The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Yesterday, the Member for Twillingate raised a point of order with respect to the order of resolutions on Wednesday, Private Members' Day. Essentially, he has withdrawn his consent to a 1989 agreement to modify Private Members' Day to allow resolutions to be called by agreement of members. The Journal of May 30, 1989 discloses the following: `It was agreed that Private Members' Day on Wednesdays would be slightly modified. Each resolution would be debated on one Wednesday only, unless there was some pressing reason to have two days debate. Opposition and government members will choose the order in which resolutions will be debated with the proviso that the House be notified by Monday of the resolution to be debated on Wednesday.'

That practice has been followed since that time with the respective house leaders advising the House on Mondays of the resolution to be debated on Wednesdays. The practice prior to May 30, 1989 is clear. On opening day private members would rise to place motions on the Order Paper and the Speaker would recognize alternate sides of the House, starting, I am advised, with the Opposition. These resolutions would then be debated in the order in which they appeared on the Order Paper.

If the Member for Twillingate is correct, it would be his resolution, rather than that of the Member for Harbour Main, that will be debated on Wednesday, since the motion of the Member for Twillingate appears prior to the motion of the Member for Harbour Main. In determining this issue, I have attempted to determine from whence the practice for Private Members' Day arises. There has been a Private Members' Day in this House since, I am advised, at least 1951 and the practice as outlined has existed since at least 1966 by admission of the Government House Leader.

In Ottawa, prior to changing to a ballot system, Private Members' Day in the House of Commons was governed by what was then rule 18, subsection 1; that section read as follows, and I quote: All items standing on the Orders of the Day, except government orders, shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the Order Paper, and I want to emphasize the word `precedence'. `Precedence', as we understand it, means orders in motions take priority in the order they appear and before those that follow. It is clear that the practice followed in Ottawa was similar to that here on the basis of their Standing Order 18, subsection 1. I would refer members of the House to order 16A of our Standing Orders, which reads exactly the same as Ottawa's order 18, subsection 1, except that our order has the word `procedure' instead of the word `precedence', and I will read it for members.

Our Standing Orders 16 (a) states as follows: "All items standing on the orders of the day (except Government Orders) shall be taken up according to the procedure assigned to each on order paper", so one can see that the difference between the two rules is that, the Ottawa rule, which was in existence prior to a change in their system, uses the word `precedence', our rule uses the word `procedure'. This might be argued and it is the opinion of some, is a typographical error in our records in Standing Orders, but this is not for me to say, nor could I make that ruling. However, I do believe that order 16 (a) explains the origin of the Wednesday, Private Members' Day practice.

The word `procedure', as used in 16 (a) is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as follows, and I quote: `A series of actions conducted in a certain order or manner. That order referred to in the definition can only be in this context the order given on the Order Paper. The practice, I conclude, is more than that; it is an order of this House, namely, order 16, subsection (a). Even if I am wrong in this determination, I am also persuaded that, as the Government House Leader acknowledged, the long-standing practice of this House prior to 1989, was to recognize the orders of precedence appearing on the Order Paper for Private Members resolutions.

It is a clear practice of this House that where an agreement is made to act at variance with prescribed rules, orders or practises of the House, any member may withdraw his or her consent and require a reversion to the orders or practise. In this case, the hon. the Member for Twillingate has withdrawn his consent to the 1989 agreement, and this hon. House must revert to the clear operation of either order 16 (a) or our practice or custom of calling Private Members' resolutions in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper. Consequently, the resolution to be debated tomorrow, Wednesday, is that of the hon. Member for Twillingate and that is my decision.

I wish to add that I am greatly concerned that we operate in many ways contrary to our expressed Standing Orders. There is a procedure under the House of Assembly Act, namely Section 16, subsection 2, to alter, amend or repeal any order by a vote of two-thirds of our members. Until this is done, formally, it is the right of any single member to require a reversion to the strict operation of our orders which require for example, that we meet from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. instead of 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. which we now do. It is not for the Speaker to take such measures but I would recommend to this hon. House that we review our orders and formalize our changes to achieve consistency between the two.

May I add as well that the rulings of the Chair do not represent, nor should they, my personal views. Rather it is for me to discern and delimit our customs, orders and practices and apply them fairly and uniformly to all and that task I frankly say is made more difficult by the fact that our practice sometimes is at variance with our orders.

Finally, I wish to thank those hon. members who participated in the discussion for their comments which were helpful and I want to thank our table officers for their views and advice which is always most invaluable. Thank you.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, just a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, I just want to get an understanding. Will we continue with the tradition of alternating Wednesday to Wednesday from side to side?

MR. SPEAKER: As I understand it and as I interpret the rule, it is the order they appear on the Order Paper but if you wish to raise it as a further point of order I will have to take the member -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I thank you for your ruling and we now go back to the rules of the House which provide we will take motions in the order they appear on the Order Paper and we debate them. My friend the Leader of the Opposition is quite correct, we debate them for two days.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Tomorrow we will in fact have to take, I suggest with respect, Sir, the motion of the gentleman from Kilbride. It stands first on the Order Paper. We will debate it for two days, two Wednesdays. We will then take the motion that stands in the name of the gentleman from Twillingate and we will debate it for two days.

What happened in '89 was the House reached a consensus but as Your Honour quite correctly says, the rule was never amended. My friend from Twillingate, as is his perfect right, has withdrawn his consent, therefore we go back to the old procedure. The alternation in the old procedure came when the Chair, usually on opening day recognized members alternately but we have not been doing that. Therefore, the motion I submit for tomorrow, on a point of order, would be No. 4 on yesterdays Order Paper which stands in the name of the gentleman from Kilbride. We will debate that for two days and then we will carry on.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that is correct. It is the order that appears on the Order Paper. It is by agreement and as members know, the reason that they alternated in the past was that the Speaker recognized alternate members of the House on either side but what will now happen is we have reversion to our former practice and we have to follow the order on the Order Paper in accordance with our Standing Orders.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, there is also a proviso for members to withdraw a resolution.

MR. ROBERTS: One needs unanimous consent.

MR. SIMMS: To do what?

MR. ROBERTS: To withdraw.

MR. SIMMS: To withdraw, correct. But I mean, if a member were to withdraw the resolution that was scheduled to come forward - because we just had the Private Members' Day of Wednesday past and we don't believe it would be fair not to alternate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: No, we don't! If members opposite think it is fair - that is why we agreed in the first place to alternate. Not only did we agree to do it, it is a traditional parliamentary practice in any event, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: In all fairness.

MR. SIMMS: In all fairness. That is fine. If members don't want to do that then we will simply do whatever the Speaker judges. But I just heard the Speaker rule that the next resolution to be debated tomorrow will be the resolution presented by the Member for Twillingate. I just want to make it abundantly clear that it is perfectly acceptable to us, particularly in view of the fact that we had the private member's resolution for debate on Wednesday past. I think it is only fair that private members of this House - outside of Cabinet ministers - have that opportunity to do so. That is what it is there for, that is what Private Members' Day is for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Just on the point. The point to be made is that we now have to revert to the 1989 practice and we follow the order on the Order Paper. If the next order is that of the Member for Kilbride, then that is the one to be debated unless something should act between now and then to change it. We do have to follow the order on the Order Paper.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, just briefly. It is very difficult now to correct what has taken place in the past but obviously we are now reverting to the original procedure, the traditional procedure, as (inaudible) in our Standing Orders. Unfortunately at the time Your Honour listed the resolutions, or received resolutions which were placed on the Order Paper, there was an agreement. I would suggest that we have a difficulty here now that that is an improper procedure because we have reverted now. That was done then by consent. I don't know if that can be rearranged or how you could correct that, but it seems now that we are halfway there. That we have reverted through the procedure of following the precedent on the Order Paper, but I don't know how we could around reverting to the whole procedure of therefore having alternate resolutions.

Perhaps Your Honour would like to consider - since you can't roll back the clock in the order that they are presented - but reschedule them one from each side of the House on the Order Paper. In other words, change the precedent in order with the Standing Orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Just on the Member for Mount Pearl's suggestion. As I made clear to members, the Chair doesn't make the rules, I merely apply them. At the time I received resolutions this was not an issue, so I accepted them in the order that members stood before the House, simply assuming that the normal agreement would continue, so we have to let matters fall where they may, and whatever the order is on the Order Paper, that is the order we must follow.

As I have said, my task is more difficult because I don't make the rules and certainly we haven't formalized the changes, but I can't accept the suggestion of the Member for Mount Pearl, however sensible it may be. It is for the House to determine its own procedure in a case like this, not for the Chair.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to stand to ask for consent to withdraw the motion that was introduced in the spring sitting, and let me outline why.

The motion put forward by myself, as Member for Kilbride, specifically dealt with the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal which government, under the former minister, subsequently changed. The debate would be for not, I submit to the Chair, and I respectfully ask members of the House that this has already been changed, the spirit of this Private Members' motion government has dealt with back in June. It is pure political folly on their part to try to debate this, and I submit that to the Chair. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask members of the House for their consent to withdraw this Private Members' motion from the Order Paper.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Realizing that the Member for Twillingate, his Private Members' bill is important to him or he would not have put it on the Order Paper. Equally, I say to the Member for Kilbride that his Private Members' motion is equally important to him or he would not have put it on the paper. Let me say to the hon. member that it is important, because it needs to be brought to light the tremendous things that are happening in that area.

I have to say, as far as I am concerned, the hon. Member for Kilbride, I am waiting for him tomorrow; therefore, there is no leave from me.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. member needs unanimous consent in order to withdraw it. Does the House wish me to put a resolution? The member obviously won't receive leave.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to leave this alone because there is another principle involved here, and another tradition and practice, and that is the principle and practice of alternating.

It is true that under the old rules it was done as they appeared on the Order Paper, but I think if Your Honour will do the research he will find that the resolutions on opening day as they used to be presented were presented in an alternating fashion, so that you had no choice. It obviously turned up in an alternating fashion, so I would submit to Your Honour that government is once again being caught. We have a Government House Leader at the moment who does nothing but create conflict every time he stands in the House of Assembly. The simple way to resolve it is to let the Member for Twillingate put forth his private members' resolution for heaven's sake. That is what it is all about, is it not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled by what is going on here today, the childishness that is emanating from this side of the House. I do not know why people on this side of the House are afraid to debate this resolution. It is something that is on the minds of everybody in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: I for one, Mr. Speaker, ask that the people in Cabinet on this side of the House stop being so childish and let us get on with the business of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On the point raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition I obviously considered your point in making the ruling and it is my view that Order 16(a) governs this and it provides that we must follow the order on the Order Paper. Had I known this would be the case I may well have recognized people in an alternate manner and I would do so in the future, but I think that circumstances being what they are we have to just follow through with the effects of this order, and it clearly is that we follow and call the resolutions in the order in which they are given.

I say that the hon. Member for Kilbride does not have unanimous consent and therefore cannot withdraw it if any member objects. I will leave that and I think it is sufficiently clear what the position of the Chair is.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate.

MR. CARTER: I want to thank Your Honour for your ruling and naturally I abide by it. I am very grateful to the members of the House who have supported by position, that of having the privilege of discussing in debate my resolution tomorrow. I am especially thankful to the Member for Kilbride for offering to withdraw his resolution. Nevertheless I will accept the ruling of the House and of Your Honour.

Mr. Speaker, I take it now that my private members' resolution, having to do with the importation of garbage, will be debated next Wednesday.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, in two weeks time.

MR. CARTER: In two weeks time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have a point of order?

MR. CARTER: I stand corrected, it will be two weeks from tomorrow. Tomorrow will be the hon. Member for Kilbride, I presume. That is where I went wrong. Now we have the practice of a one day debate but we are reverting back to when it was a two day debate. That is fine, as long as I have an assurance that my resolution, notwithstanding the objections raised by some of my colleagues here, that I do not appreciate, by the way, my resolution will be debated in due course. I have that assurance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, late this morning, through a news release, which I received issued by the Premier, the Premier relieved the Government House Leader of his duties and responsibilities as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, but then kept him in the Cabinet. Now, I say to the Premier to reflect on this. You wasted little time in kicking out the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island out of the Cabinet because he was being investigated related to certain allegations concerning him, even though the Member for Mount Scio assured you of his innocence and in fact was later cleared. In addition to that, we had the Member for Port de Grave booted out of the Cabinet for an investigation done by the Public Service Commission, if I recollect.

I want to ask the Premier this: Why do you have a double standard insofar as the Member for Naskaupi is concerned? Can you answer this?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There is no double standard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: I say to the members again that roaring laughter is no substitute for intelligent comment.

There is no double standard. It is a totally different circumstance. In this case, in the case of the Minister of Justice, the matter arose as a result of an investigation being done, I now believe by the RCMP in Ontario, in relation to a resident of Ontario who was conducting business with two companies in Newfoundland. The minister was involved as a shareholder either through a holding company or directly in each of those companies.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, no.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) holding company?

