The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am announcing today various changes in the executive level of the Public Service. These changes have come about largely as a result of the current exercise to downsize the Public Service in accordance with the decisions announced in the Budget. At the same time there has been a general review of the assignment of executive staff responsibilities. The following new appointments at the executive level have been made. And here, I must say, it is not appointing new people, it is rearranging people holding existing positions.

Deborah Fry, who is presently ADM in the Department of Justice on the Civil side, will become the Deputy Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Ms. Fry was most recently Associate Deputy Minister of Justice and has previously held the position of Assistant Deputy Minister in the Department of Labour.

Lynn Spracklin will become Deputy Minister of Justice. Ms. Spracklin has in excess of twenty years at the Bar in Newfoundland and has extensive experience in private practice as well as a number of years as Senior Solicitor in the Department of Justice. That combination, Mr. Speaker, will serve her well in that new position.

Clarence Randell will become the Deputy Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Mr. Randell is a long serving Deputy Minister in the Public Service and most recently served as Deputy Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Mr. Randell has extensive service in the field of municipal government, including a previous period as Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Bruce Peckford becomes the Deputy Minister of Social Services. Mr. Peckford is a long time public servant and has held a number of senior positions, the most recent of which has been Acting Deputy Minister, Works, Services and Transportation.

Elizabeth Marshall becomes Deputy Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Ms. Marshall was previously a Deputy Minister of Social Services. She has held the position of Assistant Deputy Minister in the former Department of Transportation.

Frank Manuel takes on a position presently held by two other individuals; The Chairman of the Canada Games Park Commission, Chairman of the Pippy Park Commission and Chairman of the St. John's Area Residential Tenancies Board. He will discharge all three of these responsibilities.

Mr. Manuel was formerly the Deputy Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and has over the years served as Deputy Minister in several governmental departments.

Through the downsizing exercise some nine positions, mostly at the Assistant Deputy Minister level have been declared redundant and the individuals in these positions have been so advised.

Mr. Speaker, these changes will result in the employment of a number of executives being terminated with Government. The individuals affected have given many long years of good service to the people of this Province.

On behalf of the people of the Province and the Government, I want to acknowledge these many years of service and express our appreciation and best wishes to the individuals concerned.

It has been a very difficult decision to have to terminate the employment of these senior executives at this time. However, if Government is to meet its overall expenditure reduction target as announced in the Budget, all levels of the Public Service must be considered.

In preparing the Statement, I apologise to the Opposition Leader or the Opposition House Leader, whoever will speak on the issue, that there were two ADM appointments that I had overlooked including in the Statement.

In the case of Justice, to fill the vacancy created by the promotion of Debbie Fry to Deputy Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, we are appointing John Cummings, who is a senior legal council in the Department, and has in fact in the past, held a position of Assistant Deputy Minister and he will again be appointed as Assistant Deputy Minister on the civil side in the Department of Justice.

In Social Services, some two or three weeks ago, I received a resignation from Mr. Calvin Payne, who expressed his desire to retire at this time and we had not filled the position until now, and we now propose to appoint or to promote Mr. Noel Browne, who is a senior director in the Department of Social Services. We propose to appoint him to become the Assistant Deputy Minister in place of Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Premier for a copy of the statement. In the absence of the Leader of the Opposition I will try to make some remarks about what has transpired here. I sure hope that the enthusiastic response to the appointment of Noel Browne does not place his position in any jeopardy in the eyes of the Minister of Social Services.

Mr. Speaker, what we see here, of course, are long time career civil servants who have worked their way up through the system and done an extremely good job over the years. They have, I guess, given a lot of public service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Their efforts and their work continues to be recognized because I would be remiss if I did not point out that some of them had received some promotions earlier under the previous administration. So they are excellent, career minded public servants, unlike some of the other senior executive positions that we have seen appointed by this Premier and this Government. I refer specifically to Mr. Tulk, Mr. Chalker, and Fraser Lush, people of that nature who have not actually worked their way up through the public service as the Premier would admit.

We commend the Government on the appointment of three women Deputy Ministers. We commend them for that. I think that is an excellent move. As a matter of fact, there are really only two new ones because Ms. Marshall was a Deputy Minister before, but we commend them for that, but point out, of course, on the other hand that while they are doing something commendable on the one hand for women in the public service, the women of our Province continue to be the ones who suffer the most as a result of the Government's economic cutbacks. We all know that, and they are taking the brunt of the layoffs without any question.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to know who the 'redundants' are. The Premier makes passing reference in the statement to, 'nine positions have been declared redundant'. Strangely enough that has not been identified in the statement. We would like to know who the redundants are, and at the same time we would expect to hear fairly soon the fate of the other 80 or 90, presumably 80 or 90, according to news reports, shall we say management positions in the public service that are expected to be eliminated as a result of the Government's actions. So, the reassignments are good news, and I might say from a personal point of view that I think with one exception I know all of them personally and have dealt with them over the years, and they are extremely capable individuals. We want to congratulate them on these appointments and wish them well in their new positions. And we continue to wait with bated breath for the next chapter in the continuing saga of this Government's economic mismanagement plans.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, on March 21, 1960, seventy peaceful demonstrators against apartheid were killed in Sharpeville, South Africa. In 1966, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution proclaiming March 21, today, as The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. While the situation in many countries is slowly improving because of internal and external pressures, it is still easy today to find examples of racial discrimination in almost every country in the world, including Canada.

The recent annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission stated that the number of complaints to the Human Rights Commission increased by almost 10 per cent last year. The report said that racism and bigotry are `alive and well' in public and private sector workplaces across the country. I believe, however, that the elimination of racial discrimination can become a reality through education.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education has a vital role to play in human rights and multicultural education. Last year the Department introduced two major units on this topic in a senior high school social studies course. The Department of Education has also supported the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Association in its initiatives at the school level. This year, we again helped organize a local conference on cross-cultural understanding which, by the way, is taking place today. I had the pleasure of attending that conference and speaking over the lunch period.

Discussions are being held with officials of the Faculty of Education, Memorial University, regarding the role of that Faculty in the area of human rights and multicultural education. In addition, the Department is pleased to be a partner with the NTA and with other agencies in a Global Education project, designed, among other things, to promote cross-cultural understanding in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, last year the Department established a Multicultural Education Committee, made up of educators and members of the local multicultural organizations. There are two terms of reference for this Committee: One, to examine the status of multicultural policy in provincial Departments of Education across Canada; and two, through consultation with the local groups concerned, to draft a provincial multicultural policy for the Department of Education

of this Province.

I am very pleased, Mr Speaker, today, to say that a draft copy of this policy is now ready for distribution to school boards and agencies for their comments and input. I have some copies here for hon. Members who might like to see a copy of that draft.

The establishment of an educational policy in multiculturalism for this Province is an important step. It will ensure that all texts and curriculum materials are examined so that prejudicial stereotypes and racism are eliminated; that curriculum materials provide positive images of all racial and ethnic groups; and that the schools themselves recognize, respect and respond to the cultural needs and values of their total student population. The policy will ensure that we recognize the unique position and contribution of our aboriginal peoples and the reality of the linguistic duality of Canada. Generally, Mr. Speaker, a multicultural education policy should promote cultural understanding and facilitate cultural accommodation.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Department of Education are committed to multicultural education and recognize it as a vehicle to help eliminate racial discrimination. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I commend the Minister of Education for making the statement he just did to observe The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in our Legislature. I also praise him and his Department for the initiatives they have taken to strengthen human rights education.

I call on him and his colleagues to carry out certain other initiatives. For example, to reverse the extremely regressive measures in the Budget they just brought down, which are taking a terrible toll on women in this Province and people in rural parts Newfoundland and Labrador.

I call on the Premier, Mr. Speaker, to have a day for the elimination of discrimination against rural Newfoundland and Labrador, a day on which he will throw out the backward, regressive measures in his Budget and stop the move to continue resettlement, which the Liberals started in the 1960s. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Labour. I wonder if the Minister could tell the House whether she was aware, or in addition to whether she was aware or not, was she consulted on the decision by Newfoundland Telephone to lay off twenty employees in Goose Bay who are involved in operator services and move the operations of operator services in Labrador to the city of Corner Brook? Was she aware of that and was she consulted, particularly with respect to the fact that unemployment in Goose Bay will be aggravated by this, and that in this case twenty employees who are all women, six of whom are single parents, will be laid off.

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been made aware of the situation through my colleague, the Minister of Environment and Lands, not by the company. I am not sure if that is what you were asking - was it? The company I have not heard from, Mr. Speaker. But I had been told about the matter by my colleague, and have had opportunity to discuss it further with individuals who are involved.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary to whomever can answer this, perhaps the Minister of Transportation, is the Government aware that the removal of this service in Labrador without any adequate backup system could result in a shutdown of communications anywhere on the coast of Labrador, from Cartwright north to the farther most community, and that on a number of occasions in the recent past the system has been shut down, cutting off communications in Labrador? And there will be no system to replace that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MR. KELLAND: On behalf of my colleagues, I can make some response to that. I became aware of the layoffs in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay office the day before the actual announcement was made. I was in contact with the company, I have discussed it in some detail with the company. I have also, on the past weekend, met with the union and the people affected and have requested some technical information with respect to backup, and have a very good understanding of exactly what happens.

Probably the most affected area other than the loss of employment may very well be the north coast, the north system that feeds down from my colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains' District, whereby if you do not have the Goose Bay setup as a backup, all these calls from the coast, communications from the coast, would be directed into Corner Brook. And in the event of a failure in any one of sites along that chain, there may very well be no backup with the considerable time required to get the service back in, or provide an alternate route.

I have asked for the technical information on that and I should have it to make available to my two colleagues in the very near future.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder could the Premier or the Minister responsible, or used to be responsible for the Public Utilities Commission, and with respect to the coverage of Newfoundland Telephone, advise what role the Government of Newfoundland is now playing now that the CRTC has responsibility for the regulation of phone companies? Do they have an active program of intervention in the applications before the CRTC as they have in the National Energy Board and other national boards where Newfoundlands interests are protected? Is there a special role they are going to play, and can they do something about this particular problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago that it was done, but the Government will monitor what has been happening and the manner in which the CRTC will be regulating Newfoundland Telephone and the administration of telephones in the Province. We will also have in place a consumer advocate who will have a role to play before the CRTC to protect the interest of consumers in the Province and make arguments. Where it is necessary the Government itself can, of course, intervene and appear before the CRTC in the course of regulation.

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Each day in this Province we are being assailed by reports of unrest by all who are involved in the health care system, and this unrest comes from health care professionals, health administrators, unions, concerned citizens, and groups around this Province. Everyone seems to acknowledge that there is a problem except the Minister and his colleagues. Today there are reports, and of course they are not new reports, but today some of them are being made public: that some of our most highly skilled health care professionals, our doctors, will be leaving this Province. Would the Minister confirm that the combination of reduced acute care beds, 1,000 less supportive staff, longer waiting periods at hospitals, a cap on MCP funding are all going to contribute to an exodus of general practitioners and specialists from this Province?

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

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to confirm that. There are a whole lot of factors which determine whether or not people move from one part of the country to the other. I should advise the hon. Member that every single Province in this nation has exactly the same problems we have. There is a problem with the economy in all of the provinces, and I do not foresee an exodus of doctors out of the Province.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. If there is not going to be an exodus of health care professionals from this Province, will the Minister confirm that there has been a mass influx of health care professionals from outside this Province coming into the Province since the Minister announced his wonderful improvements in health care?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope not. The hon. Member should realize that at this moment we have a surplus of general practitioners in the St. John's area. We have one GP for every 550 people, Mr. Speaker, which is really too many GPs for this region. The problem in this Province is not with the number of doctors, it is with distribution. We have problems attracting doctors to outlying regions of the Province, Mr. Speaker, and that problem is shared by other provinces as well. I should tell the hon. Member, and he will be pleased to know this, that we are at this moment in co-operation with the Newfoundland Medical Association and with the medical schools, trying to address that problem where we can solve the distribution problem. It is not a supply, it is a distribution problem.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Health. I am glad to see he is finally confirming what the Opposition has been saying, that if you want good health care in this Province, you had better live in one of the urban centres; you are not going to get it in rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POWER: Would the Minister wish to confirm or give us some numbers on how many highly trained and experienced nurses will leave this Province in the next twelve months? Does the Minister have any figures on how many of the nursing graduates from our schools of nursing are going to leave this Province? Why is there a lot of advertising in this Province in recent days relating to new health opportunities for nurses in New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories, and other provinces in Canada, Florida and as far away as Saudi Arabia? Will the Minister confirm that the recent announced cutbacks are going to lead to a mass exodus of nurses from this Province?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, that is a litany of questions and if he had slowed down I could have written them all down. I do not have the capacity to memorize them all. I should tell him, however: the hon. Member makes the assumption that our problems in rural Newfoundland are somehow worse now than they were a few years ago. We have actually improved the distribution. The hon. Member will know that for the first time in the history of mankind we have attracted a doctor for Forteau, Mr. Speaker. Never before in the history of the world was there a doctor stationed in Forteau. We have appointed one there.

The hon. Member will know for the first time in the history of the world, we have a third doctor in Roddickton, Mr. Speaker, which happens to be in my District and I am proud of it. Mr. Speaker, we are not as bad off as we were three years ago. And if we continue with restructuring and streamlining the system and matching peoples capabilities with the requirements in the areas I believe we are going to see a big improvement in the distribution of doctors throughout the Province.

The advertisements for nurses throughout North America, Mr. Speaker, has been going on for the last twenty-five years. I think you will find that the advertisement for Florida is simply the same one that was put in last year and the year before and the year before that. It is going on. And if the hon. Member is not aware of what is happening in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait he must be living in a dream world. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have been advertising for nurses and doctors and engineers and charworkers and laundry workers, Mr. Speaker, that is what is happening in the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, if there is anybody living in a dream world in this Province it is the Minister of Health and his Minister colleagues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POWER: And that is where the dream world lies.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask another question to the Minister of Health to see if he can answer this question honestly and straightforwardly. Will the Minister confirm that serious discussions have taken place and are currently taking place as it relates to the closing of one or more of the Schools of Nursing in this Province? And will he also confirm that there is a deliberate plan to downgrade health care educational opportunities in the registered nursing assistants field, in lab and x-ray in this Province, and that is based upon the fact that there are less opportunities for health care professionals in this Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: A good question.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am glad, pleased to confirm that there have been very serious talks to all three nursing schools in this Province about bringing them together under one or two institutions. I am glad to tell that, Mr. Speaker, because that is a step in the right direction. But I read that slightly different, diametrically different from the way the hon. Member sees it, I see that as an upgrading, Mr. Speaker, of nurses training in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: I suppose it depends on from where you look, two men looked out through their prison bars one saw mud and the other saw stars. It is all perception, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. I would like to ask the Premier whether in closing the hospital at Burgeo, in virtually eliminating the in-service patient care at the hospital at Port aux Basques, in closing the hospitals at Bonne Bay, Baie Verte and Springdale, he is expecting people from all those areas to use Western Memorial Regional Hospital at Corner Brook for acute care and in-patient services? And if so, did he not take into account the fact that Western Memorial at Corner Brook has been stretched to its limit, has had to close the surgical intensive care unit within the past year? And why did he and his Government reduce funding to Western Memorial, necessitating the closure of thirty more beds and the elimination of seventy positions?

MR. SIMMS: A good question.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to sit down with the hon. Member for Humber East and explain to her just what is happening in the health care system. When we attempted to restructure the health care system, we wanted to make sure that there were certain services available to all of our people in the various regions of the Province. And one of the things that we decided to do is to make sure that there is in the western region a regional health care centre, a regional hospital which is capable of dealing with most of the needs of the people who live in that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Yes, the tertiary stuff has to come to St. John's. It has not changed from when you were here. Not one iota has that changed. That has not changed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are developing a regional hospital in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: The hon. Member will also notice that we have changed the mandate out in Bonne Bay, which means that the Bonne Bay Hospital will now be specializing in chronic care. This will free up the twenty-five or thirty beds which have been occupied in Corner Brook by chronic care over a number of years. We are also, Mr. Speaker, putting a chronic care facility in Burgeo. Now we cannot built it in a split second. It is going to take us a year or two to build it. But that likewise will take some of the strain off the facility in Corner Brook, and we might be able to take even a few more beds out of the Corner Brook area if we find that they are underutilized, Mr. Speaker.

The mistake the hon. Members are making is, they are looking at the individual places. They should see the whole design. The good plan that we have in mind for health care, the whole picture, the grand design, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Members should look at that. And we are making sure that when there is an acute case in the western region there is a hospital, there are specialists, there is equipment there which can address these needs, Mr. Speaker. And unless we restructure it will not happen.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Health has just confirmed the worst fears of many people in the Corner Brook area, an area which the Premier is supposed to be representing in this House of Assembly. There are at least thirty people from the immediate Corner Brook area-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! The hon. Member is on a supplementary, not on a debate. Get to the supplementary please.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister confirm that he is going to force Corner Brook area citizens, who are occupying acute care beds at Western Memorial Regional Hospital in Corner Brook, who are waiting for chronic care beds at the O'Connel Centre in Corner Brook, to go outside their home area to be resettled to Bonne Bay or Burgeo or Eastern Newfoundland, since he is closing thirty more acute care beds at Western Memorial and added demands -

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

MS. VERGE: - are being put on that facility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The Hon. Member should get more quickly to the question. It is more like reading a speech.

Would the Hon. Member, please finish up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I asked my question, I am finished with my question and now I will wait for the Minister's answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind hon. Members that the Speaker's decision regarding Question Period are not debatable and the Chair intends to enforce that.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the health care system that we inherited saw people in Agnes Pratt Home from Forteau in Labrador. The system that we inherited, Mr. Speaker, saw people in Hoyles-Escasoni from the West Coast of this Province. The hon. Member talks about resettlement, I would suggest she get her facts in order and see what we inherited in the health care system.

Now we are endeavouring to keep people as close to their homes as we possibly can. Mr. Speaker, not very long ago, I heard my friend from Eagle River tell how his uncle in Forteau, his uncle in Forteau, when he got old, wanted a place to go to and they moved him up to Goose Bay, where, he was totally removed from his family; we are trying to ensure that that is not going to happen again and we are building ten chronic care beds on the health care centre in Forteau, Mr. Speaker, so the hon. Member need not try to make political points on me, trying to get me to take sides with Bonne Bay over Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: We would like all our senior citizens to be in homes which are near where they lived and grew up and where their families are, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. DECKER: - but we cannot do it overnight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister of Health and the Government really want to centralize hospital services and place chronic care patients in their home area, why is he closing thirty more beds at Western Memorial Regional Hospital in Corner Brook?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, among the beds which were closed in Corner Brook, some of them are pediatric beds which were closed because we were able to double up some departments and I am glad to be able to say we are able to close pediatric beds, Mr. Speaker. We are closing a total twelve bed unit in the Curtis Memorial Hospital. Why? Because it was underutilized, that is why, Mr. Speaker, and that is a good reason to close beds, because it shows that the Public Health System in this Province is working. It shows that vaccinations are working, it shows that we do have a preventive care system in place, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to say, that of the thirty beds closed in the Western Memorial, some of them were underutilized, that is why they are closed. What we are doing is restructuring and we are putting into place a system which is better and the hon. Member does not like that; they want us to fail in this system but we are restructuring the system, Mr. Speaker, and this is about saving the health care system, this is about saving the health care system; this is guaranteeing the medicare system, Mr. Speaker, that is what this is all about and that is why Members on this side are so glad to be a part of that and the hon. Member is jealous, is jealous because -

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

MR. DECKER: - she never had the foresight to do it when she was on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also to the Minister of Health. In view of the fact that Government has cut funding approximately $3 million to the Western Memorial Hospital in Corner Brook, and because of this they have now announced the complete closing of the X-ray unit in Deer Lake, and the Laboratory unit in Deer Lake will be cut to just collection only, absolutely no testing, does the Minister still believe that this is rationalization of the health care sector?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly rationalization. I do not know how you could interpret it otherwise. Whether or not you agree with doing it is a totally different topic, but it certainly is rationalization. Yes.

