The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform hon. members that government and the Newfoundland Medical Association have agreed to enter into a five-year agreement respecting medical services in the Province.

The physicians of the Province, and the medical services they provide, are a major component of our health system. Presently, the cost of physician services totals $130 million or one-sixth of the current budget for health care.

In recent months, government has entered into a joint management process with the Newfoundland Medical Association to oversee a number of important aspects of medical care in the Province. Joint management provides an important forum by which government and the medical profession can discuss and deal with a number of key issues. The five-year agreement will outline the process under which a joint management committee will operate.

I would point out that the willingness of the physicians of the Province to participate in discussions of the overall direction of medical services is important to the ongoing development and delivery of these services. By working co-operatively, government and the medical profession can deal effectively with many of the issues that require the attention of both parties. These are not simply physician issues or government issues. They require the attention and commitment of those who provide the funding as well as the professionals who provide the services.

One major issue that will be addressed during the joint management process will be the development of a medical human resources plan for the Province. This medical human resources plan will deal with the number of physicians and the mix of general practice and the various specialities. It will deal also with the distribution of physicians throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The development of the medical human resources plan jointly by government and the profession will enable us to deploy our human and financial resources to provide the most effective medical services to the people of the Province.

A second important issue that will be addressed during the joint management process is the utilization of medical services. Utilization management is linked very closely to quality assurance and quality management. In health care, utilization management means analyzing and managing how the system is used by patients and by physicians.

The five-year agreement will provide for stable and predictable changes in the medical care budget, which under the agreement is a global, capped budget. Changes in compensation for physicians will be linked to changes in compensation for government managers, and will take into account a utilization formula.

In all, the five-year agreement and the joint management process will provide for a co-operative approach to dealing with medical issues that are of concern both to government and to the medical profession. Our mutual objective will be to provide the people of this Province with the best possible medical services with the resources available.

The Newfoundland Medical Association have indicated to me that their members have approved the principles outlined in the proposed five-year agreement. I wish to announce that government also has approved that agreement. In the near future we shall be meeting with the Association to sign the agreement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I haven't had time to read the statement in any detail - I only received it a minute ago - but at first glance it seems to be a very, very, positive statement, Mr. Speaker, and we welcome this five-year agreement that the minister is announcing today. It seems to be an acceptable settlement that has been worked out with medical doctors, to oversee the delivery of our health care system. Certainly, a joint management process to future planning for the use of medical resources and very often limited medical resources, seems to be a very positive approach for government to take. While I would agree with the minister that doctors should be involved in that process because they are an integral part of the health care system, I would wonder, as well, if other groups within the medical profession are going to be involved and I am thinking specifically about the nurses association and the health care administrators who work on the front lines of the health care system. I would certainly hope that these people, as well, would be involved in any joint management process that the minister would be thinking about because, as I said, they are directly involved on a day-to-day basis with the delivery of the health care system.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is a very positive statement. It speaks about joint management, and it certainly will provide government with the forum it needs to deal with the key issues involved in the health care system. I think one of the good things possibly associated with this statement is the fact that it will be done now on an ongoing basis. People within the medical profession won't have to more or less wait for budget time to find out what is going to happen to their funding allocations and what have you, and I think the minister, in his statement, says that the five-year agreement will provide for stable and predictable changes in the medical care budget so, Mr. Speaker, if it does that it will be certainly worthwhile, and when you have very limited resources, approaching this problem in a co-operative way can only be positive, I believe.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just heard the Minister of Health speak. I didn't have an advance copy, but I have to say that I have some concerns about what the government is doing here. I haven't seen the agreement. I guess no members of the House have seen the agreement. The physicians, of course, after all, is the group which probably takes the biggest bite out of our health care budget, and hearing government say they are going into a joint management arrangement with physicians over health care, I would be very concerned about what aspects of government's prerogative and discretion they intend to be giving up to this process.

As the Opposition health critic has said, there are many other participants in the health care field who have very much to say about the delivery of health care services in this Province. We have the nurses union, the allied health care professionals, other professionals who have much to say about the delivery of health care, which is very important, and I don't think that we should have an agreement with one group of people without having all others involved in this process. And while I have no objection whatsoever to consultation - I hope the government will listen to all those involved in health care and I have great respect for the professional qualifications of medical practitioners - to give over in an agreement, if this is what the government is doing, the responsibility for the administration of health care would be a mistake and I would like to have a copy of the agreement so we could look very closely at exactly what the government is doing here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before calling Oral Questions, on behalf of hon. members we'd like to welcome a couple of special groups of students to the public galleries today.

The first group is eight Grade VI cultural exchange students from Buckingham Elementary School, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. They are accompanied by eight Grade VI students from the Glovertown Elementary School. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Wayne Sparks from Glovertown Elementary and Ms. Donna Brown from Buckingham Elementary. They are accompanied by several parents and their bus driver.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also in the public galleries today are twenty-six Air Cadets and commanding officers Captain Kenny and Captain Novak, Lieutenant Simms, and Corporal Cameron, from Antigonish 875 Royal Canadian Air Cadets, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions I want to ask the Premier. I'd like to ask him about some comments made by his Minister of Employment and Labour Relations in a speech to the Grand Falls - Windsor Kiwanis Club last week.

In that speech the minister said that he believes government can reduce its deficit without reducing benefits for public employees. Then he said, and I quote: I have just made a statement that's different from what the Premier said and different from what the President of Treasury Board has said.

I want to ask the Premier: does the government have a position on fiscal policies, or is it everyone for himself or herself? Who are we supposed to believe when ministers speak out like that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The government speaks with one voice. There's no question about it. So if - if - and I say "if" the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations made that statement - and I don't necessarily accept it just because it was reported; I'll have to wait and see - but if the minister made that statement he certainly didn't make it as a minister. If he made it at all it was inappropriate for him to make it as a minister. Now I don't necessarily accept that that statement was made but I'll check with the minister and find out.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I can only report what people told me and what was reported. The headline certainly in the paper was pretty glaring: Grimes has different view than Wells. So if there was ever a comment made by a minister publicly that contradicted the Premier's everybody assumed that that's what the minister was trying to say.

He himself has said that there are least three different government positions on fiscal policy - now he said this - the Premier's, the Minister of Finance's, and now we have the view of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Surely if there is to be Cabinet solidarity on anything, it ought to be on fiscal policy.

Can I ask the Premier once again: Why is there so much public conflict and contradiction among he and his ministers on this particular issue? Is there a government policy or not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There isn't any conflict at all between the ministers. Now if there was a conflict, I would expect, knowing the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations as I do - a highly intelligent, highly competent, very forthright man of great integrity, political as well as personal integrity - so I have no doubt whatsoever that if he had a genuine conflict with me he would have the good graces to tell me or the Minister of Finance.

Now in terms of the government's fiscal policy, more often than not it is the Minister of Finance who speaks for it but very frequently, as in the case of all other policies of government, the Premier may find himself in a position where he has to speak on the government's fiscal position as well as all others; but there has not been any difference whatsoever between the Minister of Finance and myself on fiscal policy - none at all - none at all in case the hon. member thinks so.

Now it does not matter how many times he stands in the House and says it, or quotes some obscure report for it, it does not make it accurate. I have seen the other statements attributable to the Leader of the Opposition about this government's position and they have been totally inaccurate, so I assume this is equally inaccurate.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier just cannot slough this off in such a way. This is a serious public contradiction of the government's policy as articulated by his own Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now let me ask him this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, it is not just the Grand Falls Advertiser. It is what the people in the area and the people in the audience heard him say, and I have no doubt he will confess he said it.

Let me ask the Premier this: Is he aware that the minister also said at that same function that the main problem that the government had is a lack of communication between the government and its employees? Is he aware of those comments, and how does the Premier respond to such a statement from his own Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that confirms everything that we have been saying in opposition, that the public sector unions have been saying, and that the people generally have been saying everywhere out there, that there is absolute and total chaos among ministers of this government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have to really stretch myself to even give the thing any credibility. It is so preposterous, Mr. Speaker, that it is not worthy of comment.

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

MR. SIMMS: I am not least bit surprised that the Premier will try to pass it off as easily as he can. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations also said that people are frustrated, uncertain and upset - direct quotes from what the minister said at a public function out in Central Newfoundland. And he said that his own government should have come forward with a definitive statement of what it is going to do, Mr. Speaker, which is what we have been trying to say. In other words, he has been saying what we have said, that government should bring an end to the confusion, to the switching around on positions, and to the conflicting statements from ministers. How does the Premier respond to this kind of public criticism from one of his own ministers for the government to get its own house in order? How does he respond to that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, to respond to the first comment, the minister and I share the same view, there is a great deal of confusion, uncertainty and apprehension. I have said that numerous times. Now, the Leader of the Opposition personally is not innocent of the cause of that uncertainty and apprehension. He has contributed significantly to it because, for his own political reasons, he wants to see this kind of thing. Now, that is too bad. But I agree with the minister. If, in fact, he said there is uncertainty and apprehension about what government's position is, I agree. A great deal of effort has been made by a significant number of people, the Leader of the Opposition included, to cause that uncertainty to exist. Now, I have forgotten some of the other comments he made that were attributable to the minister, but before I am prepared to comment publicly on them, I will speak to the minister privately, and I can tell you, unless the minister has been lying to me or misleading me, there is no difference between my position, that of the Minister of Finance, and the position of the minister, no matter what the hon. member says.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier about this statement. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations made another statement at another public meeting, a different public meeting, with the home and school associations, I believe, in Bishop's Falls, in his own district. At that meeting, he is quoted, he said - or he took issue, at least, with comments made by his Minister of Education. He said it publicly, who he said wants to do away with the 2 per cent savings clause in the teachers' contract. Does the Premier agree with his Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, that doing away with that clause would have a dramatic, negative effect on education and that there would be absolute chaos?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. If the minister said that, I disagree and the minister is not speaking for the government position, but I don't operate on the assumption that the minister says it merely because the Leader of the Opposition says so. I have told the House that I will discuss these matters with the minister and we will determine whether or not there is any difference, and if there is a difference, the minister either speaks the government's voice or he gives me his resignation, one or the other. It is very simple. I am not going to deal with it on the basis of these suggestions by the Leader of the Opposition which may or may not have any validity.

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

MR. SIMMS: Let me ask the Premier this: The minister also said he was disturbed and upset by comments made by the Minister of Education. The comments made by the Minister of Education were that the 2 per cent clause in the teachers' contract was a feather-bed clause. Now, I want to ask the Premier what is his position on those comments by his Minister of Education? Is it a feather-bed clause or is it a necessary arrangement to help school boards maintain a reasonable share of education programs for young children?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I would have to go back historically to determine the reason why the 2 per cent rule was put in, then I would know what it was. The fact that it was added to the NTA Collective Agreement by way, I believe, of a letter, as an appendix added, that converts it from its original purpose, education - that converts it to a different purpose, so what its real purpose is, is a matter of judgement. The minister may view it as a feather-bed clause and another person may not, but I would have to go back and look at the overall history of it to see how it developed and how it got attached to the NTA Collective Agreement in order to determine what its character is now.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier with respect to the employment situation in the Province, or perhaps the unemployment situation. Mr. Speaker, every month brings more and more dismal figures about the employment situation in the Province. In February, we lost 3,000 jobs, 8,000 within the past year, 19,000 over the past two years, Mr. Speaker, and that doesn't include the 20,000 plus who are not working because of the Northern cod moratorium. Let me ask the Premier: What plans does government have to deal with this worsening job crisis in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion, because of a certain speech made by the Leader of the Opposition last week to the Business Association, to check the figures, and I have discovered that in the first six quarters, that is, a year-and-a-half, of this recession, the increase in the jobless rate was half of what it was in 1981-1982 recession. The figures are there and they are not mine, they are Statistics Canada's figures. In the first nine months, the figures were still half of what they were. In that period of time, Mr. Speaker, there are 20,000 - 25,000 more people employed during this recession than there were in 1981-1982, even though the population was the same.

Now, the figures are there, look at it, comparable quarter for quarter, and you will see. I know what the Leader of the Opposition tried to do with his nebulous statement. We produced more new businesses in small business, and we led Canada. And what does one conclude from that, that they managed the economy better? Well, if they did, why did the unemployment rate go up at twice what it did, during this recession? It did, the figures are there and you can see them. Why are there 20,000 - 25,000 more people working on a comparable quarter for quarter basis than there were in the last recession, with exactly the same population?

Now, Mr. Speaker, we got hit hard in the last two quarters. Why? -the fisheries moratorium. Did we cause that?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is recognizing the hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the stats don't include the people on the Northern cod moratorium. But I asked the Premier: What plans does the government have to deal with this worsening job crisis, now. I am not concerned about what happened in 1985, at this point in time, I am concerned about tomorrow. What are you going to do for these thousands of unemployed people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Government is working, consistent with the other governments of Canada and jointly with the Federal Government, to deal with this major problem. We have put in place programs and we will continue to put in place programs to deal with this major problem. What I can tell the hon. member is what we are not going to do, we are not going to waste our time looking to see what was done in 1981-1982, because nothing was done.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows that the unemployment rate in this Province now, is officially at 21.3 per cent. The real figure, Mr. Speaker, is that about 50 per cent of the Province is unemployed, if we include social assistance, fisheries compensation or unemployment insurance. Mr. Speaker, these figures should be enough to call this government to action. This is a crisis unequalled in our history. Let me ask the Premier: Are you helpless to do anything about it or are you just indifferent to it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not indifferent to it. I am as concerned about it, perhaps a good deal more concerned than any other person in this Province. We have to deal with this massive problem to the maximum extent that we have the capability of doing it, but I can't pull miracles out of a hat. The difference between the hon. members opposite and those on this side, is that we are honest enough to say so.

