April 16, 1991                 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLI  No. 30


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier. I want to remind the Premier that in an interview carried in the Sunday Express on April 14 the Minister of Social Services is quoted as saying that he in no way personally intervened to ensure that reclassification was carried out for the Social Services Appeals Board which led to huge retroactive increases for Members of that board, including the former Chairman. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Minister is quoted as saying that it was bureaucrats who did this not politicians. Now I want to say to the Premier that in the House yesterday the President of Treasury stated and I quote, `Representation was made by the Minister, obviously, and Treasury Board Ministers agreed with that position and it became a Level 2 board.' Now I want to ask the Premier whether or not he has been able to find out or determine whether or not the Minister of Social Services intervened in this matter, whether or not he pushed the matter, and was he telling the truth when he indicated to the media of this Province that it was not done by politicians and there was no involvement by him?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the process of assessment is not yet complete. It will probably be complete later this afternoon and I will certainly have it to table in the House tomorrow. I have seen some documents and some correspondence that indicate that this was part of the clean-up process of committees or boards which had been in place. We wanted to reduce the cost and standardize it to clean up the mess that had been created before, and when we did this with Treasury Board doing the allocation, some boards were dissatisfied. The President of Treasury Board mentioned two boards that were dissatisfied yesterday. I have since learned there were three. There was another one for which the Minister of Finance was responsible - they just mentioned it to me - the Mining Tax Review Board. That was another one and the Minister of Finance made representation with respect to that, the Minister of Energy made representation with respect to another, and I assume, although I do not have the detail yet, but I would assume the Minister of Social Services made representation with respect to that one. So I can say that at least there was that much representation.

I have also seen the letter that caused the payment on a retroactive basis. That came from Treasury Board and was signed by an individual named Meadus. I do not know what Mr. Meadus's position is. I have just seen it now. The letter was issued in October 1990 and it gave instructions to the Deputy Minister that the change was effective from April 30, which was when Cabinet made the original decision. It was retroactive when Cabinet made the original decision, and that was a direction issued by Treasury Board. I have not completed the thing yet to say what the role of the Minister was, but I can give the House that much information up until now.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Premier has not had an opportunity to complete his investigation, but the Premier made mention in his answer cleaning up the mess of those boards. Mr. Speaker, under the old payment schedule the Chairman of the Social Assistance Appeals Board could charge $100 a day for a one day meeting. Under the new schedule he can charge $350 a day for a meeting and he can claim four days of per diem expenses for each one day meeting: preparation for a day he can claim $350, travel for a day meeting $350, attendance at a day meeting $350, travel home one day $350, for a total per diem of $1,400. Now, I ask the Premier, is that cleaning up the mess?

MR. SIMMS: Good question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The only thing I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said to the best of my knowledge at this moment, because I do not have the thing complete, but to the best of my knowledge at this moment is utterly without foundation. But I will determine whether or not that occurred, and if that occurred improperly, we will take steps to recover the monies. If there is in place rules which allow that to happen, we will take steps to correct those rules. What the precise situation is I do not know at this moment, but that is what is being done, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this. As part of his investigation in trying to get to the bottom of this situation and clear up what is being alleged here, will the Premier interview the former Chairman of the Social Assistance Appeals Board, Mr. Noseworthy, who has already spoken to the media in this Province about the matter, so that the Premier will be in full possession of the facts as far as the former chairman of that board is concerned?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with meeting with anybody in this Province who wants to meet with me. If that chairman wants to meet with me, he is absolutely free to call. I have never refused anybody yet. But, Mr. Speaker, if it becomes necessary to a proper determination of this issue I would have no hesitation calling him - if it becomes necessary.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this about the behaviour of the Minister of Social Services in this whole matter. Yesterday after Question Period, the Minister of Social Services came across to this side of the House, in front of witnesses, and threatened a Member of this House by saying the following: "I will see that you get nothing for your district."

Does the Premier feel that that is acceptable behaviour on the part of a Minister of the Crown?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation saying that no Minister in this Government will ever be permitted to prevent any Member from getting anything for his district that that Member or that Member's district ought to have. I can assure the House that that is the case.

Whether or not the Minister said that, I do not know. But I will find out.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. While the Premier is in the process of finding out, yesterday the Minister of Social Services was overheard by a number of people in this House and in the galleries, threatening a visitor to the public gallery by saying: "I will get you for this." Does the Premier feel that that is acceptable behaviour on the part of a Minister of the Crown?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation saying that such threats are unacceptable. There is no question about it, it is unacceptable. What I do have hesitation in accepting is any suggestion that the Minister said that. But I will check it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I will check it. But I do not accept it merely because the Leader of the Opposition has said it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Social Services. As the Minister knows, the Social Assistance Appeal Board is a very important board, because it is the last avenue of appeal for recipients of social assistance who feel they have been wrongly addressed by the social workers, and that that particular board has the powers of a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act. Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of that particular board is a very important individual.

Can the Minister tell me what particular qualifications does the new Chairman, Mr. Stoyles, bring to this position, other than his having actively worked on the Minister's campaign? And is it not true that this appointment was a blatant political appointment made by Cabinet with the full knowledge of the Premier, since the Premier is the head of Cabinet who makes the appointments?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to the hon. Member that the person who is now the Chairman of the Social Assistance Appeal Board was appointed Chairman because of the experience he had obtained on the Social Assistance Appeal Board while the former member was sitting on that same board. Also, during that period of time they went through a training programme to give them the background and the necessary qualifications and the knowledge about the operations of the Appeal Board.

I can say very clearly that the former person on that Appeal Board who I think was a former Member for Twillingate, Ida Reed, did not go through the same training programme as did the present Chairman of the Appeal Board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since the Premier could not confirm the salary of the members of the board, would the Minister confirm that the new schedule for members of the Social Assistance Appeal Board can conceivably consist of the following: preparation for the meeting one day, $350; travel to a meeting for one day, $350.00, because there are five zones spread across the Province; attendance at the meeting for a day, $350; plus travel home, $350. So conceivably, a hearing outside of St. John's can cost $1,400. Will the Minister confirm these facts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Per day?

MR. WINSOR: Per day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Per day, per person.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The first time I was aware of an amount of money of that magnitude being received by the Chairman of the Appeals Board was when I read the Sunday Express on Sunday morning.

Mr. Speaker, it greatly concerned me as Minister of Social Services because first of all the Minister of Social Services does not have any part in drawing up the regulations on which the Appeals Board operates by. That is not done by the Minister or the Department of Social Services, we do not draw up the regulations. So their regulations are implemented according to - they must act under those regulations.

I was really concerned about the fact that any Member, not only the Chairman, but any Member would receive that much money to hear one case in any part of the Province. So what I have asked to have done, Mr. Speaker, very clearly, because I am greatly concerned about the amount of money that I have to operate in the budget of the Department of Social Services, what I have had asked to do, Mr. Speaker, is I have asked my Deputy Minister to ask internal audit to do a complete review of all the claims submitted, not only by the former Chairman, but all Members of the Appeal Board over the last two years since I have become Minister.

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

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware then that social assistance regulations made in 1977 provide that the rate of pay for the Chairman is $200 a day and that these regulations have not been amended? And where is his authority to pay these amounts and to pay them retroactively, if there has been no amendment to this act?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is very clear that hon. Members opposite do not understand what I said yesterday and today. I cannot, I do not and I have not a part in making decisions on regulations or drawing up regulations governing the Social Assistance Appeals Board. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to this hon. House I am as equally concerned as every Member opposite about the wastefulness of a Minister in Government or a Department in Government or a Premier's Office in Government or anything. I want to point out very clearly my concern about waste that can happen in Government, so I will read out and table in this hon. House some figures, Mr. Speaker. This is a standing offer for frozen and seasonal produce for $1,500 by a Premier's Office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: $10,000, Mr. Speaker, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I do not know what it is the hon. gentleman is talking about at this point in time, and I do not know -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

At this point in time I do not know what it is the hon. Member is talking about. I do not know if it is relevant to the question. I will give him fifteen to twenty seconds to see if I can determine whether what he is doing is relevant to the question.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My point is that I have been accused of being irresponsible and not having concern for money being spent by Departments in this Government. I want to go on and give you another example. `Please issue a standing order for the supply of tobacco products for the Premier's private dining hall, $5,000'.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARREN: You are despicable, John. You stink - stink.

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

The hon. the Member for Fogo, on a final supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. POWER: Two wrongs do not make a right, John.

MR. RIDEOUT: The Premier is proud of this, is he?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask the Minister this then. Does the Minister intend to do the same thing he did last fall, when he reduced social assistance payments and failed to amend the regulations? Is he again going to make regulations with retroactive effect but this time, instead of taking money away from people like he did the social assistant recipients and the single mothers last year, does he intend to use his power now to legalize a 700 per cent increase to his political cronies?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member is quite right, we should be concerned about the amount of money spent and charged off by any appeals board, not only the Department of Social Services Appeals Board. I have asked Internal Audit, everyone, everybody - I did not ask internal audit myself personally, but the Deputy Minister this morning to have Internal Audit investigate the operations of the Chairman and all members of the Social Assistance Appeals Board. I have a great concern. The one thing I have not done since becoming Minister is have a cabinet full of liquor in my office at all times. Let me give you an example: `Please issue a standing order for liquor and beer for the Premier's private dining room, $20,000, by that former Premier over there - $20,000!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. The Minister of Employment is aware that the Transport and Allied Workers Union has been successful in organizing the majority of the independent truck operators in the Province and have written the Minister requesting amendments to the Labour Relations Act which would make it possible for the union to be certified as the official bargaining agent for the independent truck drivers with the employers.

Now I have a letter here which was written to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations in November of 1990 - in November. When does the Minister intend to respond to this letter from the Transport and Allied Workers Union? And why has it taken nearly six months and counting to prepare a response to the Transport and Allied Workers Union, local 855? Does the Minister have writer's cramp? What is the problem here?

AN HON. MEMBER: She cannot write.

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

MS. COWAN: I am meeting with the individuals involved in that group this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: That is no excuse for not answering the letter!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, again the Minister has not answered the question. I asked her why it has taken a six month period to respond to that letter. I am sure she will be asked today when she meets with the Transport and Allied Workers Union.

Now let me ask her another question, a supplementary. There have been numerous protests and road blockages in recent years because of the many, many legitimate grievances of the independent dump truck operators. Does the Minister agree that something must be done to bring good labour relations practices to that industry and to afford some protection to the independent dump truck operators? Does she agree with that?

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

MS. COWAN: I am meeting with the individuals involved this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and I will hear first-hand their concerns. I am looking forward to that opportunity and perhaps will be in a better position to respond to my critic's question after that meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Not only does the Minister have writer's cramp, she has a problem answering questions as well. Now let me ask the Minister this. As a former union leader I am sure she is very, very offended by the horrible conditions under which the independent dump truck operators have to work. Will she tell them now that she is on their side, that she agrees with their forming a union and doing whatever is necessary to get the union certified as a bargaining agent?

