November 14, 1995           HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS         Vol. XLII  No. 54


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings I would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery on behalf of all members Alexa McDonough, national leader of the New Democratic Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance was suppose to make a ministerial statement but he is late, so in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will ask my questions to the acting Minister of Finance, if there is one.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They are all actors.

MS VERGE: I am afraid the Minister of Finance is not a very good actor and the acting minister is probably a worse actor. To the acting minister, is it not true that government really did not balance the Budget last March? Is it not true that despite the government's best efforts at propaganda they did not fool their auditors or fiscal agents, that the auditors and other informed observers readily saw through the smoke and mirrors that included taking $80 million out of the sinking fund savings account, using cash from selling off assets and omitting $26 million in expenditures that were planned? Is it not true that this year's Budget was never balanced?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, as the alternate Minister of Finance it falls to me to answer it, and what I have to say is two things. Number one, the Budget as presented in the House was truthful, complete and accurate. Number two, Question Period is a matter of urgent matters and I would say to the hon. lady is it not true that these questions can wait until the Minister of Finance comes? I understand he is on his way here and he will be able to deal with them then.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Government House Leader can assure me that we will not lose time from our thirty minute Question Period allotment, then I will indeed save my questions for the arrival of the Minister of Finance.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am told the Minister of Finance is in the building and will be here shortly, if the hon. inquisitor from Ferryland would just possess his soul in patience for a minute. Question Period is half an hour and given the way the Opposition have been using it, it could have been three minutes, Mr. Speaker. All I say to the hon. lady is that I have been told the hon. minister will be here. The whip is gone to check now, so perhaps if one or two of her colleagues has another question written we could deal with that and then when the minister gets here we can carry on with the charade involving the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. In his Ministerial Statement to the House on Thursday, November 9 wherein he announced a 22 per cent cut in the Municipal Operating Grants the minister stated that every other available option was explored prior to the decision to slash the Municipal Operating Grants. What were those options and why were they rejected?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the total budget for my department which includes the new service centres that was opened this year, amounts to approximately $180 million. Out of that $180 million, a total of $150 to $155 of that $180 million go directly to municipalities in the way of grants, subsidies, long-term debt payments on their behalf and so on.

In order for me to find the money in my budget to reduce or to take I suppose, the part of the burden or the part of the share of the burden that we have in regards to trying to balance our budget this year, I had no other choice but to go to that $150 to $155 million allotment. The easiest thing for me to do, Mr. Speaker, was to cut it out of the MOGs. There are several other programs in my department that I haven't addressed yet, but at the time, the easiest thing for me to do, was to spread the burden over the over 300 municipalities around the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. - Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, so the expression in the minister's statement 'every available option was explored,' means nothing, absolutely zero.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also stated in his announcement on November 9th, and I quote: so that municipalities impacted would be in a position to make the necessary changes as the elected municipal officials prepare their 1996 budgets. What suggestions today, does the minister have for the cash-strapped and recently governmentally-orphaned towns and communities in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it wasn't until the year of 1992 that this government and previous governments would announce to municipalities what they were going to do in their budgets; it was this government that started in 1992, to tell municipalities what to expect before Christmas, before municipalities did their budgets. Previous governments, Mr. Speaker, would come out the 31st of March, after the Budget was introduced and accepted in the House of Assembly and then in the middle of the year, have to burden municipalities in this Province with changes to MOGs and everything else, so I take exception, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that we waited.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I did as the minister, what I had promised municipalities in the Province I would do, that if there were going to be changes they would have ample opportunity to make the necessary changes to their budgets.

In answer to your second question, my hon. friend from Waterford -Kenmount: What do they do? They do what we do as a government. They sit down and they try to balance their budgets by making the necessary moves in the Province like this government has to do, the federal government has to do and now municipalities have to do. I say to the gentleman quite sincerely, I understand. I feel the cut and the wound as much as they do. I understand what they will have to go through in the next month in order to balance their budgets, I do understand.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, what he has forced the municipalities to do is do something that he himself and his government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has not recognized the hon. member yet.

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what the minister is doing is forcing the municipalities of this Province to do something that his government does not want to do and is afraid to do, that is namely raise taxes. Mr. Speaker, the minister stated that he had let this information out now. I say to the minister, I prepared twenty-three municipal budgets and I always knew the information. He operates on selective amnesia, I say. Mr. Speaker, the minister stated on CBC television that the current cuts to the MOGs was the beginning of the complete cessation of the Municipal Operating Grant program. Will the minister today confirm that his government has made a decision to drop the Municipal Operating Grant program completely as he has said and if so, what are the expected time frames involved?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I hope you remember that comment that was just made and the suggestion from the hon. - the hon. member representing, I would imagine, the leader and all the Opposition - to raise taxes. Mr. Speaker, we have a retail sales tax -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you doing if you are not raising taxes now? It's coming out of the same pockets.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be a part of a government that is forced to raise the RST from the level that the Opposition raised before 1989 to 12 per cent. I cannot, Mr. Speaker, put that burden on the shoulders of every man, woman and child in this Province, I don't agree with it.

Mr. Speaker, he is right when he said that I made a comment to the media. The media didn't cover my complete comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: The comment that I made in regard to the elimination of the MOG was basically, as a personal comment, I wouldn't be surprised that, in years to come, the MOG may disappear in the Province. Honestly, I can assure the hon. member and every member of this House that the MOG is certainly not going to be eliminated as long as this government sits on this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West to restrain himself, please.

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the late Minister of Finance. Will the Minister of Finance admit that accountants who scrutinized his government's Budget saw through it immediately, that accountants readily concluded that despite the government's claims to the contrary, the March Budget was never -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) brought to order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS VERGE: - the March Budget was never balanced.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know if I discern a question in the hon. member's comment or not. She said the accountants who examined the government's Budget saw through it immediately. I know of no accountants who have made that comment. It is certainly clear that the government made a statement in its Budget that it was going to balance it on the basis of, in some cases, one-time revenues, and that would be a very difficult thing to repeat, but I know of no accountants and I would be delighted to hear the names of them.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance: How could you, or any member of your government, claim to balance the Budget when you increased the total provincial debt by $80 million, by taking $80 million out of the sinking fund that was supposed to be used to pay down the provincial debt by $80 million? Did you not try to blindfold the devil in the dark but get caught?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is obviously a danger of using clichés in the House or near it. I said `smoke and mirrors' some weeks ago with respect to the manner in which some of the employee decisions had been made in that the bureaucracy made cuts at the front line rather than in the bureaucracy itself. I am now pleased to hear the hon. the Leader of the Opposition echoing the Premier's comment, `blindfolding the devil in the dark', but I will point out to the Premier when he gets here in the next several days not to be so glib as I was with clichés.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, the Province, as the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl knows - I notice he has the good sense not to ask the question his Leader does - but the whole point of a balanced budget is it is balanced on current and capital account. All a balanced budget is, is when your statement of revenues and expenditures match each other. At any given time the Province has $1 billion in a sinking fund to redeem past due indebtedness. It is a proper accounting function. All the government did in presenting a budget to the Province and to the members of this House was point out that in the current year its revenues would meet its expenditures - that is all that meant - including the cost of paying back monies that have been borrowed in previous years.

As to the source of revenues, that was fully disclosed. What the hon. member's comment is, I really don't understand. Either she doesn't understand the method in which a province does its financing, or else she is misrepresenting it.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board read page 11 of his own Budget document.

In announcing that the government is putting the boots to municipalities by reducing municipal operating grants by 22 per cent, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs - no heart, all Art - said that municipalities can offset the loss by raising municipal taxes. I ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, what happened to your commitment that the government would meet its fiscal objectives without raising taxes? Don't you count a municipal tax increase as a tax increase?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is often said that things are more a matter of art than science. Perhaps in this case, what was done in municipal affairs meets that statement.

No, the hon. minister did say, I understand, I heard him on the media to say that the municipalities could meet their own targets by raising taxes. They can also cut expenditures, which is what we are attempting to achieve. There is no obligation on any entity in this Province to raise its taxes to meet its expenditures. The other alternative is to diminish expenditures to meet what revenues you have available. There is certainly no obligation on the municipalities in transferring some of the cuts we've had from various sources to them to incur an obligation that we have to raise taxes.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you.

A supplementary to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. Aren't you now unfairly penalizing taxpayers - whether they are municipal taxpayers or provincial taxpayers, they are the same people, and some of them are leaving the Province - aren't you now unfairly penalizing our citizens for your own government's scandalous and inept handling of the Province's finances?

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

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker. The Province is attempting to manage its own finances in a prudent manner. I think from the comments I've heard on the media and from municipal officials and members of the general public who reside in communities, people realize that we can no longer afford the type of services we've had in the past.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. DICKS: That is true at the federal level, that is true at the provincial level, that is true at the municipal level, and, with respect to my learned friend for St. John's East Extern, it is also true in other provinces. We see it happening in Ontario, where his good friends the Conservatives are in power, and in Alberta. It is not a Newfoundland problem, Mr. Speaker, it is a problem all across Canada. It is a problem in the municipalities as well as the Province, and it is one that the federal government has to deal with as well. Thank you.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. With the appointment of the Cabot 500 Corporation, with the board members appointed by the government, and a senior civil servant appointed to liaison with the Corporation and the public at large, I would like to know today when, with all these checks and balances in place, did the government lose control of the Cabot Corporation?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would have to confess, I listened as best I could. I didn't understand the introduction and I don't really understand the question. Because the last I heard was some reference that the government may have lost control of the Cabot Corporation, or something along those lines. No such thing ever occurred.

All we did in the last week or so was announce that we are going to put our very best efforts in the future into having a significant celebration in 1997 to commemorate the 500th year of John Cabot's voyage to the shores in Newfoundland, and that we are going to try our best to have a significant celebration without having a stand alone or Crown-related corporation to run the celebration. We will try our best on behalf of the people of the Province to have a significant celebration using the resources of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, supplemented with some additional staff that we will probably announce in a matter of a few days.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That worries me, when the minister says about his best efforts. Echoing what was asked here last week, I would like to ask the minister today: When can we see the actual costs, the minute detail, of every copper spent on the Cabot Corporation from its conception to its death?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, in meetings that we've been having on an ongoing basis since the announcement a week or so ago we are doing the final analysis now and preparing to bring a proposal back to the government through Cabinet to consider this. On Thursday of this week and at that point, once we have decided the scope of the celebration again we are going to commit our best efforts to, on behalf of the people of the Province, then we will release the information with respect to the details of the spending to date of the corporation which is in the final stages of being dissolved. We will also spell out for the people of the Province and for the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, what we expect the continuing costs and the continuing financial commitment of the provincial government to be on a go forward basis. Again, it is our intent, Mr. Speaker, as I have stated repeatedly, and I expect that the member opposite, as the Opposition critic for Tourism, Culture and Recreation and all members of the House, despite the line of questioning and some comments about myself, Mr. Speaker, do wish us well on behalf of the people of the Province in having a significant event in 1997.

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

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I wish this Province well.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know for sure if the minister is going to table the cost in this Chamber, also the cost to be tabled in this Chamber of the complete winding down on severances, on office costs, on any contract costs that are in there? I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, the cost of Newfoundland's most expensive funeral?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand full well that the wish of the Opposition in the last year or so, through their line of questioning as understood here and the questioning that is understood in the Legislature, is that they really would have hoped that we would have done this in some other way other than have a corporation. We don't have a corporation any more. After our meeting on Thursday I hope to be in a position of outlining exactly what the hon. member indicated, Mr. Speaker, that we will tell exactly what was spent in terms of the period of time from 1992, when the corporation was established, with the support of the Opposition and with the support of the federal government in Ottawa that was a different political stripe at that time and our federal representative was Mr. Crosbie in the Cabinet - that changed of course in 1993. In the whole line of questioning, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition has always been one of the groups that has criticized the operation and functioning of the corporation. We have now made a decision which was announced a week or so ago that the corporation will become defunct, that we will go forward on a different basis. We will provide the information in detail from 1992 to now and we will also provide the details of how we expect to go forward. I am sure that the members opposite and everybody in the Province will be completely satisfied with the disclosure of the information, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs who is responsible for housing. The minister, in his announcement with regard to the development of the Southlands subdivision talked about it being a $370 million project. I wonder if he can tell me how much has been spent up to date with regard to - in approximate figures of course - with regard to land acquisition costs, design and engineering costs and also the construction costs so far?

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

MR. REID: Quite a tall order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot, right off the top of my head, tell you exactly but I will find it for the hon. member and submit it to him here tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I cannot even give you an approximate figure because I don't really know. Let me tell you about the acquisition of land, if you are talking about the acquisition of land I would have to go back almost twelve, fifteen years because that land was purchased by the previous government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I am not sure. I will table it tomorrow for you or I will provide it personally to you. Mr. Speaker, I don't know at this particular point in time.

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

MR. A. SNOW: I wonder if the minister can confirm that on advertising alone this year NLHC has spent $250,000? Is he aware of that and can he confirm that figure? If not that figure, what is the figure?

MR. SULLIVAN: On Southlands alone?

MR. A. SNOW: On Southlands.

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

MR. REID: I will certainly table it tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. I don't know; I just don't know, I am sorry, I apologize for not having that information but I will certainly get it for him as quickly as I can, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. SNOW: I wonder if the minister can tell us what the average selling price of these lots are, and how many have been sold so far, this year?