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

MR. WINSOR: The Premier just said that he is honest enough to say that he can't do anything about it. Mr. Speaker, what is the Premier suggesting? Is he hoping that if he sits around long enough and does nothing, the problems will go away, Mr. Speaker? Is that his final solution? - to say to the people of Newfoundland, There is nothing for you, move away. Is that what the Premier is suggesting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, in fact, just the opposite has been happening in the last two or three years. More people are coming back to Newfoundland - not because there are so many jobs here but because the circumstances in other parts of Canada are as bad or worse than they are here and it is easier to live here. Now that is the reality of it. I just wish we were creating the kinds of job opportunities that would attract them, that is what I wish the situation was.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, has developed and put in place programs to help contribute to a solution to this problem, but the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is honest enough to say, he cannot solve every last one of these problems.

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

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

My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the minister responsible for Mines and Energy.

United Steel Workers of America, local union 6285, was informed on Thursday that Wabush mines could close its doors as early as December 31st, 1994 unless certain actions were taken. The union was told that Wabush mines has to cut cost of production by about $3.24 per ton. Can the minister up date the people of this Province, but more importantly, the workers of Wabush mines and the residents of Wabush, on what the financial situation of this company is, and when did this government become aware of the crisis that is in the iron ore industry in western Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I think we have all been aware for some time about the decreasing prices in iron ore products worldwide, and basically the crisis in the steel industry in Canada and elsewhere in the world. This year, when prices were confirmed a couple of months ago for 1993, the prices for iron ore concentrates and pellets had decreased by 12 per cent to 15 per cent from 1992 levels. In the last ten years the prices for these products have gone down by at least 50 per cent. We have known that, the people who are involved in mining in Labrador West have known that, and the companies have been trying to do their utmost to remain competitive internationally with producers of iron ore elsewhere in the world. That is what Wabush mines is doing, that is what iron ore companies are doing, that is what other companies in Canada are doing.

Back a year-and-a-half ago Wabush mines informed us and its workers in Labrador West that it had to reduce its cost per ton by about $6.00 and they hoped to do that by the end of '94 and they hope to be able to continue to operate after the end of '94 if it reached these objectives. To date, they have saved about $3.00 per ton in things that they have done over the last year or so to cut costs, now they are saying they need to save that extra $3, that they did tell us all about a year ago.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the union was told that Wabush mines has to significantly cut their production costs and they are asking the union to take part of this burden, and are suggesting that the union would take a proposed reduction in pay of $4.86 an hour out of their compensation package or, comparatively speaking, a loss of seventy-two jobs. The other two-thirds proposed with production costs reductions will have to come from other sources. Now, Mr. Speaker, Wabush mines pays approximately $600,000 or about half-a-million dollars actually in payroll tax, that infamous payroll tax that this regime instituted on the mining industry in western Labrador, now, will this government do its part and stop imposing this tax on Wabush mines and help the industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, payroll tax is only one of the costs, one of the small cost of Wabush mines. In Newfoundland and Labrador the rate of payroll tax is 2.0 per cent, across the border in Quebec the rate of payroll tax is 3.75 per cent, they have costs in Quebec as well. Their pelletizing is done in Quebec and that is just one of their costs. In order to achieve the other two-thirds, as the hon. Member for Menihek said, the union members are being asked -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. GIBBONS: - for $1.08 of the $3.24, the reduction that they are looking for right now; they will be looking elsewhere for the other two-thirds and obviously looking elsewhere for the other two-thirds, they have to look at all their costs, payroll tax may be one of them that they may be asking us about, but they have many other costs to look at as well.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the minister should also be aware that Wabush mines pays about a one million dollar royalty tax to this Province, would they consider lowering that royalty tax to this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, at this time we have not given any consideration to that, but I do not know what we may have to consider in the future.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the company also pays a royalty tax to NALCAP and I am sure, or at least I would hope, that this minister is aware of that. They pay approximately $4.5 million a year to NALCAP.

Can the minister tell this House if he would be willing to introduce legislation that could restrict the amount of royalties that would be payable to NALCAP and thus be able to have the Wabush Mines, enable them, to be able to produce more effectively and pay their employees a good, fair wage in western Labrador, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the royalty that is paid to NALCAP, the owner of the land rights, is a significant cost to Wabush Mines, and I would hope that there would be serious consideration - serious discussion - between the companies on the level of that royalty.

At this time we have not had any discussions on that in the last couple of years with them.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, my question was not to ask the minister what he was hoping. I asked the minister if he would bring legislation to this House. That is what I asked the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Will he stand up in this House and help the people in Wabush produce iron ore at a competitive price, instead of sitting here complaining about what the company should be doing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have not been asked by the companies to bring in any legislation. We have not had any discussion with the companies on this, and I am not going to make proposals for legislation while I stand on my feet in Question Period. If this is something that we should have to give serious consideration to, we will only do it after serious consideration with the companies.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the minister responsible for the mining industry in this Province.

Is he aware that this government, on Friday, went to the court in an appeal case, arguing over a $900,000 tax allowance that Wabush Mines won in a previous court case, where the day before they were suggesting laying off and closing a mine, this government is now appealing a tax case in court - over a million dollar tax case? Is he aware of that - on Friday?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that was done.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Education.

About a year ago the previous Minister of Education transferred the Marine Institute to Memorial University. Is the government now in the process of breaking up that institute by transferring part of its courses, its staff and its assets, to Cabot College?

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

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not in the process of breaking up the Marine Institute.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is it not a fact that Memorial University will only keep the research facilities and courses that can be worked into existing degree programs, and everything else would go to Cabot College?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct when he says that the Marine Institute was transferred to the University. The intent was to improve the quality of education which is being offered there, and hopefully get to the time when we can offer a degree in this Province in Marine Sciences - a degree which will be respected worldwide because it will be given by the University - and to make available to our young people the broadest opportunity possible so that they can study the Marine Sciences and what have you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it was certainly an excellent move on the part of my predecessor, and I think he deserves to be commended for doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He did not answer the question of whether it will be transferred. At the time, the institute staff and students and official opposition were very concerned that the Marine Institute would lose its integrity when it was transferred to Memorial University, and they were assured by the former minister that this would not happen. Is the government going back on its commitment, or was it just not being up front all along? Do I understand that the Minister of Education is now saying that no courses and assets are being transferred to Cabot College?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is always concerned. Whenever this government does something which is progressive in education or anything else, the opposition is always concerned because they wasted seventeen years in government and did nothing only play to political whims. That is all they did. They never had an original thought in their mind in seventeen years, and every single branch of government is suffering for it today. That is why the opposition is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, there is in place a process which is being worked through by the various educators who are associated with the University, the Marine Institute, and Cabot Institute, and it is working its way through. All the best possible solutions will be found. So I would advise the hon. Opposition members to keep on being concerned. Because they've only seen the tip of the iceberg of all the good things that this administration is going to continue to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Assurances were given by the minister that the Marine Institute would not lose its integrity and it would not be gobbled up by the University. They were given assurances at the time. Today it's very important to have a facility dedicated to the fishery during such important times in the fishery. Does the minister have any understanding of what will be needed in terms of training in order to rebuild the fishery or has he written off the Marine Institute like they've written off the fishery?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, yes to the first part of the question, no to the second part of the question.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries, the acting Minister of Fisheries. I hope it's not the old wrecking ball himself there, the man who's wrecked health care and now is wrecking education.

It's an old topic that came up in the Legislature last fall. It's the Roddickton crab plant. I'm wondering if the acting Minister of Fisheries could update the House and the people of Roddickton as to the status of the Roddickton crab plant, and when the people in Roddickton might expect to find some employment in their plant?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware that through allegations I believe tabled in this House by the hon. member if I'm not greatly mistaken a police investigation was caused to be done. It was found that the allegations made by the member had no substance whatsoever and that there was no basis for a police investigation whatsoever. Now that's my recollection of where matters stood at that time. Then there was a dispute that is a dispute between the town council in Roddickton, I believe, and the people who entered into a contract with them. If I recall correctly it was Quinlan Fisheries?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Entered into a contract with them with respect to the operation of the facility. Whatever the respective rights are are dealt with under the terms of that contract. I would have to take the question as notice to find out exactly what the position is right at this moment. I know there was some dispute continuing between the company and the town council. I believe the town council has sued the company and may in fact have regained possession of the plant, but I'm not sure.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to the Premier that the allegations brought to the floor of the Legislature were allegations made by the people of Roddickton through me. They weren't my allegations, and there was an investigation. The Premier is indeed correct.

There are still a lot of questions about the situation in Roddickton and that's why I raise the question again today. I'm wondering if the Premier can inform the House, or in his seeking of information, if he would come back and let us know if there still is a licence attached to that plant? Because it's my understanding that there are some problems there now either with funding to reactivate the plant or licensing. So I'm wondering if the Premier could determine as well if indeed there's still a licence attached to the Roddickton crab plant?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know offhand, Mr. Speaker, but I'll take the question as notice and I'll bring the answers back to the hon. member or the minister will, very shortly.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Social Services. In the past number of weeks we've heard the Premier and the Minister of Finance make statements regarding the fact that the government has asked Ottawa this year not to cause them to have to make payments on the overpayment that they have with the federal government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I'm saying to the Minister of Social Services that you and the Minister of Finance have said that you've asked the federal government not to have to make payments this year on your overpayment because of the financial situation the Province finds itself in. Because these people on social assistance find themselves in equally desperate shape as the provincial government does, and because many people on social assistance have overpayments and they're having it deducted, a certain percentage a month, I'm asking the minister: will he now give the same type of treatment to the people who have these overpayments with the provincial government as this Province has requested and received from the federal government? Defer the overpayments so they can live until such time as the minister is prepared to put in place an increase.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, overpayments can happen to various categories of clients. We have situations now for example with the moratorium where we've had to help people out through the transition process before the moratorium compensation package was announced.

We have other situations as well. From time to time overpayments occur. Unemployment insurance is another area. Compensation -workers' compensation - is another one.

Mr. Speaker we cannot, in all fairness to the large clientele that we have, now approaching 31,000 cases - in all fairness to that group, and speaking to the need for the substantial amount of dollars that are allocated in social assistance per se, we cannot forgive these overpayments. In fact, we would ask that in all cases where overpayments have taken place that the recovery would take place.

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

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

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of my district and the district of St. John's East.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: The petition reads: To the hon. House of Assembly in Parliament assembled, petition of the undersigned residents of the district of St. John's East and Pleasantville.

Whereas the education of our children is uppermost in our minds; and

Whereas the right to have a christian education is already entrenched in our Constitution;

Wherefore we, the undersigned, are committed to the highest quality education for the children of our Province, we support Roman Catholic schools and want to keep them. In the same way, we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We also support co-operation between the churches in education, especially shared service schools where they are needed.

We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in our Province taken away and we ask you, as our representatives, not to tamper with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.

This petition was put together by the parish council of the St. Joseph's parish in St. John's East. It consists of about 1,000 signatures, Mr. Speaker, almost half of the entire parish.

I am very happy to endorse this petition. In speaking today with the people who gathered the names, I understand that they are quite happy with the new arrangements which have been agreed to between the government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: - and the representatives of the churches. Those people, Mr. Speaker, want the best education for their children. They want to save expenses where we can save expenses but they want to retain the rights that were guaranteed in the Terms of Union. It might be appropriate just to read that term, because a lot of people wonder about what is in it, I think.

Part of the term says: "In and for the Province of Newfoundland the Legislature shall have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education, but the Legislature will not have authority to make laws prejudicially affecting any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools, common (amalgamated) schools, or denominational colleges, that any class or classes of persons have by law in Newfoundland at the date of Union, and out of public funds of the Province of Newfoundland provided for education,

(a) all such schools shall receive their share of such funds in accordance with scales determined on a non-discriminatory basis from time to time by the Legislature for all schools then being conducted under authority of the Legislature; and

(b) all such colleges shall receive their share of any grant from time to time voted for all colleges then being conducted under authority of the Legislature, such grant being distributed on a non-discriminatory basis."

Mr. Speaker, a number of people who have been concerned about what may be happening in the educational system in our Province have spoken to me and have spoken to all members, I know, about their interest in making sure that the children of this Province still have the opportunity to have religious instruction within the school, to have a christian environment in the place where they are being educated. It has been the intention of this government to ensure that that right continues and, as we saw last Friday, we intend to carry that out. But we have to remember that all of those people want us to save costs where we can save them, save expenses where we can save them. They want us to encourage the religious leaders in our Province to get together with the educational leaders and make sure that we have the best school system, the most efficient, most cost-effective school system we can have in this Province. And they are going to support the government in doing that as long as they retain their rights to make sure that their children can have the kind of instruction they want them to have.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to present and support this petition on behalf of the members of the congregation of St. Joseph's Parish.

Thank you very much, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the Terms of Union, 1949, in Deeds, the adherence of the various faiths were given the constitutional right to be able to have their children educated in the religion of their choice.