PREMIER WELLS: No.

MR. ROBERTS: Not of Elizabeth Drugs Limited, no.

MR. SIMMS: You are not a director of a holding company?

MR. ROBERTS: Not of Elizabeth Drugs Limited, no.

MR. SIMMS: Are you a director of a holding company (inaudible)?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You are?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think there is one question before the House.

PREMIER WELLS: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, in this situation what occurred, the police were investigating the activities of this individual in Ontario. He apparently was involved in a business relationship with the two companies here, Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited - one company here - and a company in Nova Scotia called Armbro Limited.

The police were executing search warrants here Wednesday of last week, and the Deputy Minister of Justice became aware of this and advised me of it. I instructed her, as I indicated in the release, to make sure that the minister was not advised until after the warrants had been fully executed, and to treat me as the Attorney General for all purposes if anything should arise in relation to the matter. She did just that.

The minister became aware of this matter some time on Thursday night, he told me, and on Friday he advised me of it. Of course, I already knew about it, Friday morning. By Friday afternoon he called and asked if he could meet with me to tell me that he and directors of the company, and the company's lawyer, had caused an investigation to be made and they discovered certain information that they turned over to the police; they felt the police should have it.

As a result, I asked the Deputy Minister of Justice to inquire as to whether or not the companies in Newfoundland would be investigated, or any director of the company would be investigated. The Deputy Attorney General advised me last evening at about 7:00 p.m. that the companies were indeed under investigation, but that none of the non-employee directors were under investigation at this time, or it was unknown as to whether or not they would be. They might or might not be investigated.

So I met with the minister this morning and discussed the matter, and it is clear that there is no indication whatsoever that the minister has been accused of doing anything improperly, that he has been in any manner involved whatsoever. There is no allegation of improper -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: If you want the answer, this is the answer. There is no allegation of improper conduct on the part of the minister in any way. This is simply an action that we feel should be taken to ensure that nobody can have any possible question or suggestion that the minister was involved with directing the police at the same time that the police were investigating a company in respect of which he had some level of ownership. So there is no question of any allegation of impropriety on the part of the minister in this case.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how the Premier knows that. The fact of the matter is, you don't know that. You said yourself in the statement that in fact it is unknown whether any shareholder of the company would be the subject of a police investigation. You can't have it both ways. Either he is being investigated or he isn't!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the other thing is - I don't know if it was a slip or a mistake - but he mentioned in answer to the last question that the minister, former minister, or minister, whatever he is, told the Premier about this situation on Thursday evening.

PREMIER WELLS: Friday morning.

MR. SIMMS: You said Thursday evening in answer to your last question.

PREMIER WELLS: He told me on Friday morning.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, but you did say -

PREMIER WELLS: No, I said that he told me that he became aware of it on Thursday evening. He told me that on Friday morning.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, so you weren't made aware of it by the Minister of Justice until Friday morning, not before. You didn't have a conversation with him before about that, before Friday morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For the purposes of Hansard it is very difficult to pick this up across House. If there is a question I think the hon. member should frame the question. We shall look for an answer (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I just asked a question, Mr. Speaker. I'm asking the Premier is it a fact then that he had no conversation with the minister prior to Friday morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

The hon. the Premier.

MR. SIMMS: No conversation related to this issue.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I had no conversation at all relating to this issue with the minister until Friday morning. It was after Question Period sitting here in the House when he told me that this had occurred and I said: Yes, I knew that it had occurred, because the Deputy Minister told me on Wednesday that it was in the process of occurring. I got that information from him - from him - for the first time on Friday morning.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Just for further clarification. Can the Premier tell us if the warrants that were issued in connection with the case were issued with a police investigation that originated in Ontario? Is that what the Premier said? Or in another province, or is it here in Newfoundland, search warrants?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, my understanding is the police in Ontario - I had thought earlier today when I spoke with the news media that it was the Hamilton police, but I understand now that it was the RCMP in Hamilton who were causing an investigation to be made of an individual who resides in Ontario and is the national sales agent for a drug company in Ontario. That drug company apparently does business with a company called Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited here in Newfoundland.

The police were investigating the actions of that individual in relation to his dealings with the company here. So far as I knew at the time there was no suggestion of any improper action by the company here, or anybody in Newfoundland. So far as I knew they were only dealing with the individual in Ontario. The search warrant was issued here to allow a search to be made of the premises here to facilitate an investigation that was taking place and originating in Ontario.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier specifically: Does the police investigation that has caused him now to ask his Minister of Justice to step aside have any connection to the investigations already under way in this Province with respect to Hiland Insurance? Does he know that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Your Honour, absolutely nothing.

MR. SIMMS: You know, or you don't know?

PREMIER WELLS: There is no connection at all with Hiland Insurance. I mean, if there is, I just heard that now come from the Leader of the Opposition. I can't imagine what possible connection there could be except in his mind.

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

MR. SIMMS: Or more importantly, perhaps, in the minds of the people of the Province. It might be even more important.

Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: No one should be surprised at this turn of events, Mr. Speaker, because this particular minister has continued to be involved in the direction of his numerous business interests. He sits around the Cabinet table, claims not to participate in government decisions. He must be constantly leaving or going in and out of the Cabinet, and he is, in the opinion of many people, and should be to the Premier, a walking invitation to trouble.

A year ago on November 26 - I want to draw the Premier's attention to this - we raised a number of concerns respecting the Member for Naskaupi about his ownership, directorship, of Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited, a company that provides or sells millions of dollars worth of business to this government. I want to ask the Premier. He dismissed those accusations back on November 26. I would like to ask him now: Will he give a commitment to review the issue that we raised then, the government's dealings with that company, and whether or not the minister continues to play a role in directing the affairs of that company?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I caused an enquiry to be made to determine whether or not government does, and here is the reply I've gotten from Dr. Williams who is the Deputy Minister of Health: In follow-up to your telephone call this morning I've checked with departmental staff with respect to purchases made by the department from Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited -

MS. VERGE: What about hospitals?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: If the hon. member would just restrain herself I will give the full text of the letter. All she has to do is just restrain herself for a minute: I have been advised that the department is not doing business with Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited and this has been confirmed by a review of our accounts with our accounts section for the fiscal year to date. No invoices have been processed from this company. Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited however, does business in the health system with hospitals, nursing homes, pharmacies and other agencies in the health care sector.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that is old information. We gave them that information on November 26 in this House when we told them there was $9 million worth of business done and $6 million of it was done by Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited or thereabouts.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is happening with this government over the last year in particular, has caused the public in this Province to have a lack of confidence in the government, very little that it does seems to be aboveboard; its reputation seems to be shot, going down the tubes more with every passing day, everything they touch turns sour. I want to challenge the Premier today, will he at least make an effort to restore some trust in this government and in fact in himself, will he remove this minister from the Cabinet altogether until this matter is dealt with?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have to say I disagree totally with the hon. member. It has not caused the people of this Province to lose any confidence whatsoever in the integrity or competence of this government; it has simply facilitated the Opposition in making their unfounded allegations, it has not caused any loss of confidence of the people of this Province. It just facilitated the Opposition in making those unfounded allegations, that is all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier and now the acting Minister of Justice, questions about Hiland Insurance.

How does the Premier explain the failure of his government, his former minister and his whole Administration, to suspend Hiland's license and to alert the policyholders, when the government got the report of the Superintendent of Insurance dated January 18, containing explicit, alarming, detailed information about Hiland's precarious financial position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will have to get the detailed correspondence and look at it, but let me tell the House what I recall from what I have seen. What I recall from what I have seen is that as soon as the minister was made aware, he directed the Superintendent of Insurance to immediately conduct such investigation as was necessary to do a full assessment of every allegation that was made. My recollection is that an assessment was done and the advice that came back from the Superintendent of Insurance is that, matters had been handled correctly. Now I will go back and get the correspondence but that is my recollection of it.

The minister handled that matter in his capacity as the minister responsible for the Superintendent of Insurance. It was not strictly speaking an administration of justice matter, but that role is carried on by that minister and he dealt with it in that capacity and I have heard him give the answer in the House in detail; I can cause the exchanges of correspondence and memoranda to be tabled again in the House if the hon. member has not seen them.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The supplementary is for the Premier.

I have read very carefully through and through the documentation the former minister tabled in the House last Friday. I would like to ask the minister, the acting minister, the Premier, to explain the puzzling ten-month gap in the documentation about Hiland after the shocking superintendent's report of January 18, there is nothing, nothing at all, until the sketchy memo of last Friday, November 18. Will the Premier tell us whose interest he and his Administration were protecting during that ten-month interval when thousands of consumers paid millions of dollars to J.J. Lacey and Hiland?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that there is any shocking report. My recollection is that the explicit direction given by the minister was to conduct a full investigation and my recollection also, the explicit instruction given by the minister to the Superintendent of Insurance was to take whatever action is necessary to protect the interest of the people of this Province. Now,I don't know how much more a minister can do. We hire civil servants to do the job, and to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Tapper has done the job. Whether or not there is any basis for complaint may well be seen after the investigations are complete but we are not about to interfere with the criminal investigation that is underway and so impair the ability to conduct any prosecutions that may flow out of that criminal investigation. If there is any suggestion that Mr. Tapper didn't act in the manner directed by the minister to protect the interest of the people of this Province, then, when that criminal investigation is over, we can conduct such investigation as is necessary to disclose the whole process of actions by the civil servant and by the minister involved.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is the Premier and the former minister who failed to act. Now, I would like to ask the Premier whether the connection of Hiland's owner, Mr. Gillingham, to the Liberal Party of Newfoundland had any bearing on the Premier's administration's inaction and lenience during the ten-month gap? Did Mr. Gillingham's contributions to the Liberal Party during that ten-month interval influence the Premier's government to ignore the escalating financial problems at Hiland? Will the Premier confirm that Mr. Gillingham sat near him, the Premier, at a $500-a-plate Liberal fund-raising dinner earlier this year and that Mr. Gillingham successfully bid over $10,000 for Meech Lake memorabilia donated by the Premier? Will the Premier, who is also the Liberal Leader and now the acting minister responsible for insurance regulation, tell the people of the Province how Mr. Gillingham paid the Liberal Party? Did he pay with Hiland Insurance funds?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: And did he pay in cash or by cheque?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there were about eighteen questions. I am sure the House will understand if I don't answer them all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I am quite prepared to answer them all but if the member is going to insist on taking that approach of piling up a list of eighteen questions, I hope there is no complaint about whether or not any are answered.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gillingham has no connection with the Liberal Party that I know of. I have never known Mr. Gillingham to ever be connected with the Liberal Party in any manner whatsoever. Now, whether he has been or not, I don't know, but I don't know of any connection that Mr. Gillingham has as a Liberal Party supporter. There were at this dinner, to which the hon. member is referring, a large number of people, a large number of well-known Tory Party supporters, as well as Liberal Party supporters, all of whom have great confidence in this government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - and, Mr. Speaker, recognize the responsibility to contribute to the Liberal side, as well as the Tory side, of the political process. I wouldn't know Mr. Gillingham if I tripped over him. I don't know Mr. Gillingham. There is no direct connection with the Liberal Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, not that I know of. I can only say to you, no, I think that these are just more unfounded statements that the hon. members opposite are prepared to make.

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of people with strong Tory connections, there might even have been a few people with NDP connections, at that dinner, who contributed to the political process in the same way as they contributed to the - I believe Mr. Verge was there if I recall correctly, I don't know. He may have been, he may well have been.

AN HON. MEMBER: The hon. lady would know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I will have to go back and check. But, Mr. Speaker, in the same way that those same people contributed to the Tory Party $500-a-plate dinner they were not unfair to the Liberal Party and they contributed to us, too, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members to allow the Member for Waterford - Kenmount to ask his question.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the members that the source of information is not on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: My question is to the Minister of Education and Training.

The government publicly proclaimed its commitment to academic excellence; however, the Student Loans Division discriminates against students who win scholarships by deducting all scholarship winnings from the recipient's student loan. This policy has caused confusion and great anxiety for the recipients.

Can the minister give a rationale for the practice? Would he undertake a review of this procedure, that on the one hand, pats students on the back when they excel academically, and then lifts the necessary funds from their pockets shortly thereafter?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, when a student applies for a loan, that student is required, by law, to declare his or her income. Now, the program is very much aware - we want to encourage people to excel in different courses and what have you. For that very reason the program allows a $600 scholarship to be totally ignored, not considered as income - $600 in a year.

These are the rules. I didn't make them; I inherited them. I stand by them, and as long as they are the rules, then we have no option but to enforce them.

Now, to say that somehow this discriminates, I don't share that view, because the way I would deal with that issue is, if I, as a student, have an income from a scholarship of $600 or $1,000 or whatever the case might be, at the end of the day it is going to have cost me less money than it would have cost the student sitting next to me without the scholarship or what have you.