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

MS. COWAN: I think, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman had the grasp of labour relations he seems to think he has he would be aware that the certification for a union goes before the Labour Relations Board and has nothing to do with me as Minister.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Labour and Employment Relations. If the Minister has the grasp of the Labour Relations Act she thinks she has, will she explain to this House why a legitimate group in this Province who have voted to become certified and organized as a union have to wait six months for an incompetent Minister to respond to their letter, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: I am the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, Mr. Speaker. Some gentlemen on the opposite side seem to have difficulty even getting my name straight and then they call me incompetent. I find that amusing. Anyway, in response to that a letter was sent from my office saying that the matter was being considered - that it had been brought to my attention and was being considered. It was then given immediately to the people in the Labour Division of the Department and they began immediately to examine the legislation. I do not know when the letter went. I can double check that. It usually goes in the mail the same day, however, there might have been a problem at this time. However, I am about to meet with the individuals this afternoon.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Will the Minister confirm that his Department has projected an operating deficit of $400,000 in 1991-92 for the St. John's Fire Department? And will he tell the House why such a large deficit is projected so early in the fiscal year?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any projection of a deficit of $400,000 in the St. John's Fire Department.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to remind the hon. Minister that everyone else in the Province knows. It it on the front page of the Evening Telegram this afternoon, so apparently it is not a secretive thing. Your ADM did meet with the Fire Department yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. gentleman is on a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: Has the Fire Department been told to take specific measures to eliminate the projected deficit? What are those measures, and do they include the threatened layoff of ten firefighters if costs are not controlled?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, costs are being controlled, of course, and have been controlled in the Fire Department and other divisions of my ministry since we took Government. We have an obligation to keep those costs under control, because we administer the Fire Department on behalf of some seven or eight municipalities in this particular region. You are quite right in saying that the Assistant Deputy Minister is having meetings right now with the Fire Department discussing operating costs, because they have to live within a fixed budget for this forthcoming year, as all other Departments of Government have to.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, is the bluster and intimidation now being used in the St. John's Fire Department related to the fact that the firefighters have not had an agreement for eighteen months and are now involved in binding arbitration? Is the Minister trying to intimidate the union into backing off on their position before the arbitration board?

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

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier. Would the Premier tell the House of Assembly what is the Government policy, his policy, for retaining private law firms in the Province to do legal work for Government Departments and Government agencies such as Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador? Would the Premier tell the House of Assembly what process he used and what criteria he used in making the decision to take the ENL legal account away from the apolitical law firm of ?Stewart, McKelby, Stirling and give it to the Liberal law firm of Halley, Hunt, headed by former Liberal leader Ed Roberts?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I say again we were horrified at what we say happening by the former administration, where they used these things to put in place basically Tory supported firms; perhaps not all, there may have even been a few who were independent. The hon. Member mentioned the Stirling, Ryan firm. I have never known them to be extensively involved in politics, but for the most part we found that the former Government took all the Government business and gave it to two or three select law firms. I would say probably about six or eight months after we formed the Government the Minister of Justice spoke to me about it and said that he was concerned about this situation. We developed a policy, and our policy that we put in place was to spread the work around and rotate the work. Now that is the last I had anything to do with it, and that was a year or so ago. So far as I know that process is being implemented by all Government Departments, and we think that is the right thing to do.

The Minister of Development who is, of course, answerable for Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador has since advised me of the way he has dealt with it in his Department. He said, Look, instead of having all the work in the whole Province done by that one firm that did it for the last ten or twelve years -

MR. BAKER: Thirteen years.

PREMIER WELLS: - thirteen years, spread it around: appoint a firm in Corner Brook to do the work in Western Newfoundland, appoint a firm in Gander to do the work in Central Newfoundland, appoint a firm in St. John's to do the work in Eastern Newfoundland, and leave Stirling, Ryan in place who will also do some of the work. Now, to the best of my knowledge that is the way it works and that, Mr. Speaker, is consistent with the policy we developed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East on a supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier may know that there are now about 450 practising lawyers in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are 120 law firms. I would like to ask the Premier: what opportunity was given the other 119 law firms - apart from Halley, Hunt, headed by Ed Roberts - to submit proposals for the Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador account, valued by the Minister at over $200,000 next year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me just correct the last statement, 'valued at over $200,000 next year.' The Minister told me the amount was $190,000 over ten years, not $200,000 a year. The Member's comments are as valid as that. Now, I know what may have been reported in the paper but that is incorrect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member, above all other Members of this House, knows that you cannot really do that with legal work that you retain. You cannot invite proposals and have that work. Legal advisors are a different kind of thing. Any more than the hon. Members opposite could do this, any more than the hon. Members opposite did when they were in office. They would award work to a firm in which a Cabinet colleague sat as a senior partner in the firm. Everybody knows that they did that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: We will get the full information, Mr. Speaker, and make the full information available to the House. But just to clue up on the Member's particular question. It is not possible to invite proposals in these kinds of ways, as the hon. Member well knows, being herself a lawyer. But what we tried to do was correct the incredible abuse that the former government had in place and share the work around the Province, and in that way benefit all parts of the Province and not just a select few.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Premier table in the House of Assembly a list of all Government and Government agency legal work that has been contracted out to private law firms in the Province and would he explain the criteria used by the Government in selecting each of the firms? And finally, would the Premier let us know whether he has considered whether it would not be more cost efficient to have legal work such as the ENL work done in-house by staff solicitors rather than done by private solicitors? After all, are we not supposed to be operating in the most cost efficient manner possible in the interest of taxpayers and the business clients of ENL?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are several things that need to be addressed, Mr. Speaker. I think in much of the work we could do it more efficiently in-house, and that is why we are taking steps to have that done, to increase the staff in the Department of Justice. Now, the hon. Member was herself Minister of Justice. She took no steps to achieve that which she is now speciously asking the Government about. She took no steps as Minister of Justice but we are and we will continue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, will I table all of that information? Yes - but I will go back for the last ten or fifteen years and table it all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition signed by five residents of Green Bay, from Long Island in Green Bay, Lush's Bight and Beaumont being their communities. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is as follows: 'We the undersigned petition the hon. House of Assembly not to approve the amalgamation of the Long Island and Little Bay Islands ferry service for six months each year. And furthermore, if such an amalgamation must take place, we favour a three point ferry service with the mainland terminal at Pilley's Island.'

Mr. Speaker, I must say the names on this particular petition are the names of a delegation who visited the offices of the Minister of Transportation this morning. They did not get to meet the Minister. They did meet with senior officials, and made the case for their island. A week or so ago a delegation from Little Bay Islands was also in to see officials of Transportation to make a case for their particular island.

Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I have problems with this as the Member, from the point of view that it is a downgrading of a service to both islands. The current two boat system was implemented some years ago to avoid the endless squabbling over ferry schedules etc. that came about from having one boat serving two islands in the beginning all year. Now we are about to take a step back in time and get into a situation where we have one boat serving two islands for half the year. Then we get into the endless wrangle of which mainland landing point is the operative mainland landing point. At present the current suggestion from the Department of Transportation is a mixture of both landing points, a ferry schedule that seems to meet with the approval of neither council.

As I indicated this particular morning the delegation was from Long Island and their main concern was, of course, their particular island and they put forward the case for their island with the mainland terminal being at Pilley's Island.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard on the news here lately considerable talk about the ferry system to Bell Island and how the ice has broken that system, Mr. Speaker, and there has been much ado and the Member for the District has been on the radio many times about taking actions to ensure that the residents of Bell Island have a decent ferry system. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not the ice that broke the system in Green Bay, it is this Government. The fact that the Government is scrambling to fix the system on Bell Island would indicate to me that it is probably because it is represented by a Liberal Member.

What this Government has decided to visit on Long Island and Little Bay Islands is a plague that they decided to visit upon three other islands in my District a year or so ago, amalgamation. In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, it is transportation amalgamation rather than municipal amalgamation, but it is unwanted and unwarranted amalgamation nonetheless.

Mr. Speaker, we have a Government here which is cutting ferry fares in half and cutting ferry systems in half, and that makes absolutely no sense. They promised the people they would pay less, but they never promised them they would get less. Less and less is what the people of my District and rural Newfoundland, in general, is getting. Mr. Speaker, it sort of reminds me of the scene on the Newhart Show where the three brothers show up and one says, hi, I am Larry, and this is my brother Darryl and my other brother Darryl. Well in this particular case we have a guy showing up and saying, hi, I am Clyde, and this is my brother Less and this is my other brother Less. And we have Clyde and Less and Less going around rural Newfoundland and we know what that means for rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. It means less money for the hospitals, it means less money for schools, and it means less money for transportation. Mr. Speaker, we have a very serious situation here and one that will be recurring every spring, because every spring there will be a continuous and ongoing fight over the establishment of a ferry system. The system was not broke it was working fine. This Government's desire to amalgamate and save money at the cost of tremendous anguish to the people on the islands concerned is going to lead to nothing but grief in the future.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that Clyde and Less and Less stop tramping through my District and other parts of rural Newfoundland, leave matters as they be, things that are not broke need not be fixed. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the petition put forward by my colleague for Green Bay on behalf of the residents of Long Island and Little Bay Islands, because the problems that the residents of these Islands experience are no different from the problems which arise in my district and the district of my friend, the Member for Lewisporte - Change Islands, who are being forced to live with a system similar to yours but maybe a little worse because ours, I think, is going to be for nine months of the year and, Mr. Speaker, the commitment of this Government when it ran for office in 1989 was to improve the ferry service throughout this Province, and Mr. Speaker, with changes like that, I would say - some improvement.

Mr. Speaker, what is more important about this, is, this system has been tried before; it has been tried on the Change Islands, Fogo Island run, found that it did not work and successive governments for a while decided they would not adopt that type of scheme again. Now, Mr. Speaker, last fall, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, stood in his place in this House and announced that this Province would be reverting to a system which had been tried years before and found it did not work.

Mr. Speaker, the Member also referred to ice conditions. I am quite familiar with difficult conditions associated with ice, because the Fogo Island ferry has not been able to run since - Sunday, I think it made its last trip. It ran from Change Islands, he knows equally as well, I am sure he has had as many calls this morning as I did, wondering if they were going to get mail service out there today - and let them know that they might get some mail service later this afternoon, by the way.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when this Administration ran for office, it said that a ferry system should cost the same and be just as good as transportation on land, and, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how reverting to a system of having one ferry serve two Islands to change a proven and tried system, I fail to see how that is going to improve ferry transportation for Island residents of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, what we find there, again, is that strand of thought which runs through this Government, that rural Newfoundland is not important and if we can make life miserable enough for these people in rural Newfoundland, perhaps they will not want to live there. Well now, Mr. Speaker, I will let these people who will make decisions on behalf of that Government know now, that rural Newfoundland is not going to roll over and die because this Province is intent on reducing its level of service. They are going to fight and fight hard and be vindicated, if not now, in two or three years time when they get rid of an Administration that seems intent on destroying rural Newfoundland.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is customary in this House, when a petition is presented, by whatever side, that there would be a speaker from the other side of the House. I am wondering if, in the absence of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, one of the other Ministers would care to speak to this petition which has already been presented, because there are people here, Mr. Speaker, who are concerned about the petition which has been presented by my colleague and I would hope that the Premier or some of his people would at least have the delegation which is present, listen to what Government has to say about the concerns of their district.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier to the point of order.

PREMIER WELLS: To the point of order. The Member obviously has a right to say what he wants. Any Member opposite can rise and speak. But they have no right to tell others whether they speak or whether they do not speak, or what they should say or they should not say.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a petition on behalf of 195 residents of the towns of Old and New Bonaventure in the district of Trinity North. And the prayer of the petition reads: that the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to see that a suitable short and long term solution regarding the road conditions from Trinity to Old and New Bonaventure is sought immediately.

Now, I support these residents in my district for two reasons. First of all, I grew up in that region of Trinity North and I have experienced their frustrations with their terrible road conditions for the past thirty years. The people of Old and New Bonaventure resisted the resettlement movement of the 1960s and they have developed as two very successful inshore fishing communities. They demand very little and they normally complain even less. Yet over the past twenty years they have been continually ignored when it comes to basic Government services. The communities are at the end of the road, so to speak, and I guess the old adage, "out of sight, out of mind," applies.

Secondly, during every election that I can remember since 1949 the residents of Old and New Bonaventure have been promised pavement, only to be told after polling day that they are no longer a priority. Once again this year, because of limits on capital spending, the residents of these communities have been denied the type of roads that most of us take for granted. But what is ironic is that the previous government brought the pavement to within a couple of miles of the community, but if you note the voting patterns in Old and New Bonaventure, you can get a clear picture as to why the residents still have to endure mud, potholes and dust in this day and age.

I noted from the Minister's statements when he announced this year's capital roads programme that the priority for road work was based solely on a list provided by his officials and I have reminded the Minister that it has been my personal experience, having been a civil servant for the past ten years, that civil servants are never 100 per cent right 100 per cent of the time. And I am sure that the Minister will take that into account when he sets his capital spending priorities for the next fiscal year.