I think it is very important that government respect the rights of parents to choose the type of education that they wish their children to have in their specific faith.

The hon. member mentions that they are quite happy with the arrangement that government has reached with the representatives of the various denominations. Mr. Speaker, that is a temporary arrangement, like collective agreements in the past were temporary arrangements and Bills 16 and 17, of course, were also temporary arrangements until this fall.

The Premier has said that it is not our intention, and he said it is not our objective to do away with it; and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations said there are no plans now to do it. They haven't come clean. They have made a temporary arrangement - one that would sit well for a few months and allow public concern to subside - but there have been no definitive statements about the government's position on denominational education. They have stated what they are not doing, what is not their intention. They have not stated what they will do or will not do specifically. That is the biggest concern.

We respect the rights of all parents to have their children educated in the religion of their choice. Everybody admits that there are changes which must be made within the structure of the system. Efficiencies must be obtained in education as well as in any government department. Nobody is disputing that fact, but the point is that this government has not lived up to its promise. It has broken collective agreements. It has not fooled the public. It might have thought it did, but the public are very much aware that this government cannot be trusted on matters of education, or any other matters, and I think it is very important to focus there, where the real intention is, and I am quite sure the future will bring that out.

Thank you.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to support this petition, today, so ably presented by my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, right from day one - the very day on which the Williams report was presented to government - government has stated that it is not our intention to in any way take away the rights of any of our people.

What we have always stressed is that we intend to deliver for our children and our young people, and all our people, the best possible educational system that we can afford to deliver. That has been our position.

Now, hon. members will know that of the Williams report's 211 recommendations, 153 have already seen some work done on them, so the report is gradually being implemented. There are somewhere between twenty and twenty-five of these recommendations which, if they were implemented to the letter, would, indeed, have an impact on the traditional rights held by the churches.

Mr. Speaker, government has never had any intention to hide that fact. The very first meeting that we had with the heads of churches, it was laid out quite clearly by the Premier that if we were to follow the letter of the law and implement every single recommendation, then we would, indeed, be interfering with traditional rights, so we told them we have no intention of doing that. This is not good enough for the Opposition; this is not good enough for some parts of the media, not all, some. Because there is nothing, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition would rather see, than myself and Pastor King having a fist fight or, His Grace and the Premier wrestling on the floor. The Opposition members would love to see that, but they are not going to see it. Hon. members should have been present last Wednesday night.

Last Wednesday night, Mr. Speaker, there was a turning point in education in this Province, and hon. members should have been there to have felt the dynamics of the meeting. Part of that meeting, how shall I put it, Mr. Speaker? It seemed that we were not totally opening up with each other - the two groups - it almost looked like we were not fully trusting each other, but last Wednesday night, everything was laid on the table, and I can understand why hon. members opposite are upset, because they were going to make a great, big, political football out of the Williams report, but they had the mat pulled out from under them.

We saw what happened in this Chamber last Friday morning, when the heads of all the churches came and shared in a joint statement. The hon. the Premier was only the mouthpiece, so when hon. members opposite talk about the integrity of that statement, it is the integrity of the churches the hon. members are talking about, not just the integrity of this government.

I tell hon. members opposite and I tell my colleague who presented this petition today, to go back to his constituents and tell them that as a result of what was done on Wednesday night in this Province, the turning point took place, and we are on the brink of seeing the best educational system in North America, right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The turning point took place last Wednesday night and it will go down in the history of this Province as, indeed, 'Wonderful Wednesday'. It was Wonderful Wednesday, the turning point of education. So, my colleague, go back to your constituents and tell them that they have a government here which is not concerned about taking away people's rights, we are concerned with educating children, and the partnership which was welded together last Wednesday night, will see church and state working together to bring in the best possible education that any province could ever hope to have, Mr. Speaker, and Newfoundland and Labrador will have it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we go on to deal with the Interim Supply motion, I think there has been an understanding that we can deal briefly with Orders 2, 3 and 4, which are at Committee stage on three bills. And I would say, if hon. members wish to debate them, we would propose not to go ahead at this time, but if members are prepared to let them go without much further ado, we will deal with these at the Committee stage - the three bills that stand, Orders, 2, 3 and 4, and then we will go on to Interim Supply where everybody can have at it as they wish.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, referring to Friday's Hansard and speech, it was indicated that we would be having the Interim Supply bill today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker, that I hope we can give a brief (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps I didn't hear over the hubbub, Mr. Speaker, but I assumed we were going to start talking about other bills. If we are going to Interim Supply, fine.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that my voice didn't carry sufficiently and I am sorry for that, but what I had said was that on the understanding we could deal briefly with Orders 2, 3 and 4, which are at Committee stage on three bills - it didn't attract, I think it is fair to say, a lot of comment in the House -we could deal with those and then go on to do Interim Supply. But the plan is still to do Interim Supply and I will say again, if members wish to debate either Order 2, Order 3 or Order 4 at any length, we will put them off to another time, because we want to make the major business of the day to be the Interim Supply bill. If that is agreed, we will go into Committee.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN (L. Snow): Order, please!

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the following bills without amendment, carried:

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Reduction Of The Impact Of Packaging On The Environment," (Bill No. 2).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Government-Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited Agreements Act," (Bill No. 10).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fisheries Loan Act," (Bill No. 4).

MR. ROBERTS: Could we rise the Committee and ask leave to sit again, please?

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

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to it referred, and have directed me to report Bills No. 2, 10 and 4 carried without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, the following bills, read a third time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

"An Act Respecting The Reduction Of The Impact Of Packaging On The Environment," (Bill No. 2).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Government-Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited Agreements Act," (Bill No. 10).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fisheries Loan Act," (Bill No. 4).

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 3.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

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

"I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit estimates of sums required for the public service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 1994. By way of interim supply and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly."

Sgd.:____________________________

Frederick A. Russell, Lieutenant-Governor.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together with a bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN (L. Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is a fairly normal procedure every year, where sometime in March of each year, the Minister of Finance rises in his place and introduces an Interim Supply bill. The purpose of Interim Supply, obviously, is to provide a certain segment of expenditure, a certain segment of the money that government is going to ask for in the Budget, to provide that certain segment of money for a period of three months to allow government to operate while the main supply bill, which is the Budget, is being debated.

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, this is for a sum of $1,016,202,000. Now, members might extrapolate, if they would like and say, if this is for three months - if this is to keep government going for April, May and June, the maximum - if this is for three months, how come the amount is over $1 billion? Does this mean we are going to expend $4 billion in the coming year? Now, the answer, Mr. Chairman, is obvious: Quite often, after a Budget has been presented, there is a waiting of expenditures in the first quarter of the fiscal year, so this allows for more than one quarter of the total expenditure that hon. members will see in the Budget on Thursday, a little bit more than one quarter. However, Mr. Chairman, it is enough to keep us going until the Budget has been presented, debated, and passed in the House, or until any other events that might happen might overtake us. It is enough to keep us going for that period of three months. I am certain, Mr. Chairman, that at the end of that three months, there will be a Budget that will go through this hon. House, sometime in that period.

Mr. Chairman, the schedule attached shows the heads of expenditure and breaks down for hon. members exactly where this money is going, although, I must admit that the details of this expenditure have yet to be divulged to this hon. House.

Mr. Chairman, I would just simply like to introduce the Interim Supply Bill and I look forward to informed debate by members opposite. I would really like to have some informed and constructive debate on this Interim Supply bill, and hopefully, we can get it through this House rather quickly.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister of Finance tries to make believe that this is usual, routine. Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record right from the outset and say that this is highly unusual, most inappropriate, most abnormal, I say to the Minister of Finance, because I don't know if ever before a government has brought an Interim Supply bill to this Legislature before the Budget was brought down.

AN HON. MEMBER: We did it once.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, that must have been back in the Moores days, before my time, not in my time, I say to the members. It is highly unusual. The minister, of course, had to allude to it and say that you cannot extrapolate too much because you have not seen the contents of the Budget. Well, that is a good point, I say to the Minister of Finance, that we should not be here today debating a bill by this government looking for over $1 billion. What does it tell members opposite? Does it give them any great comfort to see their Minister of Finance coming in today looking for approval from this House for $1 billion when we don't know where they are going to spend it? We do not know where the Premier and the Minister of Finance are going to spend the $1 billion. You don't know if they are going to do away with severance pay for public servants, you don't know if they are going to roll back wages, you don't know if they are going to tamper with the pension fund for the various units, yet government is here asking us today to approve $1 billion. At least we should see the Budget, scrutinize the Budget and know what's in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll see it (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, I say to the Member for Eagle River, yes I might see it but I would say it will be more vague -

AN HON. MEMBER: Than this is.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, more vague than the Bill. Very vague, I say to the Member for Eagle River, what's going to come down on Thursday. Because there will be no specifics. Because you're trying to hoodwink the people of the Province again. Hoodwink them! Like you've tried to do with the churches, and you're trying to do with the public service of the Province. Hoodwink them, trying to hoodwink them, Mr. Chairman.

If there's ever one thing that this government will be remembered for it is being the government of hoodwinks. Hoodwinks! They're trying now to bring in the Budget Thursday without any specifics whatsoever for the public servants of the Province, without any specifics, hoping that they're going to forget about it for another five or six weeks -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the Member for Eagle River, I don't need anyone running interference for me. I don't run interference for anybody else. The only time I ever ran interference for anybody, Mr. Chairman, was going after a ball. When someone interfered with me then there was only one thing left, and it usually wasn't the person who was interfering, I say to the Member for Eagle River.

This is a very serious situation. A billion dollars. The Minister of Finance expects that we're going to just give blank approval to this. I can tell members opposite we're not. You're going to have a big job to get this through this House. You want it to do you for four months, the Minister of Finance says. No specifics of what he wants it for, no specifics whatsoever. I can assure you this is going to receive a lot of debate. We look forward to the Budget on Thursday. Lot of questions. We look forward to the minister's Budget on Thursday. He should not have come looking for this interim supply until he had tabled the Budget Speech in this Legislature, so that we at least would have some idea of where the government plans to spend money this year, where it plans to get its revenues. Most interesting, where it plans to spend. Or where it plans to cut spending, I should say to members opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: All over the Province.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, he plans to cut all over the Province. I say that's a very accurate statement by the Minister of Finance. He's going to cut all over the Province. Here he is today with two of the largest unions in the Province now calling for a strike mandate from its membership as of 1:00 p.m. today, and the minister comes in here looking for $1 billion. Doesn't know how he's going to deal with them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: A billion - $16 million. He doesn't know how he's going to spend it. He doesn't know what he's got in store for those unions. Doesn't know what he's got in store for the Newfoundland Teachers' Association. Doesn't know what he's got in store for the nurses. Doesn't know what the capital budget is. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has been threatening to resign since the last of December if he didn't have his capital works budget approved. He still can't stand in this House today and tell us how much money, Mr. Chairman, he has for capital works. He can't tell us.

Here's the Minister of Finance looking for $1 billion, and he can't stand here today and tell us how much municipalities in this Province can expect this year to be spent on capital works for municipalities. That's what we have going on. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation can't stand in his place today and tell us how much is going to be spent on road construction, upgrading and paving in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

MR. MATTHEWS: Absolutely, shame. Of course, that will be dealt with very quickly, by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I'm sure. Be dealt -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) pitiful.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is pitiful, I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. For a man to go public in this Province, in front of the leaders of the municipalities at the convention, the municipalities convention, and tell them that if he did not have his capital works budget completed by the end of December that he would resign. That he would resign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Announced!

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible). Here he is, Mr. Chairman, he stood in this House on Friday on a question from the Member for Fogo, and he even forgot the question. He forget the question. If I was the minister I would forget the question as well. When the minister had no choice, if he had answered the question, to say he didn't know.

MR. SIMMS: You meant next Christmas.

MR. TOBIN: He never said what Christmas.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes he did. He meant December 31 1992. The minister made the statement at the municipalities convention.

MR. TOBIN: Why didn't you resign?

MR. MATTHEWS: There he is today - he does not know how much money he is going to have in capital expenditure this year - capital works.

Mr. Chairman, I wish the minister, instead of debating across the House from his seat, that he has a chance to get up and tell the House now, of this billion dollars, how much the municipalities in the Province can expect from the minister's department.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: You do happen to be the minister? You have not forgotten that? You have not forgotten that you are the minister?

Mr. Chairman, this is a major expenditure. One quarter of the Budget, $1 billion, the government is asking for in Interim Supply to enable them to run the Province for the next three or four months. We are going to be very, very reluctant to give approval for this, particularly in light that the government did not have the decency to wait until after Thursday when they brought down the Budget. Then, with people having the documents to peruse - having the Budget document, the Estimates - we could then see how this government proposes to spend $3 or $4 billion dollars. So until we see that, Mr. Chairman, we are going to continue to debate the Bill for the rest of the day, no doubt, and we look forward to Thursday's Budget so then we can debate this Interim Supply Bill and the Budget in greater detail.

We need to let the people of the Province know exactly what is going to be in that Budget because if past performance of this government is anything to go on, it is going to take a number of weeks to get the message out to the people of the Province, because this government is pretty sneaky, pretty tricky, covers things up, does not announce the details, so it is going to take some time for us to expose what is in the Budget and to get the word out.