If it is a case that I have personal resources, I have to spend less of my own money, or if it were a case where I had to borrow, I would have had to borrow less money, be it $1,000 or $2,000, depending on what the scholarship is. So the kind of logic that the hon. member is using totally escapes me. Let's hope to goodness he was teaching english or philosophy, and not mathematics, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is with communication, because the complaint that we received is that this policy has not been adequately communicated.

Would the minister undertake to communicate policy to all scholarship winners, make references to that policy in the student handbooks and all post-secondary institutions, and when the scholarship is awarded by government, would the minister undertake to have government and its agencies, when the cheques are issued, to make an appropriate notation, if that is possible, so that this kind of complaint will never surface again?

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

MR. DECKER: That is an excellent point, Mr. Speaker; however, in order to get an application now for a loan, all students receive this Newfoundland Student Aid Program; it is a handbook. It is attached to the application form.

Now, on page 6, in bold print: `Remember, you are required to report any income, even if you receive it after you submit your application.'

On page 10, `Scholarships: If you receive a scholarship after submitting your application, you are required to notify the student aid division in writing regardless of the value of the scholarship and your application will be adjusted accordingly. You must show the amount,' and then it goes on down the line, Mr. Speaker - that is page 10. Page 13: If your financial situation changes at any time after your submission, you are supposed to notify Student Aid. I don't know, but I assume that when a person gets to the stage where he or she is applying for university, he or she can generally read a handbook. Now, I don't know what I have to do, unless I have to interview all 10,000 students myself and say, If your situation changes notify Student Aid. We have gone the last mile on this one. I am not standing up here today to defend everything that Student Aid has done, but I suspect the hon. member is referring to a specific case of which he only heard one side. I have looked at both sides and I stand by Student Aid on the particular case, if it is the same one I think he is talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. The former minister, when he changed the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal to the Review Commission, indicated in this House that one of the results coming from that change would be that the decisions made by the division, or the new commission, would be final and binding. Can the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations say today that is the case, and that has been a result of that change?

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My information from the new Commissioner, appointed on July 1 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Eric Gullage.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, Eric Gullage, a very competent individual. When he was appointed, we talked about his competency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: I say to the Member for Kilbride, if he wants to contain his colleagues, I will be happy to answer his questions, but if they are going to interrupt -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to me, based on the results of the minister's response, that he does not know, himself, what is happening. Let me assure him that there is a case, and there are others, that have gone before the new review commission and have been viewed and ruled in the injured worker's favour, that the Workers' Compensation Commission itself is now taking to the Supreme Court of the land, but in fact the reverse for the injured worker is happening. When the commission makes a decision in favour of the commission it is indicated to the injured worker that this is the final decision. It is final and binding on the injured worker.

My question is this, if the decisions are final and binding on the injured workers in this Province, then they should be final and binding on the Workers' Compensation Commission. Will you ensure that will happen?

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

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. member that the legislation is as clear now as it was when we had the appeal tribunal, but the hon. member must remember that everybody has a right before the law. If the appeal tribunal, or now the commission, hands down a ruling, it still doesn't stop a worker from going to see a lawyer and subsequently, going to court, so why would it stop the commission either?

Now, let me say to the hon. member that since we put in the new commission with Mr. Gullage, we have cleaned off a backlog of just about 230 people on a $500-per case situation. We cleaned all that up, and what we also realized is that the claimants are not sitting for six or seven months. The percentage of those appeals that have been upheld has not significantly changed. So what this government has done, in reality, has done a lot of good for those people who were sitting in limbo. We have cleaned it, and it just seems to be the attitude of this government to carry on this kind of procedure. I don't know why the hon. member is upset.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this hon. member is upset for two reasons, because the double standard of this government prevails in every aspect of decision-making that they put in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they have been around so long, they have a bad case of freezer burn, in my opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I will say to the minister again, so that he clearly understands what the issue is here - and the constituent has written him, not my constituent, but a person has written him regarding this. When the former minister brought in new legislation to change the appeal tribunal to the review commission, understand, he said that one of the outcomes of that new legislation would be that the decisions made by the commission would be final and binding, which would speed up, I say to the minister, the process he just talked about. However, that is not happening. What has happened in two specific cases -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am getting to the question, I am trying to explain to the minister because he doesn't understand (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the member can get a little faster to the question.

MR. E. BYRNE: What has happened in two specific cases is this, that the commission has made a decision in favour of an injured worker, the commission has taken it to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: May I finish my question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member should ask a more concise question.

MR. E. BYRNE: There is a question.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like the question now, please.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Workers' Compensation Commission did not accept the commission's decision as final and binding. Why is there one standard for the Workers' Compensation system and one for injured workers?

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

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, it was just fifteen short minutes ago, that this hon. member wanted to take his private members bill off the Order Paper on this whole subject, he wanted to shove it away, hide it away. Now he is indicating the real need of debate, so tomorrow, we will debate it, and surely we will clean it up then.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, the hon. member is not correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was going to do this during Question Period but I thought it would be improper. Inadvertently, I do believe, the Leader of the Opposition left the impression that the Premier had asked for my resignation. In defence, not only of myself, but I think, of the Premier as well, I should point out that at no time did the Premier ask for my resignation, at no time did he suggest that I resign, at no time did he hint that I resign. I made the decision for my own reasons, which I believe were honourable at the time, and a number of them included to protect the integrity of the administration and the government and to have the matter cleared up.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: It has been, but I want to repeat, that at no time did the Premier ask, suggest or hint that I resign. That decision was made by me, and I want to clear it up, because Hansard can last a long time and I don't want to have that impression left.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I take the hon. member for his word. I didn't mean to imply anything at all, other than that there were two ministers who left the Cabinet, for whatever their reasons were, for what, seemingly, is less significant matters than this. If only the Member for Naskaupi had the same integrity as the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, he would leave, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table six copies of seven Special Warrants and one (inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: During the summer.

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

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hereby table the annual report for the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Newfoundland and Labrador, for the fiscal year 1993-1994.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, one day last week, I have forgotten the exact day, an hon. member opposite asked me to provide information with respect to the matter of per diems to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the Member for St. John's South. I undertook at the time to make enquiries as to the basis under which such payments were made and I wrote to Your Honour, as you will recall, because, of course, Your Honour supervises the operations of the House and that payment comes as part of the operations of this House. So I wrote Your Honour, I believe that same day or the next morning, I have forgotten which, and asked Your Honour to provide to my parliamentary assistant such information as he may request relating to the issue, including the applicable rules and similar payments made to all other members of the House of Assembly since the implementation of the Morgan Report recommendations in 1989.

Your Honour, of course, caused this information to be prepared and I am grateful to Your Honour for providing the background information as to how this was developed going back to 1981.

I now propose to table Your Honour's reply, together with all the attachments, as a full answer to this question that was given me in the House, and it shows all of this information. I trust I have made enough copies for those who are interested in receiving them.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of seventy-two residents of the Province, some of them from the West Coast, Deer Lake, Reidville, St. Judes, Nicholsville area, Springdale and the general Green Bay area, and it is again relating to an issue I have brought before the House on a couple of occasions over the last few days. The prayer of the petition is as follows;

We, the undersigned, request that the House of Assembly instruct government to take such steps as are necessary so that moose antler can be obtained legally for use in the craft and souvenir business.

Mr. Speaker, I brought this matter to the attention of the House now for a number of days, as I indicated, and I shall continue to bring it before the House as long as I have petitions to present and people to send them to me. What we have here is an instance of a government that is stonewalling on an issue that requires a common sense, compassionate response - a response that was promised by the hon. the Premier on the VOCM Open Line Show a few days ago when talking to one of the principals of a company in the moose antler souvenir business in my district, a common sense response, Mr. Speaker, that so far doesn't appear to be coming.

What we have is a commercial enterprise that is growing in leaps and bounds in the business of making souvenirs from dried, cured, moose antler. But unfortunately, they cannot establish a sound commercial basis to the obtaining of their raw material. Their business was financed on assurances from the Wildlife people that there was sufficient raw material in the Province to keep them going. ACOA and Enterprise Newfoundland put forward cash and have offered cash since in terms of financial assistance to this company, only now to find out that one of the principals of the company has been charged with illegal possession of antler. I have been unable to get any kind of commitment from the Administration except general words of sympathy from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, some words of sympathy from the Premier on an Open Line program, but essentially no movement at all from the Minister responsible for Wildlife.

The current Wildlife Act says in 43(1)(b) that: The minister may upon application issue a skin dealer's licence to purchase or receive for processing the skins or hides of big-game animals. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is legal to traffic in hides, to make products and sell them and so on and so forth. We have now developed an industry that makes use of antler and produces products out of antler. There are twelve, fifteen artisans in the Province who do antler carvings for the commercial market, along with this company in my district, but so far, we have had no promise or indication from the government that things will change, that the law will change, so that people in this business can legitimately obtain a source of raw material that they can depend on.

You can't start a commercial enterprise based on charitable donations of raw material. The business plan submitted to ACOA and to Enterprise Newfoundland, all made reference over the last number of years to the purchase of raw material. Seeing we are in the business of producing antler souvenirs, it doesn't take a genius to understand that that is the purchase of antler. Government sanctioned this activity, encouraged this activity, promoted this activity, and now is trying to kill this activity. My constituent has noticed that the Wildlife officers are cruising in the area of his particular little factory two or three times a day now, by some strange coincidence, since I brought this matter before the House.

But not all is perfect in the state of Denmark, Mr. Speaker. I have before me here a permit to export wildlife, signed by an individual whose name I shall not release, who is listed in the government phone book as being in the Wildlife Division. It is basically a fill-in-the-blanks permit to export wildlife. In accordance with section 60 of the Newfoundland wildlife regulations, blank is hereby authorized to export items described below from such-and-such a place to such-and-such a place. The sender of this shipment is a Newfoundland artist specializing in carvings made from moose and caribou antlers and from whom it is understood that these items, not sold, will be brought back to the Province by the permittee - signed by an individual. Then there are a whole bunch of blank spaces where you can fill in whatever you want as to what the products are.

This is circulating in the artisan and souvenir places throughout the Province. This is a wide-open permit. So everything isn't perfectly tight in the Wildlife Division of this government. I resent the way they seem to be implying that my constituent is somehow to be equalled with someone poaching black bear for their gall bladders, or someone bringing in millions of dollars worth of contraband from South America in some ship in the dark of night. What we have is a legitimate business sponsored by government, that asks government to allow it to grow and prosper, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I had a few words of support for my hon. colleague, the Member for Green Bay, and I would like to add a few more words today to support the petition put forward by my colleague.

Today, I have the advantage of standing after listening to the minister speak yesterday to the petition presented by my colleague. To me, it shows again the consistently callous way in which members opposite treat business in this Province. Even right down to the smallest type of business, a lousy, measly craft industry in this Province that everybody on the other side, everybody on this side, and just about everybody in this Province today, supports. What do they make? Where do they get their product? Where do they get their resource?

With what is going on with animals in this Province today, all you have to do is walk in the woods. Members opposite should probably do that, and take in a hunt, and go in and look at some of the outfitting camps in this Province, go and look at some of the hunters who are coming out to the roads in this Province with their kill. Look at what is happening along the Trans-Canada of our Province. And they want a few measly antlers to try to make a living, to try to put bread on the table, and we are not even allowed to do that. We can give 10,000 hunters a licence every year to kill an animal, but when they bring the antler out they are not allowed to give it to their buddy. They can give him the meat, give him a note saying the tag number, and I gave to So-and-So five pounds of moose meat, you're allowed to do it, but the antlers, throw them down in the bogs so they can't use them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, they can give them. I know what you are nodding about.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can give them.

MR. WOODFORD: They can give them. Who in Green Bay knows if Rick Woodford killed a moose in Cormack yesterday or the day before, or two or three or four years ago? It just doesn't make sense.

I can understand, and I would be the first one to stand in my place and say that there should be no export permits for the body parts, especially with respect to black bears in this Province. I did that last year with two or three constituents of mine. I think it is crazy, because it is happening; it is so blatant.

The licences are issued for moose and caribou in this Province, and we have a few people here trying to make a living. Can't we do the same thing with the antler that we are doing with the meat? Can't the minister have a sheet of paper with the permit from the department saying that if the tag number where the animal was killed was put on this and given to the craft shop, that it is perfectly legal?

It is so simple, yet, here we are making a criminal out of a small business person in this Province who is trying to make a living, and trying to utilize something that is just being thrown away, thrown in the bogs, thrown out to the dumps and so on.

If I killed an animal today, I could give each member here a piece of meat as long as I give them a piece of paper saying, killed by So-and-So - the tag number on it, perfectly legal. Why can't the minister tell those people, so we can utilize all the antler - there are lots of them being thrown away - utilize it, make it perfectly legal, and make the business much more viable. We can have more of those around the Province, and god knows, we need them.