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

MR. REID: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to maybe get somebody to write down all these questions and send them to me and I will get the answers to them?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would have had his answers and could have done exactly what he did today, if he had asked me yesterday or last week for these figures, knowing full-well that I can't, off the top of my head, tell him these figures. I would have provided those for him and then he would have had the opportunity to get up in the House and ask the same questions if he wanted to. I will provide those figures. If the hon. member wants to give me a list of some of the questions he has, put it on the Order Paper if you want to, I will provide the answers gladly to you, within the next couple of days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I am sure he would be quite capable of getting Hansard this afternoon or tomorrow morning and be able to get the questions that I asked.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if he could tell this House, and explain to the people of this Province - my understanding is that only one house is built in that subdivision so far.

AN HON. MEMBER: Built on spec.

MR. A. SNOW: Built on speculation, I am told. One home is being built in that subdivision so far, after the government has approved the expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayers' dollars in that particular subdivision. How can the minister justify this type of planning when he foisted this property on the City of St. John's, how is that going to be cost-effective in the operation of that subdivision with regard to municipal spending here in this Province and more specifically, in this city?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, being a developer himself, knows full well, that the Province of Newfoundland - his leader over there has the Budget and if she can find any money in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing for the cost of anything that is going in to that particular subdivision, I would suggest that she should show him because there is nothing there.

Mr. Speaker, I will provide the information tomorrow or the next day, as soon as I can possibly get it to the hon. member and I will see that I hand deliver it to you myself, personally.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek, on a final supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I would also like the minister to justify to this House and to the people of this Province and tell them exactly what he feels the public policy purpose or the function of this corporation is in this particular Province today in spending these millions of dollars of taxpayers money, when they are today out there building, Mr. Speaker, building lots in the Southlands subdivisions while there are 4,000 building lots for sale here in this city, there are 2,000 homes for sale in this city and yet we have senior citizens in this Province who can't put a roof over their heads.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: How can he explain that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Maybe the hon. member would like to explain why his is the only community in the Province that is not getting a cut in the MOG grant this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the role of the Housing Corporation since its inception, and I believe if I am not mistaken, it was -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you serious?

MR. REID: Yes, I am serious. Wabana and Torbay are the only ones that are going to get an increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are two Tories.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the role of the Housing Corporation has been in the past thirty years, to develop where possible and to promote land development in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have at the present time, over 10,000 units located around this Province that we maintain through 85 per cent funding from the federal government. If we expand into subdivisions, either in St. John's, Wabush, Labrador City or anywhere else, it is for one reason and one reason only, and that is to make some money to put back into social housing.

We have been doing that now and the mandate of the Housing Corporation has been the same mandate for the last twenty-five years. If the hon. member felt that way about Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, why didn't he, prior to 1989, suggest to the former PC government to do away with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing?

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Late last Fall or early Winter we were debating changes to the Mineral Tax Act in this Legislature in mid December. In the context of a significant rise in exploration in the Province we had a significant jump in the fourth quarter of claim staking, up to 18,000 claims staked in the fourth quarter and 10,000 of those in November alone. We had that happening, Mr. Speaker, and we had the minister describing the Voisey's Bay find, in his speech on the amendment to the bill, as a major discovery. Given that context how can the minister justify at that particular time revising downward the tax obligations on the mining companies knowing full well what we had found in Labrador?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we made some very appropriate changes last year, some changes that were approved in a Budget two years previously and repeated in many places after that announcement. We promoted it from coast to coast in Canada and elsewhere in this world, Newfoundland and Labrador is a great place to come and explore for minerals. We put that message out and we had the people come. They have come, and as of last week 285,887 claims in good standing and still continuing. Last week thirty-four applications for exploration drilling approved, besides Voisey's Bay, and another twenty in the chain going through the referral process.

Mr. Speaker, what we have been doing has worked in the last few years, and what we are going to have to do in the future will continue to work. The fact that we will have to make some adjustments, because nobody dreamed that we would discover a deposit the size and richness of Voisey's Bay, and we are going to make some appropriate changes relative to that. It has been said at numerous times dating back to last May 24 and we are going to stand by that. What we are going to do is something that is appropriated after due consideration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if we might have leave to revert to Ministerial Statements? I did have one I intended to make today. I can wait until tomorrow if the House prefers not to.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: In September, Cabinet directed Newfoundland Information Service -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: - with input from the Information Technology Management Division of Treasury Board, to co-ordinate development of an Internet World Wide Web Site for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. This site is now being tested and is available to Internet users worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, our goals are to improve service to the public by increasing awareness of provincial government programs and services, business opportunities and tourism potential, to refine standards for collecting data and to encourage a free flow of information to the public.

This site will enable Internet users to communicate with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and enhance our existing means of providing information to the public.

Mr. Speaker, while there is more work to be done, and more information to be added to the site, we are pleased with the progress to date and encourage people both inside and outside our Province to explore the government's home page on the Internet.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me say that we welcome this announcement. It is time the Government of Newfoundland got on the Internet. It is the technology of today and tomorrow. The minister hasn't given us any idea of what the cost might be to government. I ask that simply in view of the cutbacks we are faced with now. I am sure it is probably not significant in light of the overall cost of this sort of thing, and the benefits of being on the Internet are well acknowledged. Let me simply point out to the minister, it is time government got on the Internet. Opposition has been on the Internet now for the last six weeks as a result of the initiative of our leader, and has been a great source of information to the public, and the Opposition has been far more accessible to the general public and many people have taken advantage of it to communicate to us the problems they are having with government's policies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could we deal first with Motions 5 and 6? Those are first readings, Sir.

On motion, the following bills read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act And The Electoral Boundaries Act". (Bill No. 31)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Executive Council". (Bill No. 32)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I know members are anxious to see the bill, although there ought not to be any surprises in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: How could I compete, Mr. Speaker, with four women and two men?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, my trouble is, I heard it; I didn't believe any member could be in as bad taste as the gentleman, the Member for Bonavista South was, to be quite candid.

Your Honour, would you go on, please, and call Order No. 20, and if we dispose of that bill then we will deal with Order 22. Then, as I announced the other day, if we get through that, we will begin debate on Motions 1, 2 and 4, but if you would first of all call, please, Order 20, which is Bill No. 29.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act, The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, The Memorial University Pensions Act, Chapter 18 Of The Statutes Of Newfoundland, 1993 And The Pensions Contributions Reduction Act". (Bill No. 29).

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The act, notwithstanding its long title, is fairly straightforward. It amends several of our - in fact all of our pension acts to permit several things. Some of them are not of a substantive nature.

One thing, the easier part of it is, subclause 5, subsection 2 of the bill amends the Memorial University Pensions Act to enable employees of the University to work beyond the normal thirty-five year maximum and to continue making contributions to the pension plan until they achieve their maximum pension accrual rate of 70 per cent. There is a problem, Mr. Speaker, with some of the age restrictions, and this would enable them to continue making contributions past their normal thirty-five year work span for government.

The other aspect of the matter addresses the period of time for those workers who retired in 1993 and 1994 when the government had, in effect, a pension contribution reduction scheme. What essentially this does is it enables them to make the contributions to the pension plan that the employer would have, thereby enabling them to receive their full pension.

I am sure, as members recall, when the option to try to deal with some of our deficit problems in the last several years was chosen, this particular option allowed the government not to make the pension contribution on behalf of employees, I believe it was in a six-month period. Employees would then have the option to either work the additional six months until they became eligible for retirement at full pension, or to make the contributions. What we have at the present time is an anomaly, in that people who retired in that 1993-1994 period before we made those regulations retired without being in a position at that time to make a contribution. My understanding of the effect of the act is that this will enable them to make that contribution and so receive their full pension.

I am sure members have read it. The acts that are amended, the provisions doing that, basically echo each other, and I would be pleased to answer any questions on that aspect of it.

The final item is dealing with the teachers' pension plan. Although this was negotiated with the teachers, I believe the act was not amended, and it was necessary to do so in order to provide for reduction in contributions for the 1995-1996 fiscal year. I should say that this is not a new measure that would in any way herald what government intends to do in the current fiscal year. This is addressing the arrangement that was made last spring in order to bring our Budget forward at that time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister points out, this is a long title and it appears to be a very complex bill, but, in effect, it is not really all that complex. It does have some implications, however.

First of all, the first section of the bill deals with replacing contribution reductions. Let us simply remind the House that what we are talking about here is the way in which government sought to balance its Budget, or at least to reduce its deficit a couple of years ago, by reducing the amount of contribution that was made on behalf of its employees. This was discussed with the unions at the time and thought to be the course of least resistance, I suppose, the least painful of the remedies available for the difficulties being faced at the time. I am just wondering, is this not one of the options that are being looked at for this year, in trying to find the $60 million problem the minister has told us he has for the balance of this fiscal year, and a much larger problem that he is going to be faced with, no doubt, for next year. Are we looking at reducing pension contributions once again?

It is simply another way of reduction in the amount of salaries and benefits paid to employees, by any other form. It is simply a reduction of benefits, whether you take it from salaries or you take it from pensions. Of the various options that are available. Some have greater benefits, some greater problems than others. What we are doing here is simply making it possible for those persons who were affected by that to replace that loss so that their pension doesn't suffer, and they are paying for it themselves rather than government paying for it.

In effect, it is a reduction in salary but it is not; you are transferring - if they lost $1,000 in pension benefits they take it out of their salary after taxes and pay it back. It wouldn't even be after taxes, because it would be considered as a pension contribution so it would be a non-taxable benefit - a tax deduction at income tax time. It is simply a way of masquerading a cut in salary or a cut in benefits by any other name. So that section simply puts that in place for teachers, as the minister said. It is straightforward; it has been negotiated and provides the reduction for the 1995-'96 fiscal year for teachers.

Clause 5(2) deals with the University. I am a little curious as to why we are so anxious to have persons in the University allowed to stay there beyond thirty-five years. It would seem to me that most of them want to go. In fact, teachers in this Province fought long and hard to get the `thirty and out' rule and now the government is trying to defer that a little bit so that they don't go on pensions so quickly. They are trying to up that -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They're not doing that in here, are they?

MR. WINDSOR: That is not in here, it is for Memorial University. So that university professors and instructors can work beyond thirty-five years. Well, you would think that this minister, in trying to create some employment in the Province and reduce costs at the same time, social costs, would be perhaps proposing an early retirement scheme. I am wondering, has the minister looked at that as one of the options to deal with the financial problems at the moment? That transfers bodies from the government payroll to the pension plan which has its own long-term problems; nevertheless, it is a way of a short-term solution to financial problems for the minister, providing he doesn't replace these employees, of course. We, in fact, put such a proposal in place a number of years ago to deal with financial problems, and a number of public servants took advantage of it at the time and retired early. They took advantage of the package that was presented. It was a reasonable package, deemed to be reasonable at the time, both by government and by the employees. It was a way of reducing the number of permanent employees on the payroll, reducing the costs of the overall government operation and allowing those persons to move into other areas of endeavour, in the private sector or whatever or simply just to retire a little early.

I have no doubt there are probably hundreds of persons in the public service now, Mr. Speaker, who, if such an offer were made to them, might well avail of it. It may be a way of eliminating some of the pain that the minister is probably considering. In fact, I have no doubt he is considering massive lay-offs in the public sector at the moment, persons who are probably at the bottom end of the scale and probably don't have enough pension built up, not eligible for pension and have maybe very few options of employment available to them as well. So the minister might like to consider that as a very real option, far less painful than simply eliminating people. Now, the benefits come a little more slowly because there are certain benefits that have to be paid immediately and so forth, but certainly, that would be a solution for the next years budget. He may not be able to implement it quickly enough to receive real benefits this year. In fact, it may even cost him a dollar in this fiscal year, but the benefits will be very real and very much realized in 1996-'97. So it is an option to eliminating jobs entirely and leaving persons without any source of income and support for their families. Mr. Speaker, an early retirement program might be one that the minister would like to consider.

The real objective of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is to legitimize what was done and what was agreed a couple of years ago, which was to allow persons who voluntarily took the cuts in the pension contributions - to them, the least painful alternative open to them at the time - to allow them to contribute government's share to their pension plan so that, in fact, their pensions didn't suffer and they didn't suffer comparatively or respectively for the rest of their lives once they actually retired and went on pension, Mr. Speaker.

So with that, I will leave that for now and maybe the minister will address these questions when he speaks in closing the debate a little later today.

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

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

I rise to speak for a few minutes on Bill 25 - the minister will have his chance to stand up and close debate on it - but before I do, Mr. Speaker, it would be hard for me not to acknowledge the financial situation that many people in this Province find themselves in today and the financial situation that is going to be placed upon them by the Federal Government. And while this may have nothing to do with the bill at the moment, I say to the minister, I will come back to that in a few moments because on a finance bill I understand that I can basically speak about anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 29 (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Sorry, just give me a moment.

Mr. Speaker, the reality that many Newfoundlanders find themselves in today will be quite different from the reality that many Newfoundlanders will find themselves in in the future, the very near future. The down-loading that is occurring in transfer payments, the reduction of transfer payments in this Province, the significant impact that is going to have, we are seeing it right now in the reduction of municipal operating grants; many councils in this Province will not be able to operate. It is my prediction that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will, in fact, be de facto mayor of thirty or forty municipalities by this time next year, because they will, in effect, be bankrupt. Many municipalities, towns in rural Newfoundland, will not be able to find individuals to run for council office. These are the harsh realities that this government has placed upon the towns, and thus, the citizens of the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to say on your left hand that you will not be raising taxes and it is another thing to put municipalities into a situation whereby their only means of survival would be to raise taxes. The reality is, taxes are raised, and the consumer and the taxpayer are exactly the same person. That is the reality of it. What led the government to do what they are doing? Financial restraint, not enough revenues coming into the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, revenues have been down, Special Warrants written after the Budget was passed last year.