I see the Member for Port de Grave now over there chomping at the bit, trying to get up, so maybe he would suggest we approve the billion dollars; but we are not going to do that in short order, I can assure him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, my colleagues.

I assume, Mr. Chairman, that we have - I just want direction - ten minutes, is it? Ten and ten?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, ten and ten.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to take ten minutes, possibly longer if I am given leave, to speak about one of the most important issues facing the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today. I spoke about it so many, many times in this House of Assembly and right across the Province of Newfoundland, and I intend to keep speaking until at least someone in authority listens to what members like myself have the opportunity of saying and the rights that this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve.

It has to do with the Bill just put before this House of Assembly by the Minister of Finance. It has to do with finances - the need for the money that is needed to be spent and give the essential services that this government must provide to the people of this Province.

In order for any government to get money, you must have a source of revenue. You must have a source of revenue where you can depend from year to year that you can at least get sufficient funds that are needed to keep the people in this Province going in their essential needs, whether it is education, health, jobs, or whatever the services are; but it all comes down to one thing. What does a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador need to survive economically, to provide the economy where a government can sustain at least a reasonable amount of financial income through its own revenue sources?

Leave out for the minute the federal government transfer and equalization payments, what does Newfoundland and Labrador need? We have said it. Every member in this House of Assembly, I suspect, has said it on one occasion or another, and that is what is most important to the Province is the fishery - the backbone of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have come through many, many difficult times - many, many devastating hardships in the fishery. We have seen it stopped. We have seen weather conditions, environmental conditions. We have seen foreign fishermen on the Grand Banks. We have seen Newfoundlanders themselves display no respect for conservation measures. We have seen dragger fleets come from time to time. All over the years we have come through a difficult situation, and there has always been a glimmer of hope on the horizon that one day we wake up and we will respect the means by which to protect our fishery and to bring back, that Newfoundland and Labrador would have the legitimate rights and its adjacent rights and its first access to the cod stocks that it could at least sustain a viable economy and take care of the needs of the people of this Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, it is with that belief and that encouragement that I felt all my life we could do that. We would ask the reason why we keep arguing, we keep fighting, we keep making presentations and proposals, hopefully, that at some day in the near future we would be able to get the management of the fishery that we need to sustain a reasonable fishery in this Province for the people. But, Mr. Chairman, what I saw happen last week is one of the most unimaginable things. If anybody here would have told me a year ago or two years ago or three years ago, that this was going to happen, I would not have, in my wildest imagination believed that anybody in the country of Canada, let alone a Newfoundlander, could ever think, could ever dream of doing such a thing to this Province. There is absolutely no way that anybody could justify to me that this man has a clear thinking in his mind of what is important to the Province of Newfoundland and what is of the best advantage to Newfoundland and Labrador, for the survival of the future.

When he made the decision to take that strong position to bring in those boards, the Atlantic Board and the Pacific Board, to give somebody else, groups of people, people outside of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the right to make decisions that are going to affect the lives of every individual in this Province, there is absolutely no way anybody could tell me that that man was using any sort of logic whatsoever. It is absolutely atrocious to know that he would even consider doing it, yet, without any consultation with anybody in this Province, absolutely nobody involved in the fishery whatsoever, nobody from the provincial government, no business community, no plant owners, only his second right-hand man, who is always in his back pocket the only thing you can see are the heels of his shoes, Richard Cashin. That is the only person that there was any consultation with, whom I accused of being a Judas -

AN HON. MEMBER: A what?

MR. EFFORD: Who I accused publicly of being a Judas to the people of this Province and now the proof is there -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

MR. EFFORD: Richard Cashin, to agree with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, that he would sell out the right of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian in this Province and give the right to the people of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI and Quebec to make decisions affecting the fishery of this Province, and what is more unbelievable is that there is no outcry from the people of the Province. I attended a church service in my district on Sunday night, where they talked about the movement among the religious orders, the movement among the religious people of the Province. What you need is a movement. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, if there was any movement or anybody in this Province who could stir up the people of this Province there was never a greater need for a movement among the people of this Province to protect their future, because if people do not wake up and realize themselves that what happened last week is the complete, this is the final nail in the coffin of this Province, that there in no one who could have driven a harder nail or a stronger nail to do away with any possibility of getting back the fishery, so that people could come back and have at least some sustainable future where they could find some jobs in the fishery and related matters.

We worry about the foreign fishery, we worry about the seals on the Grand Banks, we worry about the Nova Scotians coming in fishing, now, that becomes a minor thing, because we will not be able to play a role in any decision-making in the future, in relationship as to who gets access to the fish if and when they are renewed, to a renewable resource or (inaudible) the commercial resource in the Grand Banks -

MR. MURPHY: A Newfoundlander depending on somebody from Quebec to get a fishing license.

MR. EFFORD: Yes. Mr. Chairman, this is how it's going to be. There are five provinces on the board.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the federal government.

MR. EFFORD: And the federal government being the superior decision maker. It's a case of the five provinces having representatives on those boards. Two people from each province. Two from Newfoundland, two from Nova Scotia, two from PEI, two from New Brunswick and two from Quebec. The normal rule is that the majority rules in any decision making. Do we honestly think that the people from the four other provinces are going to rule in favour of Newfoundland's access to those stocks first? Absolutely not. I cannot believe that Minister Crosbie, a fellow Newfoundlander, would even contemplate putting together such a board, let alone doing it, but just to even think about doing it.

Let's use our logic. Why would a minister of fisheries do it? There has to be a reason. I'm going to be accused again of making false accusations, or making assumptions, and I've thought about this a great deal. I've talked about it with my colleagues on many an occasion. Why would the federal Minister of Fisheries make such a decision that would devastate the future of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Let's go back a few months, let's go back to last July at the Radisson Plaza Hotel. I was there that night when Minister Crosbie brought in the compensation package for the fishermen of this Province. Some twenty-odd thousand fishermen and plant workers. The one question I asked: how could one minister go up to Ottawa with such a large Cabinet and so many needs from other people all over the country, and to be able to talk his fellow colleagues so quickly into giving us $500 million to compensate for the loss of the fishery in this Province? How could a minister do it so easily?

I said to myself: I was in cabinet myself for two years. I knew if I had to get anything through Cabinet I had to convince a number of my Cabinet colleagues to support me in order to get consensus. That is the normal process. So how does a federal minister like John Crosbie - does he have that kind of power? Is he able to go up and tell the Prime Minister and all of the ministers up there representing all those four other provinces,: give me $500 million because we have a major problem in Newfoundland?

Unbelievable. I couldn't believe it. Make no wonder people said he's the greatest thing that ever came to Newfoundland when they got the money. You can't blame people for saying that. But then there has to be a reason for how he got it through. I'm telling you, with every ounce of energy that flows though my veins, I believe now and I understand now why he did it. Because they wanted the agreement. They wanted the agreement to put this board together because it would be to their advantage for the future of the fishery on the Grand Banks - they would get access to it. The only condition that they gave in $500 million would be -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. EFFORD: By leave, Mr. Chairman? One minute in conclusion?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

MR. EFFORD: The only reason that he gave the consent to put that board together was because they had already pre-committed it to get the $500 million dollars and that was the reason why his Cabinet colleagues gave him that money. So that in the end he would agree to putting the Atlantic board together which was to their advantage forever and ever on into the future. He sold out every person in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador by doing that. John Crosbie, the Minister of Fisheries. There was no other reason. Why did they give him $500 million? Very simply: get the Atlantic board. It's a cheap price. Once again, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Chairman, got sold out.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I most certainly want to get into what we're going to be debating here today, and that is the fact that government has asked this House to approve $1 billion, and they're not prepared to tell us what they want the $1 billion for.

I'd like to make a very brief comment on what the Member for Port de Grave said. Number one, I disagree with him constantly attacking Richard Cashin in this Legislature when the man is not here to defend himself. Whether what he's saying about Cashin is right or whether's it's wrong is not important at this stage in the game, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Whether what he says is right or wrong. At least he should go out into a forum where Mr. Cashin is and then attack him.

Number two, I'd say to the Member for Port de Grave, and the Member for Eagle River in particular, is that I happened to serve in a position as parliamentary assistant to the premier - a great position. As a matter of fact, the first parliamentary assistant to a premier in this Province happened to be the present Minister of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The first parliamentary assistant to a premier in this Province was the present Minister of Justice.

During the period that I was parliamentary assistant to the Premier there were a lot of things happened and I had access to a lot of files. One of the things that interested me, as well as the members I just referred to opposite, was the fishery. I sat down with Brian Peckford and we talked about it. We went through a lot of files, we were doing some research. Brian Peckford started the battle I say to the Member for Port de Grave. Brian Peckford started the war basically in 1979 but it escalated in 1981-82 for joint jurisdiction of the fishery. He went to Ottawa and the Minister of Fisheries, Pierre DeBane was there at that time, and one of the things Brian did was try to lobby with the Newfoundland members of the Liberal caucus, the government at the time, namely Bill Rompkey, Rodger Simmons, Dave Rooney, Brian Tobin and George Baker. Those were the five members of the Liberal caucus at that time that Brian Peckford went and met with. Now, where was the Member for Port de Grave? Where was the Member for St. John's South, the Member for Eagle River and the Premier of this Province when Brian Peckford was fighting with the three gentlemen I mentioned in the Liberal government in Ottawa to get exactly the same as this Premier fought for? The door was slammed.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you saying?

MR. TOBIN: I am saying that when Brian Peckford asked to meet with the Liberal caucus in Newfoundland -

AN HON. MEMBER: They should have met with them.

MR. TOBIN: Well, they did not. They would not support joint management of the fisheries and at the same time the offshore was an issue. The offshore oil and gas was an issue at the same time. I say to the Member for Windsor - Buchans that he should listen. At the same time the offshore was an issue and Brian Peckford, with his determination and with the support of his Cabinet and caucus decided, with legal advice, that we had a case in the court for ownership under the water of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Now, the fish might be in the water but offshore oil and gas was under the water. We went to court to fight for Newfoundland's rights on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, to have ownership of the resources that are out there on the Grand Banks. And, Mr. Chairman, do you know who Trudeau paid handsomely to go to court and say Newfoundland did not own the offshore, did not own what is on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland? One Clyde Kirby Wells was paid, I would suggest, hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what happened all of a sudden? In March 1993 this Premier has now decided, all of a sudden, that we should have shared jurisdiction, we should have control, we should have a veto over the Grand Banks of Newfoundland I say to the Member for Eagle River. Now, what happened to the Premier when he was getting paid and being made filthy rich by Pierre Trudeau, to say that we should have no rights, no say, no jurisdiction over what is ours on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland? What has changed in March 1993 to make him finally come around to the way of thinking that Brian Peckford had in 1979 and the Conservative Caucus did in '79? What has caused the Premier to change his mind? Probably I am a bit presumptuous, probably it was the Member for Eagle River and St. John's South. St. John's South and others that caused him to change his mind but the question that remains to be answered is, why now, Clyde? Why, in March of 1993, what you sold your soul for, what you were prepared to sell out Newfoundland for in 1981-82, whenever he went to court for Trudeau, why now Clyde? I would say to the Member for Windsor - Buchans that our position as a party has not changed since 1979 and I am delighted that in 1993 your leader and your party and your government has now come to support our position. I would say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: All of us share that. I would suspect, Mr. Speaker, that every Conservative in this Province are delighted that the Premier has now come to support our position, that is very important. Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish he had said, me too - if the member had said, me too, in 1982, he would not have been knocking on doors trying to sell insurance policies from 1982-85, I would say to him. I would say he missed his shot, he missed his chance. Why, Mr. Speaker, why has it taken this member so long to come to support the policies and platforms of the Progressive Conservative Party in this Province? Why now, Clyde? Why did it take you four years to come to support the principles and policies of the Conservative Party in this Province? Why did the Premier wait four years? Why did he wait four years to come to supporting the policies of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador? That is the question which has to be answered? Why did the Premier sell his soul to deny Newfoundlanders the right to the jurisdiction of the offshore oil and gas and minerals on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland?

MR. DUMARESQUE: We do not want jurisdiction.

MR. MATTHEWS: Why don't you want jurisdiction, afraid you would have protection?

MR. TOBIN: Why don't you want jurisdiction? Why? Why would you not want jurisdiction? What are you afraid of? Why would you not want it, I say to the Member for Eagle River? Why? Why would you not want it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: $700 million why.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, so you do not want to put up any money as a party. Now, there is the answer, we cannot afford it, is what he is saying. Mr. Chairman, I submit that you cannot afford not to have it, I say to the Member for Eagle River.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I will not sit down, I say to the Member for Placentia, but there is one other thing I would say to members opposite, all of a sudden they all know everything about the fisheries, the Member for Eagle River, you will hear him up talking about the fisheries. Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Eagle River ever seen a cod (inaudible) untied he would not know what was happening. You should probably talk to the Member for St. John's South -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, if I could have a minute to clue up, as I granted my colleague for Port de Grave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of Finance, to bring this Bill before the legislature today, to ask for $1 billion dollars and tell us that he cannot say what he wants it for because the Budget is not brought in, warrants every member in this Legislature to speak against their request.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Hear, hear! Now we will hear the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Now, Mr. Chairman, it is nice to hear the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West with his history lesson. He talks about what took place ten or twelve years ago, with concern over the fishery and rightfully so, the government of the day should have went to Ottawa and should have tried to persuade the government of the day not to give Newfoundland jurisdiction over the offshore fishery, because Premier Peckford at that time, if he was going to protect the offshore fishery, if he was going to keep the foreigners off the grounds, if he was going to do what needed to be done, the only things he had at his disposal, if memory serves me right, was the Norma and Gladys and three water bombers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five.

