has covered the Legislature probably for a longer period than any of the men or women in the press gallery these days. We all know him with his red jacket and his big VOCM sticker on it, and we all respect his integrity and his ability. A number of his colleagues, perhaps in a friendly sense, and perhaps with a little touch of envy, have asked me to bring to the attention of the House that Scott is not here today because he is home counting the fifty pink flamingos that someone has put on his lawn. Apparently this is his fiftieth birthday, and I know that members on both sides - we don't normally do this, but Scott is somebody that I think we all like and respect, and we all work with him and would want to perhaps ask -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, he is younger than me. He is also smarter than me.

MR. TOBIN: Now, don't be nasty.

MR. ROBERTS: I am not being nasty. I would say to my friend from Burin - Placentia West that I am reminded of an exchange between two members in the House of Commons in England once, Winston Churchill and an unnamed person. The member on the other side said to Churchill, `The Right Honourable Gentleman is drunk.' Churchill came back and said, `Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am, but the hon. gentleman opposite is dumb, and the difference is I will be sober in the morning.'

Anyway, I was going to suggest that perhaps the Clerk would be good enough, on behalf of us all, to send a note of either congratulations or condolences to Mr. Chafe on his fiftieth birthday.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, could we first of all call Motions

4 and 5 that is to first readings and then we will go into committee stage to deal with the advance health care directive and then we will come back to the Budget Debate and conclude that.

Thank you, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the hon. Minister's of Finance and Treasury Board and the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce bills - rather, first to the Minister of Finance to move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the guaranteeing of certain loans under the local -

MR. ROBERTS: Four and five.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, I understood the Government House Leader had said three and four, yes.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Architects Act, The Chartered Accountants Act, The Dieticians Act, The Embalmers And Funeral Directors Act, The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, The Land Surveyors Act, 1991, The Private Investigation And Security Services Act And The Psychologists Act," carried. (Bill No. 22)

Motion, the hon. Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991," carried. (Bill No. 23)

On motion, Bill Nos. 22 and 23 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, would you be good enough please to put the House in Committee of the Whole to deal with Bill No. 1 which is the advance health care directives?

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Bill No. 1, An Act Respecting Advance Health Care Directives.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Advance Health Care Directives And The Appointment Of Substitute Health Care Decision Makers." (Bill No. 1)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, would you please rise the committee?

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to it referred and has directed me to report Bill No. 1 carried without amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of Whole reports that it has considered the matters to it referred and have directed him to report Bill No. 1 passed without amendment. When shall the report be received?

MR. ROBERTS: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR. ROBERTS: Now, by leave.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Advance Health Care Directives And The Appointment Of Substitute Health Care Decision Makers," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 1)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Motion No. 1 which is the Budget debate. I am not sure I remember who adjourned the debate but one of my friends opposite -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend for Mount Pearl. He is not here. I assume another member will (inaudible) -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: By leave.

MR. ROBERTS: I would say if my friend for Grand Bank spoke by leave that would add - I won't say that, Mr. Speaker. Would you be good enough to call the Budget –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Burin - Placentia West!

MR. ROBERTS: No, I would have even less reason to say it if it is my friend for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm reminded of the story of the lawyer who moved from St. John's to Corner Brook, thereby raising the intellectual level of both communities. Your Honour, would you please call - there are three lawyers from Corner Brook sitting in this House at present, Mr. Speaker. Would you be good enough to call the Budget, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1, the Budget debate.

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased today to stand and say a few words on a non-confidence motion put forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on Thursday May 18, I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, that week that you weren't in the House. I don't think you were here from Monday to Friday that week, I say to the minister, so it is hard to know what happens when you are not here.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition in putting forward her non-confidence motion in this government was expressing the concern of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I say to the members of the House. With the loss of trust, yes indeed, the loss of confidence in the government opposite. I fully support the non-confidence motion because of the hoodwinking that this government has given the people of this Province since 1989 with the promise of real change.

We remember the posters, signs and placards that were across this Province that talked about real change. Some change, I say to the members opposite. There has been a real change, yes, I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, there has definitely been a real change. Whether that change has been good or bad for the Province I guess time will tell. One of the comments that the Premier said so often during that campaign was the fact of bringing every mother's son home. That was going to be part of his real change. He was going to bring every mother's son home. The words went across this Province. Every mother's son will be coming home. That was part of the real change, I say to the members opposite.

The track record of real change in this Province is very dismal, I say, when we look at the latest stats, we look back at bringing every mother's son home. In the past six years - and I will go through each year, just to make sure that we have the correct numbers. I say I have put my numbers together based on statistics from Stats Canada.

In 1989 we had a net loss in this Province of 2,606 people. That is in 1989, the first year of this government. In 1990 we had a net loss of 1,137 people out of this Province, thanks to the real change put forward by the members opposite. In 1991 we had a total loss of 1,636 people, thanks to the real change put forward by the members opposite. In 1992 alone we had a real change when we had a total loss of 3,626 people from this Province, part of the real change put forward by this government in 1989. In 1993 the real change continued into the 1990s with a total loss of 3,692 people in 1993. The `real change' continued into 1994 when, according to Stats Canada reports, up until September of 1994, we had a total loss of 5,834 people. So the six years of `real change' brought about a net loss in this Province of 18,531 people. Mr. Speaker, it leaves a lot to say about bringing every mother's son home, when the mothers themselves have had to leave this Province.

I say, the `real change' that has been brought in by the six years of this government, has no doubt made the new Leader of the Opposition stand and bring forward a non-confidence motion in this government. A `real change' of almost 20,000 people less - 18,531 people in six years have left this Province. And I say, Mr. Speaker, we talk about real change, we talk about real concerns that we tried to bring forward on this side of the House on behalf of the people of the Province, real concerns about the future.

This government has been carrying out a very subtle resettlement program over the past years, and I look back to the 1960s when we had the resettlement program back then. At the present time I am reading a book by Harold Horwood, called Joey, which talks about parts of the resettlement program of the 1960s, but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, in mentioning the resettlement program of Joey Smallwood, that he had a different approach. Mr. Smallwood came in the front door and told the people that he wanted them to move; he told the people that they had to move and gave them the opportunity to move. He gave them something, whatever it may be, to move.

Well, I didn't agree with the resettlement program of the 1960s, Mr. Speaker, and I definitely don't agree with it in the 1990s, but I have to agree that Mr. Smallwood had a better approach than Mr. Wells and this government have. Mr. Smallwood came in the front door and told the people up front what he planned to do and they accepted it or didn't accept it, but the people of the Province have no choice in what this government is doing now; they have no choice as to whether they should resettle or not because with the policy of this government, living in rural Newfoundland is becoming harder and harder, and the people have no choice but to think about resettlement. And as we can see for the past sixteen years, with a net loss of 18,531 people in this Province, we talk about real change; yes, Mr. Speaker, real change -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: - but it is real resettlement change, I say, that this government has been doing over the past number of years; and I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, just stay calm; I will get to you later - I am only a few minutes into my speech.

We talked about a balanced Budget, Mr. Speaker, everybody was kind of pleased with the fact that the government stood up and presented a balanced Budget, but at whose expense do we present a balanced Budget? Do we present it at the expense of the thousands of people in this Province who have been forced to now rely on social assistance? Are these the people at whose expense they have a balanced Budget in this Province? There are people in my district who have never before in their lives had to resort to social assistance until the past couple of years. So, yes, we present a balanced Budget at those people's expense.

Do we present a balanced Budget on the thousands of people in this Province, who have been added to the UI lines, through layoffs, through cutbacks, through the devastation that this government has inflicted on the people of this Province through their policies? Is that how the balanced Budget comes, at the expense of thousands of people who have lost their jobs over the past couple of years? How about the thousands who have given up looking for work in this Province? People have given up, they have lost hope in this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a balanced Budget, at the expense of the thousands of people who have given up any hope in this government, have given up any hope of a chance of finding some work again, Mr. Speaker. How about the hundreds of people in this Province who are waiting on hospital beds because of the cutbacks in health care of this government? Is that how we have a balanced Budget, are they paying for the balanced Budget, Mr. Speaker? The hundreds of elderly people in this Province who are looking for hospital beds, are they the people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the minister, by the time I am finished, some of you may want to come over here, but I say, just stay calm. Mr. Speaker, the massive cuts - yes, I say, Mr. Speaker, we have a balanced Budget, but is it at the expense of the youth of this Province, who have faced massive cuts in education and the loss of job opportunities and the loss of a chance to make something of themselves? Are they who balanced the Budget, the youths, the elderly, the unemployed, the people on social assistance? Are they who brought us a balanced Budget, Mr. Speaker?

Is that the way we present a balanced Budget? I say the government should be more responsible to the people who elected them, and I bring forward the concerns of those people, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation that there is a concern in this Province now. You can sit back and relax but there are many people in this Province who cannot sit back and relax, Mr. Speaker. We sit down and look at the positive things in this Province over the past couple of years but members opposite continue to lambaste the former Tory government and the former Tory government in Ottawa.

I say to members opposite that as we look around this Province now we look at the few positive things that are happening. We look at the Hibernia project that is creating thousands of jobs. Is that because of anything this government did over the past six years? No, Mr. Speaker, it is because of the former Tory government and John Crosbie in Ottawa that we have the Hibernia project in this Province. The only silver lining in a dark cloud that is happening in this Province now is because of the former Tory government. It is not because of the actions or policies of this government, but indeed the former Tory government in Ottawa. That is the only reason Hibernia is alive and well today.