I am pleased that the Minister has committed himself to go to my district and have a first-hand look at the road conditions in Old and New Bonaventure. And I trust that this will lead to positive results.

Mr. Speaker, I support the petitioners in their efforts 100 per cent and I assure them that we will work together to right the wrongs of the past twenty years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have a few words to say in support of the Member for Trinity North. I congratulate him on his first petition to be presented in this House, his first speech also, I understand, so I congratulate him for that also.

But I do want to say to him that he is a week too late. He should have presented his petition a week ago. The Minister presented his roads list last week, he presented $25.5 million worth of roads for this Province and he excluded the people from Old and New Bonaventure.

Now the new Member - and I know it is inexperience because he is a new Member, and it is certainly not his fault - but certainly one of his colleagues over there should have tried to help him out, being a new Member in this House, and tell him to present his petitions the day he gets them. Get the petitions to the House so that the Minister will be pressured into trying to act on it, especially from a Member from his own side.

Now, he is a new Member, and he believes that the list that the Minister presented was based on a list sent up from public servants and it was based mostly because the last seventeen years of Tory government ignored all of the opposite Members' districts. Well, he might not know it but of the sixty-eight projects over there, I think there were forty that are being done in districts that were represented for those seventeen years by Tory people that are now represented by Liberals. So he can be assured that the list was not done up by public servants and presented on a basis that the last seventeen years of Tory government did not give those districts any money. Because I know of several projects in the district of Codroy Valley that were on that list. And I can assure the hon. Member that for the last eight or nine years the member who represented that area happened to be the Minister of Transportation at the time, and he was not shy in spending money in the district of Codroy.

So, Mr. Speaker, the list that was presented in this House is a shame on the Minister of Transportation, Mr. Speaker, who should have tried to look after - I say it flat out, he should have tried to help the new member for Trinity North, Mr. Speaker, and help the people of New and Old Bonaventure because he was an inexperienced Member at the time when he came here, he came here a bit later than all the rest of us. He should have went to the Minister right away the day he got elected because he drove those roads during the by-election, he was all over that place, he made promises that these roads would be done this year, and the Minister of Transportation betrayed him again, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transportation of that Government, because the Premier would not let him spend it in new and old Bonaventure, 'because this Member is only a new Member, he has to pay his dues first. He cannot be getting the money the first year off of me, King Clyde. I am not giving him money the first year. He has to come in here and pay his dues.'

Now, Sir, they gave some money to the Member for Codroy or whatever the name of that district is, they gave a little bit of money to Stephenville. He certainly has paid his dues, Mr. Speaker. He sat in the back bench for the last two years when he should have been in Cabinet. I think he should have gotten ten times the money that he got, but he did not get it. So I say to the hon. Member for Trinity North that the next time you get a petition, come over here and ask me what you should do with it because I will help you. I will not be like the Members opposite who are trying to penny pinch and squeeze all of the money out of the Ministers for themselves and they will not help out their newer colleagues. But I will help them and I will tell them exactly how the system works over there and that it is not done at all, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TOBIN: He did not sign it, Bob. Tell him to sign it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Uh oh, he did not sign it.

MR. TOBIN: He did not support his people. He did not sign the petition.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He has it signed now. He has it signed now

MR. TOBIN: He just signed it that time, boy.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Member wants some advice, any Member on this side would gladly help him out. We know we are not getting any money from the Minister of Transportation. He would not give us any money if it was the last thing in the world. If the pavement rolled up from Waterford Bridge into the inside of the Goulds, Mr. Speaker, I will never get another cent from that Minister, and I will accept that. He only has two more years and then I will be back there and he will be gone, so he will not have to worry. And the Member for St. John's South will not be around after that, but maybe the Member for Trinity North will be on this side of the House the next time, and I can assure him that if I am Minister of Transportation after the next election that the road in New and Old Bonaventure will be done by this Government, Mr. Speaker, by the next Tory Government that comes in within the next year and a half.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to support this petition so excellently presented by the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: It is very refreshing to hear that kind of presentation when a Member is presenting a petition to this House. He did a superb job in terms of explaining the situation. It contrasted with the ramblings and the shoutings of the Member opposite who in commenting on the petition commented on everything but the petition. So I would like to congratulate the Member for Trinity North who did such a superb job in the presentation of this petition on behalf of the residents of Old and New Bonaventure who it seems, Mr. Speaker, have been suffering for a number of years with a problem. On the surface it seems to be a road problem, but in reality it is probably a voting problem. In the comments from the Member for Trinity North we can see that the kind of patronage that was expended by Members opposite was a type of patronage that applied not only to district versus district, it applied not only to districts like the Strait of Belle Isle, it applied not only to districts that for years and years had voted Liberal, but it applied within Tory districts to communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. BAKER: Now this is what amazes me, I did not realize that this was going on. But in the districts that voted Tory, the patronage was applied within that district. Mr. Speaker, I was shocked by that revelation.

Now in terms of this petition I have no problem in supporting the wishes of the people of Old and New Bonaventure, no problem at all. The Member for Trinity North over the next few months will undoubtedly be making his case to the Department of Works, Services, and Transportation, to the Minister, and I will assist him in this regard, and I will support this particular petition in terms of next years capital programme.

So, Mr. Speaker, the reason is obvious -

MR. FUREY: Take it from Burin-Placentia West (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: -but this year's road programme has been announced and we will certainly have a look at it in terms of next year's process. I believe that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem supporting this and wish the residents of Old and New Bonaventure the best of luck in terms of getting the road done. I know they need it. I know what it is like to suffer from lack of pavement, as so many areas of this Province are, so many areas who are suffering from lack of pavement, by and large brought upon by the way they voted for the last number of years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the honour to present an original petition signed by 114 on one part of it and 69 on another for a total of 183 residents of Old and New Bonaventure, Mr. Speaker, petitioned to this House and signed by myself in support of it. It says as follows, Mr. Speaker: The petition of the undersigned of the communities of Old and New Bonaventure in the Provincial District of Trinity North states that we the residents of these communities are gravely concerned for the welfare of our children who travel each day over the unpaved road to and from school. The condition of the unpaved portion of this road degenerates each spring and becomes not only difficult to drive over, but also becomes dangerous for heavy vehicles, in particular. Despite having received many promises over the years that this road will be paved, no action so far has been taken. This is unacceptable. We implore this hon. House to set aside such funds, as is necessary, to have this road paved without delay, not only for the convenience of the communities at large, but in particular for the protection of our children. Your petitioners respectfully request this hon. House give its immediate attention to this request.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I present this petition on behalf of those residents of Trinity North, and in doing so, of course, I want to congratulate the Member for Trinity North in finally getting up the courage to stand on his feet and speak in this House on the petition that was presented to him several weeks ago. In part I blame him, Mr. Speaker, but now I blame the hon. the President of Treasury Board for not telling him properly. Instead he waited until I passed the hon. Member a note today advising him that I was going to present a petition from his District -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: -and suggested that he stay in the House because I would like him to respond to it. Mr. Speaker, this petition was presented to me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the residents of New and Old Bonaventure got up the petition the Member just presented today, and upon discovering after several weeks that it was not to be presented in this House decided they had to put together another petition and it was presented to the Leader of my Party and I was asked to present it to the House on behalf of the residents. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to commend the hon. Member. I have been encouraging him over the last several weeks to get up and speak in the House and I am glad he has finally done so. Now that he has I am sure he will continue to participate in debates in the House. Mr. Speaker, some of the things he did say in presenting the petition, I think I have to support, that much of the problem with the residents of this district has perhaps had to do with the voting. Now, this Government cannot say that they are rising above that level of patronage, Mr. Speaker. This level of patronage goes back to the former Liberal Government. Was it not former Premier Smallwood in a famous speech to the voters of Ferryland who talked about how not one red cent would go to the district of Ferryland if they did not vote for their member. They reap what they sow, Mr. Speaker. When the Member for Trinity North goes into Old and New Bonaventure during an election campaign and promises road pavement, just as the Member did before, he has to expect that the people want something back in return. Unfortunately for the new Member he does have a certain amount of naivety because he seems to be the only one, not only in this House but perhaps in all of Newfoundland, who believes the press releases of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation when he says: this is a list selected by officials who provide it and the Members have no influence on it. Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious when one looks at the breakdown of this in terms of districts with sixty-four out of sixty-eight going to districts currently represented by Liberals, they cannot stand back and say this is to redress the evils of the past because many of the districts now represented by these Liberals were in fact represented by Tories for so many years, so that is a very facile answer, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the hon. Member for Trinity North to join with me in trying to convince this Government to change that historic pattern and to have, instead of the officials allegedly making the decisions without any influence from the public, to have an open process about road decisions so that decisions can be made and people can make representations to an independent board which will have the ability to receive the representations, to hear the concerns, and to establish a list of priorities that is done in an open manner and a fair manner so that all Members of the House and the people of Newfoundland will have some confidence that various Governments are not using their own money to buy votes or to buy support.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of the petition presented by my colleague for St. John's East, and to obviously commend him for enticing the Member for Trinity North to present the petition. It is sad when someone has to come to this House and send a note to another Member asking him to present -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I do not need any instructions from any Member over there. The people of this Province, whether they live in New or Old Perlican, in Burin - Placentia West, in Placentia, or in Carbonear, have every right to expect their Members to present a petition on their behalf, and whether you be a new Member or an old Member you still have that responsibility. I make no apologies for myself, or for the Member for St. John's East for writing a note to the Member for Trinity North asking him to present a petition. The fact of the matter is this Government has brought down three budgets with allocations for roads and not one red cent in three years has this Premier or this Government given to New or Old Bonaventure. In three Budgets not a nickel and yet the Member gets up and blames it on the bureaucrats. Well, probably the Member might believe it is the bureaucrats but I can tell you that it is not the bureaucrats. It was done in the Cabinet room. It was done by these Minister who cut the pie and did not give a cent. Now, the other thing I might like to know, the other question I would like to have answered: was there money allocated this year for road work in Trinity North?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: The Member says yes there was. When he got up to speak he said the reason why it probably was not done was because of the voting patterns of Old and New Bonaventure over the past twenty years. Now my question is how did they vote in the last election? I wonder if the leader of the NDP would be permitted to tell us how they voted in the last election. And did their voting pattern in the last election have anything to do with the fact that they did not get five red cents out of this Budget? That is the question I would like to have answered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: They were as close, they were levelled off, they were basically levelled off, split, and I wonder if that had anything to do with it. And I wonder if other places in the Member's district voted more Liberal and got more money. That is the question that has to be answered. I wonder if this Member who just got elected has not been counselled very well by the President of Treasury Board and other people on how to manipulate the system and how to be political within the district. That is shameful. That is shameful, Mr. Speaker, that a Member would play politics within his district, allocate to one town and not another because of how they voted, or one town voted more for him than another town. That is shameful, but it is happening in this system.

We also saw today how political this Government really is. When my colleague for Green Bay presented a petition supported by my colleague for Fogo, both of whom had similar problems, not one Member opposite stood to speak to that petition. Yet, when a Liberal presented a petition the President of Treasury Board was on his feet supporting it. And now my colleague for St. John's East has presented a petition, it will be interesting to see whether they will continue to play politics and refuse to stand and speak to that petition presented from this side of the House.