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

MR. WOODFORD: How can the Minister, or the Government, close down an X-ray unit in Deer Lake that is doing 3500 to 3700 X-rays a year and still say it is going to provide a better service, while cutting this out and moving it to Corner Brook, at the same time lay off four or five X-ray technicians at Western Memorial Hospital in Corner Brook?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we inherited a health care system which was badly mismanaged.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have to give some background before I answer the question. We inherited a system, Mr. Speaker, which was badly mismanaged. We inherited a made in Canada recession. We inherited transfer payments which were frozen, and which would disappear by the year 2004. We inherited a debt of $535 million in interest payments, the same amount of money that we pay on the hospital system of this Province. We pay the same amount to pay the interest, by the debt which was run up by the previous administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

When one gets into philosophical questions about policy they can become involved so I ask the Minister to please try and make his answer as precise as possible and clue it up very quickly.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to try and put these questions into perspective. Because of all these things it was necessary for us to streamline and rationalize the system. The hon. Member will know that some of those positions he referred to are full-time equivalent positions, some of them were not even filled before we rationalized the system.

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

MR. WOODFORD: How can the Minister say there will be savings when, for example, any social service recipient in the White Bay or Bonne Bay area will have to be paid for transportation to and from Corner Brook, and would the Minister now explain how, after performing such major cuts, such major surgery on the hospital in Corner Brook, that this would be an improved service for the people of that area?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, during the last few months when the Opposition over there were scampering and screaming because we were too long making our decisions, we were going through all the implications of the decisions we were going to make, and one of the things we had to consider was the impact, if any, that a decision in the Department of Health would have on social services, or transportation, or education, or any other Department of Government. When we made our decisions to make alterations in various institutions, change some roles, we took into account that this might have an impact on the social services budget, and all these expenses are factored in to our decision, Mr. Speaker.'

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Concerning the cutbacks at the Port aux Basques hospital, how can the Minister of Health maintain the position that the elimination of acute care beds at the Port aux Basques hospital is, to quote from the Budget, consistent with the Department of Health's long-term strategy for the health care system when the bed study recommends that it retain twenty acute care beds?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the bed study was done six or seven years ago. The Department of Health has records which show us the utilization for all the beds in all the institutions throughout the Province, and in our estimation the number of acute care beds that we are making available in the Port aux Basques area will be satisfactory to meet the needs of the people in the area.

The decision to remove surgery is in keeping with our decision to remove surgery out of the Baie Verte area, out of different areas of the Province. The way medicine is progressing it is essential now that surgery be performed by surgeons in regional hospitals, where you have all the necessary backup to make sure that nothing can go wrong, as much as you guarantee that in any surgical procedure, Mr. Speaker. So to remove surgery from there is in keeping with our policy to put surgery into regional centres with surgeons who have all the necessary backup. As a result of that role change for the Port aux Basques area, we believe it is not now necessary to keep twenty acute care beds there.

However, if we see tomorrow, if it is proven to us that we need 500 beds in the area, we will do our utmost to make sure that there are 500 beds. In this exercise we are trying to match the institution with the need, Mr. Speaker. We do not want to have too few beds or too many beds. We try to match the reality with the need.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out to the Minister that there was a high occupancy rate of acute care beds in Port aux Basques.

I would like to ask the Minister why is he following the study when it applies to the hospital in his own district but ignoring the health care study when it applies to other hospitals, such as Port aux Basques and other hospitals in the Province? And does the Minister agree with the Member for LaPoile, who stated on a Nightline programme, that he agreed with the people of Port aux Basques, with the clear implication that the Government was wrong?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I wish hon. Members of the Opposition would get their act together. A little over a week ago, the health critic on the other side was up saying I was not following the recommendations of the Royal Commission and accusing me of not closing any beds in St. Anthony. Now the hon. Member is criticising me because we are following the recommendations, which means that we are closing forty-two beds. Mr. Speaker, I almost get the impression that there is a political agenda over there and it has nothing to do with health care whatsoever.

As for the hon. Member for LaPoile, the hon. Member for LaPoile is doing a tremendous job of representing his constituentsa and the people in that area should be proud they have such a Member in this House, who can bring their concerns to this Department and to the Government, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With all of those cutbacks, can the Minister explain why his personal office vote was not reduced by 20 per cent, like that of the budget for Port aux Basques? As a matter of fact, I might point out that it increased by 10 per cent. At least that would have been symbolic. And can he tell me why his personal travel budget has gone up 20 per cent when, I might say, Mr. Speaker, he is going to have less hospitals to visit?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot verify whether these statements are true or not. But I can tell the hon. Member that if they are true, the travel I have done on behalf of the Department of Health was justified, it was needed, and I can substantiate it. I have not yet gone to Norway, I have not yet spent a night in England, in a Pink Poodle or whatever it is called, so, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SIMMS: Perhaps you should. You might learn something!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. SIMMS: Ask your seatmate, the Minister of Development! Has he been there? Of course he has!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question, as well, is for the Minister of Health, a gentleman who, when he was in Opposition, was quite often referred to as "Dagger Decker." Now we call him "Sortie Chris", because the coalition forces did not do as much damage in a sortie as he did to hospitals and home care in this Province in the last week. I would like to ask the Minister, because of his rationalization and sending people to regional health care centres, closing down acute care beds in rural Newfoundland, does the Minister realize that what he is doing is imposing additional expenses on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will now have to travel to his regional centres and will have to seek accommodation in the communities where the regional centres are located? Pregnant women who will have to go a week or two in advance of delivery dates will need accommodations.

So I am asking the Minister, will he seriously give consideration to taking measures to assist those he is forcing to travel in this Province for medical attention? Will he consider very seriously the provision of hostels so that people can go and be accommodated when they have to wait for health care? Would the Minister and the Premier give serious consideration to this request? Or will their Easter message to the thousands of rural Newfoundlanders out and about our Province be the same as their Easter message to the thousands of public servants who have gotten the axe, "Happy Crucifixion"?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member probably does not understand what is happening to this major restructuring of the health care system and that is why he is not as proud of it as I am. He talks about extra expenses to people who live in any area of the Province, and let me take Cook's Harbour. Now for 95 per cent of the people, 95 per cent of the time their health care needs are available in the primary care level one community health care centres within an hour of where they live. That is where we are trying to aim. Now that is not all over the Province; we are trying to get it in parts of Labrador and on parts of the south coast. So there is nothing changed as far as primary care goes, there is nothing changed as far as secondary care goes.

Five years ago, a person living in Mose Ambrose who needed heart surgery had to come to St. John's. Two years ago, a person who lived in Burgeo who had to have a gallbladder operated on had to go to Corner Brook. Nothing has changed. All we have done with the system, Mr. Speaker, is look through the various hospitals where there were underutilized beds and we have changed the role of these institutions to reflect what they were really doing. The extra expense on people is no different. You are no different today if you get a heart attack in Conche than you were last year, or the year before, or ten years ago. All we are trying to do is make primary care available in a more efficient way and in a better manner, Mr. Speaker. We are restructuring the system, and I am proud of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

MR. BAKER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker. Interim Supply.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: A telegram to the Hon. the Minister of Finance. "I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit estimates required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31st. day of March 1992, by way of Interim Supply and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.________________________

Lieutenant-Governor."

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Message, together with a bill be referred to the Committee of Supply.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1992, the sum of $993,139,500.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In introducing this bill for Interim Supply we are looking for an amount of money that will last us for approximately three months, while we are waiting for the main supply bill to be passed. The amount of money that is shown in the schedule to the bill is $993 million approximately, divided up amongst the various Government Departments. I should say, Mr. Chairman, that Interim Supply is basically intended to provide for the continuation of ongoing Government programs and projects.

There are, however, some new capital account and current account expenditures, and I would like to mention these. One is an amount of $80 million approximately for the Federal/Provincial Road/Bridge Program. And there is a $25.5 million amount for the Provincial Road/Bridge Program; and an amount of $4.9 million for the Canada/Newfoundland Tourism and Historic Resources Agreement which is contingent upon the signing of a new agreement - $4.9 million, that is in Interim Supply.

We very much look forward to having this amount of money approved by the House, so that we can be sure when the new year begins we will have enough money to handle the ongoing items of business while we are waiting for the main Supply Bill to be passed.

If there are questions that people have, Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to answer them at some point.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will just make a few brief opening remarks, I guess, to get this debate underway, and just to ensure that everybody is aware and remembers, the Members on our side anyway, in our caucus, that the debate will take a ten minute flow, a free-for-all, go as often as you want, no limit, except for at the beginning where the Minister had fifteen minutes and took two, and I had fifteen minutes. I would not likely use all fifteen minutes, normally I would not anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fourteen.

MR. SIMMS: Fourteen.

So the debating time is ten and ten, and I hope members from both sides of the House will get up and participate, because up until this point in time, this is the third week nearly now that the House has been sitting, Members on this side of the House have frequently been up in debate. But Members opposite, for some unusual and strange reason-

MR. POWER: The same reason, not allowed.

MR. SIMMS: - I mean, they have not stood at all. And a great example was the debate the other day and the other night on Bill 16, one of the most major pieces of legislation, I suppose, ever introduced into this Legislature. Certainly one of the most draconian pieces of legislation, and certainly one of the most controversial pieces of legislation.

And, Mr, Chairman, in the debate last Tuesday, I think it was, we were forced into a night sitting, and had an additional three hours of debate. And lo and behold you would expect Members opposite to get up and defend the actions of the Government, support the actions of the President of Treasury Board in bringing in that legislation. Yet, Mr. Chairman, I think seven Members on this side of the House spoke, including the Member for St. John's East who spoke on the amendment to defer the action for six months, the six month hoist amendment. Seven on this side. One on that side, the Minister who introduced the bill. Nobody else participated in the debate. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that is certainly shirking one's responsibility as an elected representative of the people of the Province. And I am darn sure, in fact I know for a fact there are Members on that side of the House, and I am looking at some of them, Members on that side of the House who have heard from constituents who are going to be affected by this wage rollback legislation, who have not had the intestinal fortitude to stand in this House and defend the actions of the Government in the debate, and Mr. Chairman, I think that is disgraceful. Your Honour would not be included in my remarks, of course, because Your Honour has another role to play in this Legislature, so that is to be understood and expected, although Your Honour is not precluded from making such remarks if he so wishes. I hope that the debate that is proceeding and beginning today, and will proceed for the next week for sure, up until next Thursday, as I understand it in my discussions with the President of Treasury Board, which will be the last day the House will open before the end of the fiscal year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Holy Thursday?

MR. SIMMS: Holy Thursday. As I understand, the Government House Leader tells me the House will sit Holy Thursday and Holy Thursday night, and all the rest of it. In fact next week we will be sitting every night except Wednesday - Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. I am sure Members opposite are well aware of that by now, as certainly our Members are.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Oh, your Members are not aware of it yet, well certainly they are aware of it now because I just told them.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are aware of it.

MR. SIMMS: Members opposite know now. I dare say they are aware of it. I am sure they are aware, but maybe the press is not aware, that there is no Easter break from the Legislature as well, which is certainly breaking with a tradition. We will have lots of time, do not worry. The Member for Pleasantville can heckle me all he likes as we go on. I will be up many times between now and the next four or five days debating Interim Supply. I presume they are aware that there will be no Easter break and that is fine, if that is the way Government wants to proceed it is up to themselves. It has no bearing on us whatsoever, but it is certainly an unusual practice.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the way the cockles crumble.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, it is the way the cockles crumble, there is no doubt about it, as the Minister of Finance would say. So, Mr. Chairman, we will have lots of time to debate Interim Supply, and in Interim Supply you can talk about anything you like, I say to the Member. You do not have to confine your remarks specifically to the Bill. Surely, he is no longer a rookie, he has been in the Legislature now for two years and he touts himself as a constitutional expert of some sort, one of the Premier's top constitutional advisors, so he would surely be aware of the process. And in Interim Supply, it being a money bill, it has been ruled for centuries that Members can speak about anything under the sun, so I chose at the beginning, I say to the Member for Pleasantville, I have said as much about this bill as the Minister of Finance has said about it in his introduction. If the Member will recall the Minister of Finance spoke for about two minutes. He mentioned a couple of Federal/Provincial agreements and that was it, and he said: I look forward to the debate. Well, I am saying the same thing, maybe it is taking me a bit longer to say it, but I am saying the same thing.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Well, again, Mr. Chairman, I would have thought that the Member for Pleasantville, that great constitutional expert, would know. Is he so stunned that he did not know that the debate was started by the Minister of Finance? That is who started the debate. He was a rookie, and he will join those many others that preceded him on both sides of the House in the past, who have managed to get themselves elected on somebody's coattails and who will join that infamous group of people who have only been able to serve one term in the Provincial Legislature. There are a few others over there who might be in some kind of jeopardy, too. As cocky as they are today, let me assure them that the way it is in politics, as some of the more experienced people will tell you, it does not always stay that way, so Members opposite may want to ponder that point.

Mr. Chairman, before I was so rudely interrupted by the Member for Pleasantville, and I do not know why he continues to interrupt me, I would like to try to start making a few points about debate, about legislation, about finance matters, and about the bill. There I have spoken about the bill. Okay? Now, I will move off the bill for the moment and talk about the Labour Legislation. That is what I want to talk about briefly. I want to talk about the Labour Legislation and what I was saying is that Members have not participated in the debate of that legislation which is a very significant piece of legislation, Bill 16, and my point, I say to the Member for Pleasantville, my point of all of that is, that I hope the same will not be the case in this debate, okay, that is the point I was trying to make before he so rudely interrupted me, that I hope Members Opposite will be allowed to stand and participate in the Interim Supply debate, that is what we want to hear. We want to hear your views on the Budget, we want to hear you defend the Government's decision to break collective agreements, we want to hear you defend the Government's decision to back off on the pay equity commitment. So, you know, I want to hear the Member for Pleasantville stand in his place, a great constitutional expert, the most knowledgeable backbencher over there I dare say, certainly, if you were to read the hundreds of press releases that he has been putting out the last few months.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The Member for Pleasantville: if you were to read the hundreds of press releases he started putting out a few months ago when the rumours started to fly around that there might be a Cabinet shuffle, followed closely, I might say, Mr. Chairman, for a brief period of time at least, followed closely, closely, by the Member for St. John's South, 'old brown nose Murphy himself' they call him, who read it in the paper, and there are those cynics who suspect he might have even planted it in the paper, but now, I do not believe that, I do not believe that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Now, now, I do not believe that, I do not believe that, but there are those - he has some connections in the print media, there is no question about that, but anyway, when the story suddenly appeared in the paper that the Member for St. John's South was being touted as the Minister of Labour to replace the Member for Conception Bay South, well, you talk about press releases coming out then from the Member for Eagle River.

The Member for Eagle River flowed them out, the Member for Carbonear did not bother too much; the Member for Exploits went on the road, went on the road and made public speaking engagements out in his district. He appeared in Peterview, he appeared in Botwood, he appeared in Bishop Falls and there were stories in the paper, on the news media, everywhere and this was on the heels of this breaking story about a Cabinet shuffle -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) foolish.

MR. SIMMS: - and the Member for St. John's South - there is nobody in the gallery, so do not bother, do not look up, do not look up-

AN HON. MEMBER: There are no more townies going into the Cabinet.

MR. SIMMS: No more townies going into the Cabinet. Now we have heard it, Mr. Chairman, we have heard it.

MR. MATTHEWS: There are too many of them in there now.

MR. SIMMS: We have heard it from one of those aspirants. Note, I said, aspirant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say aspirins?

MR. SIMMS: You know what I said, one of those aspirants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a Bufferin (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Aspirants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bayer, Bayer.

MR. SIMMS: Yes. That there will be no more townies in the Provincial Cabinet -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: I am wondering what kind of aspirants (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, the same kind of aspirants; but anyway, so the Member for Carbonear then is telling us now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: - but I am not sure if the Member for Mount Scio is a townie or not, nobody knows -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: He is so far back now, he is not even a backbencher.

MR. SIMMS: - yes, the Member for Mount Scio has been moved so far back now that he is not even a member of the backbenches anymore.

The Member for Carbonear has put him in his place. So that tells us that for the upcoming Cabinet shuffle the field has narrowed somewhat, to only rural Members, to only Members from outside town, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, your own colleague tells us that.

The next question then, of course, is is the Member for Bonavista South a townie? He lives in town, so he is eliminated.

MR. MATTHEWS: He always wanted to be a townie.

MR. SIMMS: Is the Member for Lewisporte?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, am I ever glad the Minister of Labour spoke up, from sitting in her seat. Why doesn't she stand and participate in the debate, particularly the debate on Bill 16? Why doesn't she stand in her place and speak to that piece legislation instead of sitting there and cat calling? She would be much better off.

AN HON. MEMBER: She has to speak to it now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you a townie?

MR. SIMMS: No, I am not a townie, Mr. Chairman. And not only that, I am not the least bit interested in serving in that Cabinet over there, not the least bit. Not with the approach they have taken.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we did not hear a word from the Minister of Finance. But I know we will, because we have five or six days of debate coming up. And I would like to hear from the Minister of Finance, I would like to hear from Members in the back benches in particular, the President of Treasury Board, and particularly the Minister of Labour. I would like to see her get up and tell us what she is doing to offset all the job losses from the firings; I would like to see her get up and debate Bill 16, which she has not done yet; I would like to see her get up and explain the fallout from all of this economic mismanagement on the labour movement in the Province, people she should be concerned about. So we expect to see that kind of debate as time goes on. I want to thank Members for their indulgence and their courtesy, for listening to what I have had to say for the first fifteen minutes.

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have a few words to say in this debate, as well. I will probably start off where my colleague left off, Mr. Chairman, in dealing with this debate, by trying to entice some of the people in the back benches in particular, who should be very disappointed with the actions of this Government, to participate in the debate. I believe it is shameless, Mr. Chairman, that -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Eagle River would be better off standing in his place and debating this than cat calling from his seat. As a matter of fact, the Member for Eagle River would be a lot better off if he went back to his district.

We talked, Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: He cannot go back (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, we cannot say anything about the Member for St. John's South going back to his district, Mr. Chairman, because we understand he has a mailbox there.

AN HON. MEMBER: He what?

MR. TOBIN: He has a mailbox in his district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I shall not let myself be interrupted by the Member for St. John's South or the Member for Pleasantville. I want to say today that it is time that this Government did something for the people of rural Newfoundland in particular. When I listened today in Question Period - I never got my question on - but when I see what has happened in this Province, particularly in rural Newfoundland - as a matter of fact, it was last Tuesday that I met a gentleman out here in the lobby. He asked me about the Port aux Basques hospital. He actually worked on the construction of that hospital and could not believe that the Government was closing down a building that had just been put in place. And when you look at television and see they are not closing -

MR. RAMSAY: They are not closing (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Listen to the Member for LaPoile, they are not closing it down. What were the people in the stadium in Port aux Basques saying pn television the other day? I know it is difficult for you to know what they said, because you did not have the courage to go out there, you stayed in here and made excuses like you did yesterday. You lacked the courage to go back and represent your constituents. That is what you did. That is where you are coming from. That is where you should be.