We look at the TAGS program and the ENCARP program that have come down. There are some problems with them, Mr. Speaker. We have the Hibernia project and we have the TAGS program that has come down because of the former Tory government and brought forward under John Crosbie, who saw the devastation that was happening in our fisheries, who saw the problems that were being experienced, and saw the people who would be affected by the closedown, and brought forward those programs. Because of the TAGS program, people at least have a few years to try to plan a future or at least prepare for a different type of fishery, and that is because of the former Tory government I say, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has left now. He stands in the House and talks about the road work in this Province. Take away the Roads for Rail agreement that was brought in by the former Tory government and John Crosbie, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would have very little to spend on roads in this Province. You could spend on a good weekend what this government is spending on roads in this Province, when you take away the federal agreement that was signed by John Crosbie and the former Tory government.

Only for those people and only for that government we wouldn't have the Hibernia project, we wouldn't have the TAGS program and we wouldn't have the Roads for Rail agreement, just to mention a few. How can we have confidence in this government when there is no vision, there is no plan, and there is no future for this government?

MR. DUMARESQUE: You're gone.

MR. MANNING: No, I am not gone, I say to the member. I will be here longer than you are. I have no worry about being gone.

And along with all those things that government has played a part in destroying in this Province -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible), mark my words.

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Eagle River, you knew a lot about my area when you brought the hon. the Member for St. John's West down. Come down now. If you wanted to have a meeting of the Liberals down there now you would have to have it in a phone booth, I say to the member.

MR. DUMARESQUE: You never know. I get calls from them down there all the time.

MR. MANNING: I know one less he is getting these days, a convert to the PC fold from an old Tory stronghold, I say, Mr. Speaker.

This government, along with destroying the opportunities for people to find work in this Province, along with destroying the few things that were looking positive, this government has destroyed something else, they have destroyed the sense of hope. You go around those communities and talk to people who have been without work for years - not months anymore, now it is getting into years - who have been without work for years, and they have no sense of hope. This government has destroyed their sense of hope. There is no hope for the future.

It is sad to say that when you drive around rural Newfoundland now and go back to my district of St. Mary's - The Capes and look at people who have been distraught because of the fishery crisis, you look for some type of positive attitude, but they cannot look to this government. You, on that side of the House, should be ashamed of yourselves for what you have done to this Province over the past six years.

I say to the Member for Eagle River that you should be ashamed to be standing up supporting the policies of this government for what they are doing to rural Newfoundland when you come from a rural area like Labrador.

I had an opportunity to visit Labrador a couple of times over the past six months, and I say to the Member for Eagle River, I was in his district and they are not all too friendly with the Member for Eagle River.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the minister of safety on our highways, you get up and, as they would say at home, you go bragging about the money you are spending on the roads in this Province, and without the Roads for Rail Agreement, what you are spending, you would spend on a good weekend, thanks to John Crosbie, I say to the Member for Port de Grave.

To get back to my few comments on how this government has performed over the past six years, I would say, very poorly, in my estimation, and I am sure, in the estimation of many people in this Province, for the simple fact that they have destroyed a feeling of hope. It is not easy to understand why a government would do that. Then we have to ask ourselves - and maybe some members opposite will ask: Well, how do you stand up in the House and say that this government has destroyed the feeling of hope or the feeling of desire in this Province? It is very simple when you look over there and you look at some of the things this government has been a part of, whether it is with the Federal Government, or on their own standing as a Provincial Government.

Look at the municipalities in this Province. I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, in all fairness, that there has been a fair amount of downloading, even though not from his department, from the Department of Works, Services and Transportation and other departments in government, a sense of downloading on municipalities in this Province, municipalities that have been struggling for years, that are finding it very difficult now under the present fisheries crisis to have a tax base in their communities. And the downloading that is continuing from the different departments of government on to these municipalities is making it very difficult even to find people who even want to serve on councils anymore, who want to be part of the decision-making process anymore due to the problems in trying to collect taxes because of the economic situation.

I have several problems in my own district that I have addressed to the minister, and we are trying to work some things out. These are happening because municipalities just don't have the tax base anymore, the tax structure in place, to try to keep supplying the street lights and the garbage collection, the roads, the water, whatever the case may be. It is very difficult, under extreme circumstances, to do this.

We sit here and watch a government stay idle and refuse to speak when cuts to transfer payments from the Federal Government are affecting every man, woman and child in this Province. It is just not fair that we have people who are elected to represent the people of this Province, of whatever stripe the government in Ottawa may be at the time, who are refusing to stand up and speak out on this very important issue that we find ourselves in.

We have the government making drastic cuts to Adult Basic Education. We have an argument back and forth of what the cuts are, what the numbers are, whatever the case may be, but there is a cutback in the funding and therefore a cutback in the opportunity for people to further their education. We have a lot of people who, back years ago, through no fault of their own, left school to go work in the fish plant, or go working in the fishing boats with their fathers, and did not get to finish their high school education. Now, through Adult Basic Education they would have a chance to go back and do this training, and there is some training going on, and I agree with the Minister of Education and Training when he says there is some degree of training going on within the Province, out in private institutions and private schools through the TAGS program or whatever, but what about those people who are not part of the TAGS program? What about those people who are not part of any HRD funded program, or any program that is funded by the Provincial Government, who are trying to further their education through Adult Basic Education? Those people are finding themselves out in the cold, and I think this is where government should address this very important concern.

I brought forward a petition today on behalf of people in my district who are looking for work, but not so much work as training with work, and giving them the opportunity so that we don't have to be coming back here every year bringing forward some type of program which everybody thinks is to provide insurable weeks so people can get on unemployment. That is not what people are looking for. They are looking for an opportunity to work and to have a fair amount of dignity in getting up in the morning and going to work, and partaking of some training that would enhance their capabilities to find positive employment.

We have a government here which sits idly by and doesn't want to shout or - take the issue of the Newfoundland Dockyard, Mr. Speaker. These concerns are being brought forward every day by the Member for Kilbride and the Leader of the Opposition. Not only the Newfoundland Dockyard and the 850 people who were employed, but indeed all of Newfoundland and Labrador, which sees this as another cutback by the Federal Government, another kick in the teeth to the people of this Province. I say that the Provincial Government should be loud and clear on their decision that under no condition is the Newfoundland Dockyard to close, and bring it forward.

We have changes and cuts to the UI program, hundreds of millions of dollars taken out of the UI program each year for the past couple of years, that is creating major problems for this Province, and indeed problems for the people in St. Mary's - The Capes who have been using the unemployment insurance program to help them get through the winter months with the seasonal employment that we have in relation to our fishery or construction or whatever the case may be.

We have rural communities that are seeking assistance for the future and all they receive is silence from the Minister of ITT or the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. This is why concerns have been brought forward by the members on this side of the House, trying to enlighten the members opposite on what is happening out in rural Newfoundland. The list could go on and on. I see that the people of the Province are concerned because really there is a loss of hope.

How could I stand here today and forget the Economic Recovery Commission. How can I stand here today and say a few words without making a comment on the Economic Recovery Commission and the Strategic Economic Plan, when the only real jobs, I would say, that the Economic Recovery Commission has created in this Province is their own. There is no doubt, I say to the members opposite, and indeed to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, that the chairperson of the Economic Recovery Commission, Dr. Doug House, is still in a state of recovery.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, who is it? He would have to ask, I say, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation may not be even aware who is the chairman of the Economic Recovery Commission. But I say he is still in a state of recovery, Dr. House, even though he has had a good many years now to try to find some answers and some route that this Province could take in trying to find some economic recovery. He still is in a state of recovery.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) straw house.

MR. MANNING: Between straw house now and rocks and a few other things that the chairperson of the Economic Recovery Commission has come forward with, I'm sure that Newfoundland will be on the road to recovery - not soon enough for me, I say to the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, to have confidence or hope or vision in this government is nothing short of a joke, I say to the members opposite. It is sad to look around this Province now and we see young people who have been forced to leave, young people who have no opportunity to find work in the Province, and due to the increase in tuition fees at the University, many of our young people will not even have the opportunity to go to school. I know in rural parts of the Province where people have been struggling for years to try to educate their children through dollars they have made in the fishing industry, that over the next couple of years they are going to find it very difficult to send their children to school.

I talked to a man the other day in my district whose daughter is in second year university, I believe, and he tells me now it is about $14,000 he has invested in her education so far. She is entering her third year of university in September and she can't get into a faculty. He is very concerned about that, and the fact that these thousands of dollars now - and what is happening because of the policies of this government is that the only people who will be able to get a fair education in this Province will be the elite, I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. The people who are out in rural Newfoundland will not have an opportunity to partake in this education effort.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Eagle River, your time is coming. Ours will be like a little kid's birthday party compared to what it is going to be on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

Everybody is speculating on who is going to be the new leader on that side of the House once the Premier steps down, because everybody knows that the Premier is on the way out. I look around, and I will just give my - since several members on this side of the House have thrown out a few hopefuls or synopses of who will be the leader of the Liberal Party, I look over on the other side of the House, and I ask myself: Would it be the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation?

To tell you the truth, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was a very popular fellow a few years ago, out in my district along with everywhere else, but due to the fact that he has been silenced by the Premier, Mr. Speaker, his popularity has taken a nose dive. It would be only wasting his dollars, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to try to take on for the leadership for the party opposite.

I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, there is a possibility he may be third, yes.

MR. TOBIN: Third to finish or third to declare it?