Mr. Speaker, again, reality. Revenues are down in this Province because this government has failed to deliver an election promise of 1989, it has failed to deliver what it got elected on. It has failed to create the type of economy that is attractive to business in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has failed to create or maintain the jobs that existed in this Province. In this city alone over the last two years, some 2,500 to 3,000 jobs have disappeared directly, related to government, and we are about to see many, many more in the next two to three months, maybe even as early as next week.

Sooner or later, we have to realize that the people we are laying off, the lack of attention we are paying to business, the lack of attention we are paying to the economy in creating a feeling of energy and creating a feeling of hope, as opposed to a feeling of hopelessness, the impact that is having on the Province is significant, and, Mr. Speaker, that is only dealing with transfer payments. Two years ago the Federal Government announced changes to the UI Act, basically eliminating $260 million per year coming in to the people of this Province, net incomes, basic incomes keeping people alive, taxpayers paying taxes, people buying groceries, etc., $260 million a year, and at the same time they announced the TAGS program, but the exact amount of money that was coming in, left it, $260 million a year taken out of the UI fund and hauled out of this Province.

What have we seen this year in rollbacks in transfer payments? About $111 million, I say to my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl. That is $371 million in the last eighteen months to two years that the Federal Government have snatched away from the taxpayers and from the people of this Province. What will we see next year? We will see another $150 million taken out of the economy by loss of transfer payments. What will we see when Minister Axworthy stands in his place in the House of Commons and announces reforms to the UI fund? We will see an additional $250 to $300 million taken out of the back pockets of the people who can least afford it, the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

And this government stands by and the Premier's only response is: If and when I become Prime Minister, only then will I be able to direct the situation in a different manner. Can you imagine? Then he has the gall to stand up and say he is not taking a detached academic approach to the situation? My God, the situation, Mr. Speaker, dealing just with the UI fund alone is that the UI fund in Canada this year, is operating on a surplus. It operated on a surplus last year and yet, people in this Province, through no fault of their own, who are seasonally employed whether in construction and the industries related to construction, whether that be in mining, forestry, aquaculture, the fishery, those are the people who will be penalized for going out, taking an aggressive approach to finding a job, finding a job, paying taxes and due to circumstances beyond their control, there is no work throughout the whole yearlong, for climate more than anything else, there is no work.

For example, Mr. Speaker, in the construction industry for the most part between the months of November and April, climate conditions in this Province, in northern Canada in which we live, do not permit it but yet, Mr. Speaker, what we will see will be an attack on the average worker in this Province, the likes of which have never been seen in this Province before, and yet we hear silence.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has met with Minister Axworthy many times. He has indicated to the House of Assembly here that he has put the Province's case before Minister Axworthy, that he feels that the minister understands, all I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, put your case before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and let them know what you are doing, because you are not doing anything at the moment and neither is the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, we are facing a situation in this Province when the way and type of life that we have lived, and the quality of life that we have lived is not going to increase, it is not even going to be maintained; that all of us as a result of federal government policies, dictated by extreme, extreme right-wing agenda in the country, will have very serious consequences on this Province, and while there may not be a resettlement program, or while it may not be any of our members, any of the fifty-two members intentions in this House to see resettlement occur, the reality is, that it will.

When we reduce services, when we put municipal councils in a position where they can't provide services, where taxes can't be raised because 75 per cent to 80 per cent of people in communities are unemployed, and you cannot get blood from a turnip, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible. It is impossible. When we see jobs disappear before our eyes, thousands of them, then the reality is we have to look at what type of life and what type of province will be left to manage, and that is what we, as legislators here, and that is what we as people in the Province have to come to grips with, and come to grips with it very, very fast.

Has this government stood up for the people of the Province? That's the question that must be asked, have they? Not to the extent which they should have, is my response; not to the extent which they should have. It is a serious, serious situation that is developing, more serious than anybody cares to imagine and more serious than anybody on that side of the House, in particular the Cabinet is willing to articulate to the people of this Province, and there will come a time, Mr. Speaker, in the very near future, when the electorate will have their say on the last four years or three years and they will speak loud and clear. But the reality is that many of the members sitting on the front bench there right now will not be around. Many of the members who are in Cabinet will not be around to hear that because they will be gone, their jobs done, pensions in their back pockets and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't count on that.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board says: don't count on that. I, as a new member of this House don't count that but I can assure the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board that some of his colleagues are counting on it, I can guarantee you that and he will not make any moves dealing with the pensions or reform of pensions as it affects members of this House until, Mr. Speaker, some on the front bench and some of the members in Cabinet are able to resign at their own leisurely time with their pensions intact.

With that I will sit down.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like a few words on this pension's bill, which is essentially a bill to give effect to certain changes already brought about as a result of previous budget constraints.

The Opposition Leader today, in Question Period, indicated that the Budget that was brought down last spring, the Budget that we are currently under, was not a balanced Budget even though it was described so by Mr. Baker, the outgoing Member for Gander, the former Minister of Finance.

I remember sitting in this Chamber when the minister delivered his Budget statement. It was very short on specifics, but there were a number of grandiose statements in it, among which was the famous statement that we have achieved, this year, on current account, a balanced Budget.

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Liberal Party thumped their desks in absolutely joyous applause at the concept of a balanced Budget, the first time we have ever seen it. Members of the Opposition, at the time, indicated that we did not believe the Budget was actually balanced, that the government had taken advantage of certain one-time windfalls of money, the sale of certain assets, et cetera, to bring the books into balance, but I don't think there was any doubt among members of this House, and certainly members of the financial community who view the financial records of this government, who give this government its credit rating, there was no doubt among those people that while the books may have been balanced, the finances of this particular government were not balanced at all, and we see, of late, the new Minister of Finance coming in and indicating to this House and to the people of the Province that our so-called balanced Budget is out by some $60 million.

Now we are getting into a situation where we have to come up with $60 million or so to take care of the problem for the remainder of this fiscal year. The last third or quarter of this fiscal year we have to come up with $60 million, and presumably numbers of a similar or larger amount on an ongoing basic into the new fiscal year, 1996-'97. This is what you get when you manage the government by the seat of your pants, when you manage it without planning, when you manage it running from crisis to crisis.

What we are having to do now is put a broad axe to the various budget subheads in the government, including this Assembly, I would say, instead of having earlier on, when we realized we were in some significant trouble, using a scalpel, making cuts where cuts made sense, making cuts to government itself and not making cuts in services to people and cuts in personnel who serve people. We have seen a prime example of that in the health care system where the top echelons of the bureaucracy appear to go unscathed and the workers serving the general public, the nursing assistants, the nurses, family practitioners, various technical people in the hospitals who have to provide services to the general public, their staff budgets, their operations budgets, have been cut to the bone at a time when the call on the health care system due to the stresses of our everyday life is increasing the ability of that system to respond on a front-line basis to the needs of our citizens is dropping every day. This is as a result of poor planning, poor use of the resources available to us.

Now, as I indicated, at this stage of this fiscal year we have to come up with significant savings in the order of $60 million just to get us through this year, and one has to wonder what is coming next, but obviously there really has not been any kind of a structural approach to the financial problems of the Province by this government. They have simply been content over the years to slice willy-nilly, or little bits and pieces here, but there has been no real attack on what money we have available, what services we have to provide to people, and how do we make the necessary adjustments to do so. As a result, we are seeing considerable grief and pain in the governmental sector, and a significant cutback in services to the general public without any rhyme or reason to what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, much has been said in this Assembly as well about this government's approach to pending transfer cuts from the federal government. Whatever you want to say about the feds, Mr. Speaker, they've been using a scalpel in their approach. They've picked out certain sectors of governmental activity and they've decided as a policy that this is going, that is going, this may be increased, this is going to be decreased. National defence is under the gun, the UI program is under the gun, transfers to the provinces are under the gun. All of these three categories are a deliberate policy initiative of the national government, but as a result a poor province such as this one will take a disproportionate hit.

One of the problems we have with this government being of the same political stripe as the government in Ottawa is that it is not saying much except that it understands that the feds have decided to devastate defence, it understands that the feds have decided to embark on a social engineering experiment whereby it says that seasonal work UI is no longer a viable lifestyle in this nation of Canada and it is to be eliminated from Canada. If that eliminates Newfoundland and Labrador as a viable province, then tough luck to you guys.

That is what the federal government has said. It is a clearly stated policy initiative. To its credit, it has said it straight out. But not to the credit of this government. It hasn't said much about that policy initiative and the devastating effects it is going to have. I saw an editorial in today's Evening Telegram where they said if this is the way the federal government is going on with it, then we down here shouldn't be fighting the cuts in the UI. With respect, I have to disagree with that editorial stance. The job of a provincial government is to stand up for the government and the people of the Province, for the budget of the Province. This particular government has not stood up. It has been overly understanding of cuts that the federal people are coming forward with.

It is not the job of the Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to say there is absolutely nothing he can do about federal cutbacks in this Province unless he were prime minister of Canada. Right now he is elected Premier of this Province. Until such time as he is elected prime minister of Canada he would do well to use his own office to fight those changes that are negative to this particular Province. Instead he just wishes he were prime minister so that he could direct the expenditures of the national government.

I sat in the gallery when I was an employee of the former PC Administration and I watched the Liberal party in Opposition. When Brian Peckford was premier he took on Joe Clark, he took on Pierre Trudeau, he took on Brian Mulroney. Even when he took on Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney the Liberal Party in Opposition, all it could scream was: You are being easy on your federal cousins. Now we've not only got federal cousins on the go here, we've got kissing cousins. It is so close it is almost incest. Yet at the same time they sit quietly, they don't open their mouths, they don't say a word! They haven't said a word since coming to power. When the federal Tories were in they did have a fair bit of criticism for the feds, but once the federal Liberals got in their relationship was too tight, too cosy, and the Province has suffered as a result.

The defence cuts that came down the other day. George Baker is one of the few Liberal MPs who has spoken up against some of the cuts coming our way, in stark contrast to the Liberal government of the Province. I heard Mr. Baker on the open line the other day when it was put to him: You've been a maverick in the federal Liberal Party, you've been pointing out these devastating cuts for Newfoundland, wouldn't you be better off sitting as an independent or joining the PCs or joining the Reform or joining the Bloc or joining someone, so that you would be in a better position even still to criticize this government? Then Mr. Baker very quickly pointed out that he was a lifelong Liberal and he couldn't operate except within the Liberal context.

This is the same Mr. Baker who recently made all these disclosures on defence who saved the electoral bacon of the new Member for Gander, who spent eight or ten hours on the phone personally dragging out the vote on Election Day in Gander, knowing full well what was coming in terms of defence, knowing full well what was coming but biding his time, biting his lip, until such time as the Gander by-election was over. While Mr. Baker may enjoy playing the Maverick, Mr. Speaker, he is, like above all else, to be a Liberal, my Party first, my province, my country second, that has always been the motivation. What astounds me as a provincial politician, Mr. Speaker, is that this Liberal Party, both in Opposition and in government, have said: my Party first, my province second, even though it is a provincial party, and my country comes - My Party first, my country second, my province third. It is somewhat passing strange that a provincial party puts the interest of the nation ahead of the interest of the province in terms of what it says and what it does with regard to expenditures impacting negatively on this Province.

Mr. Speaker, there is another Liberal in this nation who has received resounding applause from the Liberal benches opposite. I mentioned earlier the former Minister of Finance when he brought down his `smoke and mirrors' Budget. Some time ago, we saw the minister stand and make a very glowing public statement in this House with regard to Brian Tobin, the federal fisheries minister and how he chased the Spanish off the high seas and got a big round of applause from the government benches opposite, only some weeks and months later to find out that in so doing, we sold our souls to the Spanish, we gave them back their boat, we released the crew, the fish that we confiscated and put in a warehouse, we put on a boat and shipped it back to Spain at a cost of $40,000 or $50,000.

We even had the net that we brought down to the United Nations and made a big display of, Mr. Speaker - the federal fisheries department wanted to display that at the C & E Exhibition in Toronto, and the Spanish Embassy got on it and that had to be taken down in the middle of the night, because we didn't dare aggravate or embarrass the Spanish Embassy or the Spanish government. So what we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a game, an incidence of smoke and mirrors, Mr. Tobin, on taking on the Spanish. Where is our Cabinet minister in the Federal Government with all these cuts coming in matters of Defense, UI and transfer payments? As a member of the Cabinet, he has done very little, he hasn't anything near the clout that the former minister, John Crosbie or former, former minister, Don Jamieson had in terms of having a presence in the federal Cabinet to mitigate some of these negative effects on this Province. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, we have heard nothing from him on that whatsoever. So he hasn't said anything on transfers, he hasn't said anything on UI, he hasn't said anything on Defense, and as I said, George Baker has said a little, but only in the context that he must always, until the day he dies, remains a Liberal, because being a Liberal and a member of the Liberal Party, for most of these people, appears to be the first and foremost goal in life. The be-all and end-all of political existence is remaining a Liberal. They were like it in Opposition; they are like it now in government, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What bill are you on?