I would say that if neither Minister on that side stands then the Member for Trinity North owes it to the people of his district to stand and speak in support of this petition. Every opportunity a Member gets, he should stand and support something for his district. The fact that he just presented one and spoke for three minutes is not important. The opportunity is again there for the Member for Trinity North to take his place in this House on behalf of the people and to condemn this Government. For three years they have brought in budgets with not one nickel for the people of the communities on whose behalf he just presented a petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You just take it easy. Mr. Speaker, the Minister should make a commitment right now to that Member - and he can do it. The President of Treasury Board and this Government, if they are sincere and supportive of the petition, can stand and tell the people of Old and New Bonaventure this evening that they will have pavement next year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want the Minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again I have no problem supporting the petition from the residents of Old and New Bonaventure, and I would simply say `ditto' in terms of what I said to the first petition from these two communities. However, I would like to make note of the fact once again that there is a tremendous difference between the reasoned, sensible, persuasive arguments put forward by the Member for Trinity North as compared with the ravings and shoutings from Members opposite. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 7, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 7. The hon. the House Leader to move that further consideration -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

- of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles or whatever else might be related to Order No. 3 shall be the first business of the House when next called by the House and shall not further be postponed. You have heard the motion. All those in favour 'Aye'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against `Nay'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3, third reading of a Bill, "An Act Respecting Restraint of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province". As I recall, we are debating the amendment to the motion.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about this infamous bill and the closure motion. That is the big thing. It is the first time, I suppose, and perhaps years from now we will be able to read it in Ripley's Believe It Or Not, but this is the first time that on a bill in three stages, the Government House Leader brought in closure. He should be ashamed of himself, Mr. Speaker. He should hang his head; he should be ashamed to go outside the door of this Assembly; he should sleep in here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do not know if the noise level is bothering other Members, but I can say to hon. Members that I am totally mesmerized and I have been since petitions began. I do not know if it is the new House, whether or not, as I said, the sound is coming more to me. But if hon. Members find it, then I am going to have to enforce order in this House and ask hon. Members if they are talking to please talk more quietly, more subdued so that it does not manifest itself throughout the whole proceedings in such a manner that it interferes. I would ask hon. Members to co-operate.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What the hon. the Government House Leader did was put the boots to us; he shut us down. He said, you are not allowed to get up and speak any more. He said, we are going to rule the roost, and that is what he did; he used the old hobnail boots; he ground us into the floor.

I was here yesterday afternoon and I was flabbergasted, Mr. Speaker. I was sitting down here when the debate started and my hon. friend and colleague, the House Leader, was giving a fine speech, an excellent speech, when all of a sudden - I will tell you what I was thinking about, Mr. Speaker, and you will have to indulge with me for a moment. I was thinking about Sunday's storm and athe fact that I did not get to church. I was thinking to myself when all of a sudden up rises the Government House Leader, the President of Treasury Board, with his book in his hand and he started in. Well what a lacing he gave us. What a lacing! We had no authority to stand up in the House. We were irrelevant. What irrelevance, he said. He laced up one side of us and down the other side. I thought to myself, well, I did not hear a homily yesterday, I missed church because of the storm, but I was relieved, I was really glad that here was the Reverend Baker on his feet and he told me and the rest of my colleagues that we were sinful people, that we had committed sin, that we should not have gotten on our feet here and tried to get across to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador what this Government was perpetrating on them. But we were sinful, Mr. Speaker.

When I went home last night I thought about the Government House Leader and I said to myself, well at least I was in the House. I did not go to church yesterday, but the Government House Leader relieved a lot of pressure that was on me for not going.

MR. SIMMS: You did not go to church!

MR. PARSONS: No, I missed church on Sunday because of the storm.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: Sunday night it was stormy, and I left it too late.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I left it too late, Mr. Speaker, and I did not go. But when I went home I looked in the bible; I was looking for the names of the people who were mentioned and do you know the only name I could not find, Mr. Speaker, was the name the House Leader referred to - he kept saying Beauchesne. That was the only difference in the liturgy I hear in church, when the minister or the priest, the clergyman, has the homily, and what the hon. Government House Leader did yesterday. But there was no mention in the bible about that fellow Beauchesne.

Now he got up yesterday and he kept saying, Well this was under So and So. Now you are not allowed to do it, because you do not understand, because you are young fellows over there and you do not realize what is going on, and the hardships that we find ourselves in. Oh, Mr. Speaker!

I must say I finally realized what he was talking about and I said, here we are, the poor people of Newfoundland and Labrador, some of them losing their jobs completely, others had raises promised them, and here is Bill 16, the infamous bill, the worst piece of legislation that was ever brought before this House of Assembly, and here is Old Closure Baker - he will go down in history. You should be ashamed of yourself! Three times on the one bill - three times - to muzzle the Opposition. He tried to make us like calves in the pasture. Did you ever see a calf in the pasture with a muzzle on her so that she could not open her mouth? That was us. He tried to muzzle us, he tried to knock us down, he tried to walk on us, stamp on us! But he could not do it and he had to bring in closure. He will go down in history as the only House Leader who ever brought in closure three times on the one bill.

There are an awful lot of things to be said about this bill. And what surprises me - and the last time I spoke here I mentioned the same thing - is that the few speakers who have gotten to their feet on the other side, they were always saying the one thing, we do not like this bill, we really cannot digest this bill. But at the end of the day, when it is voted on, when the House Leader brings in closure and it is voted on, every Member on the other side - "aye." Not one of them will live by their convictions, will live by what they really feel and know, that this bill is a disaster for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When we consider what this bill is all about - we talk about the restraints, the Government's problems as it pertains to loan guarantees, loan monies - and then we look at what the Minister of Development brought before this House yesterday, the Economic Recovery Commission expenses related to promotion and advertising, with hospital beds being closed, people being laid off in Old Perlican, Placentia, Port aux Basques, Bell Island, here in Confederation Building, other health institutions, teachers being laid off, here is the Economic Recovery Commission's promotion and advertising, $110,000.

That is what the Economic Recovery Commission spent on advertising. I can see the Minister coming through the door now and I am glad he is here. Because no matter how smooth the Minister is - a very smooth talker - he can never convince me, and I do not think he can convince anyone in Newfoundland and Labrador, that $110,000 should be spent on advertising when people are being laid off, losing their jobs; when people in Newfoundland and Labrador are losing their homes, their cars.

Then in this Minister comes with, and quite proud of it, and after each heading: Annual Report, $26,210. Annual report of what? Of what? I mean I have said over and over in this House where the money could be saved, where those things which are happening with Bill 16 need not be necessary. And the first thing I said up front, dissolve the ERC and put that young Minister where he is supposed to be, in charge of development - not Dr. Doug House. He was never elected. That is $55 million there. Then when I look here and see Professional Services $17,426 cost to date for assistance, advice and the development of communication programmes, that is $17,000; let us see what else they spent our money on; Advertisements $2,697; Buy Newfoundland Radio Campaign $40,543; Newfoundland Manufacturers Association $15,000, The Newsletter Connections, Connections, is the name of the newsletter, $8,600. Mr. Speaker, there could be a lot of people, a lot of men and women still working today, some of that $110,000 could perhaps at least have kept six people working; six people in this Province who need jobs, whom this Government without care, knowing, deprived of their rights to live and be proud and working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, when I was up a few days ago, I mentioned the Chairman of the Social Services Appeals Board and it has come to light today and yesterday in Question Period and in the media and here we have a Government that espouses to - all we can hear is restraints because there is no money; they do not have any money; what could we do, we had to do something, and here we look at, the Minister of Social Services, for the Chairman of his Board, the Appeals Board received up until last fall, $200 per day.

Now the Minister can say what he likes, these are the facts; through his asking, through his begging to Treasury Board, the chairman of this appeals board monetary remuneration was changed and what he was getting $200 a day for, he was getting in the new schedule: his preparing for the meeting one day, $350; travel to a meeting one day, $350; attendance at a meeting one day, $350; travel home one day, $350. A year ago, what cost $200 is now costing $1,400; and the other thing, Mr. Speaker, I learnt today in passing, was that, up until last year - the Member for St. John's South can say what he likes, but it is the truth, up until last year - you see, there are regions of the Province where those appeals are held and I have been told now, because of this here, because of the monetary situation now, that appeals are being held in communities right across the Province; in other words, what could take place in Gander, where all the people could come to Gander to appeal their cases, the appeals board now is travelling to those individual communities at a cost of $1,400 a day for the Chairman, $1,400 a day for the Chairman, from the same Government who said we have no money; we have no money to pay salaries -

AN HON. MEMBER: You be quiet.

MR. PARSONS: You be quiet. If you want to get up, you can get up after I sit down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: If you want to speak, you get up because you have no gag -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, how can this Government go out there and say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: we have no money, that is why we had to take away your jobs. How are they going to say to the nurses, when the hon. the House Leader here said: they should have had raises before this, they should have had the money that they deserve, but, Mr. Speaker, they did not get the money, it was clawed back by this Government, not frozen, it was clawed back.

How can you give something and then say it is frozen, Mr. Speaker, it was clawed back, it was taken back from them, the monies that they had, and then the Chairman of the Appeals Board for Social Services gets one little trip, one little trip out to hear perhaps one appeal, $1,400. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is despicable, and the Minister of Social Services who was up here the other day, and I said to him that he had laid off numerous people in his Department, numerous people had been thrown to the wolves, and I told him that I did hear through the grape vine that he had hired twelve temporary people and he said - Mr. Speaker, arrogance, you talk about arrogance - Mr. Speaker, he looked straight across at me and said: fourteen, not twelve, fourteen -

MR. EFFORD: From my district.

MR. PARSONS: - fourteen from your district -

MR. EFFORD: Yes, what is wrong with that?

MR. PARSONS: Now, Mr. Speaker, where is the fairness and balance of the Premier to which he espouses; he was out all through this country: that when I become, if I become; it was the biggest shock ever he got in his life when he did become; oh, what a fright he got that night, but anyway Mr. Speaker, he was saying -

MR. DOYLE: I would say the biggest shock that he had was, when he found the Minister of Social Services with his fingers in the cookie jar.

MR. PARSONS: Oh, oh! Oh, oh, I did not like to say that, oh, he was caught. First of all, he was caught in the boat, right, now look at where he is now he has his fingers in the cookie jar. Yes, he got his fingers in this time, and I am telling you he may get a rap on his fingers yet. The Premier has not decided yet. We will wait. In a couple of days time we will see what is going to happen.

That is the start of the downfall, I want to say to the Minister of Development that this is the start of your downfall. Right there to our left is the start. He has his finger in the cookie jar. His hand is going to get jammed down there. His hand will not be able to get up from the cookie jar.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection against these vicious attacks by those two Ministers. Here comes my old friend the hon. House Leader, the Rev. Baker. Then there was a lot of controversy over it and the lawyers came to the Justice Department on numerous occasions. They figured they were not getting enough money, Mr. Speaker, and we increased their fees by $10.00 an hour. I heard a woman on Open Line saying she would be quite prepared to work for $5.00 an hour to supplement the wages that herself and her husband were receiving so their family could live with a bit of dignity. They raised the lawyer's salaries by $10.00 an hour, but Mr. Speaker, what can we expect from a Government that had no word, not now, then, or will never? What did we do on Meech Lake? The Premier reneged. The First Ministers of the Provinces signed Meech Lake and the Premier reneged. What did he do with us in the House of Assembly when we wanted to vote on Meech Lake? He would not let us vote. He decided, no, you are not allowed to vote. What did he do with the nurses, Mr. Speaker? He reneged. What did he do with the Newfoundland Constabulary? He reneged. What did he do with the firefighters? Again today we brought it up in the House. They reneged. What did he do with the hospital workers? What did he do with the general civil service? He reneged. He broke his promises, Mr. Speaker. What did he do as far as the elimination of what was necessary, what was survival for the outports, what was survival for rural Newfoundland, they took away MUM Extension. Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to a gentleman the other day who has a tractor and was not working, times are bad in that industry as well, and his wife worked at MUM Extension. He came to the office over there almost crying saying the unbelievable happened, his wife was just laid off at MUM. She worked at MUM Extension. Here he was a man who was trying to pay off his tractor, with no work, and his wife laid off as well. Mr. Speaker, that is only one of the stories that are out there, but the stories that will be related within the next six or eight months because of what this Government did to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will come home to roost with every one of you, including you, the Minister of Social Services. Like I told you before you are going to be rapped on the knuckles anyway.

The fact remains that you should not be so arrogant as to get up and tell the poor people - where the money comes from is your office - tell them single mothers cannot receive this, people looking for assistance cannot receive this, and in the same tone, within the same month, give your political heelers a 700 per cent increase. You should be ashamed of yourself!

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)going to do?