MR. WALSH: It is slanderous for you to say that.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Hide away! Hide away!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the only thing that is slanderous in this House is the Member opposite. And I shall take no lessons from you when it comes to talking about decency or what is slanderous or what is not!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: You should be over on Bell Island looking after the ferry, that is where you should be. You should be over on Bell Island! You have betrayed your constituents like no one in this Province has ever seen before! You should resign! You should resign, Mr. Chairman! You should resign.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: You should resign, that is what you should do! You will never get into Cabinet like that, either. Mr. Chairman, The Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island will never get into Cabinet by toeing the line and letting the Premier close down hospitals, close down vocational schools, and cut down the ferry service. The Member for Mount Scio will never get into Cabinet, Mr. Chairman, by pounding his desk.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: He will never get there! What, Mr. Chairman -

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, well, well, well, well. What else are we going to hear? What else will we hear in this Legislature from a Member who lacks the courage, like the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, to stand and support his constituents and instead toes the party line? What have you said in this House about cutting back of a ferry from Bell Island? What have you said in this House about that? What have you said about the cutback in health care for Bell Island? Not a word, not a whisper. And then you have the nerve, the gumption to catcall across this House when someone stands to present the concerns of your constituents.

MR. WALSH: I have (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Why don't you do it?

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is the Member, Mr. Chairman, who said about the teachers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: - who attacked the teachers! That is the Member who attacked the teachers last year, in the last session of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes. And every teacher in this Province knows it, because it was discussed at every meeting you went to.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I see the President of Treasury Board, the Government House Leader. When he talked about having the House open, my colleague, our House Leader, made reference to the House opening on Holy Thursday night. Well, I can say to the President of Treasury Board that I think it is wrong for the House to open on Holy Thursday night. There are a number of people who work in this House and people who sit in this House who have always attended churches on Holy Thursday, and done other things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you putting in a request on that?

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Chairman, I am putting in no request. But I am saying to the Government House Leader that I think it is wrong! It is an affront to the churches in this Province for you to have the House open on Holy Thursday night. And I sincerely believe that. I do not consider myself anyone ready to be canonized, but very seldom have I, for one, missed church on Holy Thursday!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: And I do not think I am going to miss it again. No, I think it is wrong! I think it is wrong!

MR. BAKER: A point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman.

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

The hon. the President of Treasury Board on a point of order.

MR. BAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member is getting carried away and it might be bad for his health.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should be!

MR. BAKER: I will say to him that if he wants to make a case to not be open Thursday night, I am a very reasonable person and all he has to do is explain it to me and I am quite willing to change my mind. He does not need to get all upset and turn red and so on.

I am afraid he might hurt himself, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: That was not a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I will not, but I will tell the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island that I take strong exception to that comment, by the way. I take strong exception to that comment. It is not the place to debate it, but I can tell you, sir, that that statement is not true.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: That that statement is not true!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Ah, your mouth got you again, Walsh.

MR. TOBIN: That statement is not true, and I take strong exception to it, okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No. But I can tell the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island that I take strong exception to that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I ask hon. Members to my left to keep from interjecting. It is not adding to the decorum of the House.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. There are a lot of issues that I want to speak about here, particularly the health care system in this Province, the mess the Social Services Department is in, and, as well, the situation as it relates to my own district, in particular the Marystown Shipyard and the situation with the fish plants and fisheries in that area.

Last week, on Tuesday past, my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, and I attended a meeting of 400 laid off shipyard workers. And what did we discover? We discovered that 300 of these people will have to go to the mainland this year to get their stamps, to qualify for unemployment insurance, because of the lack of commitment by this Government to the Marystown shipyard.

We looked at in excess of $1 million cut from the health care budget on the Burin Peninsula. It is not just my District, Mr. Chairman, or my colleague for Grand Bank's that is affected on the Burin Peninsula. The Member for Fortune - Hermitage has constituents who live on the Burin Peninsula. And I can say to him that his constituents will be affected by the cutback in the health care system, as they will be by the reduction of the work force at the Marystown shipyard. They will be drastically affected, as they have been, Mr. Chairman, with the Marystown fish plant closed, from last November up until yesterday. His constituents will be affected as well in that area.

And on top of that, Mr. Chairman, what has this Government done? They have fired, given the pick slip to the District Management of the Social Services Office in Bay L'Argent. And what else did they do with the Member for Fortune - Hermitage? They gave the pink slip to the District Manager in Harbour Breton and cut five or six jobs from his hospital there. That is what they have done.

MR. MATTHEWS: You understand why he wanted to get over with them.

MR. TOBIN: It is too bad the Minister of Social Services is not here.

MR. MATTHEWS: If they would do all that for me, I would go over there, too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: It is too bad the Minister of Social Services is not here. But the President of Treasury Board should listen to what I have to say, because with the cutbacks in the Department of Social Services, they have attacked the women, Mr. Chairman, of that Department. There were five district managers laid off, in St. Mary's, Arnold's Cove, Bay L'Argent, Harbour Breton and Port Saunders, five district managers, three of whom were women. And we were making such strides in that Department over the last few years by putting women in management positions.

What about the step above that, the directors and assistant directors? Who was laid off in that area, Mr. Chairman? Would the President of Treasury Board know if they were women? Would he know that this Government has laid off -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave?

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Chairman, I am recognized again, I guess.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. TOBIN: Does the Minister realize that the Assistant Director, as I understand it, of Day Care Services for this Province has been laid off? Day Care and Homemaker Services, a very vital role, an important function in this Province. And I am sure my colleague, the Member for Humber East, will be addressing day care and homemaker services later on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I can say, Mr. Chairman, that that service is something we should have, it should be put in place. And I do not think that position should have been eliminated.

Today I was delighted to hear the Premier saying that Noel Browne, a very competent and capable individual, will be accepting - I thought he was replacing Calvin Payne as an assistant deputy minister. But that is not what the Premier said, I have been told. I have been told since that Noel is going to some sort of a director's position.

AN HON. MEMBER: He will be an ADM?

MR. TOBIN: He will be an ADM. I am delighted to hear that. Because right now, Mr. Chairman, Noel Browne will be the only person who, as a social worker, has come through the system. While we have competent, capable people there, it is important that the social work conscience never leave that Department. I am delighted Noel Browne is there. We had it in Calvin Payne, but when Shelia Devine moved out and Beaton Tulk moved in, we lost from that. But there should always be two assistant deputy ministers in that department, in my opinion, who have a social work background. It is very important. I am delighted to hear now that Noel Browne will be an assistant deputy minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is not what the Premier said. And that is not what I have been told. But I am delighted that the President of Treasury Board -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is on the press release.

MR. TOBIN: No, it is not on the press release. It is not there. He ad-libbed it. But if the President of Treasury Board is confirming that, then I am satisfied. But I can tell him that is not what the Premier had in his press statement. He ad-libbed it, and he said that Noel Browne would be accepting some kind of a senior director's position. And that is not good enough for me. But it will be okay. I am delighted the Minister has mentioned that - the Minister has clarified that.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure other colleagues want to speak, so I shall take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question? Question?

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, hon. gentlemen should not kid themselves and think they are going to waltz in here and in half an hour get away with $1 billion unchallenged. That is about as foolish, Mr. Chairman, as the notion they have of any popularity they may have around this Province.

It is absolutely incredible, Mr. Chairman, what happened in this Province over the last few short months. All you have to do is go around this Province and talk to some of the people and find out exactly what the people think about this Budget and what they think about this Government. The hon. gentleman for Lewisporte should not kid himself. I was in Lewisporte last Sunday and Monday and I did not find one person in the hon. gentleman's district who had something good to say about him. Not one, I say to my friend, because the hon. gentleman and I have become somewhat of friends over the last couple of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: What houses were you in?

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, you would like to know. I bet I was in more houses than the hon. gentleman was, and I bet you I got a better reception than the hon. gentleman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Last weekend?

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, last weekend. The hon. gentleman, Mr. Chairman, is not as welcome in as many houses in Lewisporte as he would like to think, not since he turned tail and hid when there was a dispute out there between the Mayor and the fire chief. Maybe we should talk about that one. Everybody out there was saying, where is our Member? We want his position on this. I called his house fifteen times myself and could not get an answer. Now the hon. gentleman will tell me he was out around his district, and perhaps he was. I do not know where he was, but I could not get an answer. I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. gentleman was very popular in his district. He was very popular, because he had a reputation before he ran for election of being somebody who stood up and spoke for what he believed in. He did not have the courage to speak on Meech Lake, but I know what his views were on Meech Lake. He did not have the courage to speak on that, and when we had a dispute in his district, a local issue but a very important issue, which has been very divisive in the town of Lewisporte, the hon. gentleman hid away. He could not be found.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did speak on Meech Lake.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh he spoke on Meech Lake, yes. He parroted the dictator's words. He did what he was told to do. He did not speak with his conscience. The people in Lewisporte are now so disappointed with him because they thought he was a gentleman who stood up and said what he believed in. When he was involved, I believe, in the Rod and Gun Club, one of the greatest spokesman against the spray program he was. In fact, he gained a great deal of his popularity and his visibility in his district from the very strong position he took against the spray program. Where was he this year when the spray program was announced? Yea, Yea, Yea, for it, Mr. Minister. We are going to spray again. He was not heard then.

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

MR. WINDSOR: It is not a point of order, it is a point of interruption, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte on a point of order.

MR. PENNEY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It must be pointed out that what the hon. Member for Mount Pearl is saying is totally inaccurate. There was never a time that this Member took a position against the spray program. The position that this Member took was against fenitrothion. As a matter of fact, I was one of the people who promoted the use of Bt. Bt was not being carried around in a wheelbarrows, that was being sprayed, too, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, this is not a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Will the hon. Member get to his point of order.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, for whatever reason, and I would not suggest it is intentional, is misleading the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

There is no point of order. It is a dispute between two hon. Members as to what the facts may be, but it is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Of course he was not on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If he wants to make an explanation, we are on Interim Supply. Is it ten or fifteen minutes we get?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten minutes.

MR. WINDSOR: Ten minutes at a time. I would like to get him on his feet. I would like to hear the hon. gentleman speak in this House and represent the District of Lewisporte. I have a vested interest in the District of Lewisporte.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, I have known property there. I have a lot of friends and relatives there, and I would like to see the district properly represented. The only representation they are getting is what I am giving them in here, Mr. Chairman. That hon. gentleman has not been on his feet to talk about the District of Lewisporte since he was elected. He has not been seen since he was elected, Mr. Chairman. They do not know where he is out there anymore. What a disappointment he has been to them. He should go out and talk to some of the people. Of course, they might not give him the real truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. WINDSOR: They might not tell him the facts of what they really think about him in Lewisporte, but I will tell you. I know what they think of him. I am even tempted, Mr. Chairman, to move to Lewisporte and run against him. I am tempted. I am tempted, but I am under much pressure to save Mount Pearl, you see.

AN HON. MEMBER: Save Mount Pearl?

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, protect Mount Pearl against this Government that wants to take us over, that wants to amalgamate us. We will get into that issue a little later on. But I am awfully tempted. A lot of people out there really want me to come out. They really want a voice, not a parrot in the back benches of a Government run by a dictator, who is doing absolutely nothing for the district.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to get back - I am not going to waste my time talking about the Member for Lewisporte. He is history anyway. He will ride out his next couple of years, however long he has the courage to stay in Government, or before they get the courage to call an election, I should say. He will sit around for that period of time, but then he is history I say to my good friend and I have no animosity for him; I like the hon. gentleman on a personal basis.

MR. PENNEY: So you won't mind if we run in Lewisporte and (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: If you beat me in the election?

MR. PENNEY: Yes.

MR. WINDSOR: Not a chance. Not a chance. Not a chance. I would beat the hon. gentleman soundly, I assure him, in the District of Lewisporte. I was talking to a couple of constituents out there this morning, as the hon. gentleman may or may not know, who were talking to a lot of people over the weekend. It is amazing, Mr. Chairman, everywhere I go and everybody I speak with - I just came, by the way. The Opposition House Leader did the opening remarks on this Bill for me in my absence. I was attending a funeral in Mount Pearl. After the funeral, I stood outside the church. I was surrounded by a dozen people who said when are you going to do it? When are you going to get rid of this hon. crowd? How long are we going to have to suffer? How long? It is amazing the animosity.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentleman does not believe it, the hon. gentleman from Bellevue?

MR. BARRETT: You were talking to different people than I was.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, but I am talking to some of the people from Come By Chance, too, who want to know what the hon. gentleman's position has been on his hospital out there, his clinic.

AN HON. MEMBER: I have been talking to them.

MR. WINDSOR: I know he has been out talking to them, and I know some of the things they have said to him. I am having a problem here today, Mr. Chairman, being mean to some of these people. This is a neighbor and a constituent of mine I am talking about here. It is amazing what I heard about him.

I should talk about the hon. gentleman from Burgeo - Bay D'Espoir, because I spent a couple of days in his district this weekend. The first time they have seen a politician down there in a couple of months they told me. The first time, and it is a very nice establishment. I will take the opportunity, I say to the Minister of Tourism, to put in a plug now for some tourist cabins down there, which I believe the Department of Development may have put some funding into, called the Hill Top Tourist Cabins in Milltown, done through the Federal-Provincial agreement. A very nice little operation; seven cabins there that were filled last weekend. The only problem the hon. gentleman has is he needs more snowmobiles, because he rents snowmobiles. I had some brochures, and I will bring them in tomorrow. He asked me to bring them, so I will bring them in and I will distribute them here in the House tomorrow. And I recommend it to hon. gentlemen. It is a very nice location, good operation and good people.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible) got trails (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, you just follow up the trails. I brought my own machines down, but we followed up the transmission line, almost up to northeast Gander, and went up the Upper Salmon and up through Con Pond and all those areas. There is fabulous snowmobiling down there. I did some snowmobiling out in Lewisporte, too, by the way, I say to my hon. friend from Lewisporte. But I just wanted to get a plug in for that tourist establishment. It is new, just opened up a couple of months ago, but I say to the Minister that he needs some more snowmobiles. The big attraction he has is that you or I can book the cabins and can drive down from here without towing machines behind, which is not a lot of fun in the wintertime. He has excellent machines, and he will take you on guided tours to wherever you want to go.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) catch any trout?

MR. WINDSOR: I did not do any trout fishing, no. I decided not to try to drill down through the four feet of ice that was on the ponds down there. There was four feet of ice on the ponds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: I am down, then I am back up again, Mr. Chairman.

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is no danger of getting anybody over there up. The driving time is about six hours from Mount Pearl to Milltown, fairly comfortably, you know. There were ideal driving conditions this weekend. You are not always going to get that. And that is the advantage, I say to the Minister. There is tremendous potential. I am on to one of my favourite topics now; I have lots of time so I will get into it - snowmobiling in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have tremendous potential. I do not know if the Minister is aware that Newfoundland is one of the few provinces, maybe the only province, in Canada which does not have a groomed snowmobile trail all the way across the Province. You can go to Quebec, and I can show the Minister brochures - I do not need to. He has them in his office. His staff can give him more than I have available to me. But there are groomed snowmobile trails in Quebec. You can go up there and you can buy a package: stay in an outfitter's lodge - we have lots of those which are not utilized most of the wintertime but could be - rent your snowmobiles or bring your own, as you see fit. You have groomed trails, groomed by the Government. And it is a big industry now, particularly in Ontario and Quebec and in northern Manitoba, a big, big industry; In the Prairie Provinces you do not need groomed trails, you can go anywhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), looking at the railway (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, I have been advocating that for years. I have spoken - I am on the record about six times in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, I want to go on the record again, Mr. Chairman, as saying it would be an absolute crime if we allowed that corridor to be destroyed. I saw the Minister of Environment put out a notification a couple of days ago on an environmental assessment of putting some cables, I think telephone cables, and using the rail line for a telephone cable corridor, a buried cable. And that is great. I was delighted, because I said that will help protect the corridor. Because I am aware that there is a tremendous amount of pressure to use that corridor for other purposes, for incorporating it into industrial parks, or building on it or whatever. And I think that would be an absolute crime. I recognize the problem we will have on highways, and we may well have to spend a few dollars to put underpasses or something on some of the highways for safety purposes, to protect people who are using snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles on that right-of-way. But it is a tremendous corridor. People are using it now by the thousands, as the Minister knows - by the thousands - getting to their summer homes and to other recreation areas, just for transportation purposes, hauling wood or any number of things. But it would be an absolute crime that we have such a corridor going through some of the most beautiful parts of our Province, if we were to allow it to be destroyed. Because there is tremendous potential - tremendous potential - in the snowmobile industry, there really is, and it is starting to develop.

And I started to talk about it because I mentioned that he had four machines; he has four machines for rent in that operation. He said to me, if I had four machines for each of my seven cabins, I would have each of the seven cabins always booked. His problem is that he does not have enough machines to match the cabins; he only has four for rent plus one that he -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he try anywhere (inaudible)?

MR. WINDSOR: I did not get into any detailed conversation with him actually, it was more of an indirect conversation. But that is the problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you familiar with the (inaudible) program in (inaudible)?

MR. WINDSOR: No, I have not been involved in it. But there is so much potential, I am not surprised they are into it.

MR. FUREY: I did it two weeks ago; it is an amazing, amazing run. The potential for tourists coming in is just amazing.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. But I would love to. The hon. gentleman for Lewisporte has gone away on me now. I know he participated in a run last week, a seventy kilometre run or 120 kilometre run, from Lewisporte up through Horwood, back to Gander, up to Notre Dame Junction and back down to Lewisporte. It was organized for charity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister will know that two years ago we did a run from Corner Brook to Gander for the Tourism Convention.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did?

MR. WINDSOR: I did not do it, no. I was to do the one from St. John's to Gander. We just did not have any snow, so we could not do it. But I would have liked to have done it, and we will do it one of these days. But there is a tremendous potential there and I really do not think we should be missing out on it. In fact, we have to put more money into it.

And the Minister will know that one of the key things that is trying to be accomplished in the Tourism industry in Newfoundland is to look into the off-seasons, the shoulder season. I know I have said many times in this House that there is no such thing as a tourist season; twelve months of the year is the tourist season. We just have not captured it. And probably one of the greatest successes (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is right, perception and - you know, there is the concept in people's minds that Tourism is a summer thing, a very short thing. I disagree entirely. Marble Mountain and White Hills are two of the greatest examples of what we have been able to accomplish; people finally realized that, hey, winter is not so bad. You cannot beat it, but if you join it you will enjoy it! So when you see some snow coming down now, it is not this terrible stuff you have to shovel, but something that is going to make skiing better or snowmobiling better. So that is a concept that has to be and can be developed right across this Province. And there is tremendous potential for development throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The potential is incredible.

I say to my friend from Bonavista, I have talked to people out there who would like to develop that same concept, using the branch line from Clarenville to Bonavista. And it could be well promoted. It would be an excellent run, particularly for people from St. John's. You know, it is an hour and a half or a two hour run to drive to Clarenville and take your snowmobile from there and use the old branch line and go as far as Bonavista and come back again. And all kinds of services could be developed along the line, because that line goes through the communities all the way from Clarenville to Bonavista. So there is a lot of potential there to provide services, and there are people waiting for that opportunity. There are opportunities anywhere you turn. My friend from Cormac, in the District of Humber Valley, knows that area well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Labrador.