MR. MURPHY: Five, the hon. member says - five water members - four of them ready for mothballing. Now I do not know how Mr. Peckford at that time could possibly, in his own mind, think that he could look after the Grand Banks and that vast ocean and keep the foreigners off the grounds. He could not do it.

Had he used his head, what he should have done is what this Premier is now prepared to do - sit down with the federal government and negotiate joint management whereby the licensing, and what is taking place on the grounds itself, the inshore grounds and what have you, could have been identified through the fishermen, the fishermen's union, hon. members, et cetera, so that the scientists in Ottawa would have some idea of what is going on off the adjacent grounds of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Now that has been said before, I say to the hon. Member for Placentia.

Now the problem is not who owns or who has the right. I think we, as Newfoundlanders, all recognize that in order for this Province to sustain itself - the Minister of Finance today would not be looking for the amount that he is looking for, this Province would not have the horrendous financial problem that faces it today, had somebody had the foresight and the wisdom and the courage, and other parts, to stand up to the situation as well as the Minister of Finance does.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The hon. member knows only full well. Let me remind the hon. member of this. All the federal governments, Liberal, Tory, Liberal, Tory, et cetera, have had a hand to play in the devastation that has taken place, in the negative results of the downsizing of the fishing industry, and they have all had it; but no federal government has had an opportunity to save the fishery as much as the present Tory government in Ottawa. They have neglected their responsibility.

We have seen total allowable catches up 266,000 metric tons, and the inshore fishermen were saying loud and clear, screaming: Please do not do it. You will destroy what is left of the fishery. We had all kinds of so-called 'experts' come in from Ottawa, saying: Oh, no, do not worry. No problem. Our grounds can sustain 266,000 metric tons. It was the biggest lie; it was the biggest falsehood ever perpetrated on the people of this Province, and we all went along, and people clapped their hands and we went out and not only did we over catch the stocks, not only did we take an excessive amount of cod that destroyed the inshore fishery, we also destroyed what is commonly known as the flatfish industry, with grey-sole, flounder, yellow-tail flounder - we destroyed it. There is still a quota out there now and it is just not feasible for the offshore companies to go out and harvest flatfish the size of saucers. There is no yield in them. There is no count in them. There is not market for it; but even worse than that, what they did not realize when they gave the offshore allocation, was that they were destroying the environment with it.

The technology associated with offshore fishing today is beyond the capability of the resource itself to sustain itself. Therein lies the problem, and we used technology and we tore up the grounds. We tore up the environment.

If all members in this House found ourselves having to come in here tomorrow with no lights on, and try to grope our way around and find where we were sitting, we could have the misfortune of ending up with some members opposite over on this side.

Let me say this to you, Mr. Chairman. What took place was, is that the fish stocks now are devastated. I don't know but they're devastated beyond. Newfoundlanders, from the north of Labrador right to the southern tip of Cape St. Francis, all the south coast, have now got to depend on the decision of the Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa, a Newfoundlander, this staunch Newfoundlander, who brought in the moratorium package, who turned around last Wednesday - and the hon. Member for Grand Bank, I pitied him.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes. Oh, it was shameful.

MR. MURPHY: I pitied him. He couldn't have been more devastated if he had to - he talks about soccer all the time because he was a good soccer player. He would not be more devastated if he got a red card. He sat in his place and while he was trying to defend the position of that side his colleague, Mr. Crosbie, the Minister of Fisheries, was somewhere else, down at the Radisson - he always goes to the Radisson. Every time he goes down there he gets in trouble. Perhaps he should try the King's Bridge Hotel sometime.

He was down there scuttling the hon. Member for Grand Bank. Tearing him apart, tore him apart. Not only did he tear the Member for Grand Bank apart but he tore the people of this Province apart. When the day has to come that somebody in Nain, St. Anthony, Bonavista or Fogo, I say to the hon. member, has to depend on two representatives on a board from Quebec, two from PEI, two from New Brunswick and two from Nova Scotia to find out if he has an opportunity to make a living off the coast of Fogo, then the hon. member should hang his head, stand up in his place and renounce Mr. Crosbie's plan. He's put the last nail in the coffin.

When I suggested to hon. members opposite that the fifty-two members of this House should have been on the steps in Ottawa I was kind of sneered at. But now, if the fifty-two - without a partisan face - No, the hon. Member for Menihek waves his hand because he has one thing on his mind: survival in western Labrador at any cost. That's why he waves his hand. He couldn't care anything about the fishery. He doesn't know anything about the fishery. Couldn't care anything about the fishery. He's concerned about himself. So he shouldn't wave his hand at me. He should stand in his place also with some courage and some conviction, stand up and be counted. Tell Mr. Crosbie, and the resigning federal ministers up there, okay, that before they leave that this have not Province is only asking for its 450 years of common right to survive.

If the federal Minister of Fisheries, who happens to be a Newfoundlander, cannot -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, the Member for Port de Grave was 150 per cent dead on. When he sat down in the Radisson Hotel and put the compensation package in place he knew then that he had made a deal with the thirteen Cabinet ministers from the Province of Quebec to make a deal to scuttle every Newfoundland fishermen who ever wants to get back on the grounds again, if they ever get back again.

So what we have seen in the last eight years of Tory government federally is cause this Province, cause this minister, cause this government the anguish and the problems of trying to find the dollars to look after teachers, nurses, civil servants. Trying to pay the bills of misguided, adventurous poppycock. Look, $100 million. Premier Moores spent $100 million, borrowed it, to make a simultaneous explosion on either side of the Straits. We were going to have this great Lower Churchill project. One hundred million dollars later, gone. The one that nobody talks about was the BRINCO buy-back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: One minute, Bob. I gave your buddy one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Okay, that's alright.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: You're getting louder. I don't want your leave. I can speak here till the House closes if I want to. Ten minutes every now and then. He'll have his turn again. I don't know what's the matter with the hon. member. He's getting louder than Gordon Seabright, and that's something to say.

Mr. Chairman, I'll just change the subject a little now, a little for a while -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Pardon? Yes, it could be a bit of fertilizer came out of that that time. There wasn't much substance to it, I realize, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, today in the House of Assembly I was kind of intrigued about the line of questioning that the Leader of the Opposition had for the Premier. Before I start I just want to say good-bye to Roger and wish him well. Because I guess between now and 5:00, or between 5:00 and tonight, he'll be looking for a seat back there by John and Tom and all the boys in the back. He'll be looking for another job or he'll have to turn in the keys to the Blazer or whatever he'll have to do at 5:00. Keys to the private elevator are gone today at 5:00, I'd say. Poor old Roger is gone.

That kind of intrigues me. Because with a job opening coming there in the front benches if I put myself in the Premier's position, what is he going to do to fill that job? He has a few people on the back benches there who he'll have to have a serious look at, no doubt. I would imagine the first one he would have to look at would be the Member for Stephenville. He certainly deserves the job. I don't know if the Premier forgives him yet for not allowing the Premier to run in that seat some time ago. I'm not sure if that little burr in the Premier's saddle has gone, but hopefully it is and the Member for Stephenville will get the job.

If he doesn't, if the person who deserves the job doesn't get it, I wonder what happens then. You'd have to move along the line to our present Speaker, or Chairman of Committees, who is sitting there now, who would be a very competent Cabinet minister, I'd say. I don't know why he wasn't considered before. I'd say he'd probably do a good job in Cabinet. He'd be my number one choice had I been the Premier.

If he doesn't take the Chairman of Committees here now he'd have to look at the Member for Bellevue, I guess. The Member for Bellevue I don't think, from his actions here in the House and when he's sitting in the Chair, could handle the pressure. I guess the Premier would also consider that. I don't imagine the Member for Bellevue will get it. He could look at the Member for Pleasantville I guess, if he wanted to, if he was going to look at a new Cabinet minister. I think because of the Member for Pleasantville's actions on the "No" side of the Yes and No vote I would imagine the Member for Pleasantville is probably out of line for that position too.

So he'd have to move along to maybe the Member for Eagle River. Now he had the opportunity to put the Member for Eagle River in Cabinet as the member for Labrador at one time. That was only a few months ago. He couldn't at the time because he needed a constitutional lawyer and Paul Dicks wasn't good enough, is what the Premier said. So I guess he had to, with the Member now for Naskaupi in Cabinet to look after the Constitution, because he had nobody else over there who could do it. So the Member for Eagle River, maybe he would be considered, but then the Premier did say in the House of Assembly that he is immature, so I can't see how he matured so quickly. He would be my choice, by the way. I would pick him.

He certainly would be a good political choice, but I don't know how competent he would be to run a department, especially the dingbat - what was it Steve called him? 'Bring back Decker,' was it, bring him back? Was he talking about 'bring back Decker,' I believe. I don't know where he thought you were going. He must have figured you were going somewhere. I heard him on television one day say: bring back Decker. Now I don't know why Steve Neary would have so much against the Member for the Strait of Belle Isle. I can't understand what the problem would be for him to be so upset with that man. As far as I know, Steve Neary is on that panel to represent the Liberal Party. I don't know why he would attack a very distinguished member of the Cabinet, the Member for the Strait of Belle Isle, as he did. So he couldn't have been saying 'Dingbat Decker,' he had to be saying 'bring back Decker,' I suppose. They must have wanted to question him. That's all I could figure.

Anyway, I had a couple of calls in to Steve Neary to ask him why. Every time he called back I was out, and he was out. But I'll find out eventually why he was upset, or was he really saying 'bring back Decker.' Maybe that's it.

Then if he moved along a little further he'd have to come to the Member for Bay- D'Espoir. He was in Cabinet already so he's not going to get another shot at it. He's gone, he's out of here, I'd say. He's not going in Cabinet any more. Then he would have to move along again to the Member for Fortune - Hermitage, now he gave the pledge of allegiance, the semi-annual or the annual pledge of allegiance last week for the Premier. So that may help a little bit but, Mr. Speaker, that pledge of allegiance was heard before several times over. He gave that pledge of allegiance at one time to Leo Barry, I believe it was. He gave that pledge of allegiance to Leo Barry, than to Brian Peckford and Tom Rideout and now he is back to the Premier again, so I do not say the Premier will pick him because his pledge of allegiance - although it sounded great the other day in the House of Assembly - it did ring a little hollow, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, then we would move along to the Member for Trinity North. The Member for Trinity North, the Premier would look at him - and maybe it was because of the deal he made with the Minister of Forestry when he said he would not present a petition that was given to him by the Save Our Forest Group in his district. Maybe because he did not try to embarrass the Government and present that petition, he may have a shot at it but, Mr. Speaker, I do not know that a person who will not present petitions on behalf of his constituents would be a great fellow to get in Cabinet. Probably the Premier may consider passing and going along to the next seat.

The next seat, Mr. Speaker, would be my candidate for the most likeable over on that side at least and most sensible too, he is living in the District of Kilbride, occasionally he lives in the District of Kilbride but, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Premier will pick him for Cabinet unfortunately, because I hear that the Premier has him set up for a knock off, like what happened to the Member for St. George's District. I believe it is a fellow Gus someone or other, being set up to get the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay. It is unfortunate too because I would say that he has a lot to offer in this House of Assembly. He is a genuine person coming into this House of Assembly but I think the Premier has him set up to get knocked off. So, that is unfortunate but I think it is coming. I am sure, I have every confidence in him that he is working fairly hard in his district and I do not think the Premier's tactics are going to work. I think he is going to win that nomination but then he has big trouble after he wins it. He will have real big trouble with a young man named Paul Shelley (?), Mr. Speaker, I think that will be his undoing. So, it would be good for him if the Premier did take him today, when the Member for Exploits is kicked out of Cabinet, if he did take him and show him around the Cabinet Table for a week or so anyway before the election is called.

Well, if he does not take the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, then he comes down around the corner to the Member for Harbour Grace. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Harbour Grace is not going to get into Cabinet. That is my prediction -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: - the Member for Harbour Grace will not get into Cabinet because of -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to take away the time from any member in this hon. House who is speaking but listening to the hon. member speaking for the last seven or eight minutes - we are on a Bill where the Minister of Finance is requesting $1 billion for expenditures in the Province and I know the Bill is wide ranging when you are talking about financial means but the hon. member has completely gone on with a lot of old nonsense. Make no wonder, when I looked up I saw a number of people in the gallery shaking their head in disgust, it would make you ashamed to be a politician or be part of this House of Assembly with such a display by any politician talking about such nonsense when the Province is falling apart. When the Province is falling apart, going on with such nonsense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by the hon. member, he is quite right when he says that the debate is wide ranging, we are on a money bill here, however I want to tell the hon. Member for Kilbride that he was straying somewhat and I ask him to keep his comments relevant.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have been in this House long enough to know the rules and not to know the rules. Maybe the Member for Port de Grave will listen every now and then to what the rules are. When you are debating a finance bill, it is rather wide ranging. I am surprised that the hon. member even got up out of his seat today because ever since he and the Member for Harbour Grace made their little speeches to the teachers out in their districts, out around Conception Bay North, I have not heard a sound from either one of them, Mr. Speaker, and that is the reason -

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to rise and follow lame duck Bob, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Kilbride.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River knows that he must refer to hon. members of this House by the district that they represent.