MR. MANNING: Third to finish, Mr. Speaker, he will never be winner, guaranteed he will only be the third to finish.

Number two, I say to members opposite, could be the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, could be. He has major contacts across the Province. He may be able to reel those people in and present them. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs I would say, would be a major contender, that is if he has the guts to run, Mr. Speaker, now that is another thing that we have to think about.

MR. EFFORD: Will the hon. member permit a question?

MR. MANNING: No, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't permit a question from the members opposite under any conditions. I say the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs may have an opportunity to be second if, like I said, he throws his hat in the ring. But I would say the top contender is off with the flu. The top contender for the job on that side now is off with the flu for the past couple of days and that is the Minister of ITT. The Minister of ITT is top contender.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island.

MR. MANNING: No, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island has as good a shot at it as I have. I would say to members opposite, the Minister of ITT is going to be a top contender for the job opposite and we will certainly look forward to the very heated campaign that is going to come from that side, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make a comment -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Fogo.

MR. MANNING: No, the Member for Fogo will support the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

It is going to be a very interesting race, Mr. Speaker, but if I could get back to what I was talking about in relation to no confidence in the government. A few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, we had some members opposite who were very upset, former ministers who were very upset and for some reason or other, the Premier managed to correct that mistake that he saw. I quote the words of John Morley when I say, `You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.' I say to the minister opposite, you have not converted a man because you have silenced him. So I look forward to the next few weeks.

I say to the members opposite, we have many people in this Province now, young people who are looking for opportunities to try to find work, Mr. Speaker, and this government doesn't give them an opportunity. In the youth program funding for this year we are going to see a cutback of almost $3 million. Where there should be an opportunity for youth to find work, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity for youth to get much needed funds that they need to further their education, whether it be through adult basic education, whether it be through university or some post-secondary institution, we are seeing program funding this year cut by over $3 million.

Everywhere we go, we can see cuts, cuts, cuts by this government and the cuts that the Federal Government - the part that bothers me most, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that when the Federal Government brings down its long arm, this government stands up and says, `Good job, boys, you've done a fine job; keep it up.' Keep cutting, cut us to the bone, Mr. Speaker, cut the opportunities for the people in Province to further their education, cut the opportunities for the people in this Province to get a hospital bed, cut the opportunity for the people of this Province to live in rural Newfoundland, cut the opportunities for the people in this Province to at least have a bit of hope, a bit of desire that they can live and work in rural Newfoundland, or any part of Newfoundland, for that matter. Cut the hope of the 850 people who worked at the Dockyard here in St. John's. Continue to cut. But the cut will come, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier calls the next election.

The cut will come, Mr. Speaker, and the Member for Eagle River can stand up and call down the Tory Government, call down the former Tory Government. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation can get up and say what he likes about the former Tory government but the dollars that he spends on roads in this Province, Mr. Speaker, under the Roads for Rail Agreement come from the former Tory government.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that without the federal agreement, Roads for Rail, that the former Tory government brought in, what money you are spending on roads in this Province, you would only be able to spend it on a good weekend, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, a good weekend. You are spending nothing on the roads of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I only have a couple of minutes left so I would like to finish up with a remark, really, that I started off with, and that is the basic reason that in the past six years the real change promised by this government has resulted in 18,531 people leaving this Province. We have a net loss of 18,531 people in this Province over the past six years, and is that what real change is all about? Does this government think that is what the people of this Province voted for in 1989 when they voted for real change? Every day I can drive around communities in my district and I can see young people who have to pack up and leave, and travel to B.C. or travel to Alberta, wherever the case may be, to find an opportunity to go to work, and members of my own family who had no choice but to pack up and move on.

I talked to my sister in Port Coquitlam yesterday, and I talked to other people from the district who have a desire to be home, working and living in rural Newfoundland, or any part of Newfoundland I should say, but they do not have that hope because of the attitude of this government. That is a sad commentary on this Province when we have almost 20,000 people in six years who have had to bail out of this Province to find an opportunity to go to work. I think it is sad. Those are not numbers that have come out of my head. Those are numbers from Statistics Canada that can be verified to any member on the other side of the House.

The thought of bringing every mother's son home, the thought of standing up in 1989, the Premier of this Province - or who wanted to be Premier of the Province at the time - and telling us he was going to bring every mother's son home, the mothers themselves have had to leave, and that is sad. It is very sad when the mothers themselves, let alone the mother's sons, the mothers themselves have to leave.

I finish up my comments with a quote from a former member of this House, and it is very interesting: All is well that ends Wells.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to speak to the non-confidence motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, and to say that the challenges that we face as a Province and as a people over the next ten years will be great, as all members know, as all members will realize. Challenges to the economy, the challenge of the creation of jobs, which truly is the best social safety net - a job - a job that will provide for one's family, for one's future, for one's children.

The challenges in the fishery are immense. There was some hope recently in terms of the northern cod stock, but it is only a glimmer of hope, but the challenges that we face socially as a people as a result of the downsizing and complete collapse of the Northern cod stock have yet to be felt.

In the next year-and-a-half when the federal government cuts back further, and scales back further on its funding, on its commitment through the TAGS program, people who traditionally depended upon the inshore fishery, traditionally depended upon working throughout the plant sector and the offshore fishery, but those people who have come to depend upon either TAGS, recently TAGS that have been announced, as the only way of life, the only means of support, the only economic and the only financial resources that they have, much reduced compared to what they are used to, but when that, a year-and-a-half or two years from now, runs out, what will we be left with? Will this federal government come to the table again for the 25,000 or 30,000 people? Indications are that they will not. The TAGS program is above budget now, but what will be the social consequences that this Province will face as a result? That is the most serious question that we face. The challenge and the question posed, and how we respond to it, is a question that we have yet to answer.

The government to date has failed, really, in this respect. What are the plans that they have made in terms of adjusting the social plan, as they call it, that was supposed to accompany the economic plan. We have not seen it. There has been little discussion on it, and I think that it is a topic that deserves more discussion by all members in this House.

Mr. Speaker, also when we talk about the creation of jobs in this Province, let's be honest about it. Since 1989 there have been few jobs created in this Province. The movement recently in terms of the EDGE legislation, while we support, is a long time coming, but where did the EDGE legislation come from? That is the question I must ask. I don't know if the Member for St. John's East Extern has a copy of it there or not.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not right now, no.

MR. E. BYRNE: But where did the EDGE legislation come from?

People said that the Premier had come up with this fantastic idea of travelling back from Ottawa somewhere, but recently in a magazine, a business magazine out of the States, EDGE legislation introduced in Indiana - a huge article in 1994 about Indiana has given the people of Indiana the edge with new EDGE legislation, mirrored exactly.

I only wanted to allude to that as a point. What I really wanted to get at is that in a recent address the Premier has said that the legislation brought in by this government dealing with EDGE has created 300 to 400 jobs. I challenge the government today to demonstrate where those 300 or 400 jobs have been created. Has the EDGE legislation truly created 300 or 400 jobs? Does it have the capability of creating 300 or 400 jobs? The reality is this, that while this government has been concerned with the creation of jobs it has not been concerned with the maintenance of jobs already existing in this Province.

The federal government over the last two years, since it was elected, has down loaded on this Province at a time when we were most in need. At a time when mainly because of the complete closure of the inshore and offshore fisheries, the groundfish fishery, the federal government has picked this point in time to kick this Province the hardest. When we have been most in need we have not received the help that we deserved. This provincial government, while it does not have the direct responsibility for what the federal government has, it does have a responsibility to stand up and fight for the people of this Province.

Let's talk about the Newfoundland Dockyard for a moment. Yesterday in the House - I was absent, I had a family matter to tend to - but the Leader of the Opposition asked a question in the House dealing with the Newfoundland Dockyard. I believe the Premier's response was that the federal government - oh, here. It says:

"The federal government obviously has a responsibility to treat all provinces fairly. It cannot create a preferential position for one province over another unless something unusual justifies it, like, for example, the mismanagement of the fishery by the federal government has impacted in the way it has in Newfoundland and Labrador that gives them a special responsibility to deal with the issue on a different basis, but if you have an older dockyard operating here, an older dockyard in Halifax, an older dockyard in Quebec City, and an older dockyard in Vancouver, how can we - now this is the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, let's keep this in mind, who was elected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - justify saying:...but give Newfoundland and Labrador special treatment. We can't do that, and I wouldn't ask them to do it."

This Premier has asked very little from this federal government. The reality with the Newfoundland Dockyard and the several hundred jobs that exist there is this. For the past seven years Marine Atlantic has had in its own hidden agenda a mandate to close the Newfoundland Dockyard. They have failed to put existing money or new money into the Dockyard to recapitalize it and bit by bit, day by day, year by year, what has happened? It has eroded to the point right now where Marine Atlantic and the federal government, through the federal Minister of Transport Doug Young, has said: It would cost too much now.

It wouldn't have cost too much five years ago or seven years ago if they had put in a reinvestment and capitalization plan. But they haven't. They have mismanaged it. That is the point that must be made here. They have mismanaged the Newfoundland Dockyard. This government must stand up to it. It has a responsibility to stand up for the several hundred workers there. It has no other choice but to stand up for it. To say that as Premier: "but give Newfoundland and Labrador special treatment in this issue? We can't do that, and I wouldn't ask them to do it," is unacceptable to me as a member of this House and it is unacceptable to the people who work and live and survive at the Newfoundland Dockyard.