MR. PARSONS: You should be ashamed of yourself!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: What a sleazebag you are.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: An honourable sleazebag.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I said before and I will say it again, a lot of things could have been done apart from what this Government did. And there are a lot of Members over on the other side who agree with me. There could have been a freeze, if it was necessary. As I said before, there could have been a freeze for two years, if it was necessary. Do it the first year. If it was necessary to have the second year, do it. Perhaps the workers would be satisfied to take early retirement. Perhaps they would be satisfied to take two weeks off without pay.

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FUREY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend my hon. friend for St. John's East Extern on a fine, fine speech. He is probably one of the finer Members over there, and he has become a good friend of mine. Although we do not share political philosophies we have certainly shared a lot of friendly moments over the years, even though he voted against Confederation.

But I am not going to hold that against him, because he recognizes he has done his mea culpas and genuflected before the great shrine of Confederation and said I am sorry 300 times, and taken terrific benefits from this great country called Canada. So he has done his genuflection and he is very, very sorry, indeed ashamed, and hangs his head that he even dreamt or thought about being an anti-Confederate. Other than that, he is a wonderful fellow.

Now he asked me some questions. He is running away from the answers. Sit down, my son, and listen to the answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Now, Mr. Speaker, protect me from the Member for Port au Port, because his vicious attacks coming across the House, I can not handle them. I cannot. They are just vicious attacks - scurrilous, vicious attacks. Now protect me from my friend for Port au Port.

Now he asked specific questions about the Economic Recovery Commission material I tabled in the House yesterday. Well, if I did not table it they would be arguing about it. If I did not provide them with honest, up-front answers they would be saying, well, the Minister of Development is covering up or hiding something. But did we do that? No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: We opted for real change. When you ask questions we give real answers. They are truthful answers. Now my good friend for Stephenville recalls when we both shared the Opposition benches together, day after day - and we shared the office and I had to listen to his blaring rock n' roll between phone calls. We shared an office together, but we also shared seats together on that side, in Opposition. And my friend for Stephenville will recall that day after day, week after week we would ask questions about the Sprung project, very simple, up- front, honest questions: Were there market studies done? How much money has gone into it? Is it true that cows are eating our money? Things like that.

We asked honest to God simple questions. Could we get answers? No. And when we put the questions on the Order Paper, they shut the House down. They shut the House down. I mean, was it well over a year and a half? Yes. Well over a year and a half that they closed the House of Assembly. So we had no forum, the people had no voice to ask questions. But when we are asked questions, they might not like the answers, but we provide the answers. My good friend for St. John's East rapped me on the knuckles for spending $50,000 through the Recovery Commission for the last two fiscal years, $50,000 a year. Just in my Department alone I uncovered that they had an agency of record in New York City for $91,000 a year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What?

MR. FUREY: Ninety-one thousand dollars a year! And I asked, well, my God, what benefit do we get from this? And they could not tell t t money. And so he me one single, solitary benefit from that money. And so he says, why is the Minister spending $40,000 on a Buy Newfoundland radio campaign? Because we believe in Newfoundland on this side. Because we believe in Newfoundland companies. Because we want to support Newfoundland companies. Now the corollary of asking that question is that they do not believe in Newfoundland companies, that they do not want us to spend money to invest in Newfoundland companies because it is the private sector that generates the real money, that generates the real wealth that allows us to pour money into the social sector. Even the hon. Member for Port au Port knows that, who was a former businessman and, yes, whom I got elected. When Brian Peckford's blue wave washed across Newfoundland and Labrador, myself and the hon. Member for Port au Port tipped a glass of beer and celebrated together in Piccadilly, I believe. Why? Because I was stunned enough to be his campaign manager and get him elected by 450 votes in a sweep.

MR. HODDER: Tell them how much I paid you!

MR. FUREY: You did not pay me very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: Can you believe it? All he did was send me a small little note saying, thanks a lot, Chuck. That is all I got. Thanks a lot. And where did he go? Off to Florida he went, as I went back to work after three weeks of intensive campaigning: writing his ads, shoving him in front of the television, knocking on doors, chasing away dogs that were trying to bite the rear end off him running up to houses. I did that for him. And what did he do? He crossed the floor. Shame on you!

And he asked me for my advice. He said, Chuck, what should I do? I said, well, the honourable thing to do is to resign and run as a Tory. You will win anyway, because Peckford was sweeping and there were seats falling all over the place. But no, he did not take my advice. It was the only time he did not take my advice and it was wrong. But I am not going to condemn him for that, because he has been an exceptional Member.

But what is more important is that he was a private businessman. So I do not know how he can sit there as a private businessman - and the hon. Member for Humber Valley, he too is a private businessman. And I believe the hon. Member from my home stomping ground of Avondale one time dabbled in business. And the Member for Menihek was a businessman. How can they sit there and say no, do not spend money promoting Newfoundland business? That is what we are saying - $40,000. We have spent $100,000 for the Canadian Manufacturers Association Show, for a Buy Newfoundland radio programme. We have spent less in two years than they have spent in one year with their agency of record in New York City through the Department of Development. Talk about a waste of money. My God.

And then he says; why are you spending money on an annual report? Now surely to God Members across the way know that when the legislation states it it becomes statute and therefore law that you have to supply an annual report. The Member for Humber Valley tabled the annual report of the Milk Marketing Board. I believe the Member for Port au Port - he was a Minister - were you a Minister long enough to table a report? No, okay. Sorry. But the Member from Avondale, for Harbour Main, he was the Minister of Highways, he has tabled reports. These reports cost money. You have to pay out the money to have the reports compiled and printed and tabled by law. My God, you can not argue against that. Surely to God you do not want us to break the law.

And then we have $17,000 set aside to help us in our attempts to bring community groups together for various announcements. Now the Member for Exploits, he and the Member for Windsor-Buchans will recall one of those areas where we spent a few thousand dollars was bringing people from the mainland, from corporate areas, into the central Newfoundland area to announce a project we are very proud of, the Steel Corp project. That has created real, meaningful jobs in central Newfoundland. We did not spend the $17,000 on that, but we spent a small portion of it on that so that we could get the message out; it is important to get ths message out; it is important to spend a few dollars to ensure that the people understand how we are spending the bigger dollars.

Now surely you cannot be against that?

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I have no idea.

Now the other Member says, well, you know, you have a $44 million monster called Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. I cannot even understand that. I mean, he ran a business did he not? In St. John's East Extern, my hon. friend ran a business. Let me tell you where the money is now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) trucking business.

MR. FUREY: Let me tell you where the money is so that everybody understands for the record where it is. Sixteen million dollars is on the table, Mr. Speaker, for loans and equity and low interest rates and these kinds of things - it is risk capital. It is not money we flush out into the harbour and into cucumber tents or anything else, it is risk capital; it is money we lend out to companies. And by the very premise that you are lending means that there is a return, people pay it back. That is the purpose of $16 million of that, and we have committed $24 million - $2 million a month for twelve months equals $24 million. Eight million from last fiscal year has been committed but has not flowed yet. When that $8 million flows into this fiscal year, on the other end if we need to balance it with another $8 million for a total of $24 million, there will be $24 million there for risk capital. R-I-S-K, risk capital. It is not a block of money where we say here go take it to all of our buddies and friends, as some of them would intimate, it is risk capital. It is laid out there for companies to take advantage of under various programs, whether it is the venture capital, whether it is the low interest rate loan, whether it is equity positions in companies. And Members on all sides can look at the record. Enterprise has helped corporations in all Districts, in all parts of the Province, and record speaks for itself. That is $16 million.

Now where is the other $28 million for a total of $44 million that Doug House has to run around and spend everywhere. That is $16 million. Let me tell you where the other $28 million is. $15.4 million of it is in Federal/Provincial agreements that this Government signed. The Rural Development Subsidiary agreement flowing millions of Federal and Provincial dollars through the Development Associations, we signed it. We have to put our money into it. $15.4 million of that $44 million - $16 million was for risk capital; $15.4 million is for agreements we signed. What did we sign? We signed Rural Development Agreement, the Enterprise Network agreement will be signed very shortly; the Labrador Comprehensive agreement - surely the Member for Menihek does not want me to throw that money out of the Budget. The Labrador Comprehensive agreement, the Innu agreement and the Inuit agreement. So surely Members on the other side do not want me as Minister of Development to say to Ottawa, no, do not flow that money. Stop that $15.4 million, $15.4 million for five agreements, Mr. Speaker: the Rural Development agreement, the Enterprise Network agreement, the Labrador Comprehensive agreement; the Inuit Peoples agreement and the Innu Peoples agreement. We are very proud of that $15.4 million, Mr. Speaker. Very proud.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what else did we spend money on? Well we had to rent premises right across the Province because we got a great big new idea. It is something that has been festering in rural Newfoundland for a long time and it has been crying out to be done. It is called decentralization. This Government took the bull by the horns and decentralized out into five regions of the Province. It cost $1 million to rent these premises, premises being in the Avalon area, the Clarenville area, the Gander area, the Corner Brook area, the Labrador City area, and on top of that to make sure we covered rural Newfoundland properly, we also sent out satellite offices into twenty-three other regions. So that is five offices decentralized along with twenty-three offices out into the region to serve rural Newfoundland. Now who can be against that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we inherited two incubator malls, one in Pasadena, in the Member for Humber East's District and one in Port aux Basques, in the hon. the Member for LaPoile's District. Now we had a choice. We could have shut them down but we said, no, we will carry on and make sure. We will review them, reassess them, give them a new focus, a new direction, and new life. That is what they required. They just cannot be receptacles to receive handouts, and that is what they have been in the past. If you are going to be really free enterprise - we do not mind incubating and starting businesses off and nourishing them, but once they get nourished and get their sea legs, then they are on their own, they should be on their own. $370,000 we are paying in subsidized interest for businesses to occupy places in these two malls. We are not against that, Mr. Speaker, we are for it.

Mr. Speaker, we had to computerize the system we currently have so we could have updated information fast, efficient, quick delivery to businesses. That cost us $500,000. We did that.

So, Mr. Speaker, where is the $44 million that my hon. friend talked about? Sixteen million in risk capital, $15.5 million in five agreements we are very proud to have signed with the Federal Government, $1 million went into renting and leasing premises, $400,000 went into the incubator malls. There were other operating costs. First time start-up costs are natural in the region - there was $900,000 for that and there was $9 million for salaries. And here is how it breaks out: when I inherited NLDC, which was the predecessor of Enterprise Newfoundland, there were 67 employees. We did a complete assessment of the Department of Development which, as hon. Members know, really is a combination of four ministries; I think I am representing the Minister of Tourism and Historic Resources, the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs, the Minister of Economic Development, and the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development. When we folded all those into one ministry we said let us take the delivery of community economic development, rural development and small business and pull those employees out into our new Crown Corporation to deliver our services. So I inherited NLDC which had 67 employees, and I moved 82 out of that huge mandate of the New Department of Development, 82 from Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development, from Rural Development, from Northern Affairs, and all of these. What we wanted to do was harness all the small business, the rural development programs and the economic development programs under one roof. So that gave us 150 employees.

But if we are going to serve these people it is not just enough to have fiscal instruments to pass out money. We wanted expertise. I want to be able to say to people if they come into Corner Brook from Port Saunders, `You need a business plan. Well, I have hired a businessman who just came out of the private sector who can help you do that.' So we hired an extra 30 employees, Mr. Speaker. There are 178 employees in this corporation right across the Province, in the five regions and the 23 satellite offices. We think we are ready to roll now. They have the expertise in the regions, they have the capital dollar commitment of $2 million a year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Newfoundland savings bonds?

MR. FUREY: I will talk about the savings bonds any time you want to. Do you realize that you - I am not going to be distracted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah, come on.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, that gives us 178 employees and we have frozen it at that. I think we are on the right track. I think that people on the other side in their own heart of hearts believe we are on the right track, because I do not know if there is another alternative. I am not sure if they know whether or not there is an alternative.