MR. HEWLETT: The Finance bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we have is a Liberal Party that, on a particular issue back in the 1960s, got a big name for itself as a sell-out party in terms of Churchill Falls. They did a bad job there, they got a bad reputation for it and after twenty-three years in power, they got the flick, electorally, and that was the focus of public dismay with regard to that government, the Churchill Falls issue.

In Opposition, Mr. Speaker, they did nothing but carry the Federal-Liberal line whenever they could, attack the P.C. government for not being tough enough on the feds; the P. C. government that took on the feds, regardless of political stripe, and now in office, Mr. Speaker, they again are in bed with the Federal Liberals and are not standing up for the people of this Province.

Something I pointed out very early in the term of this government, Mr. Speaker - basically, you know, they say a picture is worth a thousand words. When this Assembly was in the Chamber up in the tower, and our party went from the government common room to the Opposition common room, I had the opportunity some months later, during the Christmas party to drop in to the government common room, and our common room was hung with various sorts of pictures and notices and the usual bric-a-brac, I suppose, that might be common in a government office, but what struck me as extremely strange, more than passing strange, extremely strange, Mr. Speaker, was that the government common room under the new Premier Wells, was hung with pictures of federal-Liberal prime ministers. I found that astounding.

When I was Chief of Staff in Brian Peckford's Premier's Office, and when we remodelled, one of the first things we did was hang a photograph of Joey Smallwood on the wall as the first Premier since Confederation. We hung Joey, we hung Frank Moores and we had a picture of the current Premier, Mr. Peckford. The first thing this government did was get rid of all - Thou shalt have no other gods before me; I do believe the first commandment is, and he took it quite literally. Joey's picture came down, and the only gods that were allowed on the wall were federal Liberal prime ministers. I think that sums up very much the ilk, the attitude, of this particular Liberal government, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Would the hon. member yield for a question? Where are you talking about all these pictures hanging?

AN HON. MEMBER: You should have been listening.

MR. FUREY: I was listening and I'm trying to - he is saying on the Eighth floor?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Oh, I'm sorry.

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

MR. HEWLETT: With regard to photographs, Mr. Speaker, in the Eighth floor office, as remodelled by Premier Peckford, renamed unofficially `Buckingham Porch' by the Member for Port de Grave; we hung pictures of former premiers, which I gather, bit the dust as soon as the current Premier came to office.

Then as I said, when I had an opportunity to visit the new government's common room, when our Assembly was up in the old Chamber, that common room was adorned with pictures of federal Liberal prime ministers. So it shows the priority. Even a provincial Liberal premier named Smallwood was not hung in the common room of this new Liberal government. It showed a total preoccupation with the feds. Obviously, it showed where the Premier's mind-set was.

When he replied to a question the other day from the Leader of the Opposition, his only response was: I really can't do anything about that unless I were Prime Minister of Canada. The man nearly - I'm sure he cried himself to sleep the night that Mr. Chrétien got the leadership and went on to become Prime Minister. Up until then we are given to understand that the man was actually taking French lessons with a genuine desire to abandon this Province to its fate and become the prime minister of the nation.

What we have is a Liberal Party which, through either its federal representative in the Canadian Cabinet, or through the Cabinet ministers down here who have not stood up for the interests of this Province, put the interests of the Liberal Party first, the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada second, and we, as a province, and the people they are primarily supposed to serve, come last.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take a few minutes to speak to Bill No. 29, An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, et cetera.

I was tempted to interrupt the hon. the Member for Green Bay when he was speaking, but I said what I would do was I would make some notes, and I would get up and make a few comments in retaliation on the points the hon. member was trying to make. One of the first things I noted that he said was: This government is not standing up for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He has a right to his opinion. No matter how wrong it may be, he has a right to it. I'm going to take a couple of minutes to tell you how we are standing up for the people of this Province.

I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to speak to a small group of high school students who are taking democracy class. One question that one of the students asked me was: Why does government have so many cutbacks? Why is government always closing down, talking about closing down, always cutting back and laying off? Why is it that you fellows are doing that?

I said: That is a matter of choice. We don't have to do that. But I will give you one or two choices and let you make up your mind if we are doing the right thing. I took a piece of chalk and I wrote on the blackboard what the former government left this Province in debt to - in excess of $7 billion. Out of that - and I'm not going to quote exact figures - comes about $585 million a year in interest.

MR. FUREY: And he wants us to hang Frank Moores (inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: And he wants to hang Moores.

The students started to get interested. We owe $7.2 billion; we pay out $585 million a year in interest. I said: That has to come from your parents' tax dollars. Those are tax dollars that we collect from your parents, we've got to pay away almost $600 million in interest charges each and every year before we spend a cent on health, transportation, education or any other service that you require in this Province.

Now, the easiest thing for a politician to do in this world is to spend money. If I want to become popular out in my district, or if I want to become popular in the Province, all I have to do is spend, spend, spend; give everything to the people that they want. Now, how do you do that? You can only do it with money. If they want new roads, new hospitals, new schools, and all the new things, there is only one answer, you have to do it with money. Now, the fishery is closed down; there are fewer people working; there are less taxes coming in. Ottawa is cutting, and we owe over $7 billion, so there is only one way you can get it; you go borrow it.

I said to the students: We will go borrow it. I want to get re-elected, we want to get re-elected, you want us to do everything to make you happy, so we will borrow and we will spend it. Now, at the end of the next election, when the next election comes up at the end of this term - in taking over we owed $7 billion and we will increase it to, let's say, $9 billion, borrow another $2 billion; now, that means that in four years we have borrowed another $2 billion, and that means we have to pay another $200 million or $300 million a year interest charges, minimum, on top of the $585 million that we are already paying, and we will do that for two or three terms. Then, when we are finished with the government, when your parents or the voters of this Province decide to vote us out, the debt has gone from $7 billion to $14 billion. Now, we have doubled the debt of the Province because we wanted to make everybody happy so we would get re-elected. We would have built some pickle factories, some cucumber farms, and all of these silly things. Now, who has to pay for that debt? Look at the Page, the young people, and look at the few young people in the gallery. When they become educated and they get out to work, they will be responsible to pay the loans that we, as irresponsible, drunken sailors, spent the money in this Province and put us $14 billion in debt.

That is what the former government did. What we are doing is standing up for the young people of this Province. We are not going to allow the debt to grow. We are going to try, number one, to provide the best service we can within our financial means. We are going to try to provide some kind of a sensible financial picture for the future of this Province that the young people can have at least a decent future where they can make their own decisions and not have to worry and to raise money to pay off what former governments irresponsibly spent, and that is the way the hon. members thought over on that side for seventeen years in government - never thought about the future, never thought about what somebody else would have to pay back, as long as they kept the voters happy. That was their only concern, as long as they could get re-elected, spend the money, pave roads, buy new equipment, build new buildings, anything to get a vote; and who pays the piper?

Some day, some time, somebody has to pay the bill, and I do not want to be part of any government - any government - that is going to put a debt load on the future children, the future generation, of this Province, and that is what they are trying to do, put a debt load on the young people of this Province, who will spend their whole lives paying off the debt that we, as foolish politicians, irresponsible politicians, made. And that's what it is all about.

Running a government is no different from running a household or business. If you take in $2,000 a month, you can't spend $4,000. If you spend $4,000 your debt will go up, and at some point in time the bank manager is going to say, `no more'. And that is what the banks are saying to all governments in the world, `no more'. Now, just imagine if that crowd on that side were over here today, and they kept spending like they did for seventeen years. What a mess we would be in!

Now, let me tell you about Brian Peckford, standing up and shouting and bawling for the people of this Province, taking on his own government in Ottawa. Do you remember the factory-freezer trawlers? Remember all the shouting and bawling and we, as Opposition people, told him the factory-freezer trawlers would destroy the fishery of this Province? And he took on his great enemies up in Ottawa, and he was going to stop it, and he took off his coat and slammed it on the floor. Well, what happened to the factory-freezer trawlers? They went to the Grand Banks, Mr. Speaker, and today we have no fishery. We have no fishery because of the brain-storming of the former government and the Mulroney crowd in Ottawa and John Crosbie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: That is what fighting done. At least Brian Tobin had the courage to take them on and get rid of them. At least he had the courage. At least they are not out there now fishing. And the reason why every Newfoundlander today is depending on hand-outs from somewhere else in Canada is because you shagged up the fishery and you have to take responsibility for it. That is what standing up for the Province is all about, Mr. Speaker. That type of attitude got us to the point where we do not know if we are going to have any future in this Province. We don't know if there is any future left for this Province. Somebody should read the book that was recently written about the former Prime Minister, about the kind of corruption that was in this country, why we owe three-quarters of a trillion dollars debt load in this country and they want to borrow more, they want to spend more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is not up. I am just calling for order, that's all. This afternoon it is beginning to sound like a hockey game. The hockey game is at the stadium tonight. So I suggest that hon. members should get tickets.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest hon. members should listen. They would be very wise to listen. All they have to do - if you don't want to listen to me this afternoon and you don't want to learn about corruption, sit down and watch The Fifth Estate this evening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: You talk about corruption; you talk about spending taxpayers' money. It would make your pickle factory look like a pickle jar, what is going on tonight. `Bev's Dip' would stand up with pride compared to what is going on tonight but, Mr. Speaker, we have to pay for what has happened in the past. What we are doing as a government who are responsible, we are not only responsible for what is going to happen in the Province today, we care about the future of the Province. We care about the youth of our Province. We want them to have a fighting chance to be able to make their own decisions, a matter of choice, not to have to pay off our debt, not to have to pay off our silly mistakes. They want to be able to look into the future and make a choice; live in this Province and make a decision and make a choice to do the things they want to do, to build with the future. Mr. Speaker, that has been the problem with governments of the past, they have never cared about the future. They have cared personally about themselves, about voting day and what they can do to keep the voters in this Province happy. I want to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I am proud to belong to a government who care about the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, if we ever heard from somebody who said one thing, one day and the opposite the next day, we have just heard it, `Standing up and fighting for Newfoundlanders.' The hero, Mr. Speaker, a few years ago when he was kicked out of Cabinet - how he was going to fight for, stand up for the fisherpersons of this Province. Have we heard one word, Mr. Speaker, about the thousands who have been cut out of TAGS? Has the minister spoken on that issue? Not a word, Mr. Speaker. He is a wimp, that's what the minister is, a wimp.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in 1992 there was $1.1 billion spent by the Federal Government on the UI program in this Province. Now the unemployed, Mr. Speaker, there are more unemployed in 1994 than there were in 1992 and this year they spent $645 million. Where is the hero now, Mr. Speaker? Why did he not stand up and fight for the people who are being cut off the UI? Not a word, Mr. Speaker, not a whimper. He talked about the debt that is being mounted in this Province, and he went on to say that we are paying over $600 million on the interest. Mr. Speaker, we are paying $541 million on the interest and the other $60 million you are leaving out, the Minister of Finance would love to have right now I say to the minister. He talked about debt, but did we hear him complaining when they spent millions of dollars to try and privatize Newfoundland Hydro? What did he say about that, Mr. Speaker? What did he say about the millions that were just spent on the referendum in this Province? Did anybody hear him say anything on that? What did he say about Trans City, the hospitals in this Province?

Mr. Speaker, the largest single deficit ever compiled in this Province in one year was done by the Wells administration of which that minister was then a part, the largest single deficit in the history of this Province. Where was he then?

MR. E. BYRNE: Ask him what the Liberal Party said when Peckford wanted to call a year's moratorium on the northern cod allowance in 1981? What did the Liberals over in the Opposition say at that point? What did John Efford say (inaudible) Port de Grave? He told Brian Peckford he was nuts. Did you not? In 1981 when the Peckford Administration called for a moratorium on the northern cod allowance what did you say then? Everybody in this Province told him he was nuts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this minister was part of the biggest charade this House has even seen, and he allowed it to happen more than anyone, because the balanced Budget this year, that was announced some time ago, it was balanced because he was prepared to give away the money from the Southcoast ferries that was brought in by the federal government. He sold out on that, Mr. Speaker. You talk about hypocrisy; you talk about standing up to fight for Newfoundlanders. Every day he was going after Cashin, he was going after somebody. Then he talked about Brian Tobin, the only battle that was won. Every single bill that was incurred with the arrest of that vessel, the Estai, was paid for by the taxpayers of this country and now they are being sued.

They returned the fish, they returned the boat, they returned everything and not a whimper from the Member for Port de Grave. He talked about Peckford and the factory freezer trawlers and all of that, Mr. Speaker. This government has brought in a very dangerous policy in my opinion, and that is, where fish is caught in this Province it must be processed in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's bad, is it?

MR. TOBIN: No, but one of these days 3PS is going to be opened. One of these days there is going to be a quota in 3PS and I am sure that the fishermen of the South and Southwest Coast will be glad to hear it, the same as fishermen in other parts of the Province are glad to hear that their areas are open. That is what is going to happen. Then, I wonder where will the Member for Port de Grave be?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: You know what I am talking about. I look forward to 3PS opening and hopefully it might be next year.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: All you will be able to do is look at it and drool. If you want to see a revolution, try it.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if they ever came after it or not but I know that the fishermen on the South Coast went to Labrador and fished for years because the fishermen on the South Coast of this Province fished twelve months a year. They did not go out when the weather was fine. They did not go out when they could see clothes lines on the back of the House. They did not go out when the sun was shining. They went out in January, February and March.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: They went out in January and February and March, and the scars are there to prove it. Look at the crew of the Blue Foam -

AN HON. MEMBER: Blue Mist.