The minister said yesterday there was an animal killed in Grand Falls for the antler only. How many outfitters come into this Province and kill the animal for the antler only? Every one of them are looking for a trophy. How many Newfoundlanders, I submit to the minister opposite, are going out and killing moose for the antler only?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not very many.

MR. WOODFORD: Now, I tell you, in this day and age, not very many. I would say if they are killing them for anything it is to be utilized as food, not for antler only. So I would submit to the minister, it is a very simple - I don't think this should take months, days, weeks. I think the minister can sit down with his officials and do it by regulation. I wouldn't think it would even have to come back to the House. Do it by regulation; put a permit in place. None of those people want it for nothing. They just want the right to do it and the right to try to make a living in an honest fashion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Humber Valley makes some good points, some very rational points.

I have been Minister responsible for Wildlife since August 26. One of the first things brought to my attention after I became Minister responsible for Wildlife was the set of regulations that apply to wildlife and, if I remember correctly, we are dealing with wildlife regulations that are under the name of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Len Simms, I believe, if he would go back and look at it himself. These are the regulations we are dealing with. We have been working under these regulations.

One of the first things that was brought to my attention after I became minister was put to me by the hon. the Member for Naskaupi, saying, We have a problem with some aspects of the wildlife regulations and we should be reviewing them.

I believe I said yesterday in my comments that we have been reviewing the Wildlife Act and wildlife regulations as part of our regulatory review. I have had discussions with my officials relative to the Wildlife Act and regulations and, at this time, I agree with the hon. the Member for Humber Valley, there is nothing that we need to bring back to the House in terms of changing the Wildlife Act; anything that we might need to do, we can do by change to the regulations on this particular issue.

I met with my officials yesterday on it and reviewed where they are in the review of the regulations; I had further discussions with them this morning on where we are with this review of the regulations, and in the very near future, I expect I will be presenting something to my Cabinet colleagues as to how we can address this particular issue that is before us today and maybe we will resolve it; I think we can resolve it fairly.

In the meantime, it is possible to get a legal permit to export wildlife; the arts and crafts, it is possible to get that legal permit today as long as these arts and crafts have been made with materials obtained legally. I believe, in the very near future, we will be able to accommodate more than that as is allowed with other types of animals parts. What I speak against, is that, we are not going to have a free-for-all, we are definitely not going to have a free-for-all. But in the review of regulations that we are doing now, I believe we will resolve this problem in the near future and it will be done very quickly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Green Bay, on a point of order.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just say to the hon. minister that I would like to see the review and action taken before my constituent goes out of business.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker to present a petition, another petition from my district, Baie Verte - White Bay. I will read the prayer again:

We, the undersigned residents of the district of Baie Verte - White Bay, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of Employment and Labour Relations to immediately implement an emergency labour program. With the economic conditions which exist, we find ourselves in a desperate situation. We ask the minister and his government to show compassion and understanding in this urgent matter.

Now, Mr. Speaker, since Thursday of last week, I started to present these petitions and I am starting to realize now, why this particular subject, right now, today, is put back on the back burner and overshadowed. Because, Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a situation this week, of so much controversy and scandal brought up, that this particular issue, which should be the priority of every member of this House of Assembly this week, is put on the back burner and overshadowed. Because there is so much controversy and so much media hype about the things that are happening in this Province, it is unbelievable.

As all of this unfolds in the media, and as of today, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, more petitions have come in to other members of the House. My colleague, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes received some today; the Member for Placentia received more, and this morning, after continuing with these petitions, I had calls from students from my district who are now in St. John's waiting to go to school in January, still trying to find some work up until Christmas so that they can qualify for UI, and these people are in desperate, desperate need.

Now, time after time, many of the members of this House of Assembly I know, have had calls from people in their districts. We have talked casually with members on both sides of this House, and I was not exaggerating or fabricating calls and letters and petitions that I get. As a matter of fact, just before I came to the House today, the people from a community in my district, Westport, called to say that they want a petition brought to the House and, of course, like I would, and as I would expect of all hon. members, I said that if they would get the petition to me, then I would present it tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, the point is that I am going to continue with petitions on this very important subject, a very important issue, because the list that I have received from the development association of 250 names, since last Thursday, the number of people on this list has grown, not only that, but there are people now who have run out of weeks and now they are going to need twenty insurable weeks.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is crucial that this government realize the controversy that is going on out in the media. They will have to sit back for a second and realize that this is a situation that has to be dealt with immediately. And I am glad to see the Minster for Employment and Labour Relations back in the House because I want to make sure that he receives the support of his colleagues, of Cabinet colleagues, of private members on both sides of the House, and not be diverted from the real issue, that we have people in desperate need; not to be diverted by the controversy and the scandals that come up day after day. These things will take their course, Mr. Speaker.

The reality here, is that people in this Province are looking at a very bleak Christmas this year. It is November, and we see it coming. Three years ago, with 18 per cent unemployment, we had a $12 million emergency employment program. Today, November 22, we have a rate of almost 21 per cent - 20.8 per cent, I think, is the exact number, a 20.8 per cent unemployment rate. And now, all of a sudden, the government jumps up and says: There is no emergency response this year, there is nothing.

The same quote rings over and over to me and to my constituent who summed it up better than any of us can. He said: `I realize it is not the answer to our long-term solution for the Year 2000, but it is certainly the answer to my supper table tonight.' I will keep remembering that time after time. It is serious. I would like for once, maybe sometime today, on any of these petitions that are going to keep coming to the House, that somebody on the opposite side would have the gall and guts to stand up and say: Yes, we do have the same calls and we do have the same respect for these people who find themselves in this situation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't see why these people - I'm sure they have received the calls, because they have told me. I would just like to see the party lines crossed and the members on that side of the House stand up and say: Yes, we have the calls and yes, we believe that it should be a priority in this Province today, and not wait for the Federal Government, as the minister suggested a couple of days ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I just ask that the government and the minister act responsibly and act immediately, not a week or two weeks from now. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I want to rise to present a petition presented by my -

MR. SIMMS: Support the petition.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MR. SHELLEY: Support the petition.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes, support the petition - too many interruptions here, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to need protection from my own colleagues here - support the petition presented by the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

I was waiting because I thought the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations would stand in his place to at least make some contribution towards the petition. I realize he was outside dealing with matters of great urgency with the press. I know he was outside dealing with urgent matters, personal matters, with the press, so I know he didn't get the petition. But it is a matter that is becoming more and more important in the Province.

Yesterday, I received a list from my own district, of people who need insurable weeks' work. They don't know where they are going to find the work without some kind of an emergency response program. As the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay has said now for two or three days, this problem is going to grow, it is going to get bigger. It is not going to get better without the intervention of the Provincial Government and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Now, what I find somewhat strange about the attitude of the government is they say: Well, we can't take care of all of them; so if we can't take care of all them, we won't take care of any of them. That is the attitude that this government takes over here. We starve 30,000 rather than only starve 15,000. That is their attitude, to starve them all. Let's not help any of them. That is the attitude and that is the way this government thinks when it comes to employment and other issues in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, you don't help anybody, I say to the Member for Eagle River, except yourselves, that is all you help, and it is becoming more and more evident every day. The main reason a number of them are sitting over there is not to look after the people of the Province but to look after themselves, their own personal interests. It is becoming clearer day by day, Mr. Speaker.

Now, this is a matter that is not going to go away, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. The sooner you get on to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and ask him for a few of those dollars that he was so proud to stand up and boast about yesterday, chest stuck off in front of the cameras with the big raglan on. His shoulders hove back bragging about what a wonderful job he has done, yet people out and about the Province are crying out for some work. I say to the Minister of Finance, with all the compassion I know he has, provide a few dollars for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to put some people to work in this Province. Put them to work so they will have some dignity and some income to feed their families to help them get through the difficult months ahead.

MS. VERGE: Get some back from Tom Hickman.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: If we had what they wasted on him, Tom Hickman, and Hydro, and the Rothschilds, if we had what they wasted and threw away on them what an employment program we could have. We would not have the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations going to Ottawa begging with the cup in hand, saying, give me a few pennies. We would have enough money. I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that he should never let the word roll off his tongue again. He should never let the word Sprung roll off his tongue again.

What you have been involved in, and what you supported and participated in, with the Trans City Holdings scandal in this Province, with the Hydro privatization scandal in this Province, scandal, scandal, scandal, and here you are telling the people you cannot provide a few million dollars to put some people to work who do not know where they are going to get a cheque to put food on their table I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. You should be seen and not heard.

MR. SIMMS: It makes the cucumber look like a pickle.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The leader is right, what you have been involved in makes the cucumber look like a pickle.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have him stirred up, Mr. Speaker, I have struck a nerve.

I want to finish by supporting the petition presented by my colleague for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SIMMS: You know as much about that now as you know about your legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition of 1233 people of the Baie Verte and surrounding area. The petition reads as follows: We the undersigned are very concerned about the recent decision to close the Tommy Ricketts arena in Baie Verte. This facility is the backbone of the winter recreation program for our children. Recreation for our youth has always been very important to this peninsula and we think it is essential, and will continue to do so. We demand that funding be allocated to keep our stadium open.

Mr. Speaker, just a short while ago I had meetings with the community council in Baie Verte, and as this government is well aware the community of Baie Verte finds itself in a very crucial situation at this time with respect to its budget, due especially to the situation that exists with the mining company in the community right now and the amount of taxes that were suppose to be paid by this particular company has not come forward to the town, therefore they find themselves in a situation where they cannot meet their budgetary needs for this year.

The minister understands and realizes this, and so does the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs understand it, as I am sure he has been in contact with, and met with the community council of Baie Verte. Now, as far as I know it is still ongoing and the budgetary problems are trying to be worked out.

Mr. Speaker, the history of the town of Baie Verte itself is that it has been a prosperous town over the years, and with the mining development there it has had some very good years, and has been a great contributor to the economy of this Province. Because of the miners there who worked for so many years, also the forestry people, and the fishery people, all sectors of the economy, it has been boosted by the different resources in the area.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the potential with mining in that particular area right now is good but a current problem exists now with Terra Nova Mining in particular who cannot pay their taxes to the town so, of course, the town has a problem with their budgetary problems for this year. On that note a decision was made by council, and as far as I know it is being reviewed again, that one of the ways they could resolve their budgetary problems is to close the stadium in Baie Verte.

Mr. Speaker, that stadium - as anybody knows in all the districts - is the heart and soul of any recreation program of any community. It was a sad, sad day when that announcement was made, Mr. Speaker, and people living in the area are totally distraught by the whole idea that the stadium will not open this year. Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that this is not just a stadium for the people of Baie Verte. If you will talk to anybody in Baie Verte, the communities of Ming's Bight, Wild Cove, Seal Cove, Fleur de Lys, I mean you go around and around, that stadium is a regional stadium.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one point I want to make here today, a group has been formed, a community service group, a concerned citizens group since the decision was made. Mr. Speaker, they have sent a proposal to the federal government, to Mr. Tobin's office and they also requested a meeting with the Minister of Recreation. Now the meeting was set for yesterday afternoon but lo and behold the chairman of the concerned citizens group called to tell me that they would probably not go to that meeting. Well lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, the minister called at the same time to say that he would not be there anyway.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why the concerned citizens group decided not to attend the meeting was because lo and behold, on Thursday or Wednesday, I am not sure exactly what day, the Minister of Recreation, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation said in the media, on VOCM, that he would attend the meeting with the group but that he already had his mind made up, the decision was made and the answer was no.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is such a thing as protocol or doing things properly, the minister certainly did not handle it properly. The least the minister could have done before he went to the media, I say to the minister, was call the group and let them know that they were going to sit down and discuss some concerns. They were trying to get some direction from their government, this minister and, Mr. Speaker, they could not believe it, a volunteer concerned citizens group, that they would hear the minister who they were going to meet with, a couple of days later saying the results of a meeting that had not even taken place. He made the response to a meeting that had not even taken place, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SHELLEY: The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. They heard in the media - this concerned volunteer group are very concerned about this situation, Mr. Speaker - heard the minister on VOCM radio say that the group can come and meet with me but the answer is no, before he even heard what they were going to say, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on top of all of this I got to ask the minister to respond, did you know before hand what they were going to ask you, specifically? Did you not have any options for them to explore? Could you not, as the minister responsible for recreation in this Province, allow them at least the opportunity to speak with you and discuss some options because they are not familiar with what routes to take within the government to see how it could be alleviated or some kind of assistance, either financially or some kind of help be given to this group so that they can take on this feat of trying to get the stadium back open.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I thought it was totally out of protocol for the minister to respond the way he did. I had a call from people, from the concerned citizens group, last night who were very distraught about the way the minister handled the situation but, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister will respond to that and respond back to the concerned citizens group. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: I will take the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. members comments because I am dealing immediately with the problem of Baie Verte and their financial situation, trying to deal with it along with a number of other communities in the Province that basically have the same problems.