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

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

MR. MURPHY: I totally agree with what the Chair is saying and I know exactly where the Chair is coming from. However, just to remind the Chair, the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West referred to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations as Rog as did the Member for Kilbride. I just say that in defence of my colleague.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by the Member for St. John's South. Again, all hon. members should be aware of the rules, the procedures, and the Standing Orders so I ask them to please follow these rules and help the Chair to enforce these rules.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and follow the lame duck Member for Kilbride. Obviously he has decided to throw in the towel. Obviously he has decided he has nothing more to contribute to this Province. Obviously he has decided that his only aspect of public life is the Sprung greenhouse, one he is not proud to leave here with, when he was previously the Minister for Rural Development. With a legacy like that, make no wonder, I would not offer myself to the public in this Province anymore, Mr. Chairman. I think if the hon. member is going to rise in this House in the dying days of his tenure as a member of the hon. House of Assembly, that he would deal with the issues, and that he would deal with the economic difficulties that we find in this Province today, and give the people of this Province his ideas as to how this Province can recover, how we can meet the demands of our people for services, but at the same time be responsible with the taxpayer's money.

The reason I wanted to rise today in support of the minister's request for this money is to ask the people of this Province to consider the alternatives, consider the alternatives that are being put forth by the Leader of the Opposition, in particular on his economic plan because not too much longer, in a couple of months hopefully at the outside, I would like to see it called next week, but hopefully within the next couple of months we will have a chance to go back to the electorate and ask them for approval for another four years. Now, Mr. Chairman, when we do that we must show them our plan but I think it is also contingent on us to be forthcoming with the view of other people.

I think the people of this Province must know what the Leader of the Opposition is offering for an economic plan for the people of this Province. Now, about March 11 of this year the hon. Leader of the Opposition, a couple of days before that, went and laid out the economic plan for the future of the people of this Province. I guess that was his first platform statement to the electorate. He was going to propose that there would have to be some changes to the way the economy is run and how we are going to prosper in the future in this Province. One of the first things he talked about, Mr. Chairman, is to have a realignment of the tax structure and to talk about how we could provide incentive to the small business community in particular.

I do not know where the hon. Leader of the Opposition has been but in the December 4 statement of the Minister of Finance he did exactly that. It took him two or three months to catch up with the hon. Minister of Finance but the manufacturing tax cut back to 7.5 per cent and corporate income tax down by another percentage point, Mr. Chairman. The kind of meaningful changes that had to be made in the tax system were in fact put in place. The other things that the Leader of the Opposition had to say about the state of the finances was that we can borrow. He said, do not mind people saying you cannot borrow, go on, we can borrow another $50 to $100 million, Mr. Chairman. That is not practical. At this stage in the game we are $6 billion in debt. On the two credit ratings in this country today, Standard and Poor's and Moody's we are the lowest of all the ten provinces, one more notch and we will go down to the point where we will be barred from certain lending institutions in the world. We will not be able to go and be able to get money to meet the needs that we have to meet, and the priorities that we have established, and obviously things that we cannot change - the $502 million a year that we are paying now on interest on the debt.

Mr. Chairman, one of the reference points that we have, of course, as Liberals, is to go back to the hon. Joseph R. Smallwood. When he left office in 1972, the public debt of this Province, after twenty-three years of government - after twenty-three years of growth and investment and building roads, schools, hospitals, and all kinds of electrical facilities, the universities - after that hon. Premier left office, the public debt of this Province was at $300-$400 million - $300-$400 million after twenty-three years of building and prospering.

Now, seventeen years after, what has happened? When it was all built, when the schools were built, when the hospitals were built, when the roads were built, when people's services were put there for them, what did they do? Did they still keep us at an even keel? They did not come back, after seventeen years, with a $500 million deficit. They did not even come back with a billion dollar deficit - $5.1 billion after seventeen years. That is the record.

MR. FLIGHT: And what do they have to show for it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Exactly right - what do we have to show for it today?

At a time when we were expecting the leaders of our Province to have a strong hand on the tiller of our finances, when we were getting 7 and 8 per cent increases in the equalization payments from Ottawa, we were spending 10, 12 and 15 per cent. It was unbelievable the splurge that they had at the taxpayers expense, and what we are doing today - what this hon. Minister of Finance is doing - is to try to bring back some order to things, to try to live within our means, and we are doing it by not trying to tax people to death. We are trying to also not borrow our way out of this because it is just impossible.

Can you imagine what would happen if every year we have to borrow something like $400 million? Can you imagine what would happen if we went to the Asian markets, or even the American markets, and we were not able to borrow just that minimum requirement to meet our social assistance payments, to meet our hospital payments, to meet our basic payments to teachers and others in this Province? If we could not borrow that basic amount of money, do you know what would happen? We would obviously see drastic layoffs, cutbacks, and closures of many of our hospitals and schools in this Province. There would be no other recourse.

So for people to come into this House, on the opposite side, and just advocate that we should ignore reality, that we should just turn away from the economic reality of this Province as we fit into this country, it is just an absolute, fundamental -

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Shameful display of irresponsibility, Mr. Chairman, and the people of this Province do not deserve that.

The people of this Province have elected all hon. members, knowing that they were going to go in there and fight to see that their districts were well represented, but at the basics to ensure that there is stability in the country, to ensure that we are acting responsibly with the taxpayer's money, and not to have a situation where today we are paying more, twice as much, on our interest on the loan as Joey Smallwood built up in twenty-three years.

In twenty-three years Joey Smallwood only built up half as much as we have to pay on the debt today. What a legacy. No wonder the Member for Kilbride will not run. No wonder the Member for Harbour Main will not run. No wonder the Member for St. John's East Extern will not run. No wonder Torngat Mountains threw in the towel. No wonder none of the members over there want to come back to the electorate tomorrow and say: Give me another chance. You were given your chance and you failed miserably and that is why the people of this Province still have confidence and will have confidence in this Premier and this government. Because, as hard as it is to make some of those decisions, as hard as it is to say to people, You cannot have those increases, as hard as it is to say that we have to rationalize services and as hard as it is to try to bring in regionalized hospital boards and regionalized facilities, people know in the back of their minds and in their hearts that we are doing it only because we know that this has to be done for the sake of the future generations of this Province. There is no political crassness alive today like there was in the previous ten years prior to our government being elected. I can say that with all honesty, and I am sure that is exactly why the people of this Province are responding as they are doing today.

So, yes, I am quite pleased today to stand up and support and to ask all hon. members to give a speedy approval to the Minister of Finance's request for this money, because we want to be able to know were we are going from one hour to the next and not abdicate our responsibilities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I listened with some interest to the Member for Eagle River talking about something that apparently had happened last week. He didn't mention the bill once, Mr. Chairman, but, 'Show us our plan,' he challenged the Leader of the Opposition - the plan that he was going to put to the paper. I remind the member of the plan that was put forth in 1989, too, when someone promised that he was going to create jobs and bring every mother's son home and all of these things that were supposed to have happened.

MR. WALSH: Yes, you promised (inaudible) water and sewer.

MR. WINSOR: If the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island wants to leave the Chamber, he can because he doesn't contribute anything when he is in here on his feet, so he won't contribute from his seat.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind the member of some of the things that the Premier had promised, he was going to bring every mother's son home, the Premier was going to have a water and sewer corporation, that was all a part of the plan. He was going to reinstate meaningful collective bargaining. In fact, here is what he said - it is worth reading, especially in light of what has happened the last two or three days; it is worth reading what was going to happen.

'The record of the Tory Government in dealing with labour has been dismal. Its adversarial approach has created some of the worst moments in this Province's trade union history'. Mr. Chairman, I wonder, can we say the same thing today about the performance of this government, as it has dealt with labour in this Province - and so on in the list. If we want to look at the plan, how free collective bargaining was going to be restored, how cuts in health care wouldn't come at the expense of the public, that would always take priority; health care needs would always take priority, we were told. Mr. Chairman, that plan soon changed.

I want to speak more specifically on the bill, because it is an Interim Supply bill, where we look at certain sums of money. I unfortunately had to leave when the Member for Port de Grave was going to speak, and I would assume, knowing the member, the former minister - would like to be the minister, the Minister of Fisheries, I suspect; he would love to be. I suspect that he spoke something about the fishery. I would almost bet my last dollar that the gist of his remarks was probably -

MR. R. AYLWARD: He just supported Richard Cashin.

MR. WINSOR: No, he wasn't supporting Richard Cashin, I suspect he wasn't supporting Richard Cashin or John Crosbie, neither would he have been supporting the present Minister of Fisheries. I doubt very much if he said anything complimentary about the present Minister of Fisheries either, Mr. Chairman.

I note that the minister was looking for $12,647,000 in this particular Interim Supply for fisheries. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would be really curious as to how the minister is going to spend that $12.6 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do you not ask him that?

MR. WINSOR: Asking him is just like asking the minister - by the time you have the answer you have forgotten the question.

I am curious about how that $12.6 million is going to be spent. Is some of that money going to be now - what we have been waiting for, the interest relief that we couldn't get approved in the last fiscal year, and this money is now going to be spent in the 1993-1994 fiscal year? Is that why we have waited since October, when fishermen throughout this Province have - in fact, last week had to come to the minister himself and ask: When are you going to announce it? What are you going to do? The member indicated, fishermen from the Speaker's district had to come to see when the minister was going to approve the funding. Is that where that $12 million is going to be? I hope so. I hope some of it is going to be spent there.

One of the previous speakers - I am sure the Member for Port de Grave, expressed some grave concerns about the ability of the fish to come back in the period of time we have been given. I don't care what kind of management scheme we have, we have to have a resource to manage. Because all this is academic, totally academic, at this point, as to who is going to manage the fishery, because I don't believe there is one fish out there. I don't believe there is a fish out there to manage. Hopefully, in three or four or five years, we will have some resource, but I believe we have caught just about every one.

I am somewhat amazed. I was watching the news last night where the ship went down off Nova Scotia, and there were thirty-two men in the water, on the surface, maybe, I would suspect. Knowing that the ship was going down, most of them wore life jackets or flotation devices. With all the technology we had, we couldn't find these men, and yet we have managed to catch every fish in the ocean. Two hundred, 300, 400 fathoms beneath the surface, and we have managed to catch just about every one - not very many left at all.

As the Member for Port de Grave always says, he doesn't think we should be talking about closing fish plants. He thinks we should be talking about having more people involved in the fishery. I would like to say the same thing, but I fear the reality of the present is that if it ever can come back and the moratorium ends - if it can end; I am not sure we can even do that, at this point in time. The latest surveys indicate that the stock is even worse than we feared. We know that we are never going back to 220,000 and 230,000 and 180,000.

MR. EFFORD: Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sometime we are.

MR. WINSOR: Not in the foreseeable future. Sometime. But in the interim, Mr. Chairman, we are perhaps looking at much smaller TACs, something in the range of 70,000 to 80,000,for the next five or six years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Chairman, I don't care what the minister says, about who is going to get it. I question whether we have that much resource out there to catch at this point in time. I question whether there is that much there to catch.

MR. EFFORD: If you're only talking about cod, you're right. (Inaudible) other fish besides.

MR. WINSOR: No, I am talking about several of the other species, too, because the effort right now at turbot, at gray-sole, and other species, Mr. Chairman, particularly on the Northeast Coast towards the Funk Island Bank, where boats are having to go - some people from the member's own district, have to go 180 miles off now to catch fish, that same amount they could have caught forty miles off shore a little while ago. They are having to travel that far.

So it doesn't matter who is catching it, if it is foreigners, or -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: The fish has been caught. Now, there is no point in looking at and discussing that. We have to look at where we are going tomorrow.

MR. EFFORD: They are still out there!

MR. WINSOR: Where are we going tomorrow with the fishery, Mr. Chairman? The $12 million that the minister has allocated - I think it is time that we started to see a plan. Because the Premier has already said - the Premier said in his address to the Throne Speech, that we are going to be looking at 55,000 to 60,000. That is going to be the operative figure, he said. So how are we going to gear up for that fishery? That is going to have some serious consequences for communities all along where I live, and to the south and the north. Because many of these fish plants that previously worked for a number of weeks in the summer will just not work on that amount of resource unless we do something different with it. We have to create more jobs in the fishery.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Why are you supporting Crosbie, then?

MR. WINSOR: I wish the crackie from Eagle River would keep quiet so that one can finish.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Chairman, I don't know where the Member for Eagle River has heard that we supported Mr. Crosbie. Mr. Crosbie's plan - we said last November and we are saying now, we don't agree with it. What do you want us to do?

MR. TOBIN: This party has been saying it since 1979.

MR. WINSOR: We have been saying since there has been a party, that the management wasn't right, and what Mr. Crosbie is proposing now is not right.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know why he keeps talking about it. I don't know why we are debating that issue. The other day, my friend from Grand Bank said we don't have to debate that. We will agree to that immediately without debate. He knows where we stand on it, so why does he keep asking such silly questions?

Mr. Chairman, he should be telling us what we are going to do with the fish plants that we have around this Province today, for the next few years, while we are waiting for the stocks to rebuild. While we are waiting for the stocks to rebuild, what are we going to do in the meantime?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your time is up, isn't it?