There is another advantage that this government has in terms of leverage with the Newfoundland Dockyard. IN 1984 the provincial government of the day invested $10 million into the Dockyard by putting in the synchrolift. A significant amount of money. The arrangement at the time - looking at some of the old Cabinet papers - was that the money was put in at an interest rate of 16.8 per cent, and that it would be paid back annually each and every year from profits. There were no profits. That was one of the problems, there were no profits. But the reality exists today that this government, the people of this Province, have a $10 million investment that the federal government cannot walk away from without this government saying: Where is our $10 million?

That is a lot of leverage. That is a huge amount of leverage. Now there may be a legal case, quite possibly, and the government must look at its own options.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I will deal with that in a second I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

As we just said the Province here has a $10 million investment, at least $10 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you are talking about $14 million.

MR. E. BYRNE: How is it $14 million? If you were to take 16.5 per cent in 1984 on top of the $10 million that was invested and accrue that up until this point in time you would end up with a lot more than $14 million. You would end up with close to $33 or $34 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am sure it was not $10 million.

MR. J. BYRNE: Then what was it? I would say you are looking at, over eleven years at 16.8 per cent on $8 million you are probably talking about $29 to $30 million, if you are compounding 6.8 per cent interest up to that point in time.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a lower interest rate then.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it wasn't. According to the Cabinet papers of the day that I saw the negotiating rate was 16.8 per cent. There are former Cabinet ministers on this side. The hon. Member for Mount Pearl, the hon. Member for Grand Bank, the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West, and the hon. Leader of the Opposition, are all former Cabinet members, so we do have a bigger investment, you are right.

Now, the question I raised this morning, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, up until this morning at 9:00 o'clock or 9:30, Marine Atlantic had still not given a letter to the dockyard to say, go ahead and get that work. It is unacceptable. My understanding is that there has not even been a response let alone, well, we will get it to you. They have not even responded to the information sent up. What time is the meeting on Monday?

AN HON. MEMBER: 11:30 o'clock.

MR. E. BYRNE: If the dockyard does not respond by Monday at 5:00, I believe, they are going to lose that contract. That is why I asked this morning, because I thought it was important for you to do whatever is necessary to get that letter from Marine Atlantic. Overall, the point that must be made here is that the federal government, through Marine Atlantic, has mismanaged the dockyard as it has mismanaged the fishery. The federal government has a responsibility to invest in it. They have a responsibility to come to the table with something. That is the reality of it.

Mr. Speaker, what else are we looking at over the next five or ten years? We see that all of us as elected members of the house are going to have to sit down and take a serious look at the type of Province we are going to see. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation at one time administering a huge department is now looking at cutbacks, and has looked at cutbacks, has had to deal with cutbacks over the last two years and is going to have to deal with more significant ones over the next couple of years.

It is pretty serious when you can only announce this year an $8 million program for road construction which only will pave about eight kilometres of road in a Province that will take you twelve hours to drive across. That is all that is left. That is what he has in his Budget.

MR. EFFORD: $70 million.

MR. E. BYRNE: How much provincial money was announced this year, minister? You know full well what you have.

MR. EFFORD: $18 million.

MR. E. BYRNE: Even that is misleading. How much of that was taken up? There was $1 million for signs, there was a $5 million commitment.

MR. EFFORD: We do not need signs.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is not what I am saying. I am talking about paving the roads.

MR. EFFORD: You do not know what you are saying.

MR. E. BYRNE: I do know what I am saying. He has $8 million this year and he knows it. That is all he has.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)

MR. E. BYRNE: There is nothing in Tory districts. The reality is this, that as a people and as a government we are facing further and further cutbacks, so how are we going to deal with it? They have taken it on the chin. The only minister that I have heard who stood up to Doug Young at federal transport was you. I understand, minister, that you told the federal minister exactly what you thought of him. Isn't that correct?

MR. EFFORD: That's correct.

MR. E. BYRNE: And what was his response to you?

MR. EFFORD: Pardon?

MR. E. BYRNE: What was his response to you?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He what? Based upon your presentation? Maybe you should be the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Maybe the dockyard would be saved by now if that was the case.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: He would make a better effort.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, he would make a better effort, good point. Mr. Speaker, what is really interesting that has come to this House in the last couple of days is Bill No. 20.

AN HON. MEMBER: What that about now?

MR. E. BYRNE: There are a few people on the other side who know what it is all about I can tell you. They are just waiting, waiting in anticipation of what is yet to be, what they hope to be and I am going to predict today that, when this session closes for the spring next week, that when the Premier of the Province leaves this room, he will not sit back in this room as Premier of the Province. He may come back as visiting, he may come in as a Chief Judge, he could come back as something as a visitor -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: How much do I want to bet? I am not usually a betting man either but I offer my opinion for what it's worth, obviously not very much.

Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs' comments about my comments. I can tell you that for the last nine weeks there have been no serious talks on negotiations about the sale of the dockyard with the only bidder, and if he doesn't know that, he should know it, and what was said on CBC yesterday was only this: that the IOSG group were still interested in buying the dockyard. They didn't say that negotiations didn't break off, they didn't say that they hadn't talked to anybody in the last nine weeks, they failed to say that, it was a word play, Mr. Speaker, that's all it was.

The information that I have dealing with the dockyard, is as credible and as current and as fresh and as good as any information that either of the ministers or the Premier has! I can assure the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs of that and that's all that was said yesterday, all that was said yesterday on CBC, was that a particular group at a particular time was still interested in buying the dockyard. On terms of the sale of negotiation with what is happening right now, once that group didn't pre-qualify for the supply base, the discussions went under the table, kaput. That is exactly what happened. I can assure him of that.

Anyway, now that I have dealt with that, I would like to move on; I don't have a lot of time left.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now that the facts are known.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now that the facts are known.

MR. E. BYRNE: Set the record straight.

But in terms of the federal government, Mr. Speaker, maybe this government is doing a lot to stand up to the federal government. Maybe they are in their own way; in their own way telling Brian Tobin, saying to John Chretién, saying to Lloyd Axworthy, saying to Doug Young what you are doing is unacceptable, but if they are, and if they have done that, if they have, they haven't told anybody about it; nobody is aware of it only themselves. I mean, at some point in time, you must draw a line and say that we cannot cross that.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: When is it here, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, when is it here?

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: When is it here? When is that time?

MR. MURPHY: You will know.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will know. Will you tell me?

MR. MURPHY: You will know.

MR. E. BYRNE: Will you tell me when it's too late?

MR. MURPHY: You will know, you can be assured.

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that right? We are at the eleventh hour, right now in terms of the -

MR. MURPHY: We have been at the eleventh hour, seven years since I have (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, seven years work has not produced much, I say to the minister.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible) shoot off your face, you think (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that right?

MR. REID: (Inaudible) shoot off your face (inaudible). Go to work boy (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs just told me to go to work and make a living for a change. Now can you imagine? Can you imagine the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations telling me to go through the gates as many times as he has and I will know what we are talking about. He has been the lone ranger on the dockyard for seven years, working to do whatever he can for it, and I believe that, but, what has it produced, I asked the minister? What has it produced?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is my point. That is my point exactly. That is the point I have been making for the last week-and-a-half in this House; what has been produced? Nothing has been produced; that is the point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: This time last year I stood up and asked questions in the House dealing with the dockyard and why -

AN HON. MEMBER: Asking questions does nothing to save the dockyard.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, what does? I ask the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What about representations to the now federal Transport Minister? What about representations right now to Doug Young?

In the last ten days I have made fifteen calls to Doug Young's office requesting a meeting, and he will not even phone me back. I have been after Mr. Tobin's office for the last week-and-a-half, our federal minister, to meet with me on the Newfoundland Dockyard, haven't got a date yet. It is hard to make representation, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, when the people you want to make representations to will not even meet with you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well perhaps the member should know how tough it was to get a meeting with Mr. Crosbie.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have no idea. I wasn't elected in this House when Mr. Crosbie was the federal minister. I have no idea. What I am asking the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations right now is: Will the minister, Doug Young, put money into the dockyard as former minister Crosbie did? Will this government put money into the dockyard as the former government did? That is the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will see.

MR. E. BYRNE: We will see; I hope. If by some chance, and I think the dockyard has a long future and has some hope, but if the federal government comes to the table with some money, and if the provincial government were instrumental in making that happen, I will be the first member to stand up and congratulate the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and that government, the very first. That is a fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) getting on with political innuendos (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What type of political innuendo have I gotten on with? I ask the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, let me ask you a question. What innuendo are you referring to?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am asking questions. That is what I am here for. That is what I was elected to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are not into Question Period now; we are into the Budget debate, so I would ask the hon. member to continue with his comments.

MR. E. BYRNE: I apologize to the House. I asked the minister a question; I just wanted to make a point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the reality of what the minister is talking about, political innuendo, he should talk to his own federal cousins. The St. John's West MP stood up at a public meeting and said she was the only friend that the Newfoundland Dockyard had in the Federal House of Commons. Now, when the MP for St. John's West says that, what does that leave the management, the trades council at the dockyard, to believe? What does it say to them, I ask the minister? It says that the federal minister doesn't give two hoots about the dockyard. The St. John's East MP -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) working hard.

MR. E. BYRNE: I never said that they weren't working very hard. All I said is exactly what the St. John's - I repeated what the MP for St. John's West said, that she was the only friend in Ottawa that the dockyard had, of all the seven MPs that this Province elected. That is exactly what she said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It is pretty difficult.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: You are absolutely right, but I can repeat what was said at a public meeting. If you said something today to me in the Legislature, and it is recorded in Hansard, I can get up and read it and repeat it; that is part of the public record.