MR. WINDSOR: Labrador? I mean, how can I forget Labrador, Mr. Chairman, when I look over and see my good friend from Menihek. I have had many a good snowmobile ride through his courtesy, arranging machines for me in the Labrador City/Wabush area. That is something different again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

You can't use them in national parks, no. That is unfortunate but yet there is a rationale for that too, there is wildlife to think about, there is a wilderness environment that needs to be protected, and I do not have any problem with not using them in national parks. It is unfortunate for those of us who like to use them. I suspect we will get into a great debate here on all- terrain vehicles. I know the Minister's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, my friend was saying that the use is restricted in national parks, they have restricted it now in Gros Morne National Park. It has always been restricted in Terra Nova. They have now restricted it in Gros Morne. They are attempting to. Very difficult to do it when you have the enclaves there where people have traditionally been hauling wood and going fishing using their snowmobiles, I think it is very difficult to stop them.

I would say to the Minister, if the Minister is not aware of it, back in about 1980 or 1981 I took the Ministers of Tourism for all of Atlantic Canada to Gros Morne Park, took them on snowmobile back up into the country one afternoon. And it was most enjoyable. It was organized by the national park people, they provided the machines for us, they had a reception at the Interpretation Centre in Rocky Harbour.

We had lunch at Mr. and Mrs. Parsons' Hospitality Home. If you have never eaten a lunch at Mr. and Mrs. Parsons' Hospitality Home, you have never eaten lunch, let me tell you. It is a five-course lunch with all the trimmings and absolutely disgraceful desserts. But is it ever good. But they are, I would say, the epitome, the most representative couple of what tourism should be and can be in Newfoundland and Labrador. An elderly couple, they have a beautiful home, I am sure my friend knows it. They are fabulous people, they are great ambassadors for us. You look at some of the tourist brochures you will see pictures of Mr. Parsons there I think with a pan of raspberries, as I recall, in your tourism book. But they are fabulous, fabulous people, who have done tremendous things to promote tourism in that part of the area. And anybody, any of the Members who may be up that area, would be well advised, would do themselves a favour, to drop in and call ahead, and say: I am going to be here and I would like to have lunch for a couple of people. They are a tremendous couple.

But there is a tremendous potential for tourism in this Province, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about massive layoffs across the Province here in this Budget, and it is so much more fun to talk about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, I was saying to my friend that I realized, I understand, the Government is looking at new ATV regulations. And I will speak to that when it comes to the floor of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up again.

MR. WINDSOR: Just give me one more minute and then I will sit and let one of my colleagues or somebody opposite speak, because I will have many chances again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you seen some of the areas torn up (Inaudible)?

MR. WINDSOR: I see some areas torn up. Most of the areas that I see torn up - and they are exceptions, you can not generalize this, okay? - are torn up not by ATVs but by the tracked vehicles. The tracked vehicles, ones that are hauling the large amounts of lumber, the J5s. J5s are the ones that are causing all of the damage, the big bombardiers with the steel tracks that are hauling on a regular trail. And yes, there are areas where people are constantly going in hauling wood or fishing, you know? Is that any different than it was 100 years ago when we hauled in with horse and carriage? And we cut roads to go through, alright? We build wood roads to get access in there. Those are permanent scars. ATVs across bog are temporary scars, I say, and will recover. And yes, there is a need for more regulation. There is a lot of indiscriminate usage. If the hon. Minister were to get an ATV and to take a track across a marsh, I doubt that I could follow him. I doubt I could follow his trail. Because one ATV going over a marsh - with some exceptions, obviously, in real solid bog you will leave a trail - but generally it is not tearing up the terrain. But it is the continuous usage of a particular trail, the repetition, is what causes the damage, alright? And indiscriminate use.

The biggest problem out there is attitude again. It is the garbage that is being left behind. When I go to the country I usually come back with a bigger sack than I went in with. All of my garbage plus five times as much that other people have left behind. And I think it really is - if there is something that we could do to change the attitudes of people going into the - I have a saying, I do not know if it is appropriate here or not. But I always say, leave nothing in the environment unless you have eaten it first. Okay? When you go out into the wilderness leave nothing there that you have not eaten first, and that is a good rule, and I have quoted it thousands of times to people. And I think if we all followed that rule our environment would be so much better. And there is noting as upsetting to me as travelling ten or fifteen or twenty miles back into the country on canoe or all-terrain vehicle or snowmobile and seeing a stack of beer or bean cans. I mean, if a guy is capable of carrying an aluminium can filled with beer or pop, whatever the case may be, into the country, surely he can carry back an empty beer can squat up. I mean, it weighs absolutely nothing. You can shove it in your shirt pocket if you want to.

And this is an argument that I had - the Minister may still be involved in this. When I was in the Department of Development, there was a great move afoot to eliminate beer cans for environmental reasons. And my argument is, and there is no black or white on that one either, my argument on that was that, if I am going into the country and I want to bring beer or soft drink cans in, I will bring the cans back. But I have more sympathy for those who say: I am not going to bring a bottle back. And a bottle is more dangerous from a forest fire point of view than a can is. Unfortunately aluminium cans last a long time. But a broken bottle will cause a forest fire where the aluminium can will not. And I say that there is a greater tendency to either bring the aluminium can back or you can burn it. When you light a camp fire - and I am doing it every day on the weekends, when I am out on snowmobile - you light a camp fire and you boil up, you throw your cans in the fire. And they totally disintegrate.

And so my argument on that is that they are more convenient, you are more likely to bring it back, or you are more likely to burn it than to lug empty bottles back. So from an environmental point of view I for one am not convinced that the aluminium can is all that bad as it relates to this recreational usage.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Sorry, I can't -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: We are our own worst enemy in that regard. So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to sit down for a minute and let somebody else get up, I do not want to block the whole afternoon. I have many chances to get up.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak on this bill because I think it is very important that Members have an opportunity to talk about what this Government has planned. We see an interim supply bill of $993 million of which $210 million is for education. We know, Mr. Chairman, that that is a tremendous amount of money, $993 million. But you know, less that one-tenth of 1 per cent of that amount of money is what it takes to run the Extension Service of Memorial University. Mr. Chairman, some Members may wonder why the Member for St. John's East is concerned about Extension Service, because that has to do with rural Newfoundland. Why does he care what goes on in rural Newfoundland?

Well, Mr. Chairman, the reason that the Member for St. John's East cares about rural Newfoundland is because this Government does not care about rural Newfoundland. And does not care that their policies are ripping the guts out of the support system for rural Newfoundland by the destruction of a service such as Memorial University Extension Service, which has provided many services vital to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, vital to the development of communities, and vital to the public discussion and public participation. Mr. Speaker, ironically, March 5, I received as I am sure all other hon. Members did, from the Director of Extension, an education kit they called it on MUN Extension. And it contains in it some dozen or more documents which outline what MUN Extension is in terms of its provision of services for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, particularly in the rural region.

Just one of them is field services. Now perhaps the Government and the Government Members over there do not know what field services are. I would commend to them this kit, they should read all these things, because then they will know what it is they are doing by their policies. Field services, the document says, is an integral and unique part of Memorial University's Extension Service. Field coordinators placed strategically around the Province with offices located in Mary's Harbour, Labrador, Deer Lake, Gander, Clarenville, Placentia, providing a main and constant link between the education service and rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The field work coordinators, are working towards educational objectives, supporting active citizen involvement with community issues, creating awareness, providing knowledge and skills, encouraging participation and promoting action. They live and work in rural regions supplying techniques of social animation and adult education.

Mr. Chairman, the field work services of Memorial Extension Services have performed a very vital service in all of Newfoundland. I see the Chairman, who represents a rural area, nodding his head, and the Member for Eagle River nodding his head, as one who recognizes that this service does and has continuously provided a vital service to rural Newfoundland in developing awareness on issues, conducting forums on major policy issues, creating a link between the University and the community, one which will not be replaced by any other activity that the University has.

Another of the documents refers to a MUN Extension programme called ACORN, the Applied Community-Oriented Research in Newfoundland. That is a way of making sure that the University's research activity has some relevance to the community of Newfoundland which pays the price. The Government and the people of this Province pay the cost of Memorial University and they have a right to insist and to seek ways that the University work, in all of its work, whether it be in research in the biological sciences, whether it be in research in the social sciences, in community development and other fields - sociology - that that has some relevance to Newfoundland's and Newfoundlander's problems.

The objective of the ACORN is to facilitate and coordinate University faculty expertise to research on community related problems. One of the programmes that they outline here is the support for a biochemist to travel to Goose Bay to act as an expert consultant to the local community, local concerned citizens committee on PCB burn tests. That is a service provided to a local community group which needs, and which needed at that time, independent assessment, independent advice, not someone hired by the Government who may be a part scientist, part public relations expert, but somebody who is independent, who can come to a community and say that they have no brief for the Government of this Province or the Government of Canada or some government agency or Department. As we know, Mr. Chairman, some scientists who work in Government are sometimes part scientists and part apologists for Government policy. We know that in many cases, even if that is not true, there is a public perception that sometimes their opinions might be biased towards the opinions of the Minister of the day responsible for that Government Department. So to have a service such as this when citizens in Goose Bay were very concerned about what was going to happen to the environment, to their children, to their health, when the Government decided to engage in massive PCB burning, they wanted and received from Mun Extension a scientist who is able to be an expert consultant to these concerned citizens.

There are several other projects listed there. Again I recommend all Members opposite to have a read and look at what it is they are destroying through the policies that they are introducing in this Province, what they are doing to rural Newfoundlanders in terms of creating out there in the communities around Newfoundland and Labrador a fear, Mr. Chairman, that this Government does not care, a fear that the support that they have received from such institutions as Memorial is disappearing and it is disappearing because this Government is prepared to let that happen. They are prepared to let Memorial University wipe out in one stop the support for a very valuable internationally recognized service to the people of Newfoundland.

I am a little concerned, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps some of the motivation in this might be that they do not really want people talking about issues in this Province. One of the other matters that Mun Extension deals with in its awareness kit is issues in public policy, one of their objectives is to generate awareness, discussion and debate on public policy issues relative to citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. That, Mr. Chairman, being done by an independent body, not beholden to this Government on what it will talk about.

So what are the current topics? In January 1991: the Crisis in the Fishery. Another topic, February 28: Cutbacks in Health, Education and Services. They do not want people talking about that? They do not want to have panel presentations, phone-in (inaudible) for the general public on issues in cutbacks in health care, citizens forum on Canada's Future, scheduled for March 25, no doubt scuttled by the policies of this Government. The topic on Hibernia, April 19, 1991; Environment, May 1991. No doubt, Mr. Chairman, those services are gone too.

Mr. Chairman, all throughout this document that was presented by Mun Extension to make the public of this Province aware of their policies and their programs was all presented to hon. Members opposite, the same week, prior to Education Week, I do not think they read it, Mr. Chairman, because if they did they would not have supported the Budget that was introduced, and they would not have supported the cutbacks to Memorial University if they thought for a moment that it was going to have the effect of wiping out Memorial University Extension Service. Then, Mr. Chairman, in the Interim Supply Budget, as I said at the beginning, there is $993 million under the Heads of Expenditure outlined in the Schedule. In this Schedule, Education is given $210,460,000. Mr. Chairman, a minuscule amount of that by comparison would cover the cost of Mun Extension, and this Government has shown by its lack of concern, by its failure to properly provide for Memorial University a budget sufficient to run Extension that they do not care and they are prepared to let this happen. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a shame. It is a disgrace. People from all over rural Newfoundland and Labrador will be speaking out and requiring this Government to answer for their deeds.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the hon. Member for Green Bay I would like to welcome to the House today on behalf of hon. Members Councillor Ray O'Neill from the City of St. John's.

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to make a few remarks with regard to this particular Interim Supply Bill. It is perhaps coincidental that today I had a delegation in from my district from Little Bay Islands who met with senior officials of the Transportation Department with regard to their ferry system. In the early 60s the Liberal Party, Mr. Chairman, did a tremendous effort to resettle a good part of rural Newfoundland, however, I am very pleased and proud to say that Green Bay was among those districts that did successfully buck that particular trend and was not easily, or thoroughly, resettled. Green Bay has a number of island communities that are still alive and well today. Port Anson and Miles Cove are on Sunday Cove Island, we have Pilley's Island, we have Brighton Island, we have Triton Island, and all of these Islands are connected to the main Island of Newfoundland by a road and causeway network. However, Mr. Chairman, we have two islands in Green Bay that are inhabited but not connected by a causeway or road network, namely Little Bay Islands and Long Island. Some years ago the ferry services to these two islands came under Federal jurisdiction, and I remember years ago during the negotiations, the brother of the current President of Treasury Board, Federal MP, George Baker, working hand in hand with the Member for Green Bay at the time, Brian Peckford, to straighten out the ferry system in Green Bay. We had one boat covering two islands, a totally inadequate service, constant friction between the residents of the island with regard to the service, the sharing of the service, etc. etc. So, between the good efforts of Mr. Brian Peckford and Mr. George Baker, and the Federal Government, which shed itself of these intraprovincial ferry services at the time, we managed, with some considerable effort on the part of many, many people, to set up two totally separate ferry systems in Green Bay for these two islands. Several millions of Federal dollars were spent to construct four new wharves, or ferry terminals, to purchase two boats and to construct road networks leading to the four terminals, at which time when all of this was built and put in place, the Federal Government of the day turned the ferry system and others in the Province over to the Provincial Department of Transportation. Good riddance, they said, it is yours, we built it for you and you run it. Unfortunately, now, Mr. Chairman, they intend to run it into the ground or into the sea, I suppose, would be more appropriately put. After struggling for many, many years to get a separate ferry system for two islands the Budget announced this year that the ferry service for Little Bay Islands and Long Island would be amalgamated for six months of the year. That sounds easy to say from a bureaucratic desk in St. John's, Mr. Chairman. That seems like an easily made bureaucratic cost-saving measure but that affects people's lives in a very real way. The people of Little Bay Islands, their ferry calls in at Shoal Arm near Springdale. Springdale is their community of interest, where they do their shopping, their banking, and where their medical services are, etc. The ferry for Long Island calls in at Pilley's Island and they do a lot of their banking and shopping, etc. in the Robert's Arm, Triton area. So, we have two distinct communities of interest and each island referring by its own ferry service to a totally distinct community of interest. Now, we have the tangle of amalgamating the two ferry systems for six months of the year, with all the disruption that entails, with again resurrecting the frictions between the two islands, and resurrecting the question of which Mainland terminal, or terminals are to be used during the period of the amalgamation of the two services. The delegation from Little Bay Islands today was extremely worried that their fish plant, which is very dependent on an efficient transportation system, might be adversely affected if the Mainland terminal that they are used to using is no longer the Mainland terminal of the amalgamated service. The fish plant on Little Bay Islands deals mainly in shell fish products, Mr. Chairman. Shell fish spoils very easily, and very quickly, and needs a quick ready efficient transportation system. The viability of the fish plant on Little Bay Islands is in jeopardy if the Department of Transportation are not very careful and very vigilant in the way they organize the ferry system for the period of the amalgamation which is six months out of every year.

The hon. Minister of Fisheries knows what I am talking about. I have spoken to him before about the viability of that particular plant, and certainly amalgamating the ferry services for six months of the year complicates, to put it mildly, the ongoing viability of that particular fish plant, which this year hopes to get into mussel processing in addition to crab and other pelagic species.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please!

I have to announce the questions for the late show. I hate to interrupt the Member.

MR. HEWLETT: No problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Question number one is: I am not satisfied with the response from the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs regarding my question on municipal capital works. I would like to have it placed on the late show. That is the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

Question number two: I am not satisfied with the answer given by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in response to my question on the capital grants for recreation. That is the hon. the Member for Fogo.

Question number three: I am not satisfied with the answer to my question to the Minister of Labour, re: her concerns about the effect that Bill 16 will have on Labour Relations. That is from the hon. the Member for Grand Falls, the Opposition House Leader.

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying before I was so cordially interrupted, the Budget brought down by this particular administration has managed to put the transportation system for the two islands in particular, back ten or fifteen years to complicate a matter that the President of the Treasury Board's brother and the former Member, Mr. Peckford, spent some years trying to sort out. Now we are back to square one again, at least for 50 per cent of the year. The people of both Islands are very upset with the Government with regard to this particular change, and as their Member I feel it is my duty to bring this before the hon. House of Assembly and to let Members in the Government benches, especially those from St. John's and environs, understand that there is a rural Newfoundland with real problems, with real people who need real services. They got real change, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately it was not real change for the better, it was real change for the worst. I thank you.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on this Interim Supply Bill for $993,139,500, almost a billion dollars - almost one billion dollars. And, of course, there was about $272 million in health care. That is a lot of money in this Province. The district I represent produces a lot of revenue for this Province. Some of the services that they have become accustomed to over the last numbers of years they have seen eroded since the election of this Government. They have seen services in western Labrador tremendously eroded, albeit the economy there has shifted to the better because of a change in global economy.

One of the things that concerns an awful lot of people in western Labrador is the erosion of the quality of health care. The reason why they have such a great concern, and probably more concern than most other districts, even though some people on the other side have concerns in their districts, they have lost the quality of health care. In some cases they have hospitals being closed, their functions have been changed and they are two and three hours away from St. John's or they may be an hour and a half drive away from a regional centre.

Well the problem in Labrador where I live, the 13,000 people who live in Labrador City and Wabush, is that when we have to get to a surgeon here in St. John's, it is an eight hour turn around time for a patient who has an accident and would require an ambulance to get to a surgeon here in St. John's, it would take eight hours. Eight hours. And yet this Government, this regime has seen fit to institute an $870,000 cut to the revenues of the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in western Labrador, a hospital that has been operating since 1965 by the Salvation Army, and probably one of the better, more efficiently operated hospitals in this whole province.

The Salvation Army has done a tremendous job in coping with the restraints over the last numbers of years and they have come up with a plan. This time they were hoping to be able to see them through until next year, albeit it is going to be difficult. We have also, in the last few years, seen that we have had to offer medical services to our neighbouring community in Fermont. Now, you might say why should we in this Province have a concern for delivering a good quality health care to residents of another province, in the Province of Quebec. The 3,500 people who live over there have an arrangement with this Province to be able to make use of our hospital facilities because they do not have a hospital. But that puts an additional strain on our health care facilities in western Labrador, but it also provides an amount of revenue from the Province of Quebec that they pay this Government to operate health care in this whole Province. So, it is really an economic generator for this Province, but this Province must realize and recognize the responsibility that they have delivering good quality health care to an area of this Province that is as isolated as western Labrador in the District of Menihek.

With the amazing size of the three mining properties in the area, the potential for industrial accidents is tremendous. Can you imagine the stress that that causes, not just on the workers who are out there, who are fearful of this extended time delivery of health care if they were to have an accident, being eight hours away from - that is in air ambulance, being eight hours away from health care here in St. John's. The stress that causes to an individual on the job and the stress that causes to the families at home worrying about the "bread winner" out on a job who is in a potential of having an industrial accident. And, of course, this does not do anything for the quality of work that is going to be done on the job, and the quality of life in the home itself in the town sites of Labrador City and Wabush. And this is an area that produces more wealth to this Government than any other electoral district in this Province, an area that puts in more per capita than anywhere else in this Province, and an area that gets lesser and lesser from this Government. Every Budget takes things out of western Labrador and takes more tax revenue from western Labrador and cuts back services in western Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. Member for Exploits, I am sure if he were able to speak to some of his former friends in western Labrador -

AN HON. MEMBER: Former friends.