MR. WINSOR: No, Mr. Chairman, my time is not up. I have another ten minutes yet. I just started.

Now, Mr. Chairman, in the area of municipal affairs, I see that the minister is looking for $55 million.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WINSOR: No, Mr. Chairman - by leave? Let me finish?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to have the opportunity to make a few comments because I see a lot of people in the gallery today and I think they are here for a reason which they believe is right. I am not going to be at all hesitant in showing awareness of their concerns, and I want them to be aware of what is taking place in this House of Assembly.

Presently, there is a bill before the House of Assembly, by the hon. the Minister of Finance, for $1 billion for interim financing for the Province until the Budget proposal comes down and is passed by the House of Assembly for the Budget for the full year to come.

We have argued and have talked back and forth today, a number of speakers, on what is important to this Province and how can government get the revenues to take care of all the essential services, like education, like health, in the Province, because it has to be paid for in dollars and cents. Government is like any company, any business, you have to take in monies in order to spend it, but you also have to spend it wisely.

The issue here today, what we have been talking about, is how do you generate more revenue in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with more people employed. And when people are working, they are spending money and paying taxes, therefore governments take in more money and therefore they can spend more money out. That is the simple economics of how government operates, as does any corporation or any business.

I was out just last week to a local school in my district, Ascension Collegiate, where I spoke to a number of classes, for a number of periods, about Education Week and special interest. One of the things I talked about was entrepreneurship, small businesses, and how you could get started. The basic thing I said to people out there, the students, you can have all the ideas you like in the world, you can have all the opportunities to start small businesses, you can have all the back-up and all the subsidy programs in place, if the opportunity isn't there or the economy isn't good, there is no point in starting businesses. Most businesses now are failing, and it is because of the economy of the Province and because there is no revenue being generated, except something like this, a brown envelope, which comes from tax dollars, and that is no way to keep an economy going.

That is the reason why I, for one member, keep speaking and speaking about trying to get the economy going. The only thing that we can do it with is the only resource, or the main resource - not the only - but the main resource we have for the Province, which is the fishery. Take the backbone out of anything and it collapses, and you take the backbone out of the Province, which is the fishery, and it collapses. And people still don't understand what I am talking about.

The students couldn't answer the question when I talked about how many jobs would be lost in our own district. I used the example, in the little district that I represent, Port de Grave, we have nine fish plants, and nine of them today are closed, and I don't hear one word of outcry from anybody. You take one plant in Cambridge, Ontario, that employs 600 or 700 people, and if they closed it up there would be marching in the streets. It happened last year that the Prime Minister flew in when they closed up one plant having 800 people working there, yet they close nine fish plants in my district, 1,700 people unemployed immediately, and nobody says a word. Now, let us use an example. If those 1,700 people were working on a six-month seasonal basis and they were spending money, you would be employing a 1.5 spin-off factor in the essential services, in beauty salons, car mechanics, labours, electricians, plumbers, so 1.5 times 1,700 is another 2,600 people, 2,700 people, so in my district through the loss of the fishery, you have 4,400 people unemployed in one district. You multiply that times fifty-two districts and you are talking 150,000, 180,000 people affected by the fishing industry, using the spin-off factor and there is not a word, not an outcry, all except from one or two politicians who tried to organize a meeting.

I organized a meeting last year in the Bay Roberts Lions Club, 120 people turned up out of 8,600 people in my district and 8,600 in Harbour Grace district - 120 people. In that same month in Cambridge, Ontario, they closed down the car manufacturing plant and they had the Prime Minister fly in to do something about it, and we wonder why this government is crying out for revenues or trying to get loans and trying to get money from Ottawa to try to balance the budget. We wonder why we have thousands of people in the Province today, educators who believe and I believe, and they know and I know that they are providing an essential service that we cannot do without, and they want to get justifiably paid for it, so does the health system, so do the nurses, all the people in the health system, so do municipal affairs, so do all the other people, but you cannot pay them unless you have the money to pay them.

You could wish to pay them and you could say, I would like to pay you but I do not have the money, so where does the money come from? Take the hon. Member for Menihek, close up the plant, the iron ore company in Labrador City, what would you have left? A ghost town. Would you be able to have an educational system down there? You would have absolutely nothing. Take the forestry out of British Columbia and what would you have left? You would have British Columbia totalled, ghost town. Take the industry plants out of Ontario and what would you have left? You would have nothing. Well, it is the same with the fishery in Newfoundland and people still do not understand what it is all about.

John Crosbie went there last week and what did he do? He put together a board. We wanted joint management and he put together a management board that is going to be two people from New Brunswick, two people from Quebec, two people from Nova Scotia, two people from PEI and two people from Newfoundland. Now when the decisions are made, in whose favour are they going to be made?...to the advantage of the Atlantic Provinces, not Newfoundland's, and still nobody says a word. It was a big thing the first day they announced it, they laid a book upon every table here in the House of Assembly and everybody said: Oh my, isn't that shocking?... and that is where it stopped. And, Mr. Chairman, as well, if the people are not working and the revenues are not coming in I say to the teachers: you think you have a problem today, wait until next year when the deficit and the Budget come down. If there is nobody working in the Province, and we do not get back that industry, that is the thing we have to be concerned about and that is the reason why we are calling for joint management, in order to get people back to work in this Province and if people are not working then everybody is going to suffer. It is a circle, Mr. Chairman, it is a circle and it is time to stop blaming what happened in 1982, '85 or '75 or '72, you have to look into the future with some vision.

You have to believe in this Province unless you want it to become a place where senior citizens retire and those who cannot work and everybody else moves out, and that is what it is going to come to. I have three children myself, I have a daughter in university now, and if she were to get out of university tomorrow, which I hope in a few short months she will graduate, what is she going to do? Go on the unemployment line if she can get a make work program, that is the best there is to offer her right now? So we have to encourage her to move out of the Province and that is the kind of a future we will have if we do not get the economy in this Province turned around and we do not bring the industry back. There is only one industry, that is to maintain the future in this Province and that is the fishery.

The hon. Member for Fogo talked about the resource when it comes back, we will be lucky to catch 80,000 tons when it comes back. Mr. Chairman, let me tell you what the foreign fleets took in 1990 while we were collecting welfare. The foreign fishing fleets in 1990 took off the Grand Banks 800 million pounds of fish. They reported taking 800 million pounds, God knows how much more over that. That same year, FPI landed 200 million pounds and created 12,000 direct jobs and with the spin-off factor another 12,000 to 13,000 jobs or almost 25,000 jobs. They took four times as much fish and we never got one dollar or one job out of it and we wonder why we are unemployed here in this Province?

The seal population, 8 million seals, if they only eat one pound of fish a day, that is 8 million pounds a day, multiply that times 365 days a year is, 2.7 billion pounds of fish, not only caplin, not only cod, herring, mackerel, shrimp and flounder, but it is a valuable resource that creates jobs. Just imagine if we had that in our plants to put people to work. There would be nobody today worrying about there being a wage freeze or if there was going to be a raise because the money would be there to give it. That is the reason we are in the mess we are in today, because we are letting everybody else take advantage of our resource except ourselves, and the federal government has sold us out again on this management board they have put in place.

We have been sold out again for a few lousy measly compensation dollars that have been given to the fishermen, welfare dollars. That is the only reason we are in this mess and the hon. Opposition House Leader knows full well what I am talking about. It is the only way we can get monies in this Province. So we have to wake up and realize that we as a people have to stick together and fight for what is ours otherwise we will be on compensation packages. We now have about 30 per cent of our people on social services. I think the last count was 72,000 people out of a population of 500,000 people on welfare, good productive people, a lot of them, but they have no other choice, and at the end of next March when they take away the compensation package we will have another 20,000 under the Minister of Social Services welfare lines. What are they going to do once the compensation package is taken away?

There are no fish out there to catch. Everybody has common sense and logic enough to agree with that. Then what happens to the revenues? More people on the welfare line, more people living and no productivity, no taxes being paid, just take, take, take the brown envelope. That is the reason why we are in the mess we are in today, but if we were getting first access to the stocks of fish that are on the Grand Banks today, had been getting them, or should get them in the future, we would have people working in this Province. When you have people working you have taxes being paid, and when you have taxes being paid then governments can pay out the money. That is the issue that people in the Province are not seeing. I do not know why it is. It has been here on our shores ever since Newfoundland was discovered and millions of years before we were discovered the fish were in the waters but we have not had the good sense to take over and manage what is rightfully ours.

Now, when we had an opportunity to have some say in management what does John Crosbie go and do?.... sell us out again. Sell us down the tube to further enhance the fact that in the future we are going to become more of a welfare state than we have been in the past.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I sat here this evening and listened to members opposite, and members on this side of the House as well, debate what is supposed to be Interim Supply. Mr. Chairman, for the last week or so, ever since the Premier mentioned last week that there would be something coming down in two or three days time, and then when it did come down John Crosbie announced his new plan for the fishery in Atlantic Canada, all of a sudden all the woes, all the ills, all the harms, and all the problems in this Province, Atlantic Canada, and now Canada as a whole, is because of John Crosbie and the feds. Where have hon. members been for the last four years?

MR. EFFORD: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WOODFORD: Oh, I see. I have touched a chord.

MR. EFFORD: The hon. member has every right to get up in the House of Assembly and speak to this Bill any way he sees fit but he should not intentionally mislead the House. I can tell this hon. member that since 1989 I have spoke just as vibrantly on the fishery in this House as I did today. You cannot accuse this hon. member for only coming alive today.

MR. WOODFORD: Here we go on an Interim Supply bill with $1 billion which really could create jobs in the Province. Now, the hon. Member for Port de Grave, I will say from the outset, is one of the few on the other side of the House who really fought, and he is right, probably for four years going right back to 1989, himself, but I am talking about collectively. But in this case I will give the devil his due because he did fight for the fishery for the last four years, and previous to that I might say.

Mr. Chairman, let us look at some of the expenditure heads in the Interim Supply Bill. Now, hon. members were elected in 1989, they were elected under a campaign for what is so called 'real change.' Now, in 1989, Mr. Chairman, there was some talk about the fishery and about the quotas being reduced, in fact that is what happened right in the campaign of '89, about northern cod quotas being reduced but what happened to all of the jobs that were supposed to be created in 1989? What happened in 1990?

AN HON. MEMBER: Good question.

MR. WOODFORD: What happened in 1991? What happened in 1992? This is the fifth Budget, come Thursday, of this administration, the fifth. Now, Mr. Chairman, I can go down through each one of those headings and if hon. members want to debate each one, lets take for example one department, the Department of Municipal Affairs. The minister came in the House last fall and talked about creating jobs, here we have line departments, the Department of Municipal Affairs, the Department of Transportation especially, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, Public Works included in Transportation, where there is a direct chance that you can create a job. Immediately, if you announced a program this evening, there are jobs there within a few weeks, if the tenders were called. This has not been done. If tenders were out in January month for instance, in Municipal Affairs and Transportation, we could have work ongoing by April, at least in some parts of the Province, especially on the east coast of the Province and we could finish them.

Now I will say this, when I was in Government from 1985 to 1989, I think for two years I tried to get the minister to get the tenders out early. Now, saying you are going to get them out early and not getting them out is a different situation. Mr. Chairman, I can go back through the estimates in the Transportation Department, I can go through the estimates in Municipal Affairs - forget anything else with regards to the regular program under MOG or anything else - just talk about capital funding in those two departments and not one year for the past four years and the fifth Budget coming up, was the monies ever spent, never all spent. Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) all spent since '49.

MR. WOODFORD: No, hold on, Mr. Chairman, what happened to add insult to injury? It is one thing to call a tender early, it is another thing not to call it at all. Then there is another thing to bring in a new formula to make sure that less than 50 per cent of the money is going to be spent. I would put it on record, it will be in Hansard, Mr. Chairman, on the Municipal Affairs one, I can guarantee members in this House, on both sides of the House today, that when that capital program is announced there will be a great hullabaloo. I do not know if there will be $50 million, there was $59 million in last year, I doubt if there was $40 million spent, I doubt it very much. If there is $50 million allocated this year, what is going to happen? It will come out in the Budget Thursday, probably be announced next week, the first part of next week and I venture you to bet that not 25 percent to 30 per cent of the municipalities that will be allocated funding will be able to take it because they cannot afford it.

MR. MATTHEWS: Because of the changes that you made to it.

MR. WOODFORD: They cannot afford it. I know of municipalities last year that were allocated funding, as much as $350,000, $650,000, $700,000 who had to say; I am sorry minister, I cannot take it. Well, I will tell you one, right in my district, the Community of Reidsville, the Community of Hampden, $350,000 in Reidville, all because of the new formula on repayment on capital debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't they apply under a different formula.

MR. WOODFORD: If members Opposite want to create real jobs in the Province, back up. If the Minister responsible for Municipal Affairs wants to get his program out, if the Minister responsible for Transportation wants to get his program out, let them get it out. Give them some support and get it out because what is happening every year is, it is too late for the tenders. Most of the tenders do get out and they cannot be finished in the fall of the year. We have one of the shortest construction seasons in Canada, and those are meaningful jobs, good five, six, and, in some cases, seven-month jobs, and a lot of jobs. Fifty million dollars in your department, Sir, can create an awful lot of jobs. Thirty or forty million dollars in the Department of Transportation, coupled with the $30 or $40 million from the feds on transportation, can create an awful lot of jobs - five, six, and seven-month jobs.