The reality is, as all members know, and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations knows, that the dockyard has been mismanaged from the federal government's point of view, not from the management here point of view, that they have failed to give the Newfoundland Dockyard the tools that are required. So we will wait to see what Monday brings. They are meeting at 11:30 a.m., and I hope, and I will say it for the record, that what comes out of that meeting is positive, and I hope that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, who I know is a friend and who has worked very hard for the people of the dockyard, and they know it too - they have told me - and I know that he has the interests of the Dockyard at heart. I'm not trying to tear strips off him because I understand the position that he is in. It is a difficult one. If roles were reversed I would say that the same debate may have taken place.

The reality is that after Monday - maybe you have a line in mind that you can't discuss with me or with the public at this time that will not be crossed. I hope that when that time comes you as the minister and your government say: Enough is enough, here is where we are going to be. I think that is all the people at the Dockyard are looking for, waiting for, and that is what the people in the House and the people of this Province are waiting for.

Mr. Speaker, with that I will conclude my remarks on this part of the debate. Thank you very much.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I support the non-confidence motion that was put forward here last week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

If hon. members wish to carry on conversation they will have to do it outside the Chamber. The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Placentia. Other members wishing to engage in conversation will have to do so outside the House.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What a ruling on a very unruly bunch. As I said earlier, I do support the non-confidence motion that was introduced here last week.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: It is not passed. You will be passed. It will be like the feast of the `Passover' that was put on some of those Liberals last summer when others got in Cabinet. The feast of the `Passover.' The Member for Eagle River went close but he didn't score a goal. Now he is over, he is weaving around this Bill No. 20. We are going to see now, they are gathering like buzzards, and the Member for Eagle River is trying to exercise the little bit of knowledge he gained since coming in here by going to all corners. Many meetings. He is trying to decide(???) who might be the winner.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Oh yes. Puppy dogs and crackies. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the non-confidence that was put forward here, I certainly agree with it. Because over this past six years - their campaign in 1989 was a real change. We've seen changes, we've seen wholesale changes. We've seen litanies of broken dreams and broken promises. We've seen hospital beds close by the hundreds. We've seen so many drastic changes to education. Why, even only a short while ago money has been taken out of the ABE program. We've seen changes in forestry. Newfoundlanders are going to have to work Newfoundland forestry out of New Brunswick.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Remotely. We've seen what the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has done with the suspension of vehicle inspections and vehicles that don't have to be inspected now that are on our roads. We've seen what the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is about to do with the safety of our highways. The wing men being dropped off the snow ploughs in the wintertime; maintenance mechanics about to be let go. Where is the safety? All they are interested in is cutbacks. No thought is given to what repercussions these cutbacks are going to have.

Don't they know, Mr. Speaker, that every action has a reaction. But they are going to get their reaction on June 27 on a non-confidence motion in Grand Falls. The last non-confidence motion they met they met in Placentia in spades in February 1994. There were so many Liberals out campaigning in Placentia in February 1994 they were tripping over each other. Same as I see here today with the introduction of Bill No. 20. They are still tripping over each other. When the Premier goes who are they going to be on side with.

An inept government, a government without conscience, a government that doesn't even fight with Ottawa for what Ottawa is taking away from the people of this Province. Their cousins, alright. I remember past governments in this Province before this had fallen out with their political cousins in Ottawa when something was affecting the people of this Province. What is wrong with the government now? It is all yes, yes, yes. In the next two years there is going to be some $250 million cut from social services, education and health from the federal government in transfer payments to this Province. How are we going to absorb it?

No plans are being made, nobody fighting. Nobody stood up and fought for Marystown. They never fought for Marystown. Premier Smallwood would have fought for Marystown and Premier Peckford would have declared war. That is the difference. You have one minister over there and that is the Premier. You have the Premier and you are all `yes.' You are not yes men. When the Premier says no, you say no. You say "no" to whatever he says, you say "yes" to whatever he wants you to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I heard the Member for Windsor - Buchans was speaking and he found his intestinal fortitude when he was bounced out of Cabinet. You speak now, why didn't you speak when you were in Cabinet? Too late for you to speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Listen, if you fight for something and you lose, at least you can be remembered as someone who fought. The dry dock in St. John's is another case. The Doug Youngs and The Rod Morrisons sweeping down through us and all you are saying is "yes." They must be right, because they have a certain status. Hibernia people, they must be right because they are up here. Put on a pinnacle by some people in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: The ones who are getting railroaded now are the people of this Province by an inept people, never -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: People are being screwed out of their education, screwed out of health care, and screwed out of everything else. Mr. Speaker, with apologies to the late Winston Churchill, never before in the history of this Province have so many people been screwed by so few.

AN HON. MEMBER: Winston Churchill (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: He did it. We should do it. We should stand up to the crowd in Ottawa that is causing wreck and havoc in this Province and saying: Yes, `Uncle Ottawa.'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: It was Steinbeck who said that, I say to the Member for St. John's East. He said it about the Okies.

We see another bill introduced into this House, Bill No. 5, an amendment to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, where municipalities now can say no to government off loading onto them. It is going to go to municipalities now, it is going to down load them, and it is going to arbitrarily tell municipalities now that are in trouble: Here, you do the road; and here, you will have to pay for it.

Massive unemployment problems out in this Province, municipalities are in trouble and they are going to make matters worse. Is that a conscience of a government? No.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: My heart was lighter then, too, I say to the minister. It is only my head that is lighter now.

We have seen, over this past while too, Trans City. Is that reason to give confidence to this government? No. We see what is going to go on now. What is happening, another erosion in transportation in this Province is what has happened to the road cruiser services. If you look at a pattern that was done years ago, the back room boys and CN are doing the same thing they did with the railroad, being aided and abetted by the government of this Province. What you will see is a road cruiser service gone from this Province, replaced by what I do not know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Well, there is a firm out of Nova Scotia that would like to get their hands in on this Province, and who is it going to be to the benefit of? More than likely the company from Nova Scotia, not to the travelling public of this Province.

When the road cruiser services raise prices to where people will not travel, and then they can turn around and say that people are not travelling. They can put it on paper because paper never, ever refuses ink. They can make the end justify the means by the patterns they have followed over the years to get rid of a service. We see what the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has done to the South Coast, or should I rephrase it and say the monster of Works, Services and Transportation?

Voisey Bay is an interesting concept. I said here two weeks ago, before it became popular with some members here, that if it is not done to the benefit of the people of this Province it should stay in the ground. How much thought is given to Voisey Bay and the other things that can be done there? Eventually when they mine the copper, will we have firms up in Goose Bay manufacturing copper wire, copper pipe, or will that be done elsewhere? Will we look forward to a third mill in this Province? Not like the Smallwood government had years ago, big ships going into Goose Bay that could only half load - another Liberal regime. Voisey Bay, Goose Bay to Labrador, can be done for the benefit of the people of this Province, but this government has done nothing to instill hope in anybody.

We see the zones that they are about to put in place in this Province, and provisional boards, and the way some of these zones have been drawn up. Someone said the Premier did it a number of years ago over a kitchen table, mapped out the zones in this Province. Well, the latest zones they came out with, they have Merasheen Island and Red Island together with Bonavista Bay. I say that someone took a map of Newfoundland and spilled a gallon of paint over it; that is the way I see it where the boundaries run.

We see what the economic recovery team is doing, ERC.

AN HON. MEMBER: It irks you, doesn't it?

MR. CAREEN: It certainly irks. We have heard from the jerk from ERC.

What are they doing over there with fancy computers, chalk boards, pens - neither one of them ever got a bit of dirt under their fingernails - all academics. They are talking about an economic recovery team, and what do they have hid in it? Not a business person, not a community-minded development person, a person on a sociology department at Memorial University.

MR. EFFORD: One thing (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: What are you talking about? Oh, so what are you, a patron saint of what today? What are you trying to get across that you are holier than thou? Are you? We have holy roads now, not fit to drive over.

MR. EFFORD: They must be in Tory districts.

MR. CAREEN: No, they are in other districts, sir, because you don't care. It takes people a long time to wake up but they have certainly woken up to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation when they have to travel the highways of this Province and vehicles are not fit to be on it are on it, because of you.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) on it.

MR. CAREEN: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: You haven't woken up yet, but you will wake up the next provincial election; you will wake up when you have your leadership review when you will find out that you are going to come in, whatever it is, you are going to be last whether it is out of five or six or two.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is going to come last, is he?

MR. CAREEN: He is last, he is finished, he is out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Well, he came in second. I say that's part of what the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is going to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even if he was the only candidate he would come second.

MR. CAREEN: Yes. If he were the only candidate, those people could vote for him but people in all good conscience couldn't vote for him, but you see the non-confidence motion that was visited on this government in February of ' 94, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation had been out there too in Placentia district; I never told you before but he was going around knocking on doors in Southern Harbour, trying to convince them and the first time since 1949, they went wholesale PC, was after the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation had visited them there. I wish he would get to more places in this Province that will really turn the people off. The only chance they have sir, is keeping you in here somewhere, keep you locked up here in St. John's or Port de Grave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Grand Falls.