Mr. Speaker, he attacked the Economic Recovery Commission as well. He asked about the Economic Recovery Commission. That is a small troop of men and women whom we asked to advise Government on policy direction in terms of stimulating the economy. Why did we do that? We did it because we do not have all the answers. I wish we did have all the answers, Mr. Speaker. I wish we had a magic wand and we could wave that wand and have jobs for everybody. But we do not have all the answers, and anybody who tells you they do have all the answers ought to be suspect immediately. There are no instant answers, there is only instant coffee. There are no instant answers. You cannot give instant answers.

He asked about the budget of the Recovery Commission. I will tell him about it. In the 1989 fiscal year we budgeted $3 million. The fiscal year by the time that Recovery Commission was set up ran ten months, and in ten months they spent $1 million. One million dollars of the $3 million was spent. In 1990-91 we budgeted another $3 million. They came in under their budget again at $2.8 million - $200,000 short. In 1991-92 they asked for $3 million. We said, `Sure. That was your original budget. Put forward your budget.' We are going to give them $2.4 million, $600,000 below their budget. So anybody who says the Recovery Commission is not acting responsibly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. FUREY: Just to finish the last sentence or two.

 

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FUREY: So anybody who says that the Recovery Commission has not been financially responsible ought to look at their audited statements. I think my friend from Bonavista South is looking at the statements now. In year one, they budgeted $3 million and came in at a million; in year two, they budgeted $3 million and came in $200,000 under at 2.8 and in year three, they asked for $3 million, everybody was frozen, we reduced them to $2.4 million. I think that is performance, Mr. Speaker, and I think in the long haul, you are going to see that Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, with the policy direction of everybody in Government, because it is not just the responsibility of the Minister of Development, or Dr. Doug House, or the Minister of Energy or the Member for Bell Island or St. John's South or Harbour Main or Baie Verte, it is all our responsibility to act responsibly and to generate new wealth because -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: - it is the new wealth -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: - that allows us to deliver our programmes (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now, before I get into launching a vicious, vicious attack on this bill, Bill 16, let me first of all take the opportunity, just to offer a brief word of congratulations to the Member for Trinity North today for making his maiden speech, but, I want to say to the Member for Trinity North, not to use the Minister of Development's speech today as a good example of being relevant. Here we have the gag order on for the third time, Mr. Speaker, the gag order is on for the third time on Bill 16, this is the second time that the Minister of Development -

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order?

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

The hon. the Minister of Development, on a point of order.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly on a point of order. Now the hon. Member for Harbour Main, Mr. Speaker, rose in his place and said that I was not relevant. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if he was in the Chamber, but I thought he was, and the last time I talked to him, his ears were working very well; his ears were working very well the last time that I talked to him, but what happened was, the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern, laid out a list of questions: I would like to ask the Minister of Development, he said, whether the spending on the Economic Recovery Commission's advertising budget was valid.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it is a valid point of order and I would like you to rule on it. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker laid out a series of questions for the Minister of Development, so when I rose to speak on the Bill, he asked me to take the opportunity to answer the questions. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he was leaving the Chamber at the time, and shouted across: no, I will wait to hear the answers. Did he not do that?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. FUREY: - so I set about -

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

MR. FUREY: - so I set about, Mr. Speaker, just on the point of order, I set about -

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) we only have twenty minutes, we gave the Minister (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! I will ask the hon. Member to get to his point of order.

MR. FUREY: My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker. A Member cannot stand in his place and say that another Member is irrelevant, based upon the speech or his speech that he gave, because he has to understand, that on any bill, Mr. Speaker, until you get into clause by clause, is a wide-ranging debate any way and I was responding merely to the questions put so properly by the Member for St. John's East Extern.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to the point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will try to be about thirty seconds to this point of order. First, it is not a point of order; secondly, we are operating under the gag order here, where, Members on both sides of the House only have twenty minutes to speak. All the Minister is doing, is trying to cut into the time of my colleague for Harbour Main, who was about to launch into an attack on the Government for bringing in the gag order, three times in a row on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, nobody interrupted the Minister with a point of order when he was speaking, in fact, we gave him a few extra minutes, so, the Minister, if he is going to be courteous, should sit in his seat, keep quiet and do not go interrupting with specious, foolish, nonsense points of order.

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

There is no point of order. The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, there is no point of order, and as I was saying to the Member for Trinity North, I believe he was out of the Chamber; I want to congratulate him on making a fine, fine maiden speech today, but I hope he does not pay any attention to the Minister of Development. And I hope he does not use the Minister of Development's speech today and be influenced in any way by the Minister of Development, because it was totally irrelevant.

And here we are, Mr. Speaker. We have got the gag order on again for the third time on the one piece of legislation. We have the Minister of Development, who spoke in this debate twice already, I was here for his first speech on this particular bill, Bill 16, it was totally irrelevant. He got up and he spoke about the Economic Recovery Commission. And now today when we have the gag order on for the third time, we have the Minister of Development rising in his place again, not paying any attention to the fact that the labour movement in this Province is absolutely devastated by this particular piece of legislation. The Minister gets up again and is totally irrelevant, does not even mention Bill 16, does not mention the fact that this is three times that this particular bill has had the gag order placed on the House. Not one solitary, single word.

But just to respond to the Minister of Development for a moment. I make no wonder that the Minister of Development today has to try to explain to this House why he is spending $150,000 of the public's money on the Economic Recovery Commission and trying to tout the few limited successes that the Economic Recovery Commission has had, and try to justify to the people of the Province why he is spending, first of all $100,000 on an advertising campaign for the Economic Recovery Commission, and I believe he mentioned in the course of his speech, that he is spending an additional $50,000 on touting the few limited successes of Enterprise Newfoundland as well. A total of $150,000 that we know of, so far, that the Minister is spending on setting up press conferences for the Economic Recovery Commission around the Province, and carrying the Minister's suitcases here and there.

So I make no wonder that the Minister of Development has to come in here today and tout those few limited successes. Because he is trying desperately, I believe, to try and defend the indefensible, to try to defend what the Premier said here in the House of Assembly not more than a couple of months ago when he attributed to the Economic Recovery Commission 1,535 jobs. I believe I have the quote here. Every one of those jobs is attributable, he said, to the Economic Recovery Commission, and they would not have taken place merely by the normal routine work of the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation.

What a sham, what a farce. And here is the Minister of Development today trying to defend the indefensible, trying to get the Premier out of the corner that the Premier has backed himself into. Fifteen hundred and thirty-five jobs created by the Economic Recovery Commission, when in actual fact the Economic Recovery Commission has probably been responsible for a total of 65 jobs, most of which are part time jobs. So I make no wonder that the Minister of Development has to spend $150,000 to try and back up that statement that the Premier has made. Fifteen hundred and thirty-five jobs created by the Economic Recovery Commission. What a farce, what a sham, I would say to the Minister of Development and the Premier. And the Minister of Development, who struck me up until this point in time as being a fairly honest gentleman, is really destroying his credibility here today when he tries to defend the indefensible.

Now let me try and back up what I am saying. Now the Premier made the statement, I never made that statement. It was not the Leader of the Opposition who said the Economic Recovery Commission had created 1,535 jobs. That is a direct quote from the Minister's leader, the Premier of this Province, 1,535 jobs created by the Economic Recovery Commission. Those jobs, he said, would not have been created, would have been gone, had it not been for the Economic Recovery Commission. Recently I sent for a little list down to ACOA of their involvement in the projects of the Economic Recovery Commission and I was surprised by what I got from ACOA on the projects that were created by the Economic Recovery Commission.

Arctic Sea Foods Processors Limited, in L'Anse-au-Loup, Labrador, seventy-three jobs created by the Economic Recovery Commission. But the Minister of Development and the Economic Recovery Commission failed to mention the fact that ACOA have pumped in $1,456,000 into that project. The Economic Recovery Commission and the Premier were supposed to be taking full credit for those seventy-three jobs that were created, and that is total dishonesty by this Premier to stand in his place a couple of months ago in this House and say that the Economic Recovery Commission had created and preserved 1,535 jobs, and that these jobs would have gone had it not been for the Economic Recovery Commission. What a sham. What a farce. Make no wonder the Minister of Development has to try -

MR. FUREY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: - and defend the indefensible. And has to try to defend this Premier.

MR. FUREY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the Minister of Development, on a point of order.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we cannot let the record go unchallenged.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a vicious attack.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Now I thought the hon. Member was low yesterday in Question Period, you know that is just - anyway February 21, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TOBIN: I thought this was a point of order.

MR. FUREY: This is a very important point of order, if the hon. Member would clam up for a minute.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, oh!

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

MR. FUREY: On February 21, his Leader knows, I wrote to him and I gave him a full listing of the participation of E&L and everybody else in it. Now let me tell the hon. Member who is being dishonest. And I will quote, Mr. Speaker, -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Name him!

MR. FUREY: Breamer Industries (?), right from the letter to his Leader, Breamer Industries, term loan of $114,000; Demand $40,000; Intramacola (?), $41,000;

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. FUREY: So, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is he should talk to his Leader because, you know, it is not my job to promote ACOA. I mean the Province has enough responsibility promoting its own economic initiatives, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. FUREY: And I would ask the hon. Member -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would ask the hon. Minister to get to his point of order.

MR. FUREY: I would ask the hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, to be honest about it and call it as it is, because it is certainly beneath his dignity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no point of order. It is a difference of opinion between two hon. Members. But there is no point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: You want to take up his time misleading the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Your Leader told me that ACOA put no money into it, in writing, and you get up and you mislead the House. And you can get away with it and we cannot answer. Now that is not fair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: Now, Mr. Speaker, it is no trouble -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

 

MR. DOYLE: - to know when you are getting at the truth. Because the Minister of Development has been over there for the last ten minutes or so that I have been speaking smarting in his seat because we are finally exposing the Economic Recovery Commission and this Premier and this Minister for the farce that it is, and that is why the Minister of Development is spending $150,000 on an advertising campaign to try and retrieve some semblance of his own credibility because of what the Economic Recovery Commission has done.

Now, Mr. Speaker, again let me go over some of these projects that the Premier has said were created and preserved by the Economic Recovery Commission.

MR. RIDEOUT: Totally, he said.

MR. DOYLE: Totally and completely preserved by the Economic Recovery Commission. And we have to quote here: every one of those jobs is attributable to the Economic Recovery Commission and would not have taken place merely by the normal routine work of the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation. But he just conveniently overlooked the fact that the Economic Recovery Commission and Enterprise Newfoundland were not the only funding agencies involved here, even though the Premier said: oh, these jobs are totally and completely attributable to the Economic Recovery Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DOYLE: So in asking for the information on these particular projects that were funded by the Economic Recovery Commission we found first of all, that Arctic Seafood Processors, down in Labrador, a project that was funded totally and completely according to the Premier by the Economic Recovery Commission, was indeed funded by ACOA and not totally by the Economic Recovery Commission.

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

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is simply that we are discussing the wage restraint Bill, Bill 16, and I have sat here for the last ten minutes and have not heard anyone mention it. I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to get back to talking about Bill 16 as we should be, or if there is, in fact, any relevance in this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition to that point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government House Leader may have been conveniently out of the House while his colleague, the Minister of Development, was speaking, but Your Honour knows, because Your Honour was in the Chair, that not once during the twenty minutes did the Minister of Development refer to the public sector restraint Bill - he talked about Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, he talked about the Economic Recovery Commission, he talked about a whole bunch of things. And I might add, Mr. Speaker, that not once was he interrupted by a point of order, when this is the third time that my colleague, who is trying to make a few points here this afternoon, has been interrupted not by a point of order, but by a point of nonsense and discourtesy to a Member of this House. Now the Government House Leader, if he is going to pop in and pop up, should pop out and stay out, Mr. Speaker.

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

To that point of order I remind hon. Members that we are debating the amendment to Bill 16 as introduced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, and that provides for a wide-ranging debate. I was listening to the debate. The hon. the Minister of Development was responding to some questions from the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern, and I believe now the Member for Harbour Main is responding to points raised by the hon. the Minister of Development. So it is relative to the debate. There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Excellent ruling. Excellent ruling.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government House Leader's actions here today are consistent with what he has been trying to do to this House for the last number of weeks and months, trying to gag everyone.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it on his back.