MR. A. SNOW: - who are still in the teaching profession, an honourable profession, he would be told the same thing. They would tell him about the gutting of programs that used to be delivered in western Labrador by previous administrations.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. Member for Exploits is saying it is not true that he does not have any friends in Labrador or is he saying he does have? That is not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the people of western Labrador are upset about the cutting back of services for the extremely high amount of taxes that they produce and the wealth that they produce to this Province.

It is unfortunate that this Province cuts the expenses to areas such as western Labrador and they have seen fit to do it in the two Budgets that they have brought down. It is unfortunate because it is creating a feeling of alienation in the people of western Labrador towards the Island portion of the Province. A feeling that had been eroded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: That feeling used to be prevalent many years ago, it is starting to come again throughout Labrador, I believe, and it is because of this centralization, of removing everything from rural Newfoundland into the urban sections of Newfoundland.

I would hope that you people on the other side, when you have the opportunity of talking to the select few in Cabinet, that you would urge them to increase more funds to be spent in Labrador.

I am pleased to see that there was an allocation of some extra money, $800,000 to be spent for a study and a design, I believe, on the health care facilities in the district of Naskaupi. I think it has been announced twice now in the last two years, has it not? And hopefully in another couple of years they will get it spent. And that will help to some degree the health care delivery in Labrador, and more specifically in Naskaupi. But I want to speak specifically about the problems of health care in the District of Menihek delivered at the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: We could have - there is a distinct possibility with an $870,000 cut, there could be a possibility of fourteen people being laid off in the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital.

Now fourteen jobs is an economic factor in the district, and it is a tremendous factor to those individuals, those households that those people live in and the families because they bring in money to those houses and that is going to affect them. But the real effect is going to be out in the community, in the lack of quality health care that has always been delivered to western Labrador, and it is not going to be there now. There is going to be more work put on people who are going to be working in the hospital, more work put there and they are going to get less money. Their wages have been rolled back or are going to be rolled back. So that means they are going to have to do more work and get less money. This is going to again, I believe, affect the morale of the workers in the health care system.

I have talked to the union representatives in the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital and they have told me about how it has already affected the morale of the health care workers. And if we affect the morale of the health care workers we are going to affect the quality of work and the delivery of health care to the patients. That is what we have to be concerned about. You have to put the patient's well-being ahead of the bottom line. This is not a private company that is going through a slippage in sales, this is supposed to be an operation of a Government to deliver health care services to the people of this Province. And that is what you should be doing.

We are probably going to be losing specialists care. We live quite a distance away from St. John's, from a major centre. So if we in western Labrador get a fewer number of specialists coming in to Labrador City and Wabush to provide more surgery that is going to mean people are going to have to spend a longer time in pain, discomfort, probably longer times off work because they cannot get to see a specialist or indeed if they have to come here to St. John's, they have to pay more money because of the lack of subsidy that this regime saw fit to gut in the Labrador Air Passenger Subsidy Program last year.

Because of the age of our community, we do not have a large chronic care section in our hospital, at the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital, not yet, but that is the demographics of the community, it is a young community, it is a community that has only been there for thirty years, a young, rich community, vibrant community but, we do have I believe six or eight patients there, they are going to have to be relocated while they shut down eight acute care beds, but the dislocation of these people, the trauma that is going to affect those patients and their families. They are not going to have as good a surroundings, as good a care as they did have in previous years and this is unfortunate because these are the people who produced a tremendous amount of wealth in this Province, made a tremendous contribution over the last numbers of years because most of them are former miners, people who went out and dug out the iron ore and processed it and created wealth that kept this Confederation Building going for the last ten years. Thank you.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. This $1 billion Interim Supply Bill contains measures that are extremely regressive; measures that are going to result in the elimination of about 3,500 Provincial Government funded jobs throughout the Province and which, when you factor in the multiplier effect on our service sector, will have the effect of wiping out close to 9,000 jobs in the Province. The measures will dismantle and weaken health care and education programs and services which were built up under PC Administrations during the 1970s and 1980s, and the thrust of the choices inherent in these measures is the accentuation of disparities between the poor and the better off, people in rural areas and people in urban areas, the new growth centres, and will aggravate the gap between women and men. I will give some examples.

At the same time as the Government is predicting an overall rise in the cost of living of close to 6 per cent, there is a freeze in the basic social assistance rate. Now most Members hear from constituents who are on social assistance. I assume most of you get a similar mix of calls to what I get and I know the poorest people I hear from are single mothers with children on social assistance. Many of them were hard hit last October when the Government cut assistance for single mothers getting maintenance, a cut of up to $115 a month.

Now granted, in this Budget there is provision for a new allowance for single mothers with dependent children, but that does not come close to making up the cut suffered by many single parent families last October, and when you realize the freeze in the basic rate you have to conclude that most single parent families on social assistance will be behind in 1991; they will have less real purchasing power in 1991 than they had in 1990, their relative position in our society is worsening. At the same time, the cost of electricity, which is an essential, is rising at a much higher rate than the general inflation rate. The rise in the cost of electricity is the attitude of the Government, the regressive approach of Government. In its first Budget the Government announced the elimination of the $30 million a year Government subsidy to Hydro. That was phased out in three annual instalments of $10 million. That will have to be recouped by Hydro from Newfoundland Power, which in turn will be able to have the PUB factor into rate increases for consumers.

In the case of the disparity between rural and urban parts of the Province, the shocking cuts in hospitals, health care services, education services and the elimination of MUN extension, are all removing the supports and underpinnings of our smaller towns and communities. The Liberals in the 1960s, with economic and social engineers, carried out a formal resettlement program. They targeted growth centres and aggressively transplanted families and individuals from small communities into the growth centres. It seems as though this new Liberal administration is intent on picking up where the Liberals left off in 1971. They have not adopted the same terminology, but their measures are just as ruthless and brutal.

I spoke about the widening gap between women and men. The brunt of the regressive measures in this Budget will be felt by women. A disproportionate number of the public employees losing their jobs are women. The health care sector is being hardest hit and the health care sector is dominated by women. Women do not hold down many of the power positions, but the majority of jobs in the health care sector are held by women, and of those being eliminated in the health care sector, most are women.

Pay equity, which was agreed to by the previous PC administration and which was embraced by the Liberals when they were campaigning for election two short years ago, has now fallen by the wayside. The Government has reneged on its commitment to implement pay equity measures following negotiations with public service unions. Evidently, the Government is willing to acquiesce in its women employees being paid less for doing work of equal value to men. That is a human right which the Minister of Education, the Minister of Justice, and others in this real-change administration who have some responsibility for enforcing human rights, seem quite prepared to sacrifice.

In the estimates for the Executive Council there are increases for just about every sector: a whopping increase for Newfoundland Information Services. This is the second year in a row that Government has increased the Budget of one of its PR and propaganda organs. A couple of years ago, Newfoundland Information Services spent only a bit more than $100,000. Last year, the Government forecasted doubling of the Budget, in fact spent three times as much, and now, in this year of harsh Budget measures, cuts and restraints, we see a further increase for Newfoundland Information Services. And that increase is on top of what is being paid by the Government to employ directors of public relations in most of the Departments.

The Protocol Office is getting a huge increase. Yet, on the next page of the Estimates we see cuts in the Estimates for the Women's Policy Office and the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women. So the Budget is extremely regressive. The Budget embodies the choices of the Premier who is, as an individual, elitest and paternalistic. The Budget is going to widen the income and power gaps between the poor and the monied, between people in small communities and people in the cities, between women and men. And yet, the people responsible for these choices, the Premier and his collegues, call themsleves liberal. I wonder how they can look at themselves in the mirror. I wonder how they can sleep at night realizing the choices they have made.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I would rather look at myself in the mirror than look at you.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Chair, the Budget does not lay out any plan for improving services, for generating more wealth, for boosting the economy, for adding jobs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: Thank you.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate on Interim Supply. I think there is some $1 billion or so in the bill - nearly $1 billion. Of course, one of the cutbacks which occurred when this Budget was announced was the construction of a new ferry for Fogo Island. Mr. Chairman, since this administration has come in it has set transportation to Fogo Island, and to Change Islands, too, on a steady decline. The Government upon its election committed itself -

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: The Member for Carbonear speaks quite loudly when the Premier is not around. Other than that, he is very quiet.

MR. POWER: And never standing up.

MR. WINSOR: Never standing.

MR. POWER: Has he made his maiden speech yet?

MR. REID: Tell us about the ferries.

MR. WINSOR: I will tell you all about the ferries now.

The first thing it did was commit itself to providing a dedicated ferry service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. POWER: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. This is too much.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Chairman, can you ask the Member for Carbonear to either restrain himself or leave the Chamber?

MR. REID: Tell us about the ferry.

MR. TOBIN: What ferry?

MR. REID: The ferry on Fogo Island.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Chairman, when this administration came to power, one of the things that it committed itself to was improving the ferry service to Fogo Island and Changes Islands. Since it has been elected, what we have seen is a steady erosion of the service instead of an improvement. The first commitment it made would be to have a dedicated ferry service for each of the islands, and they did that for about three months. The first blow we received was when the Minister stood in his place in this House and made a Ministerial Statement and said, `we have decided to revert to one ferry system', a system that had been tried before and did not work. It was tried for six months and found inoperable, and this administration now tries the same thing for nine months, when it could not work in the six month trial period.

MR. SIMMS: Stunned.

MR. WINSOR: The Minister stood in his place in the House the other day and said, `Mr. Speaker, they are perfectly happy with the one ferry boat, and they are getting four trips a day.' The Minister obviously does not know very much about the operation, because they only get two trips a day because they are on a winter schedule. The Minister was referring to an event that happened last fall, when they combined the services for the first time for a fall schedule.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) about once a year?

MR. WINSOR: So obviously the Minister is not very aware of what goes on in his Department, because he does not know the difference between a fall schedule and a winter schedule. Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister also quite proudly in 1991 boasted in his Budget speech that we will begin the construction of a $24 million ice-breaking ferry for Fogo Island; spent $4 million last year doing design work. I heard the Premier the other day on Cross Talk saying we cannot carry on with the construction. The Minister of Finance stood in his place and said we have to defer the construction of that ferry. The question is, when is it going to be built? Because those deferrals, like the university for central Newfoundland, all of these things will come in due course.

Now, Mr. Chairman, in addition to the injustice that has been inflicted on the people of Fogo Island, the Marystown Shipyard eagerly anticipated the work that would result from the construction of that ferry, an economic generator for the Province that would have provided some employment. I am surprised that the Minister of Labour would even permit her Cabinet colleagues to let that kind of thing happen in a province in which the unemployment rate is steadily escalating, and it seems that it is getting worse while she continues to be the Minister responsible for unemployment instead of employment.

Mr. Chairman, it being 4:30, I will adjourn debate for the Late Show. I move that the Committee rise and report progress.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I put a question to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs yesterday regarding the lack of capital funding from his department regarding municipal affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, municipal affairs. Regarding capital works for water and sewer and roads for municipalities. The Member for Carbonear might want to know that they are in a position to avail of them. Last year in the Budget there was an allocation of $55 million. If you look in the Budget document that was read by the Minister Finance you would clearly see that there was $55 million allocated for capital funding.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's South would do well to go back to his seat -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MR. TOBIN: - and wait for one of the councils to look after him in the next election. $55 million was allocated in the last Budget -

AN HON. MEMBER: $55 million.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, $55 million, and this year not a cent has been allocated. And the Minister can get up and he can do all the fancy talking he likes about it coming out of next year's allocation for this year and the year after. There is no difference in the presentation of a budget last year than the presentation of a budget this year. The only difference is that the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is in a bigger mess. That is the only difference.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MR. TOBIN: I want the Minister to give assurance to this House today that the capital budget for water and sewer and municipal roads will not be less than what it was last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, if the Member for Carbonear wants to accept less for his constituents, let him do it. In our case, we want more for our constituents - we want more for our constituents!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Minister that he owes this House and the people of the Province nothing less than a full disclosure this afternoon as to how much money is going to be allocated, and he owes this Province nothing less than to tell us, to ensure us, that it will not be less than what it was last year, because right now in this Province, Councils cannot plan their budgets. We have seen CBS (inaudible), Mr. Speaker and everybody who read the newspapers and watched the latest episode between the Member and the Councils, is that nobody can plan their budgets in this Province. The Councils are having difficulty planning their budgets because they do not know how much money is going to be allocated for water and sewer, they do not know whether they are going to be successful or not. As well, early tendering:

early tendering is something that is extremely important and we want that brought into consideration as well; we brought in an early tendering process back some years ago. Last year, the Minister followed that early tendering process and I want the Minister to assure the House that that early tendering process will be in place again this year, because -

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Minister of Forestry is the only one who kept it going.

MR. WARREN: - because it is important to the people. So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I understand I only have a minute left, my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, with which I was not satisfied, is, will he assure the House that there will not be less money this year than last year for capital works, will he assure the people of this Province that there will not be less money this year than there was last year, will he tell the people through the House, how much money there will be in the capital works budget this year and, Mr. Speaker, will he tell us when the tenders will be called, whether or not there will be early tendering. That is my question to the Minister and I hope he will give me the answer that I requested.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, this is a question I was asked yesterday, concerning the capital works. I thought I made it clear at the time that capital works of course is not a Budget item in the year that it is announced, that has not changed since yesterday, that is still the case.

$55 million that was allocated last year, yes, it was mentioned in the Budget Speech and that is the prerogative of the Minister of Finance, if he wants to mention what happens in other Departments, and I guess he chose not to mention it this year. I have no authority over the Minister of Finance, none whatsoever. That was his speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody else does either.

MR. GULLAGE: And nobody else does either, probably; but certainly, quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, capital works will be announced shortly within the next -

AN HON. MEMBER: In due course.

MR. GULLAGE: - in due course, that is right, within the next few weeks, as quickly as I can bring it to the House, I will. Nobody needs to impress upon me the importance of capital works in the Province, water and sewer and roads in the main, because we have a billion dollar problem, you have heard me speak of this before so I will not get into details about the billion dollar problem, but certainly, just as recently as early this week we reviewed that billion dollar problem that exists in the Province, community by community, and it is a terrific problem.

To say that we are going to have a capital works program I guess, or to question whether or not we are going to have one, is almost ludicrous; the very thought that we would not have one, I think, given the needs that exist out there, is unthinkable, unthinkable.

The Member mentioned last year. Last year we had the largest capital works program this Province has ever seen by far, $55 million plus $11 million in Labrador in the Labrador agreements, that is $66 million altogether, that is more than twice the capital works program that existed prior to our taking Government, Mr. Speaker, and I would love to maintain the funding at that level if I can, but obviously, obviously I am not the Government, I am just one person in the Government and as the Member knows, he served in Cabinet, that one Minister does not make a Government decision in isolation.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did, he did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)

MR. GULLAGE: I do not think I have that kind of authority -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: - as a matter of fact I am sure I do not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: - and Government will ultimately make a decision after I bring in a recommendation as to the priorities and an amount of capital works certainly, the first decision will be the amount that is going to be allocated and then of course the detail follows.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good answer, good answer.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, so yes, I feel very confident we will have a capital works program, the amount obviously I do not have a crystal ball so I cannot predict Government's decision, I would not want to predict it, but very shortly we will have an announcement.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, since this Government became the Government in 1989, there has been a major concern in the recreation and sporting communities in this Province about the positioning of sport and recreation with Municipal Affairs. Recreation consultants and practitioners across this Province, at the time when it was done, were very concerned that recreation would be put on the back burner, and their fears have been realized. There is no question, the burner is turned off. In 1989 a Budget that was essentially prepared by the PC administration, that was in Government before, allocated some $4.5 million to capital works for recreation. Last year the Budget, 1990, the first Liberal Budget, reduced that amount to $1.8 million, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, there were no new capital works approved. It was only to fund those that had previously been announced, no doubt many of them approved by the PC Government some years before. These were ongoing commitments and not one new program was approved. This year the Budget is reduced even further. It is reduced to $1.7 million because some of the ongoing commitments have now been lived up to and there is no need to give community A another $3000, $4000, or $5000 because the three or four year phased in grant system has all been paid up. So, Mr. Speaker, there is again, for the second year in a row, no new expenditures for little community parks, playgrounds, ball fields,and that kind of thing, in rural Newfoundland where essentially most of that money was spent. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the second year in a row that nothing in the way of finances is being provided. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, last year on numerous occasions, I specifically asked the Minister to table the list of the ones he allocated but we never, ever, did see the list. We never saw the list of the ones that were approved and we still wonder why, because the Minister indicated there might have been some slippage funds where projects were cancelled for whatever reasons. We are still waiting to see what kind of commitment this administration has got to recreation in this Province. I think it was in November, I am not sure of the date, that the Minister came before this House and announced a new regional facilities program for regional recreation commissions. Mr. Speaker, everyone was delighted because now of course there was going to be two stadiums a year for the next number of years. I can remember being in the Premier's office with a delegation from Fogo and the Premier tapped the lady on the back, when she walked through the door and said: do not worry, we are going to take care of it. It is going to be even better.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Carbonear said it was a waste of money.

MR. WINSOR: The Member for Carbonear can keep talking as much as he wants. No one pays attention to him, either in, or outside, of caucus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister announced in this House that he was going to provide two such facilities each year. In answer to a question earlier this week the Minister indicated that if there was going to be a program, if and when we have one - now, the Minister had already announced that there was going to be one, and now he is saying if and when, it is going to be announced when we announce our capital works. The Minister also said in the same sentence, down a little further, that this program will not need any new money this year. So, if it is because of restraints, we do not have to worry about restraints because it is not going to apply until next year. It is not going to cost him a cent this year, according to the Minister. By his own admission that will not cost this administration one cent this year. It is going to be in the next Budget. We are still waiting for the Minister to live up to the commitments that he has made to rural Newfoundland, and when he gets up in a few minutes we want him to now come through, announce the sites that he promised a year and a half ago, and get on with living up to the obligations that he made to the people of Newfoundland and to this House a year and a half ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Member talks about our commitment to sport, recreation and fitness. I am not sure where he is looking at the Budget, but the figures I see show an increase over the previous year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: And given the fact that we got pretty well a frozen Budget throughout Government, I think we are very fortunate to have that increase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, since we have taken Government we have streamlined, to say the least, sport, recreation and fitness. We put the three sports bodies, the High School Federation, Sport Newfoundland and Labrador, and Parks and Recreation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GULLAGE: All those three bodies are now at arm's length from Government, the way they want to be, arm's length from Government, funded by way of grants, rather than being employed directly by Government. And we have a Department basically that is comprised of consultants who are faced off against responsibilities to relate with the sports organizations and to look after community recreation, fitness and other programs throughout the Province. They also, of course, are responsible, as we all know, for the Canada Summer and Winter Games teams that participated in the last two Canada Games recently. And also in the Newfoundland Games and the Labrador Games, as a matter of fact. Some $400,000 identified in the Budget for the Labrador Games.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Another commitment to Labrador.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think we have a real commitment to sport, recreation, and fitness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: We will spend in excess of $1 million in Harbour Grace - Carbonear in the upcoming Summer Games a year from now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: In excess of #1 million.