Mr. Speaker, I take satisfaction, to a certain degree, in being able to say that I discussed the closing of the stadium with the town council from Baie Verte and as you know, Mr. Speaker, being a former councillor from Hants Harbour, you know that stadiums and recreation facilities are the sole responsibility of the communities they exist in. I am surprised that someone who would be outside of council would be requesting meetings with ministers and with people as it relates to a regional facility or a stadium in a town when they know it is the town councils responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how many stadiums, I am not sure how many rec centres, I am not sure how many tennis courts and outdoor rec centres we have in this Province but they must number in the hundreds. I believe I am mistaken there, I think there is one stadium in the whole Province that is showing a profit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is that?

MR. REID: Bay Roberts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every year?

MR. REID: No, I suppose they are not really. I am saying to you quite honestly that if we had to take responsibility for subsidizing stadiums to keep them open, to provide funding to stadiums in your district, I say to the hon. member, then I guess we would be faced with providing subsidies to a number of areas of the Province.

The ironic part of it all is the fact that the mayor and council met with me some time ago and they tell me that there are more important things in the community than a stadium - snow clearing, for example. It was just last week that I gave the council permission to borrow - well, no, not to borrow; I gave them an outright grant - I gave them an outright grant, on behalf of the government, to purchase a piece of snow clearing equipment because they didn't have a piece of decent snow clearing equipment to plough the roads in Baie Verte. So, no, Mr. Speaker; the answer is absolutely no, this government will not provide subsidies to keep stadiums open when there are communities around this Province that can't afford to keep their streetlights on, can't afford to provide decent water and sewage services and snow clearing to their public, and I am referring to Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. gentleman is correct in saying that all of those communities around Baie Verte are using that stadium -

AN HON. MEMBER: They should all contribute.

MR. REID: Then maybe they all should contribute and, as far as I know, they don't contribute one cent to that particular arena.

I have all the sympathy in the world for the hon. member and for that particular community, but today I am dealing with tens of communities in just as bad a shape, if not worse, than the Town of Baie Verte. I will take the Town of Baie Verte and all the other communities that are in this Province that are having immediate financial problems, and deal with the whole issue rather than answer a question, or answer and deal with one particular town at a time, and I can't do that.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have a few words in support of the petition submitted by my colleague from Baie Verte - White Bay.

Mr. Speaker, the situation that the council in Baie Verte finds itself in... I am glad the minister stood in his place because he is so right about all the councils around the Province having problems in maintaining roads, both summer maintenance and winter, with regard to snow clearing.

The problems the councils have in this Province today are brought on because of the administration opposite. In 1989, when Mr. Gullage changed the municipal operating grants for this Province, that was the death knell for municipalities in the Province. I can go on and on and on with regard to - well, Mr. Hogan came after, and then the now Member for Carbonear, who came after Mr. Hogan.

Mr. Speaker, councils are finding it very frustrating. The council in Baie Verte - from what I even said - the member opposite, from what he said to my colleague, said they were looking for some direction. He didn't even say they were looking for money. They were looking for some direction.

AN HON. MEMBER: A meeting.

MR. WOODFORD: A meeting with the minister, and the minister responsible for Tourism and Recreation should have had the courtesy to give those people a meeting, and at least sit down and discuss some options.

AN HON. MEMBER: Decency.

MR. WOODFORD: Have the decency to sit down and discuss some options.

Mr. Speaker, another thing this government is famous for is trying to fix something that is not broken.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I suggest the member put that in his pocket before I make a comment that is not going to be too complimentary to the member.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be serious about this question, and I want to tie it in with the Member for Baie Verte, with my community now, the community of Cormack. We had, for the last four or five years, through the offices and the good graces of the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, given the community of Cormack - because an engineering assessment was done some five or six years ago and they said that they found some structural damage and so on. They got on with this and they got on with that, and they had engineers come in and nothing was wrong with it.

In any case, the council there agreed that the stadium wouldn't open if there was any snow load or any wind. Wouldn't open for the community, that operated the last five or six years, no problem. All of a sudden last week they got a call from their insurance company in St. John's, R.C. Anthony, saying that the insurance on the stadium was cancelled. Why? Because they got a call from a Mr. Dave Molloy with the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Saying?

MR. WOODFORD: Saying that the boards were rotten. Did anybody ever put on skates in this Province and go around the stadiums in this Province and look after the boards before the ice was put on? Probably not. I have to say, though, that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation should. He is on enough of it.

Mr. Speaker, and then one of the comments made by the gentleman to the insurance company was: They got support in the past but they won't be getting it any more. If that is not a vindictive type of statement for a civil servant in this Province to make. The community is out there, their stadium closed, the insurance company cancelled the insurance, and the kids, all the youngsters in - not costing the government anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: This is a situation - well, the minister, why doesn't the minister? Why should a civil servant have that much power? It is up to the minister to chastise and do something with a civil servant like that. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, those same civil servants better be very cognizant of what is going on in other areas around this Province, because if they are not, I am. I know of reports in there from other areas in this Province and they better act. Because they should have had the courtesy to call that council first and give them a chance to have some input into it. They did not.

I submit to every member opposite (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this is the third petition we have. I move - no, I'm not the Minister of Justice any more, it is the Government House Leader, thank you.

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

MR. ROBERTS: At least for a brief period. We will see.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the Orders of the Day be now read.

Motion carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, two things, if I might. The first is that the House - I'm sure many members would be aware - but the House would want to be aware that the wife of the Member for St. John's East, Anne Martin, gave birth to their first child last night, a baby girl I understand. The mother and daughter are well and I'm sure members on all sides would want to congratulate the member and Ms. Martin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Secondly, I would ask if Your Honour would be good enough to call the matter we will be debating first today, and maybe last today, we will see, and that is the bill that we got onto second reading yesterday by my friend for Gander. It is Order No. 13, Bill No. 20, the reciprocal taxation act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 23, Bill No. 42.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, it is Order 13, Bill -

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 23, Bill No. 42.

MR. ROBERTS: No, Bill No. 20, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 20?

MR. ROBERTS: Order No. 13, Bill No. 20, is what I said, yes. Isn't that right?

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. Did the hon. member say Order No. 23?

MR. ROBERTS: No, I said Order No. 13, Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 20.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the Chair misunderstood.

Order No. 13, Bill No. 20.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: No, he is up, Mr. Speaker, if I speak I close debate, so....

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand today to continue debate on Bill No. 20 as put forward by the Minister of Finance.

In The Evening Telegram yesterday in reference to our House Leader brought forward in responding to a petition the minister said that tighter purse strings are producing a much improved financial outlook, and predict an economic growth of 3.4 per cent. Carrying on with the same line of thought I remind the member that there are people out there in rural Newfoundland today who are suffering because of those tighter purse strings.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, when he was shouting out yesterday at the close of debate, is a prime example where he has taken away services from community councils, and I am sure my district is no different than others here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I have five communities in my district this year who will now have to go out and raise funding to pay for the expenses of snow clearing, salting and sanding of their roads. They went and put it out to tender, and it came back at $89,000 - $89,000 new dollars that those five municipal councils, community councils, will have to find this year. In some cases, taxes will have to be raised by as much as 700 per cent, as much as $1,200 from one household, to pay for those extra costs, and we wonder why all this money was saved, or where it was coming from. It is coming from the backs of the poor and the less fortunate Newfoundlanders out there in rural communities today.

The minister went on to speak of the Hibernia project. It generated new life, new money, into rural Newfoundland. I couldn't agree more, but I can assure you that we should be reaping a lot more benefits from the Hibernia project than we are seeing today.

Out there on the Hibernia project today you have people working fifty, sixty, seventy hours a week, and as much as twenty-eight and thirty days at a time, not being able to get a day off. I am not talking about special skills that have to be brought in from other countries. I am talking about labourers. I am talking about carpenters, places where you can go to the union halls in this Province and find any number of competent individuals on a lay-off slip without a job. Those people would only be too happy to go out to Hibernia and take part in a project out there and work forty hours a week. In fact, I believe while we are experiencing the economic times that we are seeing here today, that we should even consider legislation to make it mandatory that nobody work any more than forty hours a week when it comes to some trades and some industries where we have people unemployed today and capable of doing this same work.

We hear Mr. Axworthy on television and on the radio talking about the unemployment insurance system, how it must be addressed and our social programs must be changed. I say to Mr. Axworthy, and I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, that we are all Canadians, and if Mr. Axworthy doesn't want to share his jobs with Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland, then I suggest he should share his wealth with us, because if anybody sitting in this Legislature today thinks that rural Newfoundland can exist and survive without some of our social programs, then they are being less than realistic.

As everybody knows, in rural Newfoundland today, the existence of rural Newfoundland is based on a resource economy, a resource economy that is a seasonal economy. The construction workers, the loggers, the fisherpersons that I know in rural Newfoundland, don't go looking for a lay-off. They are laid off because the elements, the weather, or the jobs dictate that they must be laid off. There is no place for them any more.

Mr. Speaker, if we think that those people can survive on the money they make in the fifteen or twenty weeks work that they obtain during the construction season, then I am sure that we are being less than honest, because those people are willing to work. If there were jobs available, they would certainly go out and participate in them and be responsible people, to feed their families.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Baie Verte got up today and presented another petition that was brought forward from his district, and people got up in support of it. It is passing strange that nobody on the other side, nobody on government side, are getting any of those petitions, or are standing up, except the minister, and responding to them, because I am sure that the need is there in all Newfoundland communities, in all rural areas, we are experiencing the same downturn in the economy and we are hearing from our constituents, hearing them crying out for make-work programs to be put in place.

That is not what government wants to hear, because everybody knows that governments would like to do away with unemployment insurance. In fact this government, in their income support program, their proposal then was to make unemployment insurance harder to get.

Mr. Speaker, be qualified for less work weeks. People would need more work weeks to qualify for less benefits and for shorter periods of time. So it is not in their mandate to qualify people for unemployment insurance. You would find no argument over here, Mr. Speaker, if the jobs were in place and if people were refusing to take a job or refusing to go to work then they should be taken off unemployment insurance but the one thing that is missing in all of this, Mr. Speaker, is jobs, work opportunities. They are just not out there and until they are put in place, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we should maintain our safety nets, maintain our unemployment insurance, put some jobs in place, get our people working and then look at ways of doing away with some of those programs because they will not be needed anymore.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations indicated to me that he was taking a paper down to Cabinet to look for money and he was having a tough time getting it through. Mr. Speaker, I suppose when you are in Cabinet you do not have time to deal with your constituents on a daily basis. That is understood because you have departments to look after but I say to you that if you have been getting the telephone calls that I have been getting and hearing the horrifying stories that I have been hearing - and either you or your executive assistants must be hearing it - then, Mr. Speaker, you would respond to the call as well.

Mr. Speaker, we hear people getting up here in the House talking about somebody over on the west coast who has a little craft business going and because of a technicality, government is actually closing them down because of a technicality. Judging everybody, Mr. Speaker, as guilty before they are even guilty. Those people are going out trying to create jobs, trying to create employment and that is going to be the success stories of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, not the 100 jobs or the 200 jobs, it is going to be the small family industry. It is going to be the small family industry that employs two and three people. Those are the success stories we are going to hear about and if government does not pay more attention, if they do not help those people, Mr. Speaker, if it means taking them by the hand and giving them some support, giving them government loans, then, Mr. Speaker, we are going to lose a glorious opportunity.

So, Mr. Speaker, I call on the government of the day and I call on the Minister of Finance to take some of his money, take some of the money he is making from his lotto machines with the new found money there, take some of the money that he is finding in other places, money that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is going to find with his new rules and regulations and put it into job creation. We all know that the deficit is very important. It is very important that we control the deficit. Somewhere along the lines it is no different I suppose than running a household but you do not go out and buy a house, take out a mortgage on your house, Mr. Speaker, and lock the fridge door. You still support your family, you still do the things that are needed, you still keep bread and butter on the table and you are still responsible as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, just to conclude my remarks, I ask the minister if he would respond to the plea from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and I ask if he would respond to the plea of Newfoundlanders out there and support rural Newfoundlanders and help bring forward some extra funding to create some much needed work, emergency funding to get some of our rural people back to work. Thank you very much.

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

MR. CAREEN: It gives me pleasure today to rise on Bill 20 and to continue the conversations of the people of this side of the House since yesterday when the bill was first moved. The minister stood up yesterday to say that he was cautious but the government was in better shape then they had originally said they were. The government might be in better shape but the people of this Province are in worst shape.

Yesterday I had the privilege to present a petition from one small store, in one town, in the district where fifty-one people had signed a petition, that was there for about two-and-a-half days, regarding work and there are other petitions coming in from all through Placentia district, from Point Verde right on through the Southern Harbour regarding the need to put an emergency response in place in this Province. People need work. People need work desperately. Some people look at what the TAGS people are getting; there are a number of people, thousands of them who are going to be thrown off TAGS come December, but then there are other people out there as well.