MR. DOYLE: Take it on his back; use the hobnailed boot approach again to govern.

Now, Mr. Speaker, getting back to the Economic Recovery Commission, the Government's sprung, getting back to the Economic Recovery Commission and all these jobs which were created by the Economic Recovery Commission, as I started out to say, Arctic Seafoods Limited of Labrador, the actions of the Economic Recovery Commission was supposed to have preserved or created 73 jobs at Arctic Seafoods. That was totally attributable to the Economic Recovery Commission as the Premier said, but he conveniently left out the information that ACOA had contributed $1,456,000 to that company. The Minister conveniently left out that information, the Premier left out that information.

I am not going to have time to go over all these because of the constant interruptions of Members opposite, but I will go through a couple of them here. Red Ochre Productions Limited of St. John's, 46 jobs totally and completely preserved by the Economic Recovery Commission - they fail to say that ACOA made a contribution to that one, as well. Not a big one mind you, only about $13,000 or so. But ACOA had contributed to that one as well. Instrumar Engineering, 9 jobs. What contribution did ACOA make to that one? Well the first contribution was $40,699, the second contribution was $92,000, and the third contribution was $31,000. So, Mr. Speaker, the Premier conveniently left that one out as well, that ACOA had been a very, very significant contributor to that particular company. What about Sea Craft Limited? Twelve jobs totally and completely preserved, created by the Economic Recovery Commission, 12 jobs. What do we see, Mr. Speaker? The information conveniently left out that ACOA had contributed $86,000 on one occasion and $18,000 on another occasion.

That did not seem to matter to the Premier. This great honest Premier just conveniently left out that information and told us that all these jobs were attributable to the Economic Recovery Commission.

Now, what about Terra Inns Limited in Clarenville? Forty-three jobs there preserved totally by the Economic Recovery Commission. What a Commission! We should be proud we have it. They preserved forty-three jobs according to the Premier. No money from anyone else, just the Economic Recovery Commission. The Premier conveniently left out the information that Terra Inns Limited of Clarenville had a contribution of $1,305,000 from ACOA. RDS Engineering Limited, another great creature of the Economic Recovery Commission which preserved or created fifteen jobs. Again the Premier left out the information, just conveniently overlooked it. I am sure it was only an oversight, a slip of the tongue, and I am sure he will correct all that when he comes back with the information I have asked him for about the Economic Recovery Commission. He will come back and correct all that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. DOYLE: The Minister of Development told me, Mr. Speaker, that I would have additional time because of the interruptions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. DOYLE: Of course there is leave.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no leave.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to be totally relevant to the bill before this hon. House. The hon. Member for St. John's East today talked about compensation and used the appeals board that had been appointed not in this administration but in previous administrations with the Department of Social Services. Now there is one thing for which I give credit to the previous administration, they had the good sense to hire me, to appoint me to a board on Occupational Health and Safety, in which I have long experience. And if hon. Members say I knew nothing about it, that talks about their credibility in appointing people. I was privileged to be able to offer my expertise, and like most people I expected to be remunerated for that expertise, and I was. I remember the last function I attended while on that board. It was in the hon. the Member for Menihek's District, and I spent time with Mr. Collins, whom I am sure the hon. Member knows. We left St. John's and flew to Labrador West. I was paid my remuneration for that travel day, a per diem of $150 a day. The Chairman was paid for his day and travel. I think it was somewhere between $300 and $500 per day. I am going back six years now as a Member of the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Board. All of a sudden we have seen this great crusade about a board which has been appointed and the remuneration given to Members of the board for travel days.

Now we met in Labrador West for one day - one day was all we met - but we were paid for our travel day to Labrador West, we were paid for our day while we were in Labrador West and we were paid for the travel day home. So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the format was set for boards in this Province, and in compensating people on boards I think the previous administration set the precedent and I think this Government is only following along now in footsteps which were already established by the previous administration. So there is nothing new to be said about compensating board members.

I was one of the fortunate Liberals to get on a board by the previous administration; I travelled here, there and everywhere all across the Province; I was paid for my day's travel, I was paid for my expertise - almost was paid for my expertise. I do not know if they had enough money to pay me. I was paid for coming back.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) Brian Peckford (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) your travel?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, was paid. I was paid for my day's travel going, was paid for my expertise while I was there, and was paid for my travel coming back. So I do not know what is new and why accusations have been thrown at the hon. Member, the best Minister this Province has seen in years and years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to remind the Member that the Government House Leader from time to time gets up and speaks about the rule of relevance. Let me say to the Member that I do not know what this has to do with the savage attack by his Government on civil servants, the firing of people throughout this Province. Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point that what the Member is saying -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - has to be dealing with Bill 16, and that is not what he is doing right now. And, Mr. Speaker, if our Government made a mistake and paid an incompetent person like that Member there to serve on a board, then I apologize on behalf of that Government.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West, the only possible way he can stop the truth is by getting up in his place and making a personal attack on hon. Members on this side of the House. Now is that the behaviour this House should be expecting? I would not mind his pulling his little stunts if he was as smart as some of the other hon. Members Opposite, but he gets up and he makes absolutely no sense with his point of orders, they are silly and stupid.

Mr. Speaker, I could talk about why this Government has to bring in the compensation package it has. I was on the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Board and when I was going around the Province I would run into these Egg Marketing Boards and Chicken Marketing Boards, and I was not sure as I crossed with these what came first, the egg or the chicken?

Now I used to meet hon. Members on these boards. I met one hon. Member, and I do not need to mention his name in this House, and he said to me, you know, Tom, thanks to my friends whom I supported for the last fifteen years, here I am chairing an Egg Marketing Board. I was never inside a hennery in my life, but here I am, he said, getting my rewards, I am being compensated to go about the Island and listen to the roosters crow. I said, you have listened to the roosters crow. So, Mr. Speaker, was paid for travel the day before, at the meeting, and to come home. Now all of a sudden today we saw this great purification - up jumps the Leader of the Opposition talking about compensation for the Appeals Board appointed by the hon. Minister of Social Services. And then our friend in the back, who whispered as we all know a jestful statement as sometimes made in the House between hon. Members, as we go from side to side having fun, and today it entered in full force on the floor when the hon. Minister was scowled at in Question Period over what we all know is sometimes what we do as a little common gesture, whether it be in the corridor or in the hall or whatever, and that will not be forgiven by hon. Members in this caucus, I can assure you of that right now. I can assure you of that.

It will not be forgiven what was done in this hon. House today, and we all know. It should be said and it needs to be said, because it is low as low can go what was done here today. So, Mr. Speaker, I could go on and talk about why this Government is rapped with the Bill on compensation for the civil service and how it expands, but I just thought I should stand in my place and clear the air of the impression that was left in this hon. House today as though something new had happened in association with the Minister of Social Services, that the board and the process of the board was new. It is nothing new. The only thing new is that if you look at the boards which are established throughout Government today you will find people on those boards of all political persuasions, which is fairness and balance. And they are being compensated because of their expertise to do that work. I remind the hon. Members that when they stand up with the venom trying to generate a story, whether it be as they did yesterday, talking about a young lady who happens to be the daughter of the Premier of this Province, who is articling at a firm trying to get before the bar.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well let me tell the hon. Member for Grand Bank that one of the most pronounced or most obvious, most outspoken NDPers who is on Open Line consistently was on open line this morning and he said, `It just goes to show how an Opposition with absolutely nothing better to do would be so trivial as to stand in their place during Question Period and' - and I might add that the moderator reminded the gentleman, who is a known NDPer, that the Leader of the Opposition receives the same remuneration as a Minister in the House, and that is what they had stepped to. And then today to see the hon. Member stand up and dive face first into the best Minister this House has seen in years, the hardest worker, on something that was already in place was utterly disgraceful and he should be ashamed of himself. So let us not talk about compensation that was already in place, about standards already set. Let us cut out the hypocritical garbage and get down to what the Bill is all about. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order please!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the record should be allowed to show that the Member has expertise in occupational health and safety. Only he says that, the rest of us do not agree with that (inaudible).

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

There is no point of order.

MR. MURPHY: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

The Chair ruled that there is no point of order.

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

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

MR. MURPHY: The hon. the Member for St. John's South, Mr. Speaker, is the past President of the Canadian Society of Safety Engineers, a national body. I will leave it to the 1,700 safety professionals to decide whether I am competent or the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

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

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is good to see an individual over there on the other side of the House with a social conscience applauding me, knowing of course that I am going to stand and articulate my opposition to the Bill I know deep down he also opposes. I know deep down he does oppose this, and that is why he applauded my standing in my place to speak against this Bill which is commonly referred to as a declaration of war against labour in this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we just listened to the Minister in waiting - or is it the Member? - we just listened to the Member waiting to be admitted to the Cabinet, the Member waiting to be hauled into Cabinet to be the new Minister of Labour. He defended the previous administration when he talked about how they did not have this patronage, the patronage that some people are being accused of today. The previous administration did not have this patronage because he spoke about how he was appointed. Now, of course, if they appointed him, that is not patronage, that is fairness and balance; he did not work on the Tory campaigns.

The other thing he also mentioned, Mr. Speaker, was how people on this side of the House questioned the appointment of a law firm here who have in their employment the daughter -

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Allow me to speak now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture would like to speak after, I am sure in defence of the workers and promote this bill, but until then I would hope he would please allow me to speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. Member for St. John's South suggested that the people on this side of the House raised the issue about the Premier's daughter working with a law firm that had been appointed by E & L and the Economic Recovery Commission. Maybe they know something over there that I do not, but to the best of my knowledge I do not even think that was raised. Nobody over here raised that issue that I am aware of.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. A. SNOW: When?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. the President of Treasury Board says, yeah!

MR. WINSOR: In this Chamber?

MR. HEWLETT: Not in this Chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Nobody on this side raised that issue. The only problem I have with that whole question, with regard to doing a change in law firms and a different law firm doing the work now than was doing it three years ago, is the fact that we are into a time of restraint and they are talking about doing legal work now and probably spending in excess of $200,000 to $300,000 to $400,000. Some people even suggest that this work could go to as much as $1 million worth of legal fees. Some people do suggest that, and only time will tell how much legal fees will be spent. My only statement is that what should be done in this time of restraint is they should be hiring lawyers and doing it in-house. That is what they should be doing rather than attempting to camouflage the fact that they are going to distribute this legal work around the Province. They say, We are going to distribute this work around the Province, we are going to make it more equitable, we are going to have fairness and balance. They are going to change some of the law firms every five years. That is what he said. We will even it up every five years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: That is another question. But what they should do with regard to the legal question - the hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture asked me what I thought of it. I am telling him and when they go back into the Cabinet meeting he should suggest that to the hon. the Minister of Development who is responsible for the Economic Recovery Commission and Enterprise Newfoundland.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having said that I would like to make a few remarks on this bill and the fact that this bill has been referred to as a declaration of war on labour in this Province. What I see in this bill, I am not sure if it is a declaration of war on all the labour movement of this Province, but I know it has been a declaration of war on the public sector labour unions of this Province. And I am wary as a lot of people in the labour movement representing the private sector in this Province are wary of what may indeed occur when they are included. Because right now it has been discriminatory. This Government is attempting to solve the economic problems of this Province on the backs of the public sector worker.

MR. GRIMES: That is not true.

MR. A. SNOW: Now the hon. the Member for Exploits with his usual comment, not true, not true, not true.

MR. WINSOR: Not true, not so.

MR. A. SNOW: I do not know of any other labour - now maybe he knows something that I do not. Maybe he knows that there is going to be another declaration of war on private sector unions. Maybe they too will have to pay.

MR. GRIMES: That is not true.

MR. WINSOR: Not so. Not so.

MR. A. SNOW: Now he will undoubtedly speak after I have and say exactly what they are going to do. If the public sector worker is not paying the price for the poor performance of the economy or this Government, then who is?

The public sector worker is having his or her wages frozen, or rolled back for one year.

AN HON. MEMBER: It could be two.