The Member talks about regional recreational facilities. Yes, we have adopted a program. We have decided as a Government that we will have a Recreation Facilities Program. That program was redesigned because we discovered that communities did not have a way of sharing these facilities - sharing in the capital costs that would be expected from them. Formalized agreements were not in place, and we decided that we needed to redesign the program, which was done. And the redesigned program was accepted by Government. So we do have a program.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the decision was that the Government's portion of the funding would be that we would use the Municipal Financing Corporation for that funding, which means it is a capital works program per se. So if Government decides this year to proceed with one or two or whatever number of facilities, and assume that we have applications from groups of communities that wish to participate, and can afford to pay their share, and then after the fact can afford to maintain and operate these facilities, because that was the missing question before, they were never really looked at in that light, communities were not asked whether or not they could afford to maintain these facilities, consequently facilities have been built all over the Island and in Labrador and they cannot afford to maintain them. There is no point in putting facilities in place if the communities and community groups cannot afford to staff them, and operate them and maintain them. There is no point in doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GULLAGE: So we are taking the time, Mr. Speaker, to speak with the communities, to examine the applications we have and determine where best to place these facilities before we proceed.

Now I again, as with capital works, I cannot predict what Government will do, but I would hope that we would have a program in place for the upcoming fiscal year. And if we do, of course, we will proceed, as I mentioned, to identify and priorize those areas that have applications in.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Minister's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Never before, to use an old cliche, in the history of mankind have we seen Cabinet Ministers shirking their responsibility and showing and displaying such incompetence. The Minister of Health today avoided answering direct questions. And now the Minister of Recreation avoided answering a direct question.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he did not.

MR. SIMMS: He was asked about the Recreational Capital Grant Program. Simple. And he never answered it first nor last.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to attempt to get a straight answer from a more straightforward Minister, I hope, and that is the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: No, I believe that the Minister of Labour -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: I believe that the Minister of Labour will take her responsibility seriously and answer the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: - question directly. It is really a follow up to the question I asked her, I think it was yesterday, with respect to whether or not she has any concerns about negative fallout from public service unions as it applies particularly to Bill 16, and surely I do not need to elaborate or explain. I am sure she would be sensitive to the fact that out there in the field, shall we say, these days, the feeling of the public service unions is pretty obvious and evident.

They are not, to say the least, very happy with this legislation, Bill 16. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, they have been on open line programs, they have been protesting here privately and publicly about how this will set back labour relations in our Province. For a government to impose legislation that will break collective agreements - there is no denying that. That is what the legislation does, there is certainly no denying it, break collective agreements and renege on a commitment that was in a collective agreement with respect to pay equity. There is no question about it, Mr. Speaker, the public service unions are livid, to say the least. And I am sure we will hear more about that in the days and weeks ahead.

So I asked the Minister of Labour yesterday a sincere question. Surely as Minister of Labour, while I recognize she is also a Member of Cabinet - I recognize that and we all recognize that - but at the same time she has a major role to play in trying to insure that labour relations in the Province between the public service unions and the Government, i.e., Treasury Board, are at a reasonable level. Are at a good level, to say the least.

And I think everybody would acknowledge, everybody would have to acknowledge, that at the moment that is not the case, and it certainly is not going to be the case as a result of Bill 16. And I want her to tell me, or tell the House, whether or not she is honestly worried or concerned about the negative fallout. Now if she is not worried or concerned about it, then that is fine. I am simply asking her to tell us. I have a feeling she is concerned about it. And she may wish to couch her words, I do not know, in her answer. But I feel certain that as the Minister of Labour she should certainly tell the people whether or not she is concerned.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is also another question that has been raised with respect to the pay equity legislation by the Member for St. John's East. With respect to whether the legislation itself is worded in such a way as to prevent the Government, for example, from carrying out its announced intention, which is to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, I am not talking to the President of Treasury Board, I am talking to the Minister of Labour.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the President of Treasury Board could restrain himself?

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

MR. SIMMS: Perhaps you could name him, Mr. Speaker.

MS. VERGE: Touchy. Very touchy about this (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Very touchy. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Labour the question has arisen as to whether or not the legislation, in fact, is drafted in such a way as to prevent the Government from pursuing its announced intention of following up the pay equity programme, albeit two or three years later. But the legislation might be - I just throw this out - might be worded in such a way as to prevent the Government from being able to do that. Maybe she could comment on that and indeed tell us in her own view whether or not she believes that Government has done the right thing in terms of cancelling the collective agreements which included the pay equity provision, effective April 1 1988. I would be interested in hearing her comments.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if it is her intention to stand and talk about the difficult time the Government was in, how financially they were strapped and all that, that is not the question at all. That is not the question at all. We would like her to answer the question as the Province's Minister of Labour, with serious responsibilities for labour relations in this Province. I hope she will give us a straight answer and a sensitive answer as opposed to a political answer.

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I begin my comments today I want to say that I find the use of the word `rape' most offensive, by the hon. Member on the other side - raping a collective agreement. I find the word extremely offensive as a woman, and I would like to say that before I begin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Opposition House Leader is on a point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is referring to a comment I made or something, I would like her to withdraw that remark. I never made such a comment today or any other day, so I would ask her to withdraw the remark and the allegation.

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

MS. COWAN: I will consult Hansard. I think -

MR. SIMMS: You had better (inaudible)!

MS. COWAN: - he used the word. It was `rape' as far as I could hear. It may have been `raid', I do not know. I will look. But it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: And if you are wrong, will you apologize?

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

MS. COWAN: No, I will wait.

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

There is no point of order. The hon. Member has indicated that she will research it. At the moment we will just have to leave it until the hon. Member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) point of order (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I think she said she was going to check it, okay?

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely flabbergasted by the hypocrisy, the blatant hypocrisy of the hon. Member who just brought that question to the House for the second time. I was very gracious in Question Period the other day I felt, and I do not feel particularly gracious here this evening to once more be called upon to respond (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: It is most unfortunate that he has called upon a former labour leader in this Province to comment on good relations with labour between the public service and the Government. We, as a Government, inherited a public service that distrusts Government. We have been dealing with that (inaudible). Let me give you a few examples. When I was president -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MS. COWAN: They do not want to hear. The truth hurts. I must talk about truth in a minute, too. When I was president of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association, I had occasion to call a former Premier of this Province and was told by whoever answered the phone, `Why would he want to speak to you?'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

MS. COWAN: Now, let's contrast that with the attitude of the present Premier, who will meet with any group in the public service or the private sector or whatever at any hour of the day or night, and has done and will continue to do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you afraid to let her talk, boys?

MS. COWAN: I remember, as well, being called in as president of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association to discus the pension plan. So in I came thinking I would sit down with - I had two or three people with me - two or three people from Treasury Board and we would exchange ideas. But, oh no, when I walked into the room there must have been three ministers, I will not exaggerate, there might have been four, and about forty officials. Now I felt that was a deliberate attempt to intimidate and I did not take to it kindly.

Now let me talk about the manipulation of labour. Let me talk about how we were manipulated before every Budget process. And that is why some people now are having difficulty with our Budget, because they were so manipulated by the last Government. Every time before a Budget was to come down, we would listen for several months to the rhetoric about the horrendous state of the Province. Then the Budget would come in and it would be fine, nobody would be too upset by it and you would continue. And so people began to think -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that this House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? All those in favour please say `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated and ask hon. Members to join me this evening at 7:00.

The House resumed at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Motion 3.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is what I need, lots of support.

Mr. Chairman, I see the Minister responsible for health care, `Bliptz' over there nodding his head. I suspect before he finishes the next few weeks, he will be more than `Bliptz' around this Province, when his own comments come home to roost about his inconsistencies in the health care system.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few words to say about this interim supply bill. I think if I had the power in my own hands to prevent it from passing, I certainly would. There is almost time in this Province when you look at our industrial fellows, like Craig Dobbin, on T.V., who finally realized where the real credit should go for most of the things that happen in Newfoundland today, that it goes to good old Brian Mulroney and John Crosbie and the Federal PCs much to the chagrin of the Minister of Health, and the Premier, the poor old Premier of Newfoundland, who cannot get invited to the Maritime Premiers' Conference. That is not the United Nations, it is not the new summit on Kuwait and Iraq and Iran. When he cannot get invited to New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, as a Minister, a colleague on equal footing, it says something very serious about the state of our Province, Mr. Chairman.

It basically says that our Province is going absolutely nowhere, except downhill, that we have a Premier who is not trusted by, I suspect, a very substantial number of his own colleagues. That is the funny part of it all. Liberals in the back benches of this Government, and some of the Premier's own Ministers, if he could keep tabs on them, would find that some of the comments they make would get them kicked out of Government, out of the Cabinet, if they spoke too publicly. Certainly, if the backbenchers had the intestinal fortitude to say to the Premier what they say around the Premier and around this building, a lot of them would not be over on that side of the House, they would be down sitting as independents or over here someplace, they would not be part of the Liberal caucus. A lot of people opposite know the members I am talking about, members who are very unhappy about the Budget process, who are very unhappy about being part of a government caucus knowing absolutely nothing of what is going on, not knowing that some major health care facilities are being closed down and downgraded, not knowing if fish plants are going to open or close, not knowing whether or not you have a stadium. What kind of system are those fellows running over there, when they are not even telling their own Government backbenchers what is happening in Government?

So, the Premier should be very, very careful. If I were the Premier of this Province today, I would not spend too much time out of the Province worrying about Meech Lake and constitutional concerns. I would be here watching my back. Liberals have not had a great history of loyalty to their leaders. I remember one fellow who went to Boston to a food show one time and came back to find he was not the Leader at all. That does not necessarily only happen to Opposition Leaders in the Liberal Party, it could happen to Premiers, as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. POWER: The poor old Member for St. John's South, who does not know what is happening in Government but knows he has to support it, at any cost, is going to do that, anyway, and that is fair game. It is the way the system has to work in the Liberal Party, and that is fair enough, I suppose, but it certainly is not the way democracy is supposed to work.

Mr. Speaker, dealing with this interim bill, and the business of giving a vast amount of money to this political group to run this Province, anybody in the Province has to have serious concerns as to how that money is going to be spent. The `real change' ideas that were purported in 1989 are now more like a real disaster when Ministers keep saying, things have not got worse, things have not got better, things are the same. That is what the Minister of Health said today. He said, `They are not better, they are not worse, they are the same as they were two years ago, but we have a great plan. We started in 1989, but we are still the same.' Now, that is not the `real change' that the Premier wants the Minister of Health to keep expounding here every day. He has to get up and say the place is better. Now, the Minister of Health had better listen or he will not be in the Health portfolio in a month's time. The Deputy Ministers' shuffle is done today, then there is a Minister's shuffle, and you do not know where Ministers will go from time to time. I can tell you right now, the Minister of Health is not going to be where he is, unless he gets up and says it is better - not `the same as', not `as it used to be', not `comparable to' - it has to be better, and he has not been saying it is better. I tell the Minister of Health, he is in severe jeopardy because there are a lot of those backbenchers who would do anything they can to get into Cabinet. A lot of the Ministers had better be very, very careful, unless they start saying things are better. And things really are not very much better in this Province, according to the Minister of Health, they are exactly the same, if not worse than they were in 1989. So, the `real change' becomes a real change for the worst, a real disaster, a real fiasco, a real sorrow and regret to most of the Newfoundlanders who have supported that party in 1989 to become the Government.

Mr. Speaker, when you listen to the people who run this Province, you really begin to believe you are in some kind of Utopia, that there is not a problem. This afternoon, in the Late Show, I listened to the Minister of Labour, who says that now, all of a sudden, we have labour Utopia, because we used to have a tough system between the Conservative Government and the labour movement, but now, everything is great. When Bill 16 is finally passed in this Legislature and the collective agreements negotiated in good faith by the labour movement in this Province are totally overturned, simply by a ruling of the majority in this House, then I can guarantee Members opposite that the Minister of Labour -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. POWER: Well, maybe the Member for Labrador will make it for leader when the coup really starts to get rid of this dictator that you have. I do not know when you are going to have the intestinal fortitude to do it. I do not know how long it is going to take, but I suspect something is going to happen over there to allow members to have a fair say in the party. Democracy does not work when one person has too much control, and that is the danger with the party opposite.

When the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations gets up today, in the Late Show, and sort of says everything is great in the labour movement in Newfoundland; we got rid of those terrible Tories. We got rid of them after seventeen years, and we have all these wonderful things to do for the labour movement, and here they are, two years later, they will be the most hated Government that this Province has ever seen for the labour movement, the most hated Government. You will see violent reactions from the labour movement in the next twelve months of this Government that you never saw in Brian Peckford's heyday.

You never saw what was going to happen with the labour movement in this Province, and you never saw what is going to happen to you in Port aux Basques at the next election, when word gets out about your health care system and how you are defending the people you were elected to defend.

The rookie Member from Port aux Basques had better realize that he was elected to represent the people, he was not elected to represent the Liberal Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. POWER: There is a difference. He has to realize that he is not representing the Liberal Party, he represents the constituents of his riding. Until he realizes that he is going to have serious troubles. If he realizes it well enough in advance of the next election, he might save himself. I tell you, the Member from Port aux Basques would not want to see an election tomorrow afternoon, or his political career would be very short and he would be substantially subdued by the people of his district whom he is not representing in this Legislature the way he should.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. POWER: The Landslide from St. John's South might have to be careful, too, before the next election comes around, even though he has made some significant improvements in, certainly, the locale in which he lives, since the last election. But that does not necessarily mean that he is re-electable in St. John's South. It means simply that he has become wise to some things in this Province.

Now, if he is going to run in Ferryland district, then I suspect he had better move back to St. John's South real fast, because that is a no, no, for sure. The people in Ferryland district are much too bright about the political process. They understand performance, they understand commitment, they understand representing the people, and that is the only way you can be in this Legislature for fifteen or sixteen years. I tell you, some of the members opposite, yesterday, when they voted against the resolution trying to defer hospital cuts in their own ridings, decisions into which they had absolutely no input - when members opposite vote against that kind of resolution, they are going to have the short-term pleasure of the Premier patting them on the back, the Premier saying, `Be loyal to the system,' the Premier saying, `Make sure you support the system, make sure you take care of the Government, because you are a Government Member.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things taking place in this Province, today, that this interim supply bill is not going to solve. I have serious concerns when I look at the state of the economy, and I do not see - as much as I respect my friend, the Minister of Development, one of the best Ministers in Government, one of the persons I respect, on the Opposite side, who actually tries to do a good job. Now, his hands are tied pretty consistently. If I were Minister of Development I would never have allowed that Economy Recovery Commission to take such full control of the Province. I mean, that is the only disadvantage I see.

MR. TOBIN: Well, boy, if you think he is good, you must (inaudible) for the whole House.

MR. POWER: Well, I have respect for the Minister of Development. I have respect for some Ministers opposite, I know how difficult it is. This silly, silly idea that the Premier -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. POWER: I will finish my comment.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Chairman, I was quite willing to yield to my friend from Ferryland but, obviously, he did not have leave from the other side.

I have a very specific point to make and I would like, if I might, if it is not asking too much - as Joey Smallwood would say, `if I might, if it is not asking too much' - the attention of the Minister of Education.

When I went home to supper this evening, Mr. Chairman, I received a phone call from my district about a prominent story in the local newspaper, `The Nor'wester'. That story had with it a headline to the effect that the Springdale Campus of the Central Newfoundland Community College, along with the Bay Verte campus of the Central Newfoundland Community College, had one year of life left. The Principal of the Springdale Community College indicated he did not know if the rumour that it was due to close in a year's time was true. The people at central headquarters - in, I guess, Grand Falls - for the Central Newfoundland Community College were not available for comment at the time the paper went to press; the paper comes out on Wednesday, this is Thursday. Mr. Smith, the Principal, of course, is a well-known columnist all the time in all the local papers, so I am sure every gentleman opposite is very familiar with him.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: Is he your cousin, too?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls has roots in my district. Now, I gather, Mr. Smith is also his cousin.

Mr. Smith has a column in just about every paper in this Province, and it would do well for hon. gentlemen opposite to consider what he might have to say on various matters. Mr. Smith is Chairman of the Green Bay Health Care Centre and he has had to preside over the downgrading of the hospital to a chronic care centre, which has not made him altogether happy. He was very praiseworthy of the Premier in the Meech Lake debate, but the level of praise has dropped considerably since then. And now, Mr. Chairman, there is a story in the newspaper that says the Springdale campus and the Baie Verte campus have one year left, and they are done for. There is one quick way of settling this, which is for the Minister of Education to stand when I finish these few remarks and repudiate that story. The central headquarters of the college had no comment. Mr. Smith expressed confusion. Is there a plan, in addition to downgrading the hospital, to eliminate the Springdale campus of the Central Newfoundland Community College? Because, Mr. Chairman, if there is, this Government has declared war on the labour movement. At times I would say they have declared war on Green Bay. Just wait until they declare war on me, and they will know what war is all about. That is the view from here.

Now the Minister of Education (inaudible). Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I often wonder would it be better for us all to sit here and have the Member for Green Bay get up and recite poetry. He would probably make a whole lot more sense.

MR. HEWLETT: There is nothing poetic about losing a school in your town, Sir! You have several in yours!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: You know, Mr. Chairman, you listen to speaker after speaker standing, I suppose, with some degree of honesty or some degree of what they feel is right or wrong, suggesting to the hon. House all the problems associated with this Budget, that all of us have problems with. Nobody in this House of Assembly did not have problems with the Budget. But the Budget was realistic. The days of wine and roses, obviously, are over.

MR. HEWLETT: White roses are for death!

AN HON. MEMBER: And cigars and limousines.

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

MR. MURPHY: And you know, Mr. Chairman, it is, I suppose, shameful when you think that for seventeen or eighteen years we watched the five-gallon overhaul or the patchwork in which our friends opposite got involved with their colleagues upalong. The Member for Ferryland gets up and talks, raves, I suppose, about people on this side having the gall to attack the Federal Government, to attack Mr. Crosbie, to attack any move that the Federal Government makes.

Well, every Member in this House is privy to Macleans. And yesterday, I heard an hon. member - whom, I do not remember, I think it was the Leader of the Opposition - talk about 3,000 Newfoundlanders in the last year having to go off to Ontario. Well, in Macleans, this week, `Giving up, moving out'. Now, they are not talking about Newfoundland, Mr. Chairman, they are talking about moving out of Canada to the United States on that great scheme called free trade, which impacts on us, impacts on this Government, the same as it impacted on the previous Government, the same simple way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Oh it impacted, it impacted. Let me read something else to you; Mr. Crosbie said: I do not intend to be a fall guy for anyone. And he was right. This is exactly what Mr. Crosbie said, when he said: Premier Peckford and Finance Minister John Collins, are making untrue, unfair and unprecedented statements about Newfoundland's financial condition and the assistance it receives from the Federal Government.

Well that was not this Government, that was the Minister representing these gentlemen and I must say you really look a whole lot better, I would say the Member for Burin - Placentia West never looked as well. Now the Member for Kilbride, I do not know which way he is sitting; the Member for Grand Falls actually, really looks a whole lot better and if I was the Member for Grand Falls, I would have a good look at the man he is looking at because -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: - they are going to be calling him leader soon. Mr. Chairman, let us have a realistic look of what has transpired and why this Government is today faced with the economic woes the previous administration just folded down around the heads and shoulders of Newfoundlanders for eighteen years of mismanagement.

Let me read it into the record, Mr. Chairman. In 1972, which was obviously the end of a great era in this Province, this Government at that time, was $976 million in debt - not a billion dollars. Our friends Opposite get up and rave and rant about Churchill Falls and the terrible deed it was when oil was $2.50 a barrel; there were no crystal balls. The University was built by the Smallwood Administration and all the other capital works that we see around. The hon. Member for Menihek remembers well how the district which he represents had its start - it was the initiative of the Liberals that started Labrador West -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: - and I heard you ranting and raving today, but I will discuss your problems at another time when you talk about safety.