Construction people who never got the work this year that they ordinarily use to get; labourers, carpenters, electricians. Electricians in the District of Placentia had great hopes of getting to Marystown, they had applications down there. Seven weeks ago there was talk that they would be hired on in a short period of time and that now is gone out the window for these experienced tradespeople.

I read and heard one day last week where the suicide rate in this Province is rising. It was a matter of fact, for years, decades that the suicide rate in Newfoundland was below anywhere else in North America, and it was based on the stock that we came from because in Europe the suicide rate is less among the British and the Irish than anywhere else and over there as well; but when I hear suicide rates rising, it disturbs me, honestly, it disturbs me. These poor devils without hope, whom do they have to turn to?

Now mind you, it might not be on work, it might be on other problems but whatever it is, it is a drastic loss for their families and what these poor people had to go through moments before they took that initial step; but I am sure there are people out there in this Province in their darkest hour, people who have never been to welfare before, never darken the social services door have gone. I have known a person, one particular individual who circled the social services office in Placentia four times before he went in; four times. He had nothing against the people who run social services but he was so used to working himself.

Social service offices in Placentia and others throughout the district are getting like revolving doors, because of the escalating rise in unemployment. I said yesterday, that throughout the district unemployment is increasing. In the Placentia area alone it is hovering now around 70 per cent and if there is no hope for dad or mom, what do the children think I wonder? There was an article today in this small news release about today in history. In 1906, the International Radio Telegraphic Convention adopted SOS as a universal distress signal, how appropriate. SOS meaning Save Our Souls. With this Administration, it means Save Ourselves. Save Ourselves. The government might be well but the people that put them in power to protect them, to help, are not doing very well at all.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, it has been noted has gone to his colleagues in Cabinet for support. I can only believe the minister when he says he has done that and I am asking support for the other ministers in this time of need for the people of this Province. We were told this past couple of days, last Friday and today, about waiting on Ottawa. Well, the Member for Twillingate said it right yesterday. He said: we don't have to wait on Ottawa, what we get from them is gravy but this Administration has a responsibility to respond to the people of this Province now.

But I mean, it is the same Ottawa that is telling poor people to tighten their belts. They are talking now about building a racial relations building in Ottawa now for some $24 million while students and the unemployed and the working poor are asked to tighten their belts. It is not consistent at all. We should take the lead. The government of this Province should take the lead in looking after its own.

I've known many instances of old age pensioners who supplement their offspring, who in turn can help their grandchildren try to get through these bad times. The safety nets are needed more now than they ever were. There has to be a way, there has to be.

MR. EFFORD: There is always a way. Where there is a will there is a way.

MR. CAREEN: The only reason the minister talks about a will is that there might be money in it.

MR. EFFORD: What is wrong with that?

MR. CAREEN: Money for you, sir. I'm talking about some money to get into the pockets of the people of this Province. Some light at the end of the tunnel, some help, something they can grasp onto. I know there is responsibility that goes with government, and I can understand positions that people take, but must it always be hard line?

I have a bit of confidence, I'm an optimistic-type person. I think the ones in this House who have the responsibility of saying yes, I'm optimistic enough to hope that in the next few days and not beyond that there will be some measure announced to start to help the people of this Province, and when Ottawa comes through with theirs in early January - because we are not talking about before Christmas, we are talking about some time in January that they might step in to help - that could be gravy. Right now we need the leadership and the responsibility to be started by the people of this Administration. Thank you.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Has he already spoken on this?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it is my first time.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the minister, I speak so often in the House he may get confused as to what bill I've spoken on and what bill I haven't spoken on. I'm interested to hear the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation's remarks. If he would like to stand and comment on this particular piece of legislation I would willingly sit down and let him speak, because he speaks so infrequently in the House on any piece of legislation, and responds to nothing even when questioned, Mr. Speaker. If the former Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, now the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, I believe, would like to speak on this particular piece of legislation, I would certainly be willing to sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, and I understand ministerial hopeful for the job of the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, consistent throughout the remarks of my colleagues for Bonavista South, Placentia, and Baie Verte - White Bay, and other members of the House on the opposite side, in dealing with an emergency response program this year, government's silence on the issue really has been deafening. The reasons coming from the opposite side, particularly the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, I think he said, I'm sure he said, that this government will do nothing that will interfere with the negotiations that are ongoing with the federal Government of Canada regarding social security reform. That has been basically the response from this government through its Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

There is a larger issue here. The larger issue, as I see it, is what are many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians going to do today as it comes to any jobs that will provide any amount of money that will feed their families, pay their rent, pay their light bills, pay their mortgages, and keep their children in school.

Now, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and other ministers have said also, that we do not have the resources to help everybody, and while that may be the case governments may not have the resources at any time to help everybody. The fact remains that since 1989 this government consistently, at this time of year, looked at a situation that developed in the Province where many people, men and women, were short two, three, or four weeks work, that would enable them to qualify for unemployment insurance.

In 1990 this government announced a $12 million emergency response program. The unemployment rate at that time was 18.6 per cent and government felt in their own wisdom at that time that an emergency had developed, a crisis had developed, and government responded. Last year the former Minister of Employment and Labour Relations stood in this House early in October and announced a $6 million emergency employment program. Intervention, I believe, was the word he used.

He stood on a ministerial statement and said that the need had been determined because there was indeed an emergency in this Province where people needed a number of weeks to qualify for UI. Last June during the Budget estimates I asked the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance - if I could get his attention for a second - I asked him then, I said there was no Budget allocation in your estimates for an emergency employment program. Why? Can you answer that, and will you put in a certain allotment of money, whether it be $6, $8, or $9 million to address the need that will inevitably occur this fall?

His response to me was this, why do it? If we put X number of dollars in and identify an emergency employment program in our Budget it would not be an emergency. We have to wait to see if one exists, and if so, we will respond. That is what he said to me. It was a great answer if it had been a correct and factual answer, but time has borne out the converse, Mr. Speaker. The reality is far different than what the President of Treasury told me. The proof is in the pudding, Mr. Speaker.

This year, right now, the unemployment rate has touched 21 per cent. It has stayed at that level consistently and has been rising consistently for the past six months. What is even more alarming is that it is the highest unemployment rate this Province has seen since we joined Confederation. Notwithstanding those statistics it is important to note, and many members, if not all members in this House know this to be true, that all of those individuals who are now in terms of getting compensation from NCARP, but now the TAGS are not, and I repeat, are not included in those unemployment statistics.

My colleague the Member for Placentia stood here yesterday and indicated that in his district the true unemployment rate is touching 70 to 75 per cent, alarming. It is truly alarming. My colleague for Baie Verte - White Bay indicated in this House yesterday that a constituent of his who has worked consistently for twenty-five years, a seasonal worker who has worked consistently for twenty-five years has gotten enough weeks each and every year to qualify for UI when times were a little bit tougher, for the first time in his life will have to go to social services, will have to depend on a cheque from social services.

Now, while that may be the case for many people, and many more people, it is certainly because of government's lack of response to the unemployment crisis in this Province, and it will be the case for many more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker. Now, government says it does not have the money, the time for such programs is over, this is what government has indicated.

Let's look at the last year and see where government's political priorities have been. The emergency employment program is a program that many people in this Province not only want but need. Clearly, many people know that it is not the long-term solution when it comes to fixing our economy, but it is a solution for today. It is a solution for many families today. We can talk about ideas that will fix our economy, we can provide a plan, whatever that may be, but people cannot eat that. They cannot sit down and drink it. They have no other alternatives. Again, let's look at what the political priorities of this government have been.

Let's take Newfoundland Hydro, for example. In the last year, estimates from Treasury Board provided to the House of Assembly, tabled upon request of questions asked in Question Period, there has been spent in excess of $8 million, I believe, on privatization expenses.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Six million dollars? I thought it was closer to $8 million, Minister. That is my understanding. During the Estimates Committee meetings, my understanding was that certain money from Treasury Board, certain money from the Department of Mines and Energy, at the time - hold on, let me finish before you shake your head, because I know I'm right - and money from the Economic Recovery Commission, from three different departments, three separate entities, was spent on privatization initiatives generally. And on Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro we are talking close to $8 million. Why do you say $6 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) never (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) never (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Didn't the minister stand and say that from his department there was $70,000 or $75,000 spent on privatization?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) came from Hydro.

MR. E. BYRNE: Came from Hydro. So the Crown corporation Hydro, owned solely by government, spent $75,000 or $80,000, is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that.

MR. E. BYRNE: More than that. Mr. Speaker, we may dispute the actual number but the reality is clear, that there have been millions of dollars spent on privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, clearly, a policy initiative of this government that the people in this Province don't want to have anything to do with. Yet, the priority of this government went in that direction.

One wonders if it is still in that direction. The truth is still not out. It is still on the Order Paper. The fact remains that the privatization expenses on Hydro alone could more than compensate for an emergency employment program this Fall, if government had taken the chance to withdraw it when it should have, and to provide at this time, this year, a program that would help people feed their families.

Let's look at some of the other expenses that government have put forward. The Income Supplementation Program, touted at the time as being the answer that would provide a basic supplement or a basic income to all Newfoundlanders, that was supposed to have provided incentive to work, not to provide disincentives not to work. How much money did we spend on that? Close to $1 million. That is what has been spent on a report, on a program, that will find itself on the bookshelf twenty years from now that still will be there collecting dust - $1 million without any consultation with the people of this Province.

The list goes on and on. Why hasn't government responded - that is the question that I would like the President of Treasury Board to answer - to this particular need at this particular time? Why has government over the last four years continuously and consistently offered an emergency employment program at this time of the year, and suddenly, without any clear explanation, taken a dramatic shift in policy away from doing that, at a time when we most need it? Those are the answers that have not been forthcoming, the real answers, the true answers. Is the President of Treasury Board going to address that?

We see this year, in a statement he provided yesterday, that the Province is in a somewhat better financial condition than it expected to be. How good could it have been if we had taken another route from some of the policy initiatives of the government, such as Hydro privatization? I ask the minister that. Would it have been good enough, or is it good enough, that we can respond to a crisis, that we have a responsibility, as Members of the House of Assembly for Newfoundland and Labrador, to respond to.

That is our responsibility. Whether we take it seriously, or whether we do not, that is another issue, and at the end of the day the people will decide on that issue. And I beg the minister and Cabinet to seriously look at this, to put a real face to this issue, which I am sure that many members in this House can do, but I will do for my own district.

Right now, as of last night, I have 195 people from my district who have contacted me, who are in need of two, three and four weeks work - none over four weeks thus far. I have a man who has three children under the age of eight. The only income - he has nine weeks work; he needs three more. He doesn't know if next month he is going to be in his house or not - his mortgage is up.

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation said yesterday to some of my colleagues here: Don't be so foolish; people are going to eat. Sit down; don't be so foolish.

The reality is that some people may not eat. They will find a way, by the compassion of others, a compassion that should be alive and well in this House, but is not - it doesn't seem to be, but it should be. That is one story.

Another story - a young man, twenty-two years old, an apprenticed welder with ten weeks work, needs two more; just married, eight-month-old baby, what do we tell him? What do we tell his wife? What do we tell them? Where am I going to give him two weeks work? I don't have at my disposal thousands and millions of dollars like the Minister of Justice, or the former Minister of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Two weeks work; how can I give him two weeks work, I ask the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: You must have some work to do around your house.

MR. E. BYRNE: I can't give him qualifying weeks. I can't give anybody insurable weeks. I don't have the wherewithal, the financial wherewithal personally. If I did, I would certainly try to help somebody, unlike this government, but I do not.

What do we tell that twenty-two year old young man? What do we tell him, his wife, and his eight-month-old baby, when he says, `What you are telling me is that I am going to Social Services tomorrow to get diapers for my child.' That is exactly what this government is telling him, and it is exactly what this government is forcing that individual to do.

Let's talk about another case, a thirty-five year old woman, a single parent in my district, who phoned me, has seven weeks work, needs more employable weeks, has a guarantee to get two more from an employer, but needs the additional on top of that, two children, one fourteen and one twelve, a single parent, no support payments coming in from her estranged husband or relationship, none whatsoever - he is not even here; no one knows where he is. What do we tell her? This government is telling her: Go to Social Services. Line up at the Minister of Social Services' door. They will take care of you there.

Here is another question that government has failed to answer: What will the cost be in terms of money, the hard, financial numbers, if an additional 4,000 people between now, as we speak, and the end of December or the end of January - what will the cost be to this Province's Treasury? Will it be $4 million? Will it be $6 million? Will it be $8 million? Where is the diminishing line, I ask the President of Treasury Board to answer when he gets up? Can he tell me if, for $6 million dollars, as we did last year - if that provided 200 or 300 jobs, or 600 jobs, whatever it provided, and it kept those people off social assistance, if those people had to go on social assistance, would it have cost more than $6 million? He knows the answer, as I do. Of course, it would. It would be much more than $6 million, there is no question about it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. You sit down, look at what social services pays to a group of individuals over a year and you know, Mr. Speaker, everybody should know if they took the time to look at it, that it will be a heavier drain on this Province's Treasury, as we are now, standing by and doing nothing, that is the issue.