MR. CAREEN: Yes. He can get lost here in St. John's. The minister was lost down in Bonavista Bay so there is no reason why he can't be lost here in St. John's. What are they to do now when they balance the Budget, a forced balance? The minister is taking off $55 million they had for the South Coast service, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation promised the people on the South Coast, that that money would be put in a separate fund.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: He said it; he said it would be in a separate fund, what's the term he used? It would generate its own funds in perpetuity; forever -

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. CAREEN: He never said it?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. CAREEN: Oh, so you only believe your own press, do you? Okay, that's what you have. They only believe their own press. He said it and you took that fund - there are $5 million left to come - $50 million have been - $31 million spent last year - and $19 million this year to force a balance, part of the balance of current account?

AN HON. MEMBER: So-called.

MR. CAREEN: So-called. No wonder the finance minister was upset about what came out of mainland Canada yesterday about the growth, the potential. You can't have forced Budgets because it will come back to haunt you in a month or two or a year, but we see what is happening now that it is reoccurring faster than even the minister anticipated.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has a good memory too.

MR. CAREEN: Memory? Oh yes and the minister's memory leaves a lot to be desired as we have witnessed since last fall.

Anyway, Trans City, hospital beds, education, social services, jobs, safety on our highways, hope for our young ones - none, no hope.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CAREEN: You do not call them young ones, I gather. I say a lot of stuff that is not politically correct. I do not go around looking for what is politically correct. Whatever I find is right by me, I say. Right is right and wrong is no man's right.

If ever confidence was shaken in a people, if ever a government is on a track to put itself out into the wilderness they are on the right track. The Premier led them in out off the wilderness after seventeen years, blindly trying to find a way back, and before he leaves he is going to deliver them back into the wilderness, and is going to take their compasses. I say to members opposite that if they learned the story of Hansel and Gretel they had better put some bread crumbs in their pocket to find their way back.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it is good to have an opportunity to speak on a motion of non-confidence in this House. Since I have been here in 1990 it is the first time the Opposition has brought forth a motion of non-confidence in the government. I do know if that is because it had great confidence before.

MR. RAMSAY: They did two or three years ago.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for LaPoile corrects me. He suggests there was two or three years ago. It must not have been given a lot of attention because it does not stick in my mind, but I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on such a motion. In fact in preparing for my speech I had to consider whether I would amend the motion to include the Opposition as well, because as the Leader of the New Democratic Party I cannot express confidence in the government or the Opposition.

In fact, in preparation for my remarks I was noticing in Wednesday's paper a headline on Page 11 which says, `PCs may teach children wrong lessons.' I had to read well into the article to realize they were talking about computers. I thought they were talking about the PC party, and I was looking in the article for support for my arguments against both the government and the official opposition.

On a serious note the real question put forth by this motion is whether or not there is confidence in this government and the ability of this government to handle the affairs of the people of this Province. I have to say that there is no question that this government has mishandled so many issues, ignored so many priorities, and failed to properly deal with the real issues of the people of this Province, so that no member can seriously have confidence in what this government is doing.

Do we have confidence in how this government is handling health care? Are we satisfied as to how this government is handling the social assistance needs of the people of this Province, by maintaining outrageously low social assistance rates and trying to solve the problems by hiring welfare cops, increasing their numbers again and again in an effort to harass people who are forced to be on social assistance? Do we have confidence in this government's approach to mining tax regulations?

When they came into this House last December with a piece of legislation that gave an across the board income tax break on corporate income tax to all future mining operations in the Province without even thinking of its consequences for the Voisey Bay bonanza, which was known at that time, the discovery having been made in October or November, the Vancouver Stock Exchange going wild at the time on Diamond Field Resources stock. Yet, even though it was raised in the House by this hon. member as part of a speech, no one made any reference to making sure the act protected the people of this Province from giving away its tax opportunities in the manner that the bill that went before the House did.

The Official Opposition in here, one has to say that the comments of the Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday that they will be vigilant - vigilant - when the government brings in some amendments to this bill, the Opposition is going to be vigilant to make sure that the people of this Province are protected, and I say, yes, just like they were vigilant last December when the bill was brought in and the Member for Burin - Placentia West got up and said, `I support the bill.' The Member for Menihek got up and said, `I support the bill; we should do more to give tax breaks to mining companies.' The Member for Baie Verte - White Bay got up and said, `I support the bill. We need more tax giveaways to mining corporations'. That was the position of the Official Opposition when the government was saying we are not going to tax mining companies for ten years on income tax. Do we have confidence that this government has a sense of propriety when it comes to making sure that everyone pays a fair share of the tax burden? No.

Unemployment - this government pays lip service to the employment needs of the people of this Province, and under the leadership of the Premier says: Let's just wait; we will put in our Strategic Economic Plan and we will wait. We will put in our EDGE legislation and we will wait. Let other people create the jobs. Let all of that happen by some process that we hope for, that somebody will see that they can come here and make enough money so that they can perhaps hire a few people along the way.

There is a complacency about the unemployment rate in this Province. We don't see this government have the compassion for the people who are unemployed, and they certainly have no passion in fighting for their needs. If they did they would not have been sitting around twiddling their thumbs while the Newfoundland Dockyard has been going down the tubes. They would not have been sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

I think that the Opposition Leader the other day was right in saying if this was 800 jobs in Corner Brook, or if this was 800 jobs in some other part of the Province, that this government would be leading some banner campaign to try and fight to save these jobs, but for some reason the 800 jobs that happen to be in St. John's, although the people who are employed are from all over the Avalon, particularly the Northeast Avalon, working in the Newfoundland Dockyard, for some reason the government sees that as a dispensable operation. What do we have? We have a meeting on Monday, a very high-level meeting.

The Premier is going to be there, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is going to be there and I am assuming the Minister of ITT will be there. A very high level meeting but who are they meeting with, Mr. Speaker? Are they meeting with the high level officials in the federal government who are making the policy? No, they are meeting with the man who has been told to dump the Newfoundland Dockyard, that is who they are meeting with. Why? Why are they meeting with Mr. Morrison? Mr. Morrison who we were told a few days ago by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that Mr. Morrison was under strict orders to be available on five hours notice for any meeting with the Government of Newfoundland but where was Mr. Morrison? He was in Europe for another week and a half. He was available on five hours notice. On five hours notice he was going to fly back from Europe but he could not really make it until next Monday. A very high level meeting, the Premier of this Province, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, meeting with the man who has been told to shut down the Newfoundland Dockyard or sell it to get away. Why aren't you going to Ottawa? Is Mr. Young not prepared to meet with you? He won't answer the Member for Kilbride's phone calls. That does not surprise me I suppose but at least if there is going to be a salvation for the Newfoundland Dockyard there has to be a commitment from this Province to that dockyard. What is the solution, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology asks?

Well Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to me that there is a big, huge problem except that Marine Atlantic wants to dump it. The federal government wants to dump it. Well I will ask the minister if he wants to speak in a non-confidence motion. He can speak after the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology but we went through some numbers here a week or so ago on a debate on the Newfoundland Dockyard and some of the numbers that came forward was the fact that there was a $27 million or $28 million payroll from the Newfoundland Dockyard in the last fiscal year and a $3 million loss. Now we did not hear any reasonable response to a suggestion of there being a cost benefit analysis done on that to determine whether in fact the $3 million subsidy was a bonus, was a benefit to the people of this Province. A $3 million subsidy for a $28 million payroll with the great spin-off effect, I think that the Government House Leader's former leader, I think he invented it -

MR. ROBERTS: What did I invent?

MR. HARRIS: No, you did not invent it your former leader Mr. Smallwood, with the spin off effect, the multiplier effect.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The multiplier effect. So I am talking about the multiplier effect as it affects the Newfoundland Dockyard. So, Mr. Speaker, if there is a multiplier effect, if Mr. Smallwood indeed did know what he was talking about, as the Government House Leader says, then we are talking about a very serious and significant contribution to the economy of this city and Province, that this government does not seem to have the passion or compassion to deal with. They are operating in a very low level of complacency, Mr. Speaker, where the Premier of this Province says that he is doing something about it. He made statements about it outside the House. Well that is all very well if you happen to be in the Opposition or in the back bench or somewhere like that. You can make statements out of the House and try and get a public opinion but for the Premier of this Province that is not good enough. If you are trying to influence what the federal government is doing you don't make public statements outside the House, you go to Ottawa. You don't high-tail it up to Moncton to see the flunky, the man who is being told to shut it down. You go to Ottawa and demand an audience, demand a meeting with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and the Newfoundland minister, Mr. Tobin. Where is the fighting Newfoundlander, Mr. Tobin, on this issue? And where is any fight in this government on this issue when it comes to 800 jobs in St. John's plus all of the economic benefits that flow from it?

Do we have confidence in this government on issues of education? No, we do not. They announced the great educational reform. Where is the reformer now, aside from reading his paper? Where is the great reformer now? We have not seen the great reforms take place. We have been waiting in anticipation for them.

Meanwhile, the government's basic commitment to education at the high school level, the people who have, for one reason or another, not finished high school in this Province - and there are 100,000 of them - they have not been able to complete high school in the regular system for all kinds of reasons, and there is supposed to be, in our community college system, our post-secondary system, a commitment to upgrading, a commitment to basic education. The minister has fuddled and confused the issue of numbers in an attempt to befuddle the people of this Province, totally confused the issue, ignored the close downs of adult evening classes in all sorts of communities around this Province where people - and we see letters in the paper every day now from ABE students; in fact there was one in the paper yesterday, and I said: This is an Adult Basic Education student? It struck me as the writings of a highly articulate, intelligent, well-educated person. We must be doing something right if a student of Adult Basic Education can write a letter of that quality and persuasiveness and conviction. We must be doing something right, I say to Mr. Speaker who has an interest in Adult Basic Education, that that letter demonstrates the value of the ABE program that this government's commitment to has waned.