MR. TOBIN: I am sorry, the Blue Mist and the Blue Wave. Look at the crews of those vessels.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't even know the names of the boats.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I do. I know Charlie Walsh was skipper of one and Stewart Price was skipper of the other, I say to members opposite, but I can tell you they were the people who we grew up with on the South Coast of this Province. They were the people we hardly knew, because they didn't walk the roads after September. They were beating the ice. They were froze to death. They were starving to death. They were hard-working, dedicated, Newfoundlanders, true and blue fishermen. That is what they were.

The Member for Port de Grave can get up here and talk about what he likes, but I can tell him one thing; you cannot get on with trying to be the hero one day, trying to save the fishery, save the fisherpersons in this Province when you are in the back benches, and become a wimp the next day, and give up the ghost when you become a member of Cabinet. You cannot have it both ways, I say to the Member for Port de Grave.

Mr. Speaker, there are other issues that have to be discussed here. I remember back when the Member for Port de Grave was in the Opposition, and the Government of Newfoundland never spent enough money in its history to please the Member for Port de Grave. He wanted buildings built; he was on television with the CBC when the CBC gave him a forum to discuss the health care, himself and the member for the Straits. They went over with their buddies from the CBC, at that big forum, and he crucified John Collins, who was then the Minister of Health, because they were not spending enough money in health care.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The Member for the Straits and the Member for Port de Grave. CBC gave them a forum one night, over there - John Collins was there - and they crucified the minister. They crucified him because he wasn't spending more money in health care. Now they are both part of a Cabinet that is constantly, constantly, every day, attacking the sick and the suffering of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now the feds are doing what they like.

MR. TOBIN: The feds are doing exactly what they like.

Have we heard the Member for Port de Grave talk about the changes that are going to be made to the UI system? Does he support them?

MR. EFFORD: I have to leave.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, you should leave. This has been said for you to leave. It has been said for you to hang your head in shame and leave. It has been said to expose you, and if you cannot take the heat get out of the kitchen, I say to the Member for Port de Grave. If you cannot take it, get out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Member for Harbour Grace, you cannot play the games that the Member for Port de Grave, or the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, plays without being exposed, because I remember well, as do my other colleagues who were in the House, how we were never satisfied with spending money in health care. How do members opposite... did we hear the Member for Port de Grave the other day say anything when the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs announced a reduction of 22 per cent in the MOGs? Not a whimper. We did not hear much from any of the members opposite, but you will have an opportunity one of these days to stand and vote. You will have that opportunity, to stand and vote in this House as to whether or not you support the attack that has been made upon the municipalities in this Province. You will have that opportunity, to let the councils know where you stand, and every single council in this Province will know where every single member stood on that vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes,

MR. TOBIN: Yes, bar none.

AN HON. MEMBER: They won't do what some of your members did in the referendum when they voted overwhelmingly to do one thing, and some of your members did something else.

MR. TOBIN: Who voted overwhelmingly?

AN HON. MEMBER: The people of Mount Pearl did.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what about the Member for Exploits?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, yes, they are different. His vote is different. It is worth two, is it? What about the Member for Exploits?

AN HON. MEMBER: Eagle River.

MR. TOBIN: What about the Member for Eagle River? Is the Member for Eagle River in Cabinet? Does that excuse him, I ask the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island? Does the member of caucus who got the flick out of Cabinet, does that make his vote less important? What about the Member for Stephenville who sits in front of him, I ask the member. What about the Member for Exploits? Who else?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)?

MR. TOBIN: He voted, Mr. Speaker. Eagle River. The Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island. What about the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, I would ask the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is that every member in this House will have an opportunity to stand in his or her place and let the municipalities of this Province know whether or not he or she supports its MOG. We would not be doing our job as an Opposition on an issue as important as that if we did not circulate to every council in this Province the result of that vote. We would not be doing our job. If the councils from Mount Scio - Bell Island didn't know how the member voted on an issue as important as that, if all the councils in Mount Scio - Bell Island didn't get a result of that vote, it would be because we were not doing our job, and we intend to do our job on something as important as this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Twenty-two per cent? Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member that on Saturday past I spent some time with the mayors of Marystown and Burin, and the president of the Federation of Municipalities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I told them I'm going to be forced to run again. For the good of this Province. Everyone on this side of the House is going to have to run again.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Glenn, no, as tempted as you are to run federally, as tempted as you are to bump off Simmons, you are going to run provincially.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would tell the Member for Windsor - Buchans one thing, that he is history. He will never sit in the House of Commons again, not for Burin - St. George's, the present member.

I spent some time with those three gentlemen on Saturday and I really got a greater understanding into the attack -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I said I met with the mayors of Marystown and Burin, and the president of the Federation of Municipalities on Saturday. I got an insight greater than I really had on the severity of these attacks and what it is going to mean.

AN HON. MEMBER: What hotel?

MR. TOBIN: I was in the town hall in Burin, I would say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what does it matter where it was?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing. I had a great conversation with the union at the Marystown plant and the president of that union said: We had our turn last year. It is Fortune's and Harbour Breton's turn this year. The same as Harbour Breton and Fortune said last year when it was Marystown's turn. One thing I would say to the member is that the people of the South Coast have never been known to be saturated with greed and want it all for themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is why they are still open; they are not as parochial as you.

MR. TOBIN: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I got a clip here somewhere from the Fraser Institute that states -

AN HON. MEMBER: Now he is going to start using his notes.

MR. TOBIN: There could be anything here Danny.

Mr. Speaker, what is the Member for Eagle River telling his constituents about the cutbacks -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Sure I don't care.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I know you don't care.

MR. TOBIN: I don't know what the Member for Eagle River purchased.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dog food.

MR. TOBIN: Dog food for Harry. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is up to, I really don't know. I don't know how, Mr. Speaker - all I say to the Member for Eagle River, I just got passed some more bad news.

I don't know what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is trying to do and I don't know how the members over there can support the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I don't know how the Member for Harbour Grace, who I have known over the past few years, I always found him to be a perfect gentleman, sincere in everything he does but I don't know how he is going to be able to stand in this House and vote for a 22 per cent reduction to the council of Harbour Grace. It is not going to be easy because the Member for Harbour Grace is not going to bore his way into the Cabinet like the Member for Eagle River. He is not prepared, Mr. Speaker, to sell his soul like the Member for Eagle River. Mr. Speaker, he is going to be more like the Member from Port au Port when the Speaker said: Do you want a Cabinet post?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier said.

MR. TOBIN: The Premier said: Do you want a Cabinet post? Well if you do you got to turn against your principles, you got to forget about where you came from, you got to forget about your principles, you have to forget about your background as an educator in an RC school board, you have to be prepared to tell the people of this Province that you forgot about all of that, you want to sell it. The Member for Port au Port - I was not privy to the conversation but I heard enough about it - I would think, Mr. Speaker, that he said: Premier, my principles are far more important than the prestige of office and the perks of office. I will sit in the back-benches any day rather than compromise what I have been taught a lifetime.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, then there was another call that went through then to the government members opposite. There was another member called up -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. TOBIN: I am not going to mention any names. I am not certain of this but this is how I think it happened. The Premier said: We want you to come into Cabinet but I know where you stand on education reform, I know what your principles are but you got to be prepared to forget about them if you are coming into Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, I would think what he said was: Premier how fast do you want me in government house? And that is Danny, Mr. Speaker. That is what Danny would do, Mr. Speaker, and the Member for Harbour Grace would not do.

I am going to tell the story now, Mr. Speaker, I never told the story on how bad Danny wanted to get into Cabinet before but I am going to tell it now and what he is prepared to do in order to get Tom Murphy -

AN HON. MEMBER: So Tom Murphy wouldn't get in.

MR. TOBIN: That's right, so Tom Murphy would not get in if Danny was going to get in. He was prepared, Mr. Speaker, to -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not supposed to refer to a member by his first name.

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will call him Harry. He was prepared, Mr. Speaker, to sacrifice Harry. He was prepared to offer him up, to sacrifice him, Mr. Speaker, and drag his blood to Tom Murphy's doorstep -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: So that he would be guilty of killing Harry.

MR. TOBIN: So that Tom Murphy would be blamed, Mr. Speaker, for doing the job on Harry -

MR. DUMARESQUE: O.J. Murphy.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and Danny Furman.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I thought it was important that the Member for Port de Grave be exposed and I hope I did.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Okay, I will have a chat on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I can't let it go unchallenged, that scathing attack that was put on members on this side of the House, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, a very esteemed member of this House and a tremendous member for the district he represents. I can't help but have something to say about the lengths to which the members will go. And I acknowledge the virtues of my hon. colleague, the Member for Port au Port, I acknowledge that he is a very hard-working member and has strong principles like all of us do over on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

But I have to say how much I was amused - I would have to say `amused' would be the proper word - to hear the Member for Burin - Placentia West say, that a person's principles are more important than the perks of office, Mr. Speaker. And I must say that it shouldn't be lost on the people of this Province, that when the Premier of this Province was out there in 1988-1989, holding the press conferences to expose the green cucumbers to everybody in the Province, while he was out there saying to the people of this Province, we have now come across a wonderful piece of technology, a piece of technology that's going to replace the fishery, we are not going to need any more civil servants, we are not going to need any more jobs in the mining industry, Mr. Speaker, I have now discovered the panacea for job creation in the world. I have now discovered that in six days - this long, this long, Mr. Speaker. All over this Province, Cabinet members set out in the government plane, to Wabush, down to Burin, with cucumbers sticking out of every pocket.

They were told to put on overcoats, you could take another forty cucumbers under the overcoats; and then, Mr. Speaker, going into shopping malls, going everywhere; and here then the news came in over the wire that not only were they making the milk go greener in Kilbride after the cows were full to their stomachs and had to throw it right up, Mr. Speaker, because the people wouldn't buy it anymore. The people of Mount Pearl having all kinds of headaches because the lights would never go off over there and then the word came in that not only was the milk turning green, the cows throwing up, the flowers going through the roof over in Mount Pearl, the people couldn't sleep, they had to go down and build bunkers in Mount Pearl because they couldn't sleep over there. Then they said: in addition to that, we have now had from Newfoundland Light and Power, the light bill for one week, Mr. Speaker, one week - I suppose the people in this Province couldn't help but say well: it is not a bad deal, we are probably growing the cucumbers for twenty or thirty dollars a week because of this wonderful technology, the vitamins that are being put into the plants making them grow six days this high and this long, Mr. Speaker - $7,000 a week.

Now, the Member for Ferryland, at the time - certainly, no man ever replaced him coming from Ferryland - couldn't take it anymore. He said: `This is it - I have had enough of this scandal.' `I have had enough,' he said, `of this kind of abuse of taxpayers' money, I can't stand to hear the people of Mount Pearl being up all night, I can't stand to see the people of Kilbride having to take their cows out to Pasadena or somewhere to give them some decent hay or some kind of food.' He couldn't stand it anymore. He tendered his resignation; he said: `I will not take it anymore,' and, of course, the fellow who was standing next to him in that Cabinet room, the fellow who was right there, pounding his fist on the table that he was going to stand up for the people of this Province, was none other than the Member for Burin - Placentia West there, as the Minister of Social Services.

Did he call a press conference, Mr. Speaker? No, he didn't call a press conference because he was too busy issuing purchase orders, Mr. Speaker, on April 1, of 1989. Purchase orders, standing offer - Please issue a standing offer for liquor and beer to be picked up on an `as and when required' basis for the private dining room and various committees of Cabinet, Treasury Board, IGA, Secretariat for the period. Make no wonder he said he was operating with a blown mind. Make no wonder that the Premier of the day wouldn't answer telephone calls on Sprung. I imagine he couldn't get to the door let alone open the door. Well, what is a dozen beer, $16 or $18 I suppose? No, Mr. Speaker, nothing close, $20,000 as is, where is, from the Cabinet Secretariat 1989. But, not to be outdone, you can't have beer and liquor delivered as is, where is. You must create an ambience so that you will be able to make good solid decisions under the smoke of the back room, so they said, issue another one `Glenn', issue another one. Go down and issue a standing offer for the supply of tobacco products for the Premier's private dining hall, to be picked up on an `as and when required' from April 1.

Mr. Speaker, I guess you would figure that at one Cabinet meeting you would probably get a couple of packs of White Owl cigars. I suppose that would be enough to go around even though they had twenty-three Cabinet ministers, even though you never had enough in one pack to go around the Cabinet room at the time. But, no, Mr. Speaker, not two packs of White Owl cigars, not even two cartons, not even twenty cartons - $5,000 - a tractor-trailer-load of Cuban cigars to create the ambience for decision-making, so they would be able to zero in on the best technology for job development in the world, so they would be able to create those jobs and you would be able to close down the mines in Labrador West, you would be able to close down the forest industry in the Province, you would be able to close down Confederation Building.