Mr. Chairman, why aren't they out? It is not always a matter of looking for money. This is not a case of looking for money. This has absolutely nothing to do with civil servants. This has absolutely nothing to do with teachers. It has absolutely nothing to do with borrowing and credit ratings - absolutely nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: Hold on now! Your capital program is going to be the first, anyway. You will always cut somewhere else, but you are going to have a capital program, especially in an election year. Don't tell me about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: You may trim your capital program, but you are going to have one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tory style.

MR. WOODFORD: No, the Tory style was bring in the program and do it. The members' opposite style would be to bring in the program and use it during the election campaign to give it to communities that cannot utilize the funding. Then it will be redirected somewhere else. You watch.

The Minister of Transportation, last December, I think it was the first week in December, came in and announced a $32 million roads program fully funded by the Federal Government. Where is it? Not a sound. Where are the tenders? What roads are going to be done?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I know when it is going to be in the paper, Mr. Chairman. Watch the papers next week and we will see what roads are going to be done. Watch the papers next week and we will see what communities in this Province are going to get municipal funding. Watch the papers next week if you want to see any other capital program, and then look out - around the middle of April they will be calling an election. Well, come on with it. Come on with the election, because I can assure you that the last time, in 1989, this administration made an awful lot of promises. It was very easy to go around and make promises in 1989, after seventeen years out of power. It was one thing to say in 1989 that those fellows were seventeen years in and making (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking about what government plans to do with the raising of monies as noted in Bill No. 12. The total amount of $1 billion - we have to look at the reason why we might need a good portion of $1 billion. We look under Consolidated Fund Services - the amount of $4 million. Now, under that, and the other subhead that I point out here, under Works, Services and Transportation, the amount of $170 million, there is a little bit of money that goes to pay the debt that we have had. Granted, if we didn't have to pay this - if we didn't have to come up with the amount of debt retirement of approximately half a billion dollars a year to repay interest and replacement of debt that comes due each and every year, maybe we could afford some of the things that we have to - that we would like to, I should say, as opposed to have to - some of the things we would like to be able to do. Granted, politicians would never shy away from being able to - or in want of doing something around or about the time of an election, as mentioned by the hon. member opposite.

Now, to borrow for capital works, well, as was mentioned by an hon. member on this side in response to the hon. member's comments, in the past some districts didn't receive anything because of their political stripe. Well, we have changed that. This government decided that we wouldn't decide the capital works budgets on the basis of where a political stripe was laid, whether or not they were on the Opposition or the government side, or a member of the NDP, even. We had to clean out that patronage type of thing, the silliness of running pavement to a certain point and then cutting it off, the type of situation that has caused us problems and is now costing us $500 million a year, Mr. Chairman, in what we have to do.

I did a little bit of research on borrowing in this Province and I have some items here from as far back as 1961. Because we look at it - we inherited a debt from both governments, and to go back that far, I thought to myself: Were they actually borrowing back then to do the same kinds of things? Borrowing, from what I can understand, back in the early years, 1960s and up, was done mainly for capital works-type projects. Only when we get up into the 1970s do we see huge current account deficit problems.

I note - just to go through some here. These are newspaper articles - October 30, 1970. At that point in time the Province was going to borrow $70,226,600. Now, (inaudible) publication then said that liabilities were $659 million to March 31, and by the end of that fiscal year, 1970, the total debt of the Province had risen to $1.09 billion - the total amount, approximately, what we are seeking here today, just in the form of interim financing. At that time in 1970 it was up to that amount.

Just to go on a little bit further. The Toronto Sun had an article in 1972, a couple of years later. It is speaking about the new Progressive Conservative Administration of Premier Frank Moores: is borrowing money from far and near, rather like where ousted Joey Smallwood and his Liberal administration left off. It says: 'Yesterday, Finance minister' - and we have heard this name here before, today - 'John Crosbie' -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. RAMSAY: - Finance minister John Crosbie in 1972 - 'announced that the Province had borrowed $25 million from Western America Bank ' - a five year loan at 7 per cent interest, lower than that available in Canada. So the foreign borrowing was being done then, as well, Mr. Chairman.

Then, in 1972, a little later - that was April 5 - April 11, they were re-borrowing to repay loans. This was the situation with the Labrador liner board mill. Then we get up a little further into 1972, Opposition Leader, Ed Roberts, speaking about it at that time, and he said: 'I fear Newfoundland is going to have to go on borrowing.' Mr. Chairman, 1972 - just think about it, and here we are again continuing to borrow and continuing to raise our debt.

At that time, there was an Opposition motion introduced by Mr. Roberts in the Loyal Opposition at that time, to limit borrowing, and it was turned down by the government. Then we were on the path, it became the thing to do, it became the thing that governments normally did, borrow to finance social programs, borrow for the future because the future generations could afford it. Well, now, the future generations are probably starting to wonder, the tax burden that they experienced, can we really afford it? Well, we have little or no choice because we have to pay the bill. We are not going to feign our obligation, we definitely have to go - sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: That was it, yes, we had to pay our bills and we did. Anyway, on February 22, 1977, we talk about heavy borrowers. We have here a copy of a small editorial in the Evening Telegram and it says: 'One thing the Moores Government seems to be good at is borrowing money. If only it could handle it as efficiently as it borrows it, this Province would be something of a paradise to live in. It must occur to somebody in government that if we continue to borrow at this rate, we are going to go bankrupt. We realize this government has expensive tastes and an extravagant disposition but surely it can see that in the long run it is far wiser to live somewhere close to a balanced Budget.' That, Mr. Chairman, was February 22, 1977, an editorial in the Evening Telegram. So, one has to wonder, when do we reach the limit? We haven't reached the limit yet. The capital markets feel that our ability to repay our debt is sound. Of course, there are those out there who make a little bit of difficulty for us by making comments off the cuff about whether this Province's credit rating will be decreased or put into jeopardy.

There is another thing, Mr. Chairman, you wonder what would happen if we went to the market and tried to raise $100 million and they came back and said: Well, sorry, we think we are going to buy only 50 per cent of that. We go looking for $500 million or so and say, if we only manage to sell $250 million. What happens then? Automatically, the value of that debt goes down and all of our debt takes a hit and possibly then, that is the kind of crisis that a credit rating shock would follow because just the market would choose not to buy our debt and therefore, then, all of our security and all of our debt could become worthless paper. And that is the crisis we are trying to avoid. This government, under the leadership of the Premier and the current Minister of Finance has decided to be prudent in limiting the amount we want to borrow. We only want to borrow an amount on current account of $50 million, that is an amount that they have deemed through their examinations, discussions with the financial markets, discussions with their financial advisers in New York and other places, that is the amount that is deemed to be a prudent amount to borrow, that we can manage to get our budget down hopefully to a balanced figure within a year or two.

Now if we manage that, we have already lowered it, the hon. Member for Humber Valley spoke of the capital borrowing and the projects that we plan. We have already stated in the hon. minister's amounts that he has given, that we are going to lower the amount of capital borrowing from 225 down to 175, so the total amount of capital works will be down by $50 million. Now that does not necessarily mean we are going to save $50 million because, approximately 40 per cent, the net cost as you might remember having been in government, the net cost of borrowing for capital works is probably only about 40 per cent of the total dollar value put on it because of that same factor mentioned by the hon. Member for Port de Grave, because you spend approximately 40 per cent, the rest of it comes back into the tax coffers through income tax from people working et cetera, so to go and cut it in half you still only save 20 per cent of the total, so you have to be very cautious on the idea of cutting.

Now I know you say that we should continue to spend, and probably because of an election we would spend huge amounts to try to buy the election. Not so, in this day and age with the understanding that the people have gained of deficit financing over the last four years, the people in this Province are a lot more sophisticated than you give them credit for, and I would say that the people of this Province would be ready to tear the hair out of their heads if they thought we were going to go out and try to buy the election with capital works spending. It is just not sensible.

Now we have to look at the $1 billion -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. RAMSAY: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member would allow me, before I recognize him, to introduce some people we have in the gallery today, and I want to extend a welcome to the Mayor of the Town of Catalina, Mayor Claude Stagg, Councillor Gordon Duffett and Town Manager Peter Gullage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Chairman, to listen to the hon. Member for LaPoile, the last speaker, it is no wonder this Province is in the state that it is in; it is no wonder that we do not have anyone left working in this Province. All the Member for Humber Valley was suggesting when he spoke, is that the money you are going to spend in municipal affairs should be out now, ready to be spent today so people can go to work, that is all he said and you have to get up here for twenty minutes and come up with some kind of a contrived speech to say that you should not do that.

You are going to spend the money anyway, you should have had it ready in December, in the paper in January for tenders and the first day the contractor can start to do the work he should be doing the work. All of those contracts should be started now, especially municipal affairs work. We need the water and sewer in the Province. If we do not put infrastructure in the towns and communities in our Province we will never be developed. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, actually hundreds of millions of dollars of 100 per cent federal money that he can spend.

He could have spent money on that Outer Ring Road for the past three years. He could have spent it, 100 per cent federal money. He would not have to take money back from teachers, he would not have to take money back from health workers, he would not have to increase taxes to spend that, that was 100 per cent federal money for an Outer Ring Road and you have been sitting on it for three years. The minister who was there before you sat on it and now you are sitting on it.

Mr. Chairman, we have a 100 per cent federally funded Goulds bypass road. When we were there in 1988 funding was put in place for that under the Roads for Rails Agreement. In 1989 when this government came in that could have been started, the process could have been started that day to start the Goulds bypass road. All that would have had to be done was to have it registered under the Environmental Act in 1989. They sat on it for 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, and finally when they were browbeaten into registering it with the Environmental Act, it would delay it for another year, obviously. Now, all of this is done for political reasons, no good financial management in this.

They want to get rid of Mulroney in Ottawa so they can go up to Trudeau and get that money and spend it all over the rest of the Province. That is the reason why the Premier will not spend it, but it is not going to work. All that is going to happen now is that when we need jobs the most, when the private sector of our Province is not producing the jobs, government should step in and try to produce the jobs. Now, you do not have to spend Newfoundland taxpayer's dollars to do that. The Department of Highways can do that with 100 per cent federally financed money but they will not do it, Mr. Chairman. I cannot see for the life of me why they have not started the Outer Ring Road or the Goulds road. What do they do again? The same government trick, try to get it off to a committee or get it off to a study, or have some other hearing on it. That will delay it for another while and keep the people who cannot find jobs down a bit. They will hope that maybe this last study will finally be the last study. Maybe the commissioner who is studying it, the former Deputy Major of Grand Falls, I think it is, Mr. Goodyear, who is studying this Outer Ring Road, maybe he can drag it out long enough for us to get through this election. Maybe we can get through a federal election so that we can get that money and spend it somewhere else.

Well if that is the problem - if you want to spend that money somewhere else - why do you not go to Ottawa and start dealing with Ottawa, the guys who are there now, and ask them can you do it? I know you were there a couple of times. Your former minister was there trying to get the Outer Ring Road money spent in other parts of the Province, and the present federal cabinet minister would not allow you to do it. I know that is a fact, so you are not going to get your way with taking that money and spending it in other areas of the Province.

The former minister - the minister who sat there before you - wanted to get it and spend it on the Burgeo Highway - that is his district. That is where he wanted to spend it. Now he has hung up all the construction jobs on that $70 million or $80 million worth of federally funded money. He has hung up all those jobs for the last three years because he wanted to get the money and spend it down in Burgeo.

Mr. Chairman, that is scandalous in my mind. That is doubly scandalous when you are in a recession, and it is triply scandalous when you are taking money back from people who are putting in an honest day's work for you now, such as the teachers and nurses and health care workers and public servants in this -

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is not true? It is not true they are putting in a fair day's work? The hon. Member for St. John's South says that the teachers of this Province do not put in a fair day's work? That the nurses do not put in a fair day's work? Well they do! I say they do! And it is time for you to open your eyes and see it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: And you should not be trying to pick their pockets while they are doing the work!

You should stand up for your constituents. Stand up and fight. Do not knuckle down to Clyde. Do not knuckle down to the Premier every time he turns around and scowls at you. Do not fall under your seat when he roars at you in the caucus room. Do not crawl under the table when he roars at you in the caucus room. Stand up and fight for your constituents! You cannot run this Province with one man. You cannot run this Province with a dictator. You need more people to run it than one dictator.

You have something to offer. You have something to offer to the Premier. If he will not listen to you the first time, keep saying it and he will listen to you. I have more confidence in you than your own Premier has - your own leader. He sits you in the back bench and tells you all to shut up and do not bother him; he will look after it all. That is what he says to you, and you sit down over there like little mice, like little rabbits, and will not stand up for the constituents.

Mr. Chairman, all you have to do is spend federal money and you would not have to be robbing the pockets of the public servants of this Province. Spend the federal money that you have - that John Crosbie came down and gave to you to manage. When we left we had $800 million in road money left there for you, so all you had to do was manage it and spend it half reasonably.

What did you do, Mr. Chairman? You sat on it because you couldn't spend it in your own districts.

Mr. Chairman, I adjourn the debate.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to remind hon. members that tomorrow is Private Members' Day, and we'll be debating the resolution by the Member for Eagle River. I wish everybody a good day tomorrow. Thursday of course will be Budget Day.

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

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