MR. A. SNOW: It may indeed be two because we know what this bill includes. They could extend it. We know that. Now, Mr. Speaker, you are asking the public sector worker to pay for this in a roll back and you are also asking the public sector employee to pay for it in doing more work, because there are just as many people going to be ill next year and showing up at some hospitals, and they are going to have to provide the service. There will probably be more people because of the aging population and people will undoubtedly require more health care, so these people are going to be asked to do more work for less money with fewer of them doing it. That is terribly unfair, it is discriminatory. Not only is it discriminatory in that area, if you will, it is also discriminatory towards people working in the public sector and living in Labrador. These people who live in Labrador are having their Labrador benefits package rolled back. Mr. Speaker, this Labrador benefits package was one of the things that was used as an argument when I presented petition, after petition, after petition for people in Labrador to have the Labrador air passenger subsidy program reinstated. After one of my many, many petitions, presented on behalf of thousands of people in Labrador the Premier responded: we have instituted a Labrador benefits package which gives employees of the public sector a payment for transportation out of Labrador and into Labrador, and now we are seeing that rolled back. Maybe what they are going to do is also come back in with the Labrador Air Passenger Subsidy Program to pick up this because they have effectively removed this benefit. Apart from discriminating against public sector employees in the Labour movement to try and solve the economic woes, or the mismanagement woes of this Government, they are discriminating now against Labradorians in doing this. Not only are they discriminating against Labradorians, of course, they are also discriminating against women.

MR. GRIMES: You do not really believe that stuff you are saying, do you.

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. Member for Exploits is suggesting that I do believe it and he does not. Of course he knows that the general public out there believe it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, a lot of people have been completely disillusioned. We all recognize that this Government, that Party sitting on the other side of the House, that Party that declared war on the labour movement in this Province, only two short years ago were in bed with the labour movement, and a lot of these people who are being attacked today by this Government through legislation are going to remember it because they have been discriminated against. They recognize it. They thought that they could trust this group but in this Bill, Mr. Speaker, what has come about is the fact that this Government has broken the trust, not only between employee and employer, but they have broken the trust between the supporter, and now we know what they are doing, between the supporter and an elected politician. They have broken that trust, too. They have also broken the trust that occurs from the unions to the employer, that trust that is necessary in collective bargaining. When collective bargaining occurs you have to have the trust of both sides, that is very, very necessary in the collective bargaining process. What this bill does is remove the checks and balances that they have in the private sector. When a private sector company, employer, cannot and does not live up to a collective agreement there are labour laws in place to force that private sector employer to live up to the agreement.

But in this case what this regime has done is take that trust, put it in the form of a bill, and now there is no trust in the collective bargaining process that occurs. Because this bill removes all that. It says: yes, I can lead you down the garden path and then take it all back. That is what this bill does, Mr. Speaker, and that is tremendously unfair.

They negotiated contracts staring last June and talked about how people deserved - and so they did - I believe it was a 27 per cent wage hike. And old roll back Baker signed a few more contracts. No, he was not roll back Baker then, he was the Baker with the social conscience then. But then along comes March month, and probably March as an individual recognized then in that month what this regime was all about. How this Government, this regime, could lead the labour movement of this Province down the garden path and award them, just, I believe, two weeks before the Budget, or a week before the Budget, a week before the Budget they promised wage increases only, a week later, to see that there is going to be a roll back.

And we all know of course that a lot of the unions gave up - they were asked if they had any options and they suggested: well, we would like to have a raise. Do you want job security? Well, they gave up that. Took a raise. What happens? Lost the job security and they lost the raise. Here is where they have been hit again. This is where the labour movement of this Province and the public sector have been hit again.

It is tremendously unfair - it has nothing to do with fairness and balance. It has nothing to do with what this Government should be doing. I listened with quite a bit of interest when the hon. Minister of Development spoke earlier. And he talked about how what is going to be driving this economy is the private sector, entrepreneurial development of this Province. He was quite forceful and I thoroughly agree that one of the engines that is going to drive the economy of this Province is the private sector. There is another engine that is out there too that can drive the economy of this Province. We are seeing that being infused from Ottawa, the Hibernia project. That is going to drive the economy of this Province.

But another one that plays a very very important role in driving the economy of this Province is public sector spending. A lot of places in this Province depend on Provincial Government public sector spending to drive their economy. And it is not just a delivery of service as in where I live. Mostly in my area we depend almost totally - the total economy is dependent upon the private sector and that is the large iron ore mines in western Labrador. But we also of course depend largely for the services in western Labrador. And we are seeing that this regime, this Government has seen fit that - some people even suggest that what they are doing, their only policy so far that people have been able to see is to close hospitals and open the trough.

Now I do not know if that is an economic policy or a political policy of this Government, but it has been a policy that has been articulated by some people. And we know that that is not going to drive a lot of the economy of this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have talked a bit about what some of the other Members have said about the unfairness and about the lack of a plan.

MR. WINSOR: What about the effect of all those laid off civil servants now on the pension plan?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, this Government has repeatedly ignored alternatives presented by people on this side of the House and people in the general public and representatives from the unions. The Government disregarded an option presented, to the best of my knowledge by the union, which is work sharing. The unions presented an option of work sharing to the hon. the Minister responsible for Treasury Board, and that could have solved a lot of the problems that are now going to be out there in this Province with regard to massive layoffs. Because work sharing would have distributed the work load in the delivery of service and it could quite possibly have solved the economic problems in the households that are being directly affected today. Because I know the hon. Minister responsible for Treasury Board is over there shaking his head, he does not believe that anybody out there is having personal economic problems in their household when they lose their job. But I want to tell him, he probably has been in this House too long, that there are an awful lot of people out there that have lost their jobs and are threatened with the loss of their jobs and that creates an awful lot of personal problems in their households.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to point out on behalf of the residents of western Labrador that this bill is very discriminatory and against the people in western Labrador and of all Labrador and discriminatory against women throughout this Province. This bill has been a declaration of war on the labour movement in this Province and I sure do not look forward to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: - when they declare war on the private sector of this Province.

Thank you very much.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good speech.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question! Question!

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the amendment pass? We are voting on the amendment first. The amendment which is, as Members know, the six month hoist that this bill not be read now, but six months hence, something similar thereto.

All Members in favour of the amendment, please say 'Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendment 'Nay'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Division. Call in the Members.

 

Division

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

We are now voting on the amendment again. All those in favour of the amendment please rise.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Ms Verge, Mr. Doyle, Mr. R. Aylward, Mr. Tobin, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Matthews, Mr. A. Snow, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. Warren, Mr. S. Winsor, Mr. Power, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Hodder.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendment please rise.

The hon. the President of the Council, the hon. the Minister of Development, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, the hon. the Minister of Social Services, Mr. L. Snow, Mr. Grimes, the hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister of Education, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Reid, Mr. Crane, Mr. K. Aylward, Mr. Gover, Mr. Penney, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Dumaresque, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Oldford.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

CLERK (Miss Duff): Mr. Speaker, ayes 15, nays 24.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?

It is moved and seconded that the said Bill be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? All those in favour 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Division. Call in the Members.

 

Division

 

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

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

The hon. the President of the Council, the hon. the Minister of Development, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, the hon. the Minister of Social Services, Mr. L. Snow, Mr. Grimes, the hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister of Education, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Reid, Mr. Crane, Mr. K. Aylward, Mr. Gover, Mr. Noel, Mr. Penney, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Dumaresque, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Oldford.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please stand.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Ms. Verge, Mr. Doyle, Mr. R. Aylward, Mr. Tobin, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Matthews, Mr. A. Snow, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. Warren, Mr. S. Winsor, Mr. Power, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Harris.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK (Miss Duff): Mr. Speaker, ayes, twenty-seven, nays, sixteen.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

On motion, a Bill, " An Act Respecting Restraint Of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 16).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to rise on a point of order concerning the time for division bells. Mr. Speaker, Your Honour has seen fit to allocate an office to me some distance from the House; I did hear the division bells ring in my office while I was at a meeting, I was unable to reach the House in sufficient time, neither was the Minister of Municipal Affairs whom I passed apace coming through the corridor.

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is improper to not allow the division bells to ring for the full time and I understand that leave is required to -

MR. SPEAKER: I will ask the hon Member to take his place, I am listening to a point of order and because of the noise I cannot hear the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious point of order; it has to do with the ability of me, as a Member, to do my duties as a Member of the House of Assembly. It is almost a point of privilege, as the hon. Member behind me says, in order to be able to attend the House, vote and also to conduct business in my office and meet with constituents, to be able to attend the House where a vote is a requirement of me in order to do my job. I since have met hon. Members who have office suites available in the precincts of the House or even in this building, and have the ability to attend the House for votes. It should be possible for all hon. Members who are in the House, no matter where their offices are. Mr. Speaker, obviously nothing can be done for the previous vote, which I was unable to attend. I think in future that allowance ought to be made to ensure that hon. Members who are present within the precincts of the House - I understand unanimous consent is required for less than a ten minute division and if I am not present I do not give unanimous consent, obviously.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have no difficulty with the point of order raised by the hon. gentleman. In fact I think it is a valid point of order. On the other hand, as leader of this parliamentary group, or our House Leader, or our Whip, we have no way of knowing whether the hon. gentleman is present or not present, and the Government House Leader I suppose in his defence -he can speak in his own - would have no way of knowing.

However, it is customary for Members who are present in the House to say "aye" or "nay" to taking a vote before the full ten minutes are up. I have sympathy for the hon. gentleman. I would have nothing against allowing the hon. gentleman to register his vote now if he wishes. In fact, that has been done in this House before. There is precedent for the former Member - now Mr. Justice Barry - who was not in the House to register his vote on Meech Lake and to register it, I believe, even a couple of days later.

So out of courtesy to the hon. gentleman and wanting to have his vote registered, I think I can speak for my colleagues that we would be quite happy to have his vote registered on Division on the six month hoist, and on Division on the third reading of the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, he voted on third reading. That is right. So it is on the six month hoist. However, I must say again in defence of the operation of the House, when the time comes to make a decision on whether both sides are ready for a vote, we can only be directed by Members who are present as to whether or not the vote should go ahead or not go ahead.

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I agree with most of what the Leader of the Opposition said except for one point, Your Honour, that it is not a valid point of order at all. Our Standing Order is pretty specific. Standing Order 82 (b) says: "The Division Bells shall ring for a period of not more than ten minutes or for such lesser time as may be signified to the Speaker by the government and opposition." So clearly these are our Standing Orders. So we were in order, and it is in accordance with our Standing Orders.

However, I will agree that it is something that I unfortunately overlooked and I agree with the Leader of the Opposition to the extent that the Member was not here to register his vote, and I would not mind him registering at any point in time at all. But I would like to also stress the fact that the hon. Member could have been gone somewhere, as some other Members of the House are. So we really did not know.

In future though, I will make a commitment that if I am around and the hon. Member is not here, I will take the trouble to give his office a jingle.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order there is no point of order, but the Chair (inaudible) can only be directed by the Members who are here and the Chair will continue to do that. Hon. Members of course can do as they wish with respect to the Member for St. John's East, but the Chair can only (inaudible) and when they tell me they are ready, then I have to call the vote.

[Mike not on]

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

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and I see some of the Members opposite. I wonder if you could ask the House, Your Honour, whether the House is supposed to grant leave to register my vote on the six month hoist motion that I was not able to be present for?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. Agreed!

MR. HARRIS: My vote, Your Honour, would be in the affirmative.

MR. TOBIN: Motion defeated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform hon. Members that the debate tomorrow is on the Private Member`s motion put forward yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. Could you refresh me as to exactly what that was?

AN HON. MEMBER: MUN Extension.

MR. BAKER: It had to do with MUN Extension and providing money to re-open MUN Extension, or something like that, words to that effect. Then on Thursday it is my intention to call a couple of Finance motions, Bill 18, which is The Local Authority Guarantee Act, and Bill 19, which is The Loan and Guarantee Act. These are the bills I intend to call on Thursday.

I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m., and that this House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 17, 1991, at 2:00 p.m.