You would need no more civil service, Mr. Speaker, and you could tell every fisherman out there, go and take your boats up because you will never need them anymore. We now have the job creator of the century, the job creation project of the most renowned technology to be applied here in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Sprung greenhouse. But, of course, you can't expect to have the dining room full of liquor and beer, and you cannot expect to have smoke in the back room, so you can see your way through all those decisions. You must do it so that you have everything in impeccable order, and particularly what you lay your drink on, or if you happen to flick your cigar and some ash fell somewhere, you wouldn't want a piece of cloth or anything to be dirtied, I expect. So he said: Issue another one, `Glenn'. Go and issue another purchase order for the dry cleaning of tablecloths, things you put the wine goblets on, the coasters, Please issue `as is, and where is' for the dry cleaning of tablecloths and coasters, on an `as and when required' basis, for the Premier's private dining hall from April 1st on.

I am sure that would probably be fifty cents or a dollar, because obviously, if they were to follow the lead of this side of the House, they probably wouldn't have any kind of meetings that would require anybody to accidentally flick over ash or something. He said: `Glenn', pick those items up and pay them $1,000, no problem; that should be able to dry-clean the coasters and the bit of stuff we put our drinks on in case you happen to flick over an old Cuban cigar.

You can't go drinking beer and wine, and you can't go smoking Cuban cigars, and you can't have yourself lined up with all the proper tablecloths and everything unless you have a bit of food on the table. You have to have a bit of food on the table. So he said: Issue another one, `Glenn', go down and pop in another PO, boy. It is only the taxpayers' money - who cares? We are here for the rest of our lives.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Ah, we are starting to get to them now, I think, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Eagle River couldn't expect those people he is referring to, to be in that environment with beer, wine, and cigars, and not have any food. Is that what he is suggesting, Mr. Speaker? Is he serious about that?

Mr. Speaker, the real point of order is, we are on Bill 29. I don't see anywhere in this about tablecloths. I see here about pensions and reductions in contributions and all this stuff. I'm just wondering if - I don't know if the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board knows what he has us into here. I'm sure he didn't expect this debate today. I'm just wondering if relevancy might apply here to the Member for Eagle River. Because every other speaker, so far, has been to the point and to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully concur with the comments of my friend, the hon. the Opposition House Leader, but I think it is a rule honoured more in the breach than in the observance. To the extent my friend, the Member for Eagle River is in violation of it, I note my much closer friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West probably was even more to blame in this case.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will rule on the point of order.

It has been a precedence in this House that bills of a financial nature permit a wide-ranging debate. I can attest to, as sitting in this Chair for the last hour, that it has been a wide-ranging debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, how more appropriate can you be when you are discussing whether money should come to this House, when you are discussing how public money should be spent, how more appropriate should it be than to properly put into perspective how the previous administration handled taxpayers' money? People out there should know that yes, indeed, they had to create the ambience for good solid decision-making, they had to have the beer and the liquor in the private dining room, they had to have the big Cuban cigars. Of course, I know it is not on the PO, but I'm sure the minister of the day, the Minister of Social Services, had his own stock of Bic lighters so he didn't have to issue the PO for them.

As I was saying, not only then did they say: Okay, we are going to have our Cabinet meeting now and we are going to have our $20,000-worth of wine and beer and liquor, we are going to have our $5,000-worth of cigars, and make sure that all the tablecloths are done so $1,000 for that, but we can't be in here having nothing to eat. So he said: `Glenn', go out and issue another one, it is only taxpayers' money, boy. I mean, we have lots of that. We are going to be here forever because we discovered Hibernia and we have Brian Mulroney up there now selling all the Canadair jets to the French, and we are going to load up `Frank' and people like that, Mr. Tobin. We don't have to worry about having a little bit of taxpayers' money spent around for our good PC colleagues around the table.

They said: Go down and issue another one. Please issue a standing offer for the purchase of groceries for the premier's private dining hall - issue a few snails, a few smoked oysters. I suppose they went out and bought a bit of salt fish, tried to have a couple of rabbits, I suppose. That is what the former premier used to have. No, no problem. He said: Go out and make sure that my Tory Cabinet colleagues are fed well.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, I suppose - what would you say? Thirty dollars or $40?

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred dollars.

MR. DUMARESQUE: One hundred dollars? No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five thousand dollars.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Five thousand dollars. Now, he would know! He is more accurate. Oh yes. No, Mr. Speaker, make no wonder, it wasn't $40, it wasn't $100, it wasn't $1,000, it wasn't $5,000, but for a couple of months he said: Give me $10,000-worth of food. Get the transport truck. Bring her up, he said.

Now then, here we have the ambience. Here we have the environment for decision-making for the people of this Province. You have twenty-three Cabinet ministers with a big Cuban cigar stuck in each one. Then you have the wine goblet in the other hand. Then you have the members of the Executive Council, I guess, going around with the plate with the smoked oysters on it, and a bit of caplin -perhaps they would have a bit of caplin there. So, in that smoke-filled room, in a situation where the liquor is starting to take effect, you can understand why they would zero in on the number one job creation project in this world, the Sprung Greenhouse. We see it: it is coming into our minds now, `Glenn'. We see it coming forward. Is that a welcoming committee there for me, `Glenn', or is it a PC rally?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) smoke.

MR. DUMARESQUE: He said when the smoke cleared: `Glenn, they have guns.' `Oh, yes, Mr. Premier, that is for the twenty-one gun salute.' `But, Glenn, why are they pointing them at me? Why are they pointing them at me, Glenn?'

So back aboard the bus, get back in to Confederation Building, get back to that dining hall; it is much more comfortable back there. You need a compass to navigate, certainly, around there because of the smoke, because of the Cuban cigars. Also, you couldn't be just eating any kind of food. You had to have very specialized food, and if we didn't have enough on the table at the time, then we should get some so we could store a little bit. So he said: `Glenn', send out another PO. It is only taxpayers' money, nothing to do with it. We have Mulroney up there now, not afraid to inflict prosperity on Newfoundland and Labrador. He is not afraid to do that, so we are going to have all kinds of money, `Glenn'. We are going to be rolling in it. We are going to be the sheiks of North America in a couple of year's time, so go out and issue another PO. Please issue a standing offer for the purchase of frozen and seasonal produce. Now what would that be, I wonder, `seasonal produce'?

AN HON. MEMBER: Caviar.

MR. DUMARESQUE: That would probably be a little bit of caviar, I suppose, a little bit of those -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) used to send that in for nothing.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh, they used to send that in for nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh, a little bit of caviar probably, as and when required from April 1, 1989 to March 31, 1990. Now, they were really on to a real grand scheme here. They knew that on April 3 there was going to be an election called, but they said, from April 1 to March 31, 1990 we are going to be here, the sheiks of the Northwest Atlantic. We are going to be here rolling in the dough that Mulroney is going to give us. We are going to be here, `Glenn', my son, he said, until the Liberals rots, every one of them in the Province, so let's have some frozen and seasonal produce to go along with our Cuban cigars and our liquor and wine, to go along with the clean tablecloths and the coasters. Fifteen hundred dollars should do it, he said; give a shot over to Bidgoods there. Go over to Bidgoods and get some caviar so we can have a little bit of caviar to go along with all of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: I don't know exactly what they were looking for. I don't know what they were looking for on that day, because I am starting to put together the puzzle and I cannot understand what they were looking for, because one minute he was saying, `Go out and issue PO number such and such for the liquor and the tobacco'. Then he said, `Go out and get the $10,000-worth of food.' This was the groceries. Then he said -

MR. DECKER: Who was the Premier when all of this was going on?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh, that was Peckford; that was his name, Peckford - this long, this long, six days; yes, Mr. Speaker, the invention of the century.

But they didn't know if they could zero in on it, so they did not want to buy all the groceries, I suppose. That is the only thing I can figure out, because here they did something early in the day, they issued PO No. 030016 from Executive Council, a very big order of business, for $10,000-worth of groceries, and then they said -

MR. DECKER: All of this had to go through Cabinet.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh, yes, well, that is what Cabinet was for.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes. Then they said: Well, we will zero in on some seasonal produce for another $1,500, but obviously, they never got exactly what they were looking for. They took $10,000 there, $1,500 there, and the same day issued another PO - Please issue a standing offer for the purchase of fish items as is and when required by the Premier's private dining room from April 1, 1989 to March 31, 1990.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fish items?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Fish items, yes. Now, what would that be, I wonder? They never picked up their snails and their caviar and stuff under the $1,500 order. They went over to the General and went in and said we are buying all the groceries here, $10,000 worth here but they did not get it there either. So they said boy, you got to go right down to Fishery Products International. We got to have those fish. So he said, yes Glen no problem, taxpayers money, no problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well you would expect after spending $10,000 on groceries, another $1,500 then on seasonal items, you would expect probably $100 I suppose. No, what would the Member for Grand Bank - what would he suggest would be - yes, because you went and got $10,000 worth of supplies there, $5,000 for cigars and another $1,500 for seasonal items. So I suppose you would say $200, $300? No, Mr. Speaker, another $3,000. He said another $3,000, round it off. Glen said: I can't get that today, Mr. Premier. No problem he said, I got a chief of staff for that kind of stuff. Mr. Hewlett, get in here. I got a chief of staff for that kind of stuff. How are you going to earn your severance pay now Mr. Hewlett if you don't go down to Bidgoods and get this stuff for me? So you get down - $10,000 in this hand, $5,000 in this hand, $1,500 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) when he walked in.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I'd say, that was just before of course he had resigned. Shortly after resigning you know the house they had up in Mount Scio? The Mount Scio house, that was just after he resigned. The Mount Scio house, Mr. Speaker, and that was before that of course but the previous Cabinet meeting to this one had to deal with the relinquishing of Mount Scio house. So they had to say okay, this is another special Cabinet meeting we go to have here now to make sure that the assets of the Province; the furniture, the royal oak -

AN HON. MEMBER: The goblets.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh yes, the wine goblets, the crystal wine goblets, the wine holder that goes by the bedside, that one, Mr. Speaker. They said these are the people's resources. These are the people's assets but we must have another special cabinet meeting now Glen. You get a hold of the Executive Council there and ring her up, Mr. Speaker, ring up another one. He said have another Cabinet meeting so we can have a proper exposition of all the people's assets so we can get them properly tendered. We will get the best price for them and we will get the taxpayers of the Province coming in and saying good job Brian, good job Bill, good job Glen, good job Lynn. They will come in and say thank you very much for taking the assets of the Province and tendering them properly and getting them out but no, no, no. A wee little voice down in the corner said: Mr. Premier we can't go doing that. We can't go public tendering the wine goblets and the china. We can't go tendering the royal oak, Mr. Premier. How can we do that? You are not going to have nothing when you leaves if you does that. So we are going to have to do it right like we does with all Tory stuff. We are going to have to do it right. We are going to go around the table now and see who wants some of this kind of stuff.

Brian said, well Glen you have talked to Haig Young there, you have talked to the minister of public works and he has an assessment on the value of this I am sure. Haig groaned and of course that was a yes, two groans was a no. Mr. Speaker, he said yes of course, I got a full appraisal of this done. I have wine goblets now that have been assessed at thirty-two dollars, crystal wine goblets, Mr. Speaker, that were in the Mount Scio house and with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for nigh on eighty or ninety years. Thirty-two dollars each, there were twelve wine goblets that were there. Now they said, look this is thirty-two dollars each, Mr. Speaker, and they said let's see if we got any bids. If we got any bids on the go. So they went around the table at thirty dollars. Too high. Twenty dollars, do I hear twenty? Fifteen? Too high. No, twelve? No, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) too high?

MR. DUMARESQUE: A dollar-fifty? Gone, gone. The Premier got them. You got them Premier, you got the goblets. The Premier got them for $1.50, $32-china wine goblets, in the history of the Province, the possession of the taxpayers of this Province for tens of years. Then they said, let's go on to the wine container that goes by the bedside. Well, let's go to that. Now, Haig, Haig, do you have that assessed? Hmm, yes, that one grunt was yes so he had that assessed, he had that appraised, that was the way they operated, secret code you see. Did Bill say it wasn't appraised?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what he said.

MR. DUMARESQUE: No. Haig said it was appraised. That's nothing Bill, it is appraised, Haig said, so the wine goblets were gone, thirty-two dollars, down to a dollar-fifty, the Premier got them, some coincidence.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a lucky break.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Now, Glenn, what would you bid on the container that goes by the bedside, the one that was in the Province's possession.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), decanter.

MR. DUMARESQUE: The decanter I guess, I suppose it was. I don't know if it is true or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: You wheel it in (inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, you wheel it in on a tray and I think Haig said that looks like item twelve, fourteen - yes, $350, appraised at $350 so the hon. Member for Humber East I think put in twenty dollars? Too high, too high, yes, too high.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said it was too high?

MR. DUMARESQUE: The secretary, the chief of staff, he was the one who held the auction; he held the auction you see. Yes, the intent was, you see, they went around the table and the Tory tendering process was that you don't get the highest tender, you get the lowest tender. That's right, any time you are selling an asset, I mean, I think that it was repeated here the other day. The former finance minister got up and he lambasted this President of the Treasury Board, Minister of Finance, he said: Why did you take the highest bidder for the hotels? Why, why did you take the highest bidder? That's because he was trained under the Tory tendering process, you don't go for the highest bidder when you are selling off assets, you go for the lowest one.

Yes, so the Member for Humber East bid twenty dollars on that big trolley with the wine to go by the bed -

AN HON. MEMBER: She got it.

MR. DUMARESQUE: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: She didn't get it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, the Member for Burin - Placentia West said seven dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what, did he get it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: No. Too high. Three dollars and seventy-two cents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who got it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: The Premier again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Peckford?