Do we have confidence in this government's record on human rights? No, Mr. Speaker. There have been two or three human rights issues coming before this House and I see the puzzled and befuddled look on the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. He knows what I am talking about. On at least half-a-dozen occasions over the last two or three years this government, two different ministers, the current Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the former Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the Premier, the Government House Leader, have been asked questions about this government's commitment to human rights legislation and to amendments of the Human Rights Code as it affects gays and lesbians. What answers did we get? A whole series of answers which basically amounts to: No, we don't intend to change the Human Rights Code to protect anti-discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The Premier would not issue a directive to government agencies and departments not to discriminate against gays and lesbians in hiring, refused to do that, denied that the Human Rights Code allowed discrimination against gays and lesbians, claimed somehow that they were protected by the laws of the land. Then the Human Rights Commission itself has to go to court to try and get the court to read in -

AN HON. MEMBER: Obviously the decision of the Supreme Court (inaudible) Charter supersedes all that other crap (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I want to put on the record what the minister said. He said that the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada supersedes all that other crap. Well, the other crap is the crap that was coming from this government for the last three or four, or five years. What was this government doing a month ago? Maybe the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology does not know what the Justice Department lawyers were doing a month ago down in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. They were arguing against that point of view.

AN HON. MEMBER: It does not matter what they were doing.

MR. HARRIS: We are having a non-confidence motion in the government. Do I have confidence that this government is going to do the right thing? No, Mr. Speaker, because they have not done the right thing in the past and there is no reason they are going to do the right thing in the future. If the Supreme Court of Canada has to tell them they are wrong, if the Supreme Court of Canada has to say to them, what you have been saying all along is crap, as the minister calls it, then do I have confidence in this government? No, Mr. Speaker.

I know the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has a great love for lawyers and he wants to make sure that lawyers have lots of business and lots of work. I know he has some family members who are interested in the law. Every case should be a constitutional case, and the more constitutional cases there are the more money lawyers make. I guess that must be the opinion of the minister.

MR. FUREY: I would regulate lawyers.

MR. HARRIS: What I would want this government to do is start regulating its own affairs and never mind regulating lawyers. Why would you not regulate the Human Rights Code and make it very clear that this government is not going to permit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That is what this government has been refusing to do for the last four or five years.

MR. FUREY: Do you agree with regulating lawyers?

MR. HARRIS: Do you agree, and does the government agree that the Human Rights Code ought to be changed to protect gays and lesbians? That is the question that needs to be answered, Mr. Speaker. Never mind your side trips and your asides from your friend to your right there.

MR. FUREY: I am being serious about it.

MR. HARRIS: Well you get up and make a speech about it. If the member is serious about what he wants to say get up and make a speech. We have all day. This is an non-confidence motion and he can speak for half an hour. He can have the floor when I am finished. I will be finished in another fifteen or twenty minutes, then he can have the floor and can speak until 12:30 or 1:00 o'clock, or whenever he has the chance.

There are another thirty speakers yet in this debate. The only people who spoke so far are on this side. The only people who are interested in the question of confidence in the government seem to be on this side of the House. The Member for Eagle River spoke. I think he might have spoken on the non-confidence motion. I do not know. It is a long debate I say to the minister. There are another twenty-five or thirty speakers over there. I see the Member for Trinity North is anxious to make his maiden speech in this debate, and will probably do so. I know the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is always anxious to get on his feet and support motions, as he was anxious to get on his feet and support the motion of the Member for Pleasantville the other day.

While we are on the issue of human rights let us talk about the Innu.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)

MR. HARRIS: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that it is a long day and everybody has an opportunity to speak in this debate, and I welcome his speech when the time comes.

Let us talk about the Innu and what this government has done to protect the human rights of the Innu. What has this government done to protect the human rights of the Innu, other than seeing the Chief of the Davis Inlet Band Council jailed for contempt of court? Promoting, advancing, advertising, and contributing money to the advancement of low level flying despite the government's unwillingness to engage in land claims negotiations. Do we have confidence in their approach on the administration of justice in the Innu and aboriginal communities? No, Mr. Speaker. On land claims, no, Mr. Speaker, they might come around now because Teck Corporation has asked them to; now that Diamond Field Resources or Teck Corporation, someone says: well, look, you better get your act together guys -

AN HON. MEMBER: You have any shares there?

MR. HARRIS: No, I haven't got any shares but I get daily reports from the Member for Menihek on their value; he seems to be interested in their value, I don't know if he has any or not, but he seems to be interested in their value. But, no, I certainly don't but I would be surprised if the minister didn't; his blind trust might be looking after these matters for him so, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get engaged in personal matters involving members and their investments and whatever else unless it affects government policy.

The minister is interested in the Supreme Court decision and in the Eagan I guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: As a lawyer, well I think that is a very important decision what the Supreme Court of Canada has said, that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sexual orientation is what they call an analogous grounds of discrimination. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 15 says: prohibits discrimination, all discrimination, and then it gives certain examples, without limiting and it repeats -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Yes. Okay, the minister asks an interesting question. He is talking about there were two situations that came under Section 15 in two different cases that were released by the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday. The one, called Eagan and under Section 15 said that: sexual orientation was an analogous ground of discrimination; in other words it was an area in which discrimination was prohibited by Section 15 and the other case is a case called: Myron and Trudeau I believe, and they were a case of common-law spouses, which, under the Ontario Standard Insurance Policy, probably the same as it is here; there was no insurance coverage on the common-law spouse's insurance policy for an uninsured motorist, and the question was, whether or not that discriminated against this person because of marital status and the Supreme Court of Canada once again said that, Section 15 would protect from discrimination, on the basis of marital status as an analogous grounds to the ones that are spelled out there, i.e. sex, nationality, medical opinion, various other enumerated heads of discrimination so both of these are now considered discriminatory –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Government House Leader may be upset but I am answering the question of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Alright. Now the next step is that certain kinds of discrimination are allowed and there is Section 1 of the Charter which says that: discrimination cannot be permitted unless it can be demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. This is the catch-all that is there for governments seeking to protect legislation to prove that this particular discrimination is demonstrably justifiable.

I have a lot of difficulty with the reasoning of the Supreme Court in concluding that on the one hand it is demonstrably justifiable to discriminate against a homosexual couple, and not demonstrably justifiable to discriminate against a common-law couple, but I haven't read the full decision yet and it remains to be seen. It is interesting that it is seen as a victory in parts by the gay and lesbian community becomes it does recognize that as an enumerated head, and it is going to be a question of application in each and every circumstance as to what it actually may mean.

To go to my other point, I don't think we need to have every single case litigated to the Supreme Court of Canada to find out whether or not the Human Rights Code of Newfoundland should apply to gays and lesbians. This House can fix that by a simple amendment to the Human Rights Code by adding sexual orientation as an enumerated head to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in Housing, Employment and the other provisions of public services.

That is why, Mr. Speaker - this government has added to the confusion by failing to acknowledge that discrimination against gays and lesbians is in fact a violation of their human rights and is yet another reason why this member and this party has no confidence in this government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I rise to do only two things, the first is to put on the record, in case there is any doubt, that we, on this side, shall vote against this amendment when the time comes, which I hope will be shortly. I may say, having listened to the speeches made by hon. members opposite, including the most recent (inaudible) from my friend, the Member for St. John's East, my learned friend, I am only more convinced then ever of the wisdom of voting to defeat the amendment - as we shall in a moment.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we have time to finish our business without running afoul of the rules, I will move that the House not adjourn at noon. In making the motion, let me add that I understand, my friend, the Member for Ferryland wishes to speak to the amendment, which he has every right to do. He will take what time he needs, subject to the rules. When that is finished, unless somebody on this side wants to stand up and speak, we shall proceed to vote on the amendment. When that is defeated, as I predict will be the case, we will move to the vote on the Budget. When that is approved, as I predict will be the case, we will then go through the budgetary procedure and pass the various motions necessary to enact the Budget into law and carry on from there. So the House may have to sit until a few minutes after noon. Just how long we will have to sit depends on how long my friend, the Member for Ferryland wishes to speak. What I will say is that I intend to vote against this amendment, the government intend to vote against this amendment, and we ask our friends on both sides of the House to vote against the amendment. Thank you, Sir.

On motion, that the House not adjourn at 12:00 noon, carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few comments. How long I speak, I guess, will depend on how tough a time I get from the government side of the House.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. MURPHY: You were out to lunch.

MR. SULLIVAN: He is going out to pick up his stickers. He might want to get his vehicle insured next week.

I would like to comment on a very, very significant decision made in this year's Budget that is impacting on the health of people, particularly in rural Newfoundland and also in urban Newfoundland. This government has sliced $510,000 from dental services for children in this Province, a $2.5 million cut in the last three years, and it is having a tremendous impact in particular in rural practice.

I say to the Minister of Health, if he would pay close attention, the cost, I think, of running - they have eliminated fluoride payments on MCP at $260,000 which was the cost. Now, the budget is down $510,000. I have received letters, and spoken with numerous dentists, and letters went in to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology from a dentist in his district, one to the Member for Pleasantville from a dentist in his district. I spoke with the President of the Dental Association, with numerous other dentists, and there are letters gone to different ministers and the Minister of Health pertaining to this matter. I have received today, I say to the minister, and I will give them to him on Monday - because it is the original copy I received; maybe they are intended for the minister - 2,000 letters in addition to the 251 I received before this week, that is 2,251 letters -

AN HON. MEMBER: I have that many over there now, `Loyola'.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is fine; you will have another 2,251 more after Monday, and it is the content of these that is important.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I won't, because I speak to people who write me, and I talk to these on matters.