That is one issue, but let's get back to the answers given about not interrupting social security reform. How would offering an emergency employment program this year, right now, interfere with the Federal Government's plans on social security reform? I think in that answer, Mr. Speaker, there may be more questions that would be asked of this government.

In employment programs now, like the emergency employment program, there seems to be a more provincial-federal co-ordination of who gets money, when they get it, how much they get, if you are on social assistance, if you are on unemployment insurance, if you are in a growth industry, if you live on the Avalon or off the Avalon. These are other questions that must be answered but, Mr. Speaker, I won't delay it much longer.

Let me say in closing, that I know the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board has had as many calls as I have had. I am sure that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has received thousands of calls, not only from his own district, but from around the Province, as all hon. members have. Can he explain in detail today to this House, and through this House to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, why this government has decided, this year, to take a dramatic move to the right in terms of government intervention, in terms of an employment emergency program, and if he can explain it, can he stand up and justify it? That's the question. Thank you.

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to have a few brief comments on this bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague, the Member for Kilbride and to all of my other colleagues who have spoken in this debate this afternoon - and my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South who have brought some real concerns to the floor of this Legislature.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the big concern raised here about the inaction by government and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, is that for the last number of years, Mr. Speaker - I know, when we were in government, when this group over here were in government, there was always funding made available by the Province. The Provincial Government always made funding available for job creation programs at this time of year. The former Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, Mr. Speaker, the leadership candidate and his campaign manager now are having another strategy chat.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I would say to the minister - and I will give it the honest truth, Mr. Speaker - I believe the minister wants to put in place a program and I believe he lost the battle in Cabinet. Now, that is my judgement - I could be wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think he wanted (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I could be wrong, but I think he went to Cabinet and asked to put in place what has been put in place traditionally over the years, and the Premier and the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, the Premier's bosom-buddy, turned him down. Now, that is what I feel happened to him. I cannot see the Member for Port de Grave, for example, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, saying no, when we all know he is getting as many calls as we are. I don't think the Member for St. John's South, the new minister, would not want the government to implement a program. What really bothers me is, Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the Member from Twillingate, not one other member over there has spoken up about the issue, no one.

The Member for Eagle River, Mr. Speaker, who had more tongue than a pair of logans in the last session of the House, hasn't opened his mouth, Mr. Speaker, since he came in this session.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the Member for Harbour Grace?

MR. TOBIN: No, I'm not saying anything about the Member for Harbour Grace. He works hard for his constituents. The other thing about the Member for Harbour Grace is that he never spent his time in the House mouthing off when he was over there. Now he gets up, he becomes a parliamentary assistant to the Premier, he shifts down on the third floor from the eighth floor, given no authority whatsoever, except a salary, and he comes in here, and is he going to tell me that his constituents don't have a problem with no program put in place? Is he going to stand up and say that it is not a problem in his district?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CRANE: Who is that? Who are you talking about?

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) shrimp trawler?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. Member for Eagle River, there is nobody has to scuttle jobs in this Province when we have a premier like we have today. Because he will scuttle every job. He got on television, going to bring home every mother's son. A woman wanted to kiss his feet. Yes, there are a lot of mothers' sons left the Province since he became Premier, and there are 350 mothers' sons going to be without jobs in Marystown because of this Premier. That is what is going to happen. There are serious situations taking place in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk about building Sprung. Tom Hickman got $20 million (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You just heard the hon. Member for Eagle River tell a member on this side of the House to shut up. I would ask the Speaker, is that parliamentary language?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to caution members about the language that they use. It does nothing to enhance the debate. Certainly while it may not be unparliamentary, it certainly does nothing to enhance the forum here in this Chamber, and I caution members on that.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I guess what the Premier said about the Member for Eagle River as being immature, once again gave us all first-hand knowledge of why the Premier said it, with that kind of language and conduct coming from the Member for Eagle River. A parliamentary assistant to the Premier getting on like that.

There is a situation developing in this Province today in my district as we talk about government's finances and everything else, a situation where there are 350 men and women who are going to lose their jobs in Marystown because this government has sold out lock, stock and barrel. The Premier of this Province gave the keys of the Province to Mr. Ken Hull from HMDC.

AN HON. MEMBER: You scuttled the shrimp trawler.

MR. TOBIN: Gave the keys of this Province, Mr. Speaker, to Mr. Ken Hull from HMDC. The same as this Premier scuttled the jobs when he - the Member for Eagle River talks about the shrimp trawler. This government, when we were in government, put in place a $23 million agreement, and there was $11 million left in that agreement to build a trawler in Marystown. This Premier took the money from Marystown, put it in another district - in Buchans as a matter of fact - and sent the jobs and the trawler to Norway. That is what went on.

We know what is going on now with the jobs going to Saint John, New Brunswick. Scuttled. This government has stood by and watched Ken Hull and HMDC with the blessing of the Premier take 350 jobs. If anyone thinks this is over I have news for him. Because tomorrow night there is going to be a major demonstration in Marystown. Nothing to do with the marine workers union, nothing to do with the councils, nothing to do except with the public service unions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, how would the member know anything about the truth when he works with this Premier?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is unparliamentary!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members are again getting into language that borders on unparliamentary language. I ask hon. members again to refrain from that kind of language.

MR. TOBIN: The Premier writes this big letter to Ken Hull. What a farce, what a fiasco.

What did he say, Mr. Speaker? This is what he writes on October 25: however people cannot see the logic in moving the contract to Saint John. I cannot explain it to them because as I indicated to you in the last meeting, I do not understand it either. Mr. Speaker, how can he say yes to taking away the work, how can the Premier of this Province say yes to moving the jobs to Saint John, New Brunswick, when he does not understand the reasoning behind it? How can the ministers sit by and watch the Premier devastate this Province because of the way he has thrown up his arms and let Saint John, New Brunswick take over the work opportunities?

There is another issue I want to mention here and that is, the Premier got up in the House of Assembly one day and stated that the union gave concessions when I went down to Marystown. I went down to Marystown and I asked for concessions. The biggest fright he ever got, Mr. Speaker, the biggest fright he ever got because he was trying to play the same game that he played on the shrimp trawler, the same game he tried to play. The union gave him the concessions and he got some fright because he did not want the concessions, make no mistake about that, the Premier of this Province did not want the concessions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. TOBIN: He wanted to ask for the concessions and he was devious enough, that he would come back when the contract was gone, and do you know what he would have said?... if they had listened to me, the work would have remained in Marystown. That is what would have been said but the union did not play into his hands, but then he went to his defence the other day and he said: the union did not agree to all of the concessions we asked for. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here today of September 27, and it is from the Marystown Shipyard addressed to the Marine Workers Union, Local 20, Marystown, attention Mr. Wayne Butler, President:

Dear Sir: I am writing to follow up on a recent meeting regarding two concessions which shipyard management is seeking from the union with respect to Vinland Industries drilling modules contract. These are: the union will permit management to pay electrical and instrumentation tradespeople recruited on contract to meet peak demands, a travel and living allowance; and the other one, Mr. Speaker: in situations which may arise, due to the lack of sufficient space at the shipyard or Cow Head, if it is not possible for us to meet project requirements, management will be permitted to subcontract work to third parties.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what did he say?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. TOBIN: I am wishing to follow up with a recent meeting regarding two concessions which shipyard management is seeking from the union. They got both of them. Who said it is not true? Who said that is not true? The letter is there, Mr. Speaker, signed by the President of the shipyard; that is the truth but what the Premier said, I do not know if the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board was referring to what I said or what the Premier said when he said it is not true, but I would think he is talking about what the Premier said, I would think.

Now, how can the Premier come into this House and tell the people of the Province that he did not get everything the union asked for? There it is in black and white, but it is that type of misinformation that the Premier seeks in putting out to the people of this Province regarding Marystown, and that has become so serious, Mr. Speaker, to the point that the Mayor of Marystown has now gone on a hunger strike. He has to go on a hunger strike. In 1993-94, for the mayor of a town to have to go on a hunger strike to prevent government from taking the jobs, from stealing the livelihood of the people of this Province, is regrettable; and I tell you something else that is not happening very well, and I would like the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to listen to this.

Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues would allow the minister to listen to what I have to say for one minute, I will make my point, and that is, that under the structure of layoff notices at the shipyard, people getting laid off, that I believe come next week, will be the last cheque people will have until after the new year. Now that is what is happening in this Province. People, and I don't care who you are, if you are an hourly paid person in the shipyard or anything else, when you have to go into the month of December, all of Christmas and New Year's, without a cheque, it is not easy. It is not easy, but because of the inhumane way that the President of HMDC and the Premier of this Province decided to go after the jobs in Marystown, because of the callousness demonstrated by both gentleman in attacking the people of Marystown, is that they will not... I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation that I will not sit down. I will make my point, and if he doesn't like it, it is too bad, but there are families in Marystown that will not have a pay cheque between next week and after Christmas.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the shipyard people who are getting laid off, because of the way they are going to get laid off, and their qualifying period or waiting period for UI, they will not have a cheque. That is not very easy. How do you expect these people to stay? How do you expect these people to survive, when they know that they are not going to have anything for Christmas, and watch a barge next week sail out through Marystown harbour with their livelihoods because this Premier caved in and threw away the keys of the Province, gave it to Ken Hull to operate? How do you expect people to accept that?

It is now time for people to bury the partisan views and stand up for the workers in this Province. Tell the Premier that we do not support what you are doing in terms of giving away and sending off the work to Saint John, New Brunswick. Tell him that men and women have the right to work in Newfoundland. Remind him of his election promises for two successive elections, when he was going to create jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring home people.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, every mother's son.

Remind him, Mr. Speaker, of what his commitment was, because I don't think members opposite, I don't think the Member for Port au Port would agree with the work going to Saint John, New Brunswick. I don't think - there are other members over there who don't support the work going to Saint John, New Brunswick. There are people over there who have constituents working down there.

The other day I saw a gentleman from Stephenville being interviewed, I say to the Minister of Environment and Lands, one of his constituents being interviewed, expressing his disgust by the fact that he is now being laid off. That is what is happening in this Province.

The Premier of this Province supported it. He is part of it, he gave it his blessing, he backed away from it, and he sold out 350 jobs to Saint John, New Brunswick.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: That is what happened, I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Is that parliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair didn't hear what the hon. member had said.

MR. TOBIN: Let me say to the hon. member, if he wants to shout that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am sure if the hon. member has said anything unparliamentary that he will withdraw it.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation that in a rat race the only one who wins the race is a rat. In a rat race, a rat wins; that is what I said to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: But he's still a rat.

AN HON. MEMBER: It means you're in the wrong race.

MR. TOBIN: That is right. That's the point. I can't say that, I say to my colleague from Mount Pearl. I can't say a member is still a rat, but I can say that if there is a rat race, a rat wins.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have never said anything I knew other than the truth, I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and I can tell you something else, why would the Mayor of Marystown be on a hunger strike, begging for the truth from this Premier and the President of HMDC and others? Why? Because - I can say this - I went around, together with my colleague from Grand Bank, and we met with a whole slew of people, and we were never told the truth.

We were never told the truth by anyone. We were lied to, Mr. Speaker. That is what is going on in this Province. Well, stop it if you do not agree with it. This Legislature is open. Bring the appropriate legislation before the House to stop it and we will pass it without debate I say to the minister. That can be done quite easily. Bring in the necessary legislation. It is foolish to stop now.

Mr. Speaker, I can say that the people of Burin - Placentia West and the other Newfoundlanders will know what he said, that it is foolish to stop 350 jobs from leaving the Province. The men who work in the Marystown Shipyard I say to the Member for Exploits do not think it is foolish. The Federation of Labour who will be down there tomorrow night do not think it is foolish. If you watched N. Golfman last night on CBC she did not think it was foolish, but then none of them make any sense. Mr. Speaker, that will tell you where he is coming from. God help this Province if he is successful in his bid to wrestle away the leadership of the party from the Premier. God help this Province if that attitude prevails on the eight floor. I do not think he will win the leadership convention.

The problem is we have just seen a display by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation as to why the work is leaving this Province. When I phoned down to my district this evening, when I talked to the crowd again and told them what a former union leader in this Province said, who stood out on the steps and cried because he could not get them any more. He said, I cannot get you any more. I have done my best. I believe the Member for Grand Bank was there, I think, when he stood out on the steps crying and said, I cannot get any more. I have done my best. He broke down, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: He was like Brutus, he wept.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not spreading a big lie and I do not think that is parliamentary, I say to Your Honour in the Chair. If he is going to be allowed to say I am spreading lies then I am going to reciprocate. My nature does not permit me to be otherwise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I did not hear what the hon. member said. The hon. member knows that he is not to interrupt a speaker that has been recognized by the Chair and I ask the hon. member to refrain from making comments. I cannot hear the comments. I understand that he is making comments but the Chair cannot hear from here what he is saying. Even if hon. members are in their own Chair they do not have the right to interrupt a speaker.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation will abide by your ruling.