MR. DUMARESQUE: The Premier again. Well Premier you know, you can't go out of office, you can't go out of office without having the best of china and without having a bedside container so you can wheel them in around the bed; you can't have that, Mr. Speaker, you couldn't have that but, I mean, Mr. Speaker, you couldn't lose. The big, royal oak table was brought in. Haig Young, the Minister of Public Works had it appraised, Mr. Speaker, $7,500 for the table, the big royal oak. Now at the same time, I think there was one minister over there who had her furniture come in from Carbonear, some lady in Carbonear had some furniture for her and, Mr. Speaker, brought it in but it clashed and a terrible fit ensued. I mean, there was everything going around the room, paper flying; paper clips everywhere. This clashes, this clashes, pink don't go with green, take it back. Take it back, I will go out and I will pick the furniture off the floor. It doesn't matter if it is five times the amount that this one was it is only taxpayers' money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes. Uncle Brian said we are going to be here till every Liberal in the Province rots because Mulroney up there and old John C. is taking care of us. We are going to be the sheiks of the Northwest Atlantic, we are going to be rolling in it, Mr. Speaker, so these, Mr. Speaker, were the days of the Tories but thanks be to the taxpayers and the voters of this Province, Mr. Speaker, they never got a chance to extend the Tory tendering system.

MR. HEWLETT: Who rebuilt the Premier's office two or three years after (inaudible)?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Here he goes; yes the taxpayers did rebuild the Premier's office. But from 1989 to today we are operating the Premier's Office less than we did in 1989, six and a half years ago, Mr. Speaker. That was the example. Because I guess we don't have $100,000 severance pay packages going out with the chiefs of staff. That is what we haven't got. But no more. This is going to stop. It did stop in 1989. We are going to have no more of this Tory tendering process. We are going to have no more of this Cabinet -

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Here he comes, yes, here he comes. I knew he would get up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I can take the heat. I can take the heat any time someone is telling the truth. But, Mr. Speaker, falsehood must not be allowed to be read into this Chamber without being challenged, I would say to members opposite. That member over there - every word he has said today is open to be challenged.

For example, I've never signed a purchase order in my life for the government. For the member to get up and ridicule and riddle off that kind of stuff. There is nowhere there, I would say to the member, that my name is attached to it anywhere. That should not be allowed to stand on the record of this House. I'm serious. Several times today he made reference to my name being signed on purchase orders. The time is for this member to shut up or put up. I challenge the member to lay on the Table of this House any purchase order that I signed for liquor, cigarettes or grub. I challenge the member to lay it on the Table of this House, if he has the courage of his convictions. Or if not, to withdraw. He should be instructed, Your Honour, to tell the truth in this Chamber. That is not what he has been doing.

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe the hon. Member for Eagle River said anything that - I don't think that he said that the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West had signed the purchase orders. I didn't hear him say that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I'm trying to listen to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point I was making was I don't believe that the hon. Member for Eagle River said that the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West signed any purchase orders on behalf of - I think he was speaking about the former Administration's dining room or something to this effect.

In any event, I think the hon. member is making a large and liberal interpretation of things, as I've heard my colleagues on the other side of the House do. I don't think there is a real legitimate point of order. I think the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West was rising to defend his honour, such as it was.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The Chair can't hear the arguments if other members are speaking.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt at all what the Member for Eagle River has done here today. He has attached members' names to documents that he is holding up over there and citing and quoting amounts, purchase items and amounts and used his name on a number of occasions. Okay? I'm telling you, to be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, that I honest to God thought, listening to this member, that this member had actually done that. I'm serious. I thought he had actually signed purchase orders in the premier's office when he was there as executive assistant, or parliamentary - I thought he had done it. Now I find out that this member has been making false accusations and probably, by the way, has nothing, only pink slips of paper over there.

The other thing I want to draw to your attention on the point of order are the insinuations about furniture being sent back to Carbonear. I want to say to the member that you have gone far enough now in this Chamber by slandering people. You have gone far enough, I say, Mr. Speaker, to the point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No it is not true, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. It is not true.

Mr. Speaker, it is a serious point of order -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is a serious point of order, it is a serious situation where we have a member doing that in this House and nothing short of a complete withdrawal and an apology will be accepted.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Never mind (inaudible). It is (inaudible). Nothing short of that, Mr. Speaker, will be accepted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, nothing short of that will be accepted. Nothing short of a complete withdrawal by this member and an apology will be accepted, or else there is going to be some ruckus in this House, I say to him. Because if that is the game you want to play here, we are going to have some ruckus and we will lay stuff on this Table that members over there don't want to know about, rather not be reminded about, I say to the Member for Eagle River, if that is the way you want to play it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board on a point of order.

MR. DICKS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member for Eagle River accused any member opposite of an act of inappropriate conduct to his membership in this House, or as an employee of government, then of course he would be obliged to withdraw it. My point in the submission I earlier made was that I did not hear him say that. I think he was making some comments about the former government's use of the dining room and things like this. I did not understand him, and I stand to be corrected, that the Member for Burin - Placentia West had -

MR. TOBIN: He accused me of signing documents (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just in conclusion, all I would say is that my recollection is that that was not the case, and Your Honour may wish to refresh your memory, should it be necessary. On the other hand, the hon. member may be able to clarify what he said or what his intent was. I did not understand him to be saying that the hon. member opposite, in particular the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West, had done anything, and I am sure he may wish to speak to that point.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will look at the record and you will clearly see, in anything that I have said, that I never indicated the Member for Burin - Placentia West had signed a particular purchase order. I said that there were purchase orders issued by Executive Council for particular aspects of how they govern, and obviously I stand by that particular statement, but I made no insinuation whatsoever that the member over there signed that purchase order. If I did, in any way, I would obviously withdraw it because it would not be true. I have no knowledge that the Member for Burin - Placentia West signed a purchase order, but I do have knowledge and I do know that purchase orders were issued for beer and liquor and cigars and other things for the private dining room during the tenure of that hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, that is the most disgraceful attempt at a defence I have ever heard from any hon. member in this House of Assembly. The member knows full well, and I suggest Your Honour probably knows full well; if not, I suggest you should refer to Hansard. It is very clear, as my colleague from Grand Bank indicated earlier, to anybody who was sitting here and unfortunately was forced to listen to the diatribe coming from the hon. member, very clear, the insinuation that the documents that he held forward in this House had the signature of the Member for Burin - Placentia West, very clear and unmistakable. If they are not on those documents... First of all, if those are documents - the member quoted extensively from them - in accordance with the rules of the House he should table them immediately. If not, he cannot stand in this House and wave documents that he is not prepared to table, if he is going to quote from them. To insinuate that a member signed them for cheap political gain is a very serious offence, and this member should be forced to withdraw and to apologize immediately, or otherwise be asked to leave this Chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Just a final point, Mr. Speaker. I think the rule is that if a member reads from a document he has to table it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: A member is not allowed to table documents, even if he wanted to.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, we had a ruling last spring on it - I think it came up in another context - that there is no right of a member to table documents, but I believe if a minister refers to documents he is under an obligation to do so.

I respect my friend's opinion from Mount Pearl, but I do not think that is to the point of order. I think the point of order was that the hon. member from Burin - Placentia West took exception and thought that the hon. Member for Eagle River... And I believe that at this point the hon. Member for Eagle River has said that he did not say that, and did not intend that to be referenced, and in fact that was not the case, so I think in that circumstance, Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will check Hansard in terms of what was said, but in retrospect the hon. Member for Eagle River has indicated that if he said something he is withdrawing it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No he is not, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will check Hansard to see what was said, and rule on it at a later date.

In regard to the tabling of documents, our rules indicate that a private member has neither the right nor the obligation to table any documents. That has been ruled on in this House many, many times before.

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words on Bill 29. I will be relevant and to the point, just like the Member for Eagle River.

I want to say to the Member for Eagle River that there is only one thing worse than doing something and having documentation to show it is to do something and cover it up. There is only one thing worse I say to the Member for Eagle River. I believed every word that member said here today, and has said on a number of occasions, not only today but other days, quoting his pink slips. I believed him and I thought the people he always associated with those purchase orders were legitimate. I thought they had actually signed the purchase orders, I say to him. I really believed it.

I believed the Member for Burin - Placentia West had done it, I believed the Member for Green Bay when he was up there as principle secretary, or whatever he was, chief of staff, I really believed that he had signed the purchase orders, but they didn't. I find out now that they didn't and on a number of occasions that has been read into the records of this House. I think that is nothing short of criminal I say to the member. It is a very serious situation, Mr. Speaker, very, very serious.

If a member is permitted to stand up here with pieces of paper and refer to other members and associate members of this House with them, then that to me is a very serious breach. That is a very serious situation. I would no sooner think about doing that than I would go to the moon. I would not stand up here with a piece of paper and associate any member opposite with it knowing full well they were not, or if I did not know. It is very serious I say to members, and I know the members of the benches over there realize it is serious, too. They enjoyed the comedy of the hon. member, as did most of us.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now, you should be quiet I say to the Member for Eagle River. It shows me how much they crave for a little comic relief on the government benches those days. Things are so tense and so tight with the Budget scam and with the electoral boundaries mess, and everything else that is over there, the infighting and the tension is so tense over there that when the Premier goes away for a couple of days, up looking at the yacht, or the yacht club, wherever he is gone, it is comic relief time. Lets provide us with a bit of entertainment Danny to get us through another few days of torture back at the office or in the districts. That is what we have here, Mr. Speaker.

It is very serious, I say to the Member for Eagle River, in my view, and it cannot go unchecked in this House, nor is it going to go unchecked while I am here, and the Member for Burin - Placentia West, the Member for Mount Pearl, and others. We are not going to let it go unnoticed and unchecked. We have to stop that, because if that is the case I can get up here any day and insinuate anything about members opposite with a piece of paper or a document, associate them with it. People who read in the public record, or who tape of this microphone tomorrow morning, more than likely tomorrow morning it will be carried on the news media of this Province, what this member said here today.

Everything that is said here today is recorded. We all know that. How many times do we stand here in our place and make trips back and forth across the House to each other, a lot of times in jest, and wake up the next morning and listen to the radio, and you hear yourself on the radio, hear yourself being quoted verbatim off this microphone. We cannot allow that to go unchecked, Mr. Speaker. We cannot tolerate it in this House. It is too serious. I could call hon. gentlemen opposite whatever I want today and tomorrow morning it could be played on every radio station in this Province and that should not be permitted I say to members opposite. You cannot stand up here and make false accusations.

MR. EFFORD: (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I can I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. He can shake his head and poof all he like.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I did not sign them.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, my point when I started was, that there is one thing worse in doing something and it being disclosed to access to documents such as the member pretends he has - which now I question the validity of them by the way - but there is one thing worse than that and that is doing something and covering it up. That is worse than doing something and being found out, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The only thing worse than that, is to do something and cover it up, cover it up and right now there is no way of getting at what this Premier spends on entertainment. There is no way of finding out what this Premier spends on entertainment, I say to members opposite, you can't find it because you craftily covered it up, as we found out last year in the Budget, when we asked him about an expenditure, and he sloughed it off not knowing we asked the question the day before when he was away and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology had answered the question we asked the Premier, then the minister had to whisper over to him: I told them this the day before, when we asked him, were expenditures being covered off in other departments, when we were trying to get the Premier's $20,000 home allowance, entertainment allowance, food allowance, liquor allowance, smoke allowance whatever amounts, are covered, Mr. Speaker, $20,000, to do what he wants to do at his house, Mr. Speaker, and then we find thousands and twenty of thousands in this department, in this department, in this department used for the same purposes.

There is only one thing worse, Mr. Speaker, that's doing it and covering it up so people can't find out and that's what this administration has done over here. They are very good at it, pretty crafty, Mr. Speaker, and the former Minister of Finance, all he would ever answer, would say: it's in the estimates. It's in the estimates, but find it in the estimates; find out where it is covered up, I say to members opposite, so the Member for Eagle River shouldn't crow so loudly because if he thinks now that he is Parliamentary Assistant to an inexpensive Premier, he should get something else in his mind. One of these days, the truth will be revealed what this Premier is costing the taxpayers of this Province, plus his $20,000, plus the other departments that are picking up entertainment for him, plus those who are down grooming his lawn and cutting his flowers.

MR. EFFORD: Oh my, oh my, oh my.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. I would say, my oh my, oh my, if I were the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, if I had someone cutting my grass and grooming my flowers at taxpayers expense, Mr. Speaker. I would say: my oh my oh my too, that's what I would say and that's what you are dealing with over there. We will never find out but I hope some day we will find out the answers. I guess the first thing the Peckford Administration did I guess was they left a paper trail, I say to the Member for Eagle River, perhaps they should have bought more shredders like they did over at Hydro. They should have bought more shredders like they did over at Hydro, Mr. Speaker, when they brought the crowd in, went out and leased the big shredder and shredded the documents over at Hydro. Maybe there should have been more of that in the past. That's what we should have done, Mr. Speaker, shredded the works but then again, if you are as bad as they are, I guess you shred a lot.

If you had a record like this government I guess you would do a lot of shredding and that's what you are dealing with here, Mr. Speaker, and the Member for Eagle River now is getting all kinds of encouraging, coaching and prompting from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; getting all kinds of prodding and oh my, oh my. You are going to have your day in court soon again too, I say to the minister. Your day in court is coming soon again, I say to the minister.