AN HON. MEMBER: Private Enterprise!

MR. MURPHY: Private Enterprise. Private Enterprise, certainly, yes! 1979, Mr. Chairman, a mere seven years later, this Province owed, $2,567,000,000, I think that was from Frank to Brian. Then all of a sudden, our friend, A. Brian took over and from 1979 to 1989 this Province incurred an additional debt of $2.5 billion. In the last twenty-two months this Government has had to try and straighten out the economy of this Province, and in a recession I might add, Mr. Chairman, a recession not created by this Government, but a recession created by our friend, Mr. Mulroney. Only this afternoon somebody said to me: If you had a gun with two bullets, and in front of you there were Saddam Hussein, our friend Arafat and Mulroney, which two would you shoot? He said: I would put the two bullets in Mulroney.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Don't talk to me about the NDP. I do not need to talk about the NDP. Wait until our socialist friend has to look at his colleague in Toronto when he stands on his feet next week and brings down a Budget with an AAA finance rating. And we all know, even the Tories over there know what they have done to the economy of Great Britain, that socialist government.

AN HON. MEMBER: They broke every promise they made up there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: I got a real charge, Mr. Chairman, out of our friend for Burin - Placentia West.

AN HON. MEMBER: A great environmentalist.

MR. MURPHY: A man who is really a leader in trying to generate in this Government a necessity to keep his workers in Marystown still working. I saw that this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. This is what the official Opposition sets itself up to do. This is a real plan, a news release, having what I would call a very low blow at hon. MHAs on this side of the House who have tried very, very hard to express their positions. It was pleasant to watch the news tonight and see the Minister of Health addressing and listening to the concerns of the delegation from Placentia, and I know how hard my colleague, Mr. Hogan, has worked.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Cheap shot! Cheap politics, and every time somebody over here says something about yesterdays they say: Oh yes, blame it on us! Blame it on us! Be quiet. Be quiet, boy. I am fed up listening to you. You are like an empty barrel going down a hill. If you are going to say something, get up and say something sensible and talk sensible and get on with the economy of the Province, you know where it is. Offer some solutions to the Government. There is no trouble to get up and criticize and natter and fratter, get up and say something constructive, if you are going to criticize.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: There is the other fellow with the aspirations now piping up, Mr. Simms.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, there are no more loans. You can only go with your hand out so many times. And the hon. Members opposite know you can only put your hand out so many times and borrow so much money.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, we are supposed to be debating the Interim Supply Bill, for a total of $993 million, but we have not heard much about the headings in that bill thus far.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, from the outset I would like to talk about the health section in the Interim Supply Bill of $272 million. One of the reasons I have for speaking on that is that I have just today been told that the clinic in Deer Lake has been told in no uncertain terms that their X ray unit and their lab unit will be going. Now the X ray unit in Deer Lake did, I think it was 3,500 or 3,600 X rays last year covering people in the White Bay area of the Province, in the district, and also down in the Bonne Bay area. That I might add, Mr. Chairman, saved a lot of inconvenience and expense to people in that particular part of the district and area. They did not have to go on to Corner Brook if they could stop in Deer Lake, see a doctor, or go and get their X rays, and that was it. They also had the lab services there. No cost to the hospital in Corner Brook - absolutely none. It was rent free, it did not cost them a cent and the Deer Lake medical clinic there provided those services to them free of charge.

They have been told that the lab is gone except for collection - absolutely no testing. So that adds to further inconvenience for the people in the area and more specifically the people in the district.

Mr. Chairman, I asked a question of the Minister of Health this evening and what I cannot understand is that if we are going to regionalize and have so-called better services by going in to the regional hospital in Corner Brook, the question that I have to ask and have asked is: how are we going to have better services if we are going to send another 3,500 or 3,600 people in to the Western Memorial Hospital in Corner Brook, and at the same time lay off five lab technicians in Corner Brook?

Now unless there is something wrong, unless there is something I am missing, that to me seems awfully callous and inconsiderate. It does not make sense, absolutely none. The Minister said today that they covered all aspects of the transportation part of social services with regards to going to the Outpatients or the Western Memorial Hospital in Corner Brook. I would like to see the figures on what it is going to cost to send the people from that area into Corner Brook to get their X rays. I would just like to see that;

someone from Jackson's Arm or Sop's Arm or Pollards Point going in to Corner Brook in a taxi, now they have to wait three to three and a half hours to get an X ray in Corner Brook. The question I ask, and the question the people in the district are asking, is how long is it going to take from now on to wait for an X ray in Corner Brook?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not going to take long at all.

MR. WOODFORD: Oh, I see. So that is good, then. That's very reassuring. I will pass those comments along to the X ray technicians and the administrators of the Western Memorial Hospital in Corner Brook. Because that is the kind of stuff I like to hear. But then again, having heard those comments and looking at the performance of the past I know that it is definitely not true. They are going to have to do now like the lady did last week or the week before, wait their six or seven hours to be admitted. Just to see a doctor in outpatients in Corner Brook.

Now if someone for the life of me can tell me that that is what they call fairness and balance then there is something wrong with the whole system. The X ray technician in Deer Lake can bump another fellow in Corner Brook, he has a job. Yet out of concern for his patients and constituents in the area at least he voiced those concerns and voiced them well. Now that to me is a legitimate complaint. I just cannot see for the life of me how they can close that unit and yet put it all into Corner Brook and say we are going to have a better service. I just cannot see it.

The laying off of nurses at the Western Memorial Hospital: I do not know how many nurses were involved in the seventy-four. I will over the next couple of days. A $3 million reduction in the Corner Brook hospital, the laying off of seventy-four staff, and the closing of an extra thirty hospital beds. Now if that is going to look after and improve medical services on the west coast of the Province, especially when you see the downgrading of other satellite clinics and hospitals in the area, then if that is rationalization then there is something radically wrong with it. I have never seen in my years associated with politics - and I have been around here as a Member since 1985 - so much arrogance, so much passiveness. When you have groups of people coming in, especially when you are dealing with health, at least they take a second look and say that we were wrong.

And to me the fear - I said that about this administration, especially based on the platform that they campaigned on. And when I look today and when you walk into a Government building or office or out here in the lobby or at an airport in Deer Lake, and you see and feel the fear in talking to someone working for Government, I never thought the day would come when you could stand in this Province and see that type of thing happening. You look on, you watch television, you listen to the radio, and you look at things happening in other parts of the world but never did I think that would happen right here in this Province. If Members fear that there is something wrong with that, that it is not right, then I can assure you that I see it every time I go to the district. I do not even have to go to the district, all I have to do is go out here in the lobby, and somebody will call you to one side. Is it true? They will see one of the Government Members coming and they will shimmy in under the doors like a shrew. That is wrong. That should not be. It is true, the fear is there. There is fear there. They should be able to watch myself and another Member here talking, then be able to come up and express their opinion, and go on about their work, but they cannot do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. WOODFORD: Oh, it is not true. Well, from what I gather none of the hon. Members opposite have seen or heard tell of it. I am speaking from experience, and if the hon. Member wants to see me after and talk about certain departments, or certain instances, there is no problem. I mention no names. Members opposite have been approached as well. I know they have. They have been approached. It is all out of fear, especially the way times are today, they are afraid for their jobs. They are afraid of what is going to happen, whether they may lose their house, their car, or anything else. In a Province such as ours, with such a small population spread over such a large area, I think, Mr. Speaker, that is certainly wrong. That is not fair. It is adding to the low morale in the civil service. It is adding to the low morale among teachers, the low morale among anybody. I talked to a gentleman this morning who works with the hospital in Corner Brook and he said I cannot say too much.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, you talk about fear. I would much rather consider a matter where the fear that Government employees talk about has not been inflicted by this Government. We are talking about a monetary situation we are in, a made in Canada recession, a Tory recession. They are willing to accept 10 to 15 per cent national unemployment at the expense of 70,000 throughout the country last month, so that is what a Tory is willing to accept. To look at that kind of fear, as you speak, that the Government is thrown into versus the times in the past when people who did not happen to support the Government in power did not have a chance to get a job anyway. If you were not a supporter of the political party that used to run the Province you did not stand a chance. You were not even considered for a position on a Government board. You were nothing but the lowest of the low because you dared to utter anything against the Government. To sit over here amongst the Government I tell you I see something in my hand right here that really would make one think as to the kind of people who sit in our loyal Opposition over there, people who will go and pull on the fears of the people of my district in saying something like this. I will read it out. I have no fear explaining exactly what I did here yesterday because I have principles that I stand on, unlike others, who as we said wear out the carpet running back and forth any time it is politically opportune. We say right here, six Government MHAs voted in the House of Assembly Wednesday afternoon in support of the downgrading. Now, how can you twist something around to a point where you are trying to say, well, they vote to support the Budget. This was a private Member's resolution designed to try to tear the crowd over here apart. It is hard enough that, I, in representing the people of my district have to stand and try to do things within the Government that are difficult no matter what the people out there want and also as a matter of what I feel I owe them as their representative.

As a person who lives in that district it is also a matter of how I as a resident of that district feel health care should be delivered. But the kind of crap that the hon. Leader of the Opposition puts out as a press release to the media with falsehoods on it is nothing but crap and it does not behoove an elected official of this Province. And to think that that man was Premier! Good God! Thank God for April 20, I say.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I could not help but stand and respond to the hon. Member. He talks about me crossing the floor. Now I have been elected to this House of Assembly twice as a Conservative. I will tell him something else, if he will look at his Minister of Fisheries over there, one of his colleagues, there is a man who has walked back and forth the floor three times. And then he can look at his leader -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. HODDER: - who also crossed the floor during another period in his history and went back again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Not true! Not true!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: So, Mr. Chairman, it may burn some of the Members over there but it is their loss and my gain to be over here. The Member for LaPoile is burning because he has been trying to get away with a little game down in Port aux Basques and he is not going to get away with it much longer. He came in here yesterday and said: I reserve the right to support the Government but I support the people of Port aux Basques.

Now how can you not support the people of Port aux Basques who are asking that their hospital be saved, who have had a 20 per cent cut in their budget, who have had their acute care beds cut back by twelve to fifteen beds or are about to? They have had their surgery cut out completely. This not only affects the people of Port aux Basques but it affects the people for the Member for St. George's district. Because he has not said a word about this yet, but a whole third of his district is directly affected by what has happened in Port aux Basques.

Mr. Chairman, I will tell you something. I grew up in Port aux Basques. As a matter of fact I was born in the Burgeo hospital, a hospital that has just been gutted. I grew up in Rose Blanche and I remember getting on a schooner, in the days when you had to get on a schooner, and go from Rose Blanche to Port aux Basques in order to get a tooth out. That tooth was taken out by the namesake of the hospital right now, Dr. LeGrow, because that is the name of the hospital. We keep referring to it as the Port aux Basques hospital.

I saw the first hospital before the hon. Member was born. I saw the first hospital that came to Port aux Basques, I saw it being built. It was built by a Liberal Government, yes it was, and it was built when my father was the Member for that district. Under a Conservative Government I saw another hospital, a fine hospital, being put in that area. I do not think you can rationalize that in a geographical area like Port aux Basques, which by the way covers down to Rose Blanche - that is one of the worst twisting, winding roads, badly in need of paving I might tell the hon. Member, that you can find. Not only does it serve Burnt Islands, Isle aux Morts, Margaree, Rose Blanche, but it also serves Petites, an isolated community, where people can only get back and forth by boat.

It also has people from the Town of LaPoile itself. There are a number of isolated communities that use that hospital. As well, the whole southwest geographical area of that Province has been just cut loose. Why do it there and not do it in four or five other areas of the Province where you have not done it? There is just no rhyme nor reason. I will say to the hon. Member, he should be standing up and asking questions in this House. It has happened before. If somebody did that in my particular area of the Province while I was a Member of the government I would not be afraid to stand up, I will tell you that, and ask questions. Because what has happened is that they have cut the health care service out and it is not right that they did it. And the people of his area are going to suffer and he had better realize that.

He cannot stand here in this House of Assembly and take the side of Government and vote as he did yesterday and then go back and get on open line -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Yes, he did, he was on Nightline and he was telling the people of the Province and his own constituents - and I heard him - that he supported them and not the Government. Now he comes in here and says he supports the Government and not them. Now you cannot do it, you have got to have the strength to stand up and do one or the other, otherwise you will not get anywhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: No, Mr. Chairman, it is the truth that is not coming out here. But the people of LaPoile have long memories. They do respect a person who stands his ground. That is one thing they do respect. And they will respect the hon. gentleman if the hon. gentleman takes a stand. Either he goes out and tells them: this is what is going to happen and I stand with the Premier and these are the reasons, or he comes in here and backs the Premier. You just cannot play a little game back and forth between his own area and this area. Either he takes one stand or he takes another.

That not only goes for the hon. Member, we have the Member for St. George's who says nothing so he gets away with it all. He has not opened his mouth. Not a press release, not anything. And one third of his constituency - the Codroy Valley area, the St. Andrew's area, the Searston, Doyles, Codroy, all of that area that uses the Port aux Basques Hospital - all of these people are suffering because of the cutbacks of this Government and the dastardly deed they did to the people of southwestern Newfoundland, and the Member for St. George's just sits back and does nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: One phone call.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, one phone call and he is going to fix it. But the truth of the matter is I hope he can. Because I really think that this is a move that was ill thought out. If you are going to do it there do it everywhere. Why single out one geographical area of the Province and then do it? You have done it to Burgeo. You have done it to the whole southwest corner of the Province and that is just not fair.

Just to move on: I just wanted to talk about a question that I raised here in the House of Assembly the other day concerning the respite workers who were laid off. Twenty-seven people were laid off in this Province in the Budget. Now the Minister tells me here in this House of Assembly that he can take the $730,000 which he has budgeted - now what the Government has done here is, they have taken it - it is a very shrewd move because the Minister is a very shrewd Minister, there is no doubt about that.

But what they have done is that he really has not cut back the $730,000, so he tells me, and I have to believe him. Because we do not have the salary details, which I think is something that should not be allowed. We should not be having this debate. If there was some way we could tie up the House by not being here we should do it in order to get those salary details. Because you cannot have a good look at the Budget until you see the salary details.

But the Minister tells us that there was $730,000 budgeted for these workers and that there will be $730,000 for the other workers, the other people, but he would be contracting out and paying individual amounts. Now first of all what happens to the professionalism? And he said in the same statement, and I have it here, I think it is Wednesday's or Tuesday's Hansard, and he says: no professionalism will be lost, the continuity of service will be maintained. Now how are you going to maintain the continuity of service?

Now what they are doing is they are taking the $730,000 - I have to take his word for that - but now they are putting it out. He says he is going to get more people, so that means he is going to get cheaper people. So the person who was being paid $12 or $13 an hour, with professional training, who was in touch with the office and attached to the office and in every respect got professional training and whatever, now this money is going to be going to people who the Minister is going to contract for. People who possibly were on the social assistance case load. That happens in the district of Port au Port, happens in the Stephenville area, where respite workers come from the case load. Nothing wrong with it.

But it is a way to pay less for people who are looking after other people. And I say that that is a lessening of care, Mr. Chairman, and besides that there is nobody on the Minister's payroll any more, now he is paying out, now he is given a certain amount of money to organizations. In some areas it will be organizations like the Organization of Community Living, so they will get the same next year, they will get the same the year after and the year after that. In other cases, the Manager of the Department of Social Services in a particular area will be able to hire, he will have a certain amount of money in his budget, but it will never increase because this is another budgetary measure and the Minister cannot say that it is not.

Well, Mr. Chairman, what is going to happen -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. HODDER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. EFFORD: I would not mind giving the hon. Member leave if he knew what he was talking about. But the problem is that after seventeen years in Government and, I suppose, five or six years after he crossed the floor, he still does not know how to read a budget book. So, I inform the hon. Member that I will take some time tomorrow, after the House of Assembly closes at twelve o'clock, and sit down for an hour or two and go through the budget book and explain it to you, so you will have a better understanding.

Let me assure all hon. Members on the Opposite side that we did not make any of these decisions with any great delight this year in the budgetary process. But we were forced into a situation where we had to deal with the debt of this Province which was forced upon us by the former Administration, forced upon us and the people of this Province by mismanagement for seventeen years. So, I have said it one hundred times in this House of Assembly, and I am going to say it one hundred more times, because that is the reality of what has happened. If I had one small portion of the interest payments we have to pay out, that the Minister of Finance is responsible for each year, I would not have to lay off twenty-seven respite workers in this Province. I would be able to hire on twenty-seven respite workers. But the reality is that the money is not there to do the service that we would like to do for the people of this Province.

But we are making decisions within the financial responsibility and capability that we have to give service to the people the best way possible. No one in this Province who needs the services of the Department of Social Services is going to suffer any loss of service at all. Yes, there are twenty-seven respite workers laid off but the same amount of money will be divided up among the five regions in the Province. There may be some deficiencies in service for the expertise that an individual respite worker might have, but the service will not be lessened. There will be just as much or even possibly more people receiving the number of hours of respite care than received it last year and will receive it this year because we can use the same amount of money, that $730,000, and purchase services at probably $6, $7, or $8 an hour where we are paying probably an average of $12 an hour wages to the respite workers of last year.

Do we do it by choice? No. We did not want to lay off any workers. We had to lay off the workers. I cannot believe the hon. people opposite who were in government, but then I can I suppose, because I doubt very much if there is one Member opposite who knew what the actual debt of the Province was.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, and if I had the $100,000 that the hon. Member was paid in severance pay I would be able to hire on three more respite workers this year. So, don't you go talking about what we need for the poor people of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you keep talking to me about that.

MR. EFFORD: Don't you keep talking to me about the poor people of this Province, when the average person on social assistance has to live on $8,000 and an hon. Member can back in and get $100,000 severance pay in one cheque, a $100,000 severance pay cheque. So, Mr. Chairman, we know what the poor people of this Province are suffering like. I deal with it every day of the week. I see children go to school and the most they have in their stomach is a bowl of rice, kraft dinner -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you boasting about it?

MR. EFFORD: No, I am not boasting about it. It disgusts me to know that people have to live like it on a daily basis but it was forced on them by you people. You tell me one thing you did as Minister of Social Services to improve the lives of these people. You name one thing that you did as Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: You will have an opportunity when I sit down. You sit down. When I sit down you will have an opportunity. You had an opportunity for four years as Minister and I did not have one bit of evidence when I walked through the door of one positive thing you did as Minister, not one bit of evidence. So, I would be glad to point it out tonight and I am willing to sit down, Mr. Chairman, and listen to what the hon. Member has to say.

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

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

There is one thing I can say to the Minister of Social Services, when I was Minister the people who depended on social assistance got an increase every year. It was not like this year, Mr. Chairman. I can also tell the Minister of Social Services that when I was Minister there was never, never a reduction of almost $6 million in the provincial expenditure.

MR. EFFORD: You are as bad as the Member for Port au Port.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Social Services budget this year was $144 million, and last year it was $148 million. So we got a $4 million decrease in the Department's estimates. Anyone who says other than that, anyone who contradicts it, is not being honest, Mr. Chairman. You cannot say in the House that they actually are, so I will not say it. But when the facts were presented in the Budget, either the Minister of Finance did not tell the truth or the Minister of Social Services did not tell the truth.