The people in my district and the rest of this Province are going to have difficulty accepting the fact that this minister could stand in the House and say that none of them know what they are talking about, the names of the people I referred to, and that it is foolishness and childishness to try and protect the jobs of 350 men and women from the Burin Peninsula and from other parts of the Province. I say that the people are not going to take it too lightly.

I am sure the Mayor of Marystown who is trying to do his part, who was forced to go on a hunger strike, I am sure he is not going to take it lightly, Mr. Speaker, the comments of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I tell him right now that if there is anything I do well it is to inform my constituents of comments made by people such as the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will have to make up another story.

MR. TOBIN: I do not have to make up another story. The one thing about us is that we are not strapped to our seats.

MR. ROBERTS: There are times when (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a good chance I will have my seat next week, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh I did not say he would not, did I? Why are you getting so agitated because I said that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, could you restrain the minister?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the Government House Leader now not the minister.

MR. TOBIN: No, no, the Government House Leader is still a minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh yes, okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister without portfolio.

MR. TOBIN: There has been ministers without portfolios before.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister of full time salary he said. Yes, the minister with a full time salary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West. I ask the other members to stop interjecting, please.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I don't know why the hon. members opposite are so easy to irritate. I think I know why, Mr. Speaker, we heard the Member for St. John's Centre say it today, that it is time he wished the members on his side of the House would stop being so childish and immature. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations got down on the floor of the convention when it was raised about the situation in Marystown and he said it is not a labour issue. It is not a labour issue; 350 jobs leaving Newfoundland is not a labour issue and he was not asked to get involved.

Mr. Speaker, you should not have to be asked to get involved as Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. You should have been to the Premier's office saying: get to work, Premier! Get with it Clyde! Get with it is what he should have said. You should have went to the Premier and said: get with it, Clyde, protect those jobs. That is what you should have said.

The Premier over in China, Mr. Speaker - more trips, Mr. Speaker, more money wasted on travel - not by this minister. He has not been anywhere yet. By the way, I understand that this minister is going to Ottawa to try to get the jobs that we talked about earlier this evening but there is one thing, Mr. Speaker, the Premier was in China, the Minister of Tourism - where was he?

AN HON. MEMBER: Over in Japan.

MR. TOBIN: The old geisha boy, Mr. Speaker, the old geisha boy over in Japan. No wonder, Mr. Speaker, his brother-in-law is ashamed of him. No, he doesn't have two.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: You have two, he hasn't. He wishes he had neither one.

Mr. Speaker, that is what is happening in this Province. You got Marystown shipyard being gutted and nobody saying a word. You got the fisheries in this Province, Mr. Speaker, without a minister. The Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture - Mr. Speaker, neither minister. That minister over there, Mr. Speaker, I do not think you can question his ability on agriculture but, Mr. Speaker, I tell you one thing and I say this in all the respect that I can muster, that the minister, in my opinion, knows very, very little about the fishery. He knows a fair bit about dogs, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was driving in yesterday morning, I say to the minister and I listened to the program again. I heard it the first time and I heard the dogs barking, I heard the minister saying, why do you laugh, sir..

MR. SULLIVAN: No that was the dog saying why do you laugh.

MR. TOBIN: What?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Tell us what happened.

MR. TOBIN: Dogs are laughing when they are barking. Mr. Speaker, that does not surprise me because anyone would laugh, a dog, a cat or anything if they had to listen to the minister. If they did not laugh, Mr. Speaker, they would not have much left but the dog is laughing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the time I have left is too valuable to be wasted on the minister. I want this government, Mr. Speaker, I want the members opposite, all of you, to go to the Premier and say: Premier, protect this work - ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker. And I will make this request once more. I ask the government if they will set up a legislative committee of this House to deal with this issue, to have the right to subpoena people. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, having the right to subpoena the Premier of this Province and have him sworn under oath? Can you imagine if we could subpoena the Premier of this Province and have him sworn to tell the truth? If we could bring in Ken Hull from HMDC and have him sworn before a committee to tell the truth?

Mr. Speaker, if we could get the two of these people to swear to tell the truth, then we might find the answers. And then we could bring in the bureaucrats and all of the people involved in this. We may know what is going on, but there is a blatant attempt to cover up what is happening, so I ask members opposite and what ministers are left in the House, and in the absence of the Premier, Mr. Speaker, I will make my request to the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, `Bungay'. If I could have the attention of the Deputy Premier, I would ask him if he would talk to the Premier and say: Boy, yesterday, the request from the Member for Burin - Placentia West or whatever he wants to call me, made a lot of sense, and that is, have a legislation review committee set up to look at the issue and find out why the work is going to Saint John, to try to get -

AN HON. MEMBER: What has that to do reciprocal taxation agreements with the Federal Government?

MR. TOBIN: Because I am talking about the reciprocal trade agreement you have, Mr. Speaker - no it is not reciprocal but the one-way trade agreement you have with Saint John, New Brunswick, and ask the Premier if he will set up a select committee -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: I am very pleased to have a few words in this debate. I couldn't help but be struck by the message from the Member for Burin - Placentia West, locally, usually called `flick the Bic Tobin'. I mean, here he is, Mr. Speaker, telling us how we should be standing up and telling the Premier this, telling the Premier that, haul the Premier on the carpet and give it to him; and you know, Mr. Speaker, I guess, if we were to look at the example he set when he was over there, he would have a track record for getting up and telling the Premier what to do.

I know, when he was on the bus that time, going down on the South Shore, he got up and told the Premier: Don't get off the bus, Premier. The Premier of the day said: Now, Mr. Tobin, what is that crowd there in front of the bus? Of course, he told the Premier the truth. That is the welcoming committee, Mr. Premier. Of course, you know, he told the Premier the truth.

The Premier then, of course, said to Mr. Tobin: Why do they have those things in their hands, Mr. Tobin? Again, he called the Premier on the carpet and he told him the truth. Oh, these are flags of welcome, Mr. Premier. That's what they are for.

Now, Mr. Premier said to his parliamentary assistant at the time: Well, why are they pointing them at me, Glenn? Why are they pointing them at me?

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this was no welcoming committee. This was a real people speaking to a real Premier, and telling him that they had no time for him.

Then he moved up from parliamentary assistant into the Cabinet room, and I say this is where he set the example again, when they had the old chinaware sale, the fire sale on Cabinet. When it came up on the Cabinet table, here we have fourteen wine goblets, $20 each for the wine goblets. Do I hear $10; do I hear $5? Do I hear $2 - here you go.

Here was the Member for Burin - Placentia West. I am sure he stood up and told the Premier of the day: Don't you take those wine goblets, Mr. Peckford; don't you take them home. When the rosewood table came up, valued at $300, then they said: Do I hear $200? Do I hear $100? Do I hear $20? $5 - take the table and go. The Member for Burin - Placentia West I am sure, stood up on that Cabinet table and said: No, Mr. Premier, you are not going to take the public assets home. You are not going to do it. I am sure that is what he said.

Mr. Speaker, the time when Philip Sprung waltzed into the Premier's office and said: I want a blank cheque; I want the taxpayers of this Province to give me a blank cheque to go and try some goofy experiment out in Mount Pearl, I am sure the Member for Burin - Placentia West said: No, Mr. Peckford, you cannot give him that blank cheque. You cannot give him the right to go out and put all kinds of equipment in, blowing up the place out there, flowers going everywhere, into people's bedrooms, flowers growing like mad out there in Mount Pearl - drove the Member for Mount Pearl to Lewisporte. He is gone to Lewisporte. I am sure that Mr. Tobin and the parliamentary assistant of the day said: No way; we are not going to allow this to happen. We are not going to allow the taxpayers of this Province to be abused in this way.

When it was necessary to get another Order in Council to give him another $2 million, I am sure he stood up on that table and said, no, there will be no more taxpayers' money going to this silly ludicrous project. I am sure that is what he said. I am sure that when he pulled out that old Bic lighter, he said: I am not going to light that Cuban cigar you have there, Mr. Peckford. I am not going to light it, and that Chivas that you have there in your room that we just ordered, $20,000 worth, you take that back where you got it from, the $20,000 of Chivas and the $15,000 worth of Cuban cigars, and every other thing that you can imagine down in that private dining room that we closed down when we got into office. I am sure the parliamentary assistant of the day, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, put his foot down. The record is very clear I am sure.

If you go back over in the Newfoundland Room of the QE II Library, you will find page after page, press release after press release, where the Member for Burin - Placentia West stood up to the Premier of the day and said, no more waste of taxpayers' money, no more big china sales, no more Sprung greenhouses, no more liquor and cigars, no more trips to Moscow to look at Red Square, no more walking around the Kremlin and looking at the way it used to be back in Alexander's days, no more $200 tips for the limousine down in New York City.

I am sure he stood there time after time and said: No, Mr. Peckford. You can take my resignation. I am standing here on a matter of principle because you are abusing the taxpayers' money. You are taking the money and you are blissfully blowing it, and obviously, our children are going to have to pay for it. That is I am sure on the record of the day. The record of the day will be very clear.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in the absence of all the information we, on this side of the House, are about to take no lessons from the Member for Burin - Placentia West on government ethics, on public spending, or responsible government. We are not about to take it. We have a ministry here today with the Hiland Insurance affair, that has opened the doors, has given out the information. You don't have to go to the Freedom of Information Act, you don't have to go up and bang on the Premier's desk, you have the information on the Table of the Legislature which is open to do the people's business - it wasn't for years and years while that member sat at the Cabinet table.

We have no apologies and we have no regrets, and we will take no lessons from that hon. crowd opposite, Mr. Speaker. We have an open government, an open ministry, on all aspects of government. If you want the information you have only to request it. You don't have to go through the Freedom of Information Act, you don't have to go through all the other nuances of secrecy. Here we have minister after minister standing up and being accountable, being open and being frank with the people of this Province and I tell you the people of this Province are responding. The people of this Province are telling us that we are doing a good job, that we are being responsible.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: The last poll that was released, Mr. Speaker - now here we have the rump and the left down there saying something. He just got back from his caucus meeting out in Gander where there were more bird watchers on the tarmac at Gander Airport then there was NDPers out to his annual meeting, Mr. Speaker.

I remember going out on the plane to Gander and I saw a meeting of the Newfoundland Pony Society and there were more members at the meeting of the Newfoundland Pony Society then there were at the NDP annual meeting but that is an aside, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: And you had whole horses at the Pony Society.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes and we had some whole horses at the NDP meeting.

Mr. Speaker, we have no apologies to make. Our ministries have all been open, our information has always been forthcoming and the people, yes, are responding. The last public opinion poll in this Province showed that we, in the Liberal Party and we, as a Liberal Government, went up eleven points in the polls and are now back where we were last year when we won another second majority government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: - and there is absolutely no doubt, Mr. Speaker, in my mind that when the first minister here again decides to call an election that we will be there and we will be back on this side of the House whenever he chooses to do so.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to leave those remarks that I know will go down in history today and be recorded because they needed to be said. They needed to be told. The people opposite need to be reminded of the kind of example they set, Mr. Speaker.

With that I will sit and let the Minister of Finance carry on the tremendous job that he is doing by starting the day with the statement that he made there yesterday. Mr. Speaker, with that I will adjourn the debate for today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Okay, you are just adjourning -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Has the motion to adjourn been carried? If not perhaps it should go to a vote, we will take care of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: You do not need leave I say, Mr. Speaker, to my friend. There is a motion to adjourn now -

AN HON. MEMBER: Adjourn the debate.

MR. ROBERTS: Adjourn the debate, yes that is right, that is correct.

On motion, debate adjourned.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend from St. Barbe is always anxious to divide.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would move that the House adjourn. Before I ask Your Honour to put the motion, tomorrow we will be meeting at 2:00 p.m., and now that we are back to the rules in the Standing Orders for Private Members' Day, we will be dealing with the first one on the Order Paper, which is the one standing in the name of the gentleman from Kilbride.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

MR. ROBERTS: The gentleman from Kilbride? That is who he is. He is Byrne Secundus.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker calls the orders every day. That is one of the many jobs he discharges capably and well. I will simply say, in my understanding of Your Honour's ruling earlier today, we shall be debating the motion that stands in the name of the gentleman from Kilbride. We will have two vigorous days of debate on that. Then we will get forward to the motion put down by my friend from Twillingate. We will have two vigorous days of debate on that. Then we will carry on from there.

With that said, Sir, I would ask that you put the motion that we now adjourn.

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