MR. EFFORD: I have been there before.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, and you will be there again soon.

MR. EFFORD: Very possible.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Very possible. Very, very possible. Those who live in glass houses - you know what they say, I say to the member. Well, Mr. Speaker, members opposite have nothing to crow about. We are here today dealing with Bill 29; we are talking Pension Acts. We know the state of the Province's finances. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board had to admit last week or the week before that he has a $60-million problem. Why? What is the biggest reason we have a $60 million problem now?

Mr. Speaker, warrants, special warrants, ski resorts, mismanagement, total mismanagement and a document that was brought in this House just a few short months ago that was not worth the paper that it was written on and they were told at the time, Mr. Speaker, and the people of the Province were told at the time. Some people in the Province saw through it and laughed at it and said some balanced budget. Other people believed it but even those who believed it today are saying what a sham for the Premier, Mr. Baker and all those others associated with him, who just a few months ago convinced us we had a balanced budget. What a sham. Of course it is not the first time we saw it. The year we had the biggest deficit ever they projected a $5 million or $10 million surplus, I will never forget it. A $5 million or $10 million surplus they projected and ended up with - anyway it turned into a $130 million or $140 million deficit. So they have a record for this. They like to feel good on Budget Day. They like to pound their desks and shake the Minister of Finance's hand on Budget Day and say wonderful job Wins, wonderful job Paul, wonderful job.

MR. SULLIVAN: They don't fool the credit rating agencies, they don't fool Moody's.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I say to the Member for Eagle River, you have gotten away with that twice on Election Day but you will never get away with it again. You can see it on the faces of members opposite; they know the jig is up. That is why there is so much tension over there. That is why there was so much laughter today and comic relief when the Member for Eagle River went on with his little antics.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I am not saying it is fun for anyone, Mr. Speaker. I know it is not easy to govern today, I know that. It was not easy to govern in 1987, '88 and '89. It was not easy to govern then, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Can you imagine throwing $10 million out into the wind on a privatization deal that 80 per cent of Newfoundlanders did not want, Mr. Speaker? The Trans City deal, $29 million or $30 million that should never have gone out of taxpayers pockets for Trans City. The referendum, there was no need of the referendum, Mr. Speaker, another $2 million. There was no need of that.

MR. CRANE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Why wasn't it? Because polls for ten years, I say to the Member for Harbour Grace, polls for ten years in this Province for one decade showed exactly what the vote in the referendum came out to be 55/45, ten years of polling.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) for the referendum.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I was never for a referendum, I say to the member. No I was never for a referendum, still not for a referendum, never was. We thought it was unnecessary. We always said it was a party that was unnecessary.

MS VERGE: Sure the government is not doing anything with it now that they've got it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The other thing about it, we've gone through the expense, the time and the division of a referendum, for what? When is it going to be dealt with in the House of Commons? No, it is gone through here, it is gone to Ottawa. When is the Prime Minister going to deal with it? Maybe never.

MS VERGE: When are we going to get our Schools Act?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A good expenditure of $2 million, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The referendum, a good expenditure; $30 million to Trans City, a good expenditure; $10 million to privatize Hydro which 85 per cent of the people did not want, a good expenditure, very wise, all within that environment and that ambience the Member for Eagle River said, there were none of those detractors there when this government was there. No, they were in a room of clean, pure air, Mr. Speaker. They were not intoxicated by smoke or a drink. All very wise, cool, calculated, collective decisions this government made. A great ambience the member said so many times, marvellous, marvellous conditions that they made those very wise decisions on behalf of the taxpayers of this Province. What is the member going to get up and say next time? Their judgement and their vision was impaired? No, they were good decisions, $50 million later. Is there any wonder the Minister of Finance has a $60 million problem when the Budget was not balanced in the first place? It was not balanced in the first place.

The Government House Leader wants to know how much time I have left.

MR. ROBERTS: You have another fourteen minutes (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is good. I will adjourn the debate, I say to the minister.

MR. ROBERTS: Not at 4:57 p.m. (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Why not? Any other day you would say you don't want to be here until 7:00 p.m.

MR. ROBERTS: We are back at 7:00 tonight.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Why?

MR. ROBERTS: Because there is no (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

MR. ROBERTS: Are there other speakers on your side?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I do not know. I guess the Member for Eagle River, now, has the apple cart overturned over here, so you could have any number.

MR. ROBERTS: The more apples to go (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Government House Leader probably missed it, but I am sure he has been briefed now as to what happened here.

MR. ROBERTS: I heard.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, he is not going to get away with that, you see.

MR. ROBERTS: So there.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: So there. He cannot be allowed to get away with that, with what he did, and I am sure that when the Speaker takes this under advisement and looks at it he will demand that this member stand in his place and withdraw and apologize. I am convinced of that. You talk about decorum in this House, or lack of it, because we will have accusations here day in and day out, one member to another, and you cannot allow that to happen. You cannot have it. You really cannot have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I do not know if you put caviar in the oven, in the microwave, in the fridge. I do not know about caviar, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what you do about caviar. That is one thing about it, I was not brought up on caviar, I say to the minister, and I will not be eating much of it in the short time I have left in life. What is caviar?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Caviar? I don't know what you found.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I don't know either, but I was not there, I say to him. If I was, I did not eat the caviar. If I was there, I was there for something other than caviar, I assure you. It was not caviar.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have no idea. I believe the member. The member makes a good point. It wasn't caviar. I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have no idea. I believe the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The member makes a good point. I never did have any clue, I never did have any idea; he may be right, but I say to him that anything I said, I certainly thought it was right. I didn't say it knowing that it was wrong or incorrect. If I made a statement or I made a decision, I did it thinking it was the right one to make, or the statement was indeed accurate and truthful, I say to the member. I didn't make any statements knowingly that were false. I didn't do that, I say to the Member for Eagle River. I didn't get up here or anywhere else and make statements that I knew were not correct, like the member did today - and had us all convinced, by the way -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He had us all convinced that what he was doing was accurate, and he has some members pretty upset, as upset as I would be if I were the member that he alleged did that. I would be upset, too.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) snake, `Danny'. `Danny', if you have any guts, go outside the House and say it. Say it to me. I would smatter you all over the place.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You see, Mr. Speaker, that is why it has to be addressed.

MR. TOBIN: You are not getting away with that, man.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is why it has to be dealt with. That is why we have to deal with it in the right manner. We have to put this to rest here, because if we don't, we are going to have this on a daily basis, a free-for-all. That is what we are going to end up with. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation smiles over there. You can smile, but I am telling you that is what we are headed for here if that member is allowed to get away with this.

MR. EFFORD: Sure, I have copies.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't care what you have copies of, but you can't associate him with it.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh, he picked it up.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he said he signed them.

MR. EFFORD: He didn't say it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Picked nothing up, but I will tell one thing I will pick up - you and `Danny' one of these days.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, no, you won't.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) I tell you that right now. If you have any guts, get up and say something, and make the accusation, or say it behind that Table and Chair; I tell you right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be careful!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: I will be careful, alright. You know what Alec Dunphy did with you, well, that is what I am going to do with one of them one of these days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wimp! Wimp! The minister is a wimp!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: I will spatter the wimp (inaudible). Do you think I wouldn't?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we have to deal with it in a proper manner.

MR. TOBIN: Your diabetic needles will be no good to you.

MR. EFFORD: Be careful, now.

MR. TOBIN: I will be careful. You or (inaudible) or the two of you the one time, as far as that goes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we have to deal with it in the proper manner. We can't allow this to go on here. That is the point. It is a real danger. We don't need this - none of us need it. It is one thing to debate aggressively, and one thing to make points, but you can't get up and make false accusations about another member, especially waving documents that you know can't back up the accusations you are making. That is the point, and I make that, and say to the member that it is very serious. It is a serious matter. Either that or we are going to come in here day after day and have the same thing happen. I don't think any of us want that. I don't think we do. Now, if we do, well, let's have it. I don't want it. There has to be some protection here for members.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) he crossed the line.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He crossed the line. He knows he crossed the line. If he were a man and an hon. member which he should be and which I still think he is - I will give him the benefit of the doubt - he will stand in his place and he will withdraw and he will apologize. Anything short of that is not going to be acceptable, Mr. Speaker. It is serious.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't know who signed it, I say to the minister, but I tell you, listening to the Member for Eagle River, I believed he signed it. And I believed the Member for Green Bay signed others, listening to that member and watching him wave the piece of paper and quote from it, I really believed those two members that are not - at this time - well, this member was always a member. This gentleman became a member after. We can't allow that to happen.

I say again, Mr. Speaker, there is only one thing worse, and that is covering it up in other departments, and you can't get at it to find out really what this Premier costs the Province. You can't find it. The only thing we know is the $20,000 house allowance. We can't find the rest.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes there is more, because it has been confirmed there is more. It is charged off to other departments. We had the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology in the Budget Debate confirm it without the Premier knowing it. The Premier came in, was going to give us a different answer one day, and the minister had to tell him what he told us the day before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The minister knows, he was - yes. I'm not knocking the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I applaud you for your honesty, I say to him. The point is that it is covered up and the same thing happens in other departments. The minister did the right thing, he gave the information. But how much more of it is covered up in other departments we don't know about?

It is one thing to get up here and accuse the Peckford Administration and the Members for Burin - Placentia West, Green Bay and Grand Bank, and the Leader of the Opposition, when you are probably ten times as bad yourselves over there. You know something? Most of you over there don't know how bad you are, because you don't know either. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations looks puzzled over that statement. He looks like he is puzzled. He cannot figure out what I am saying. Was it simple?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Neither him or the minister has the guts to go out with you.

MR. SULLIVAN: He won't be going out early this evening.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with legislation that has a lot of implications for a lot of people, pensions' legislation. Legislation that has a lot of implications. We have a big financial problem in this Province. We all know that.

MR. EFFORD: Seventeen years of mismanagement.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I say to the minister, seventeen years of mismanagement preceded by twenty-odd years of mismanagement, followed by seven more years of mismanagement, Mr. Speaker, and squirm as the minister may to try and get away from that responsibility and sitting around the Cabinet table for the majority of that time, you cannot wipe your hands of it John, I am sorry. I am sorry, John, you cannot shed your responsibility. I am sorry, you are part of it. You helped create the problem. As much as you would like to be a white knight - you would like to keep throwing it back to Valdmanis, sorry John, you've been in government seven years now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Government. In the House, I know how long you've been in the House. I remember well how long you've been in the House. What have you brought in, eight budgets? The last budget was the eighth budget or seventh budget?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: You are sure now? But we had a mini budget one fall.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It doesn't count. I thought mini budgets counted. I suppose it depends on what is in them whether they count or not.

MS VERGE: They don't add up but they count.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: So it is time now, I say to the Minister of Works - for four or five years the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation could get away with that. It was none of his doing; it was none of his responsibility. It was all someone in the past. You know it tells me something about the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation though, it tells me something about the mentality, that when you have been governing now for seven years it is still someone else's fault, I say to the minister, that tells me everything. That tells me everything about this government and this Administration; everything is someone else's fault. Is there any wonder, Mr. Speaker, they do not have any solutions for the people of the Province? Is there any wonder the Province is in a financial mess? Is there any wonder unemployment has gone through the roof?

The Tories closed down the fishery; the Tories are closing down the hospitals now and cutting care to the handicapped and disadvantaged I say to the minister. There are long line-ups waiting for surgery, all Tories. There are thousands coming off TAGS, all Tories. Unemployment insurance is going to be cut pretty well in half, all Tories. It is not amazing, but it tells me everything I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, just how close you are, just how close this Administration is to the end of the line.

I say to the Member for Eagle River, any time, and if you think you want an election and I want one, ask the people of the Province how bad they want one. They would love to have one. Enjoy it because you have a couple of years max left, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

You are not going to enjoy over here if you win your seat, I say to the minister. After looking at the bill here today, Bill 31, after sizing that up I am not sure if the minister is going to make it over here, and a few others. I have to put the odds on him, I suppose, to being re-elected but after I look at this I do not know. I am not so sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: They will agree with that, too, like everything else.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We will see, I say to the minister. Bill 31, in case you do not know what it is. I am sure you have no concerns about it, no concerns at all about Bill 31 and the structure of what used to be his district.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You may not have to, I say to the minister. The minister need not get personal now. You see, his only defence is to get personal, the insinuation, the innuendo.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I adjourn the debate, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to adjourn the debate but to adjourn the House instead. I believe my hon. friend for Grand Bank has concluded, but if any member wishes to speak on Thursday on this bill then he or she will certainly have the opportunity to do so. The hon. member could not adjourn the debate because, I think, the Speaker ruled that his time was up, but I will say that if any member wishes to speak on Thursday the bill will be called again and he or she will have the opportunity to speak. We are not in any hurry.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Not necessarily. Effectively, yes.

Your Honour, tomorrow is Private Members' Day and there is a motion in the name of my friend from Torngat, who will be back in the Province this evening and I assume will move it at 3:00 p.m., or whenever we get to it tomorrow, so we will debate that motion tomorrow.

On Thursday, this debate has been going along so very well that we will ask the House to pick it up again.

I propose to ask the House to begin debating the Electoral Boundaries Bill on Friday. It has been distributed. That will give members two or three days to become indignant and work themselves up into rhetorical flights, but I will have a word with my friend from Grand Bank to see if that is suitable to all concerned.

With that said, Your Honour, I move the House adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.

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