I would like to say to the minister, in rural Newfoundland - I think this is very factual, and it is important, and it is impacting; it is not just to get up and create a few waves - in rural Newfoundland today most dentists are only charging the fee that MCP covers under dental care, which is about 60 per cent of the service. The rural dentists are absorbing the rest. In the urban areas, where most people have dental insurance plans, they are charging the full fee, a balanced billing. I will use as an example an extraction, which is $41. MCP would cover $24; they can have a co-pay fee of $5, which is $29, and the other $12 they are absorbing. Now in rural Newfoundland it is a very significant part of their income, and for many years we have tried to get dentists out into rural Newfoundland.

I will just make some reference to - this one is addressed to the Minister of Health. It is from a dentist, touching on a few very key points. The erosion of dental programs will cost (inaudible) the Department of Health more money in hospitals, physician visits, because of long-term problems caused by poor dental health. It doesn't make sense to provide financial incentives to go to rural Newfoundland and then erode their opportunity to make an income. Because I can tell you that parents cannot afford,without a dental program, to pay the full cost of such dental services.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm talking about more than two, I said. You will have a chance. You can stand up and rebut what I'm saying. If it makes sense I will agree with you, and if it doesn't I won't agree with you. You will get your opportunity.

It is a serious erosion. There are two things at stake here. One is the oral health of children in the Province. I have a big concern for the oral health of children, in particular in rural Newfoundland that is impacted most there. Secondly, the viability to maintain a rural dental practice where overheads are generally 60 per cent of their revenues, in most dental practices.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No it wasn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, exactly. But dentists went out to rural Newfoundland because we had $7.5 million in programs. They could make a living in rural Newfoundland. They went out there - (inaudible) incentive. One dentist in the district of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who wants to remain in rural Newfoundland, spends one week a month in an urban area and three weeks in a rural area to be able to gather his income. The minister got a letter to that effect.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. There are some excellent points made in that letter. I think they are very important points. I think the minister has to realize that to put dentists out in rural Newfoundland took some doing, and to build up a patient list and improve dental care was the purpose of doing it, not to create an income for dentists. But what is happening now is you are eroding the reason for getting dentists out in the first place. You are undermining the base by which they went there and impacting upon their ability to be able to make a living in rural Newfoundland, and we are going to see a decline, I can tell you, in the future, in dental service to rural Newfoundland.

I'm seeing it in my district right now where the dentist in my area could work six days a week and now only three days a week in my immediate area. It is being tremendously eroded there and parents are not able to send their kids to a dentist anymore. We are going to get back to where we were twenty years ago, or thirty years and forty years ago when I was a child. You are going to go in and have an extraction done and that solves that particular problem. That is where we are coming to with the dental program.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You are dropping the program. Because keep in mind, to get dentists in rural Newfoundland, there is a shift in urbanization in this Province and in the whole country. You have to realize that, too. As the population shifts into urban areas - and it is happening all over the country, we have almost 60 per cent now of the population of Canada in urban centres. We have provinces with 60 per cent - in Manitoba, for instance, all in the one city, 60 per cent. Saskatchewan is a little more rural, in the two main cities there we have 37.5 per cent of the population in the two main urban areas but apart from that we are getting very urbanized across the country which means it is more difficult to maintain a medical service out in rural Newfoundland today and it is happening - for instance, as of today, we talked about it a week or two ago, on the Burin Peninsula there is no obstetrician. Now I hear that in Clarenville there is no obstetrician. In other words, kids are only going to be able to be born in probably four or five areas of this Province. You are going to have to come into an urban area two weeks in advance - an increased cost for those individuals. That is basically - because with people with complications -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am saying if there are complications arising and in a lot of areas people do not want to be out in an area without a specialist there because there are certain risks involved for the unborn child and for the parent in certain instances. There has been an increase, maybe not correctly so but there has been a big increase in caesarean sections being done. There is a dispute where there are being too many performed, et cetera, that is a matter for debate too but there is an increased use of specialists and so on today especially when people are very concerned about their child being born, being healthy and void of any particular complications arising.

So there is a problem with the dental program in rural Newfoundland and it is going to get worse because we have seen a reduction of over one-third of what was in the budget now cut from that program. It is going to affect kids in rural Newfoundland, not just on numbers, I will say to the minister, it is not just a numbers game. There is a bigger, larger problem there dealing with dentists and their viability in being able to maintain a practice. That is going to eliminate the program for kids out there that are still there. We still have a certain concern for those. Now I will send along the other 20-some hundred particular letters I received.

Now I will just touch briefly on the CN Marine and we all know what is in the plan. They have a company they want to unload, the federal government. It has debts of $2.5 billion, it has some subsidiary debts of $175 million and in order to get rid of that company they have to eliminate some of that debt. They have to get it down to $1.5 billion, is what the experts are saying. It is all they can carry and be competitive out there today, the private industry out in the marketplace. They cannot have debts of any more then $1.5 billion because if it does it will not get a BBB credit rating and therefore it is not going to be competitively viable for industry to take over that. So they have to down load and get rid of it.

The dockyard here for example, the Newfoundland Dockyard here is the victim of government's lack of action to stem the tide at the early stage and now there is a deluge. Its a flood now and to turn it around now is going to take a massive upheaval by people.

I heard on the news this morning that on Monday they are going to have a demonstration at Hotel Newfoundland to try to get the people and the public to stand up. If the politicians are not going to take on the federal ministers then the people of the Province will have to do it. We will have to do it like we did with Hydro, we will have to go to the people to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hurry up `boy', I have a flight to catch.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not going to keep you all day at all. If you have a flight to catch then I say go catch your flight.

There are numerous areas that need to be addressed. I will not unduly delay today. I will just take another minute or two. It is in the newspapers every single day almost that there are seniors blocked by long waiting lines. In every part of this Province today there are long waiting lists for hospitals and for nursing homes. There are long waiting lists for people to get the medical services they need. There is a gutting out of services in rural parts of this Province, and there is an exodus of people leaving urban areas of this Province and going on to greener pastures in other parts of the country, and to the United States.

We are training people and spending millions of dollars. We are spending $80 million a year on a medical school to have people leave this Province and go elsewhere. We are spending in the tens of millions of dollars to train other people who are leaving this Province. I think it is time to stop that out-migration.

Talking about out-migration, the Premier gave the impression yesterday when he tabled his findings, that every single year there has been a decline in population since 1985. There has been a decline in population right up till 1994. In fact in 1985 we had ?580.9? million but the Premier gave the impression we had a big economic renewal, a big influx of people since he became Premier. Well, since 1989 we have seen our population drop.

In 1994, for example, to 1993, we took a drop of 582.4 million people. It has not been a continuous increase in population at all. There has been a considerable decline in the out versus in-migration of people here in the Province. The differences in the birth and death rates in the Province is what has basically created that imbalance, too.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments on the non-confidence motion. The government has lost the confidence of the people here, lost the confidence of the people in the Province there in their ability to be able to govern and do what is right for this Province. The Member for Eagle River, should take his flight early, because I'm sure he is going to be very hard-pressed to have to get up and vote against the non-confidence motion, the government that he has lost faith in. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour, say `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, say `nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let it be noted that the Leader of the Opposition didn't have sufficient confidence in her own amendment to be here to vote non-confidence in the government. I think the House is now ready to proceed to the question on the Budget, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear you but I trust what you said - the motion before the House is that the House dissolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: I think that is what you said. I hope that is what Hansard recorded.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means

MR. CHAIRMAN (L. Snow): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to advise the hon. House that I have just now received a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: The message is directed to the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and is dated April 12, 1995:

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Services of the Province for the year ending March 31, 1996. By way of further supply and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:_________________________________________

Frederick W. Russell, Lieutenant-Governor.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message be referred to a Committee of the Whole on Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: (L. SNOW): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the total amount contained in the Estimates which, subject to correction, is $2,944,964,400 be carried, and that a resolution be adopted to give effect to the same.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is moved and seconded that the totals contained in the Estimates be carried, and that a resolution be adopted to give effect to the same.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

Those against, `nay'.

Motion, carried.

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

MR. BAKER: You left out your salary.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, my friend, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board tells me I may have left out my salary, in which case, I have news for him.

Your Honour, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that they have passed the amount of $2,944,964,400 as contained in the Estimates of Supply, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again presently.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the Committee of the Whole on Supply with respect to the Estimates for 1995-'96, together with a resolution and a bill consequent thereto be referred to a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means, and that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1996, the sum of $1,890,808,800."

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

On motion report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the Granting to Her Majesty for Defraying Certain Expenses of the Public Service for the Financial Year ending March 31, 1996 the sum of $1,890,808,800."

On motion, a bill, " An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1996 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn, perhaps I could remind the House that on Monday we shall come back to legislation. We will deal with the bills that I addressed yesterday and from memory they are the ones that stand on today's Order Paper as Order Nos. 11, 16 and 18 which is the Smoke-Free Environment Act amendment, the City of St. John's Act amendment and the Judicature Act amendment. There may be one or two other matters but if so I will speak to my friends opposite during the course of debate on Monday but we will start with those on Monday and take them in that order and see how we get on with the debate.

With that said, Sir, I thank members for their co-operation, including the four on the other side. The only four who believed in the Opposition Leader's amendment to the point where they are here.

I move that the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 2:00 p.m.