I do not know how the Minister of Social Services can stand in this House and defend letting go, firing, through the system, twenty-seven respite care workers, and letting go the existing director of day care, when he is always talking about day care. My colleague has done some research into the statements he made about day care when he was in Opposition, and now he has laid off the existing director. We have talked about that too, Mr. Chairman.

How can he justify not giving an increase to the people whom he says are hungry out there, not giving them one cent of an increase in their social assistance payments, and at the same time giving Doug House and the Economic Recovery Commission $44 million? I can tell the Minister, that if he had any social conscience whatsoever, if there was one little iota of a social conscience in the Minister of Social Services, he would ensure that part of that $44 million to Doug House's group would go to increase the amount to the people on social assistance. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things the Minister of Development can learn, and one of them is being honest. That is what I would say to the Minister of Social Services.

There are a lot of areas I could talk about tonight. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs just came in. I cannot help but read from the Liberal Policy Manual, when it says, "The greatest need, in the case of many small communities, is for a supply of good quality drinking water and a sewer disposal system, that will not create health hazards. The Province cannot abandon the small communities which do not have the ability to construct and maintain their own facilities. We must all share the burden and help out." What has happened to that commitment? What has happened to the small communities? "The smaller communities in this Province, we must ensure they have better education, health, transportation and electric power. We believe this should be no less than a reliable water and sewer system.

What happened to this? Let me ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to get up and answer this question. "The Liberal Government will undertake an immediate assessment to establish a provincial water and sewer corporation that will take over and continue to operate all existing water and sewer facilities, and, over a period of years, build and expand new ones in the areas now serviced." Now, Mr. Chairman, when is the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs going to tell us what happened to that water and sewer corporation which the Premier was going to set up in the Province? When is that going to happen? The water and sewer corporation could, like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, borrow money to build the systems to service the presently unserviced areas of our Province, and repay those amounts from the overall cash flow. What happened to that, Mr. Chairman? What happened to that commitment? Is that something like the one to keep bed care facilities in place in this Province?

How about this one in social services, "The allowance to widows must be improved?" Not a nickel in this year's Budget, not a nickel more of an increase than last year, probably the first time since 1949. What happened to that commitment, Mr. Chairman? What happened to that commitment in social services?

Then we can go on to page 20 of this report. My friend from St. John's East will be interested in page 20.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is right.

"A Liberal Government will be determined to create an atmosphere of realistic co-operation in developing labour legislation, and in dealing with public service unions." What is Bill 16? Is Bill 16 a determination by Government to create an atmosphere of realistic co-operation? Is that what Bill 16 is, Mr. Chairman? The policy manual says: The Liberal policy of fairness and balance will be the basis of negotiations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) chop it off afterwards.

MR. TOBIN: That is right. Bring them in, chop them off afterwards. It says: Progressive and fair legislation must be developed to deal with such issues as double-breasting, industrial standards and pay equity.

Now I know the Ministers of Development and Energy are not very proud of what I am saying here but we are dealing with Interim Supply, which will be financing some of these programmes. We want included in Interim Supply an allocation of funding for pay equity. That is what we want to see. That is what the Member of the New Democratic Party wants to see. That is what this Party wants to see. Where is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I can tell you one thing. I am a lot closer to being an NDPer than I am to being the ultra-conservatives that that crowd over there are. Now that is what is taking place. That is what is happening. A Liberal Government will be determined to provide: Mutual respect and genuine concerns for the welfare and interest of all sectors of society. Employees, employers and the public at large will be the guideline of our labour policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: What pious platitudes.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, what pious platitudes and every one of them went around this Province preaching that. I cannot help but look at the Minister of Education considering what was just dropped off on my desk sponsored by the Friends of MUN Extension and Codco. I hope that the Minister of Education looked at the second paragraph in that. Did you see it? That is what I would say.

And when I look across this House at the front benches, no wonder we are in the mess that we are in. My friend the Minister of Fisheries was laughing and I have to say that I will exempt him from being part of that crowd because I believe him to be a man of tremendous integrity. I really do. I have known him all my life.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I do not want anything, never did want anything, but I can say that I have known the Minister of Fisheries all my life. I will say it again if you want me to say it. I have always found him to be a man of tremendous integrity, the Minister of Fisheries. Not only that but you might not realize this but he has been a friend of our family for many years and still is. And even though I come from a real hard-core Conservative family, as the Minister of Fisheries can attest, my father being a businessman, by the way, I might admit, shares some of the conservative views of the Premier. But I can say that the Minister of Fisheries has always been and still is respected by my family.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take a few minutes here to initially respond to a news release which landed on my desk from the hon. the Opposition Leader, Tom Rideout, put out by him, concerning yesterday's vote. I see here my name as being not present for the vote and that is indeed a fact. I would like to advise the House for the record why I was not here for that particular vote yesterday.

Firstly, I had to go to my district to meet with constituents about problems they had. Secondly, I had to attend the opening of a Community Futures office in Bonavista. Thirdly, I had to meet with the hospital administrator and the chairman of the board about the staffing and funding of the new Alzheimer's unit for Bonavista Hospital.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: Now, Mr. Chairman, no doubt they will want further elaboration on my position on the hospital and I will be prepared to give my position on the Bonavista Hospital. But like everything it is like looking down a microscope. To get to the Bonavista Hospital we have to look at the broad picture, and my colleague for St. John's South a moment ago dwelled upon one of the problems that we inherited, that seventeen years ago the other administrations had us borrowed to death. Borrow, borrow, borrow.

Well, I did some research on the taxation end of it and I have the taxation figures from the last Liberal administration which was in 1971 up until the last Conservative administration in 1988. Now when the Liberals went out of power in 1971 personal income tax was 33 per cent. When the last Conservative administration went out of power personal income tax was 60 per cent. Now my figures would indicate that that is an 82 per cent increase in taxation on individuals.

Retail sales tax: when the Liberals went out of power in 1971, 7 per cent, and when the Conservatives went out of power in 1988 or 1989, 12 per cent. My calculations there reveal an increase in taxation in the order of 71 per cent. We know that consumption taxes are the most regressive taxes, and that is the tax that the Federal Tories choose to bring in in the form of the GST, lace it to the poorest people in the country with consumption taxes. That is the typical Tory taxation policy, lay it on the little guy, hit him with income tax and hit him with retail sales tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tax the rich! Tax the rich!

MR. GOVER: Now, let us see if you tax the rich. That is what I am getting to, taxation on the rich. Let us get the taxation on the rich. Corporation income tax, 1971, 13 per cent. Now, they split it into two taxation groups, one for small business and one for large business. So, for large business they increased it a whooping 4 per cent to 17 per cent. So they increased tax on the individual income tax 82 per cent, they increased tax on the individual retail sales tax 71 per cent, and to the corporations they slapped on a 23 per cent income tax increase. Oh, it was heavy!

Then - get this! - on premium income of insurance companies, when the Liberals left power, 2 per cent. The boys, they really fought hard. They knew they had to hit the rich, so they jacked it up to 4 per cent in 1988, when they left power. So, not only are we borrowed to death, we cannot borrow any more, but they have taxed us to death, and the people they have chosen to tax are the poor and the less affluent of the Province. As their policies are, they were a Tory Government and they choose to tax the poor. That is the evidence.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: You can shout across, but the facts are the facts, 82 per cent on individuals, 71 per cent on individuals, and 23 per cent on corporations.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, the Government does not exist in a vacuum. What the Government can do for people depends upon how rich the Province is, and the richer the Province is the more prosperous the Government is. So, the fundamental policy of any Government has to be economic development. Of course, if the economy is growing, then the amount budgeted to service the debt should decrease over time. In 1971, when the Liberals left power, the amount budgeted to service the debt was 8.2 per cent, in 1988, the percentage of gross expenditures to service the debt was 16.2 per cent, an increase that doubled, a trend from seventy-one to eighty-eight of continuous increases in the amount expended to service the debt, up, up, up.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much again?

MR. GOVER: In 1988 it was 16.2 per cent. Now, I notice something looking at this piece of paper here, because after 1988 there is a trend the other way, a trend downward. In 1989, 15.44 per cent, in 1990, 14.57 per cent and in 1991, 14.32 per cent. So, I would say that is an indication this government is doing something right.

Now, let us look at the Opposition, they say do not restrain current expenditures, you cannot cut back, you cannot do this, you cannot do that. In the last Budget they brought in, what were the major highlights of the Budget? - commitment to significant reductions in current account deficit; avoid new tax measures; increase taxes and avoid major new current account initiatives; for a strict growth in current account expenditure to lower the current account revenue growth rate.

So, that was their policy. They wanted to keep current account down. But being political and wanting to be popular they could not come to grips with the spiralling debt they built up over seventeen years. They did not have the political guts to initiate what had to be done and they decided well, we will sell the Province down the river and maybe we will get one more term out of it. They put themselves first and the Province second.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: Wasn't ruthless enough.

In the last Budget Speech what was conspicuously absent, no plea for federal aid, cutback EPF, cutback equalization and not say a word about it. I suppose that had nothing to do with the fact that their colleagues were in power in Ottawa. Not a thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) when yours were in power.

MR. GOVER: You can bring them up, rise in debate, stand up, tell us what happened. All I know is that in your last budget there was no plea for federal aid. And the Minister, Mr. Windsor, also took pains to dispel the popular misconception that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are the most heavily taxed people in the nation.

Now, I gather that the Minister of Finance here, the Member for St. John's Centre, was ridiculed when he said that, but in their last budget their Minister of Finance took pains to dispel that particular notion.

So, Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that what is coming out of the Opposition there is just the sheerist form of hypocrisy. They lacked the political will to do what had to be done. They are the same form of government as the governments which took power prior to commission government. The Tory governments that took power back in those dark days before Newfoundland lost democracy, the Morris Government and the Alderdice Government, what was there philosophy, spend, spend and pork barrel in the districts to get re-elected and sink the Province but maintain power at whatever cost. Well, you failed to discharge your duty to the Province and on April 1989 the people saw it and they chose to get rid of you. Now the moves that we make may cause some short-term pain for people, but I am sure the people, the general populous will see the wisdom of these policies and will re-elect us because they do not want to go through another 1933 constitutional crisis and have this Province downgraded to territorial status.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

First, I want to correct the Minister of Social Services. Earlier when the Minister of Social Services made a statement he said: Can you name one thing that this party did when we were in government to help Social Services?

MR. EFFORD: No, no. Not the party. That Minister.

MR. WARREN: I would suggest to my Honourable colleague that even under that Minister of Social Services there was an increase in the fuel allowance for the people on the Labrador coast. So that is one thing. That was one thing Mr. Chairman. Now Mr. Chairman, let me go back over what my Honourable colleague from Bonavista South was just saying. He started giving a comparison of how taxes have increased over a number of years. Now my Honourable colleague forgot to give one example of an increase. My Honourable colleague should remember that when his Premier was a Minister of the Crown back in the sixties, I believe he was Minister of Labour at the time, I could be corrected but I believe at that time the minimum wage was $1.55. There was no minimum on wages for woman at that time. Now, Mr. Chairman, when we left power, the minimum wage was $4.55, an increase of over 300 percent. So, the Honourable gentlemen looked at the tax part but did not look at the wages that had increased under the conservative administration over the 17 years. We went from $1.50 up to $4.50 per hour minimum wage, and he failed to mention that. The Honourable gentleman failed to mention the taxes now on senior citizens. The Honourable gentleman failed to mention the extra taxes now on the moose licences. The Honourable gentleman failed to mention the extra gasoline tax, the extra poll tax, the extra school taxes that have increased over the last number of years. In fact, his Premier said he was going to abolish it. The Honourable gentleman failed to say that today they are closing down or reducing nursing clinics in his Honourable colleague's district, he failed to say that today. He failed to say a number of the constituents of his colleagues from Eagle River are going to be laid off because of the decline in the operations of the nursing clinic. So he has failed to say some of those things, Mr. Chairman.

Now Mr. Chairman, I listened to the Minister of Social Services. I have to say this because this is interesting, about two weeks ago the Minister of Social Services made a visit to Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right?

MR. WARREN: Yes, and he met with a constituent of mine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only One.

MR. WARREN: Yes and the Minister took out his card and said: here is my card. You call me anytime personally. The Minister told him that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he?

MR. WARREN: Yes. In fact three days ago this individual called for the Minister and I had to call the Minister's secretary today for her to remind him that he is supposed to return the phone call. I had to call his secretary today and remind her to tell him that this gentleman had been trying to get him for three days. Now that is a Minister that presented this individual with his card and said: Call me anytime you have a problem. And this same Minister said to this individual: You go back home to Makkovik and you tell your wife that the group home in Labrador will never close.

MR. EFFORD: That's a lie. It's wrong.

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Chairman, let me challenge the Minister. I will ask two people to come in front of the bar of this House who were in that meeting where you said: You go home and tell your wife that the group home will not close.

MR. EFFORD: That's wrong.

MR. WARREN: It's not wrong. It is not wrong. In fact I will say to the Minister I will take the answer from my constituent over and above him anytime.

Now if the Minister wants to say I am wrong, after I am finished speaking, let him get up and get on record and say that I am wrong in saying that he told the individual from Makkovik-

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down.

MR. WARREN: When I am finished. Now Mr. Speaker, I will say that the Honourable gentleman told-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say to my hon. colleague, I have to say this, we are on Interim Supply, and this includes the Minister of Social Service's Department. I believe it does, and includes the group homes in Labrador, and includes the government stores on the Labrador coast that you want to close down, that you are determined to close down and sell to private enterprise.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't believe that.

MR. WARREN: Yes, it is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WARREN: No not at all, not at all. Let me just say to my hon. colleague that you and the Premier want to get rid of those stores.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does the Member for Eagle River object to that?

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to say with all due respect to my colleague from Eagle River he has been very quiet lately and do you know why he is quiet? Because he forgot, or somebody forgot to tell him that there were hearings about the cutbacks in CBC all over Newfoundland and Labrador and he forgot to get on the list to appear before the hearings. He forgot to get on the list. Let me just give you one other story. He forgot to get on the list so what did he do? He called the Combined Council of Labrador and asked: Can I take up some of your time?

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you mean he couldn't get on because he forgot to get on?

MR. WARREN: He could not get on because he forgot to put the request in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WARREN: That's right, exactly, and all of a sudden after he knew that my colleague from Labrador West, my colleague from Humber East and myself were appearing, he said now how am I going to be able to appear on the CRTC hearing? So he came up with a good idea. He said: I'm going to call the Combined Council of Labrador and see if I can get on and appear with them. Now I have to tell my hon. colleague, because I was there when the secretary of the CRTC came to Mrs. Felsberg and said: Look the only way that Mr. Dumaresque can appear is if he takes some of your ten minutes.

That is the only way that Mr. Dumaresque could appear because he never requested to be able to appear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. WARREN: That is right. He never requested to appear so the only way he could say anything is if he took some of their time. I believe that can be verified by my colleagues. Now when he was told that he would only get one or two minutes he did not go at all. He did not go at all because he did not want CBC -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) priorities right.

MR. WARREN: Yes Mr. Speaker he got his priorities right because, you know what Mr. Speaker-

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier just told him he had to get up.

MR. WARREN: He stayed at home Mr. Speaker, he got his priorities right, he stayed home because he wanted to see the nursing clinic closed on the Paradise River. That is why he stayed at home. He wanted to see the nursing clinic closed down at Paradise River and he wanted to see the Hospital closed down in Northwest River. He wanted to see the hospital that was looking after a constituent of his and a constituent of mine, he wanted to see that closed down. That is why he stayed home, and Mr. Speaker he was saying he was getting his priorities right. The biggest show the CBC ever produced that the people on the Labrador coast enjoyed was Land and Sea. Land and Sea was the best show that was ever produced that the people on the Labrador coast would enjoy.

AN HON. MEMBER: I got more letters than Land and Sea did.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I would say to my Honourable colleague from Bell Island-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)get rid of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, today I listened to my colleague the hon. the Minister of Health and he was shouting and clapping his hands and saying you know this is the first time Forteau had a doctor.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that true?

MR. WARREN: Yes. But he did not say that it is the first time in four years that Nain does not have a doctor. He did not mention there was no doctor in Nain now. So, you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Minister fails to tell all the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. WARREN: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to be very long, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to talk about some of the good things that have happened in the Department of Social Services this year.

First of all, let me tell the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains, and the hon. Member should listen because he challenged me and said he would bring somebody before the bar of the House, let me tell you very clearly, I did not at any time tell your constituent, Mr. Anderson, that the group home would not close. I said, it would close if we could find suitable placements for the residents of the group home and if it was all done in consultation with all of the families, with the board, with the staff, and with the Department of Social Services and the people in our Division, full consultation with all people, nothing would be done in isolation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fax.

MR. EFFORD: You can fax that out anytime you wish.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No problem. You can send Hansard. I will even photocopy it if the hon. Member wants to send it that way.

Let us get to the good points. I have been accused of not having any increases in the Department of Social Services this year or any increases to the clients. Let me just run briefly through the budget document this year which we are debating, the services that are there. The increases: Special Services: special services to clients last year $5,088,000, this year -

AN HON. MEMBER: What services? What is that now? What page?

MR. EFFORD: Page 264, heading 2.1.03, $5,088,000, this year $6,199,000. That is one increase. On page 266, child welfare, $4.5 million, this year $4.973 million. Let me go on to the next increase, page 272, a total new program brought in by the Department of Social Services this year, Vocational Services, giving the social service clients the opportunity to be trained.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Fogo on a point of order.

MR. WINSOR: A point of order, on a point of clarification to the Minister on child welfare.

MR. EFFORD: No. What is he talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: He used round figures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

The hon. Member could ask the Minister for leave to pose a question, but there is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: On page 272, Vocational Services, for this year 1991-92, $3,473,000. Last year it was $1 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Three point four million. Social Services: amounts paid to social service clients, last year $129 million, this year $144 million up from $129 million. If you people cannot read it is not my fault.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: It is your problem you cannot read. Home Support Services, page 273, up from $10,300,000 this year to $13,120,000, a $3 million increase. Can you not read?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, a very serious thing is occurring here now with the Minister of Social Services and it must be pointed out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I am not going to go that far. But certainly there are misleading comments coming from the Minister of Social Services. Let me just explain, a moment ago the Minister referred to a sub-head in Social Services and he used the revised figures and then he used the estimates figures.

MR. EFFORD: Not only can you not read, you cannot listen.

MR. SIMMS: In the case of Vocational Services, but in the case of Social Assistance he said last year $129 million. That is clearly what he said. Mr. Chairman, the truth is the revised figures show that they spent $137 million not $129 million, so if he is going to be accurate, please be accurate. Do not play games. Tell us what you spent last year not what you budgeted (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Because that is why (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: No point of order. I think it is just a disagreement amongst hon. Members.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I cannot tell anybody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador how many refugees we are going to receive this year in the Province. How do I know how many people will get off in Gander? Last year in one month alone we spent $2.5 million accommodating refugees, a total of $9 million in a six month period. That may very well happen, and if that happens I will come in for a special warrant again this year if the need arises.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well the hon. Member slept through 1990 last year.

MR. SIMMS: The fact is you were deceiving. That is the fact.

MR. EFFORD: I did not. And special services: Let's go back to 264 where you said I read the revised.

MR. SIMMS: Social Assistance.

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, page 264. Up from $5,088,000 to $6,199,000. That is not revised, they are actual figures.

MR. SIMMS: You are playing tricks again.

MR. EFFORD: I am not playing tricks, you just cannot read and you do not want to listen to the truth.

Child Welfare, 266. Now $4.5 million was the Budget last year, $4.9 million this year. What do you want? That is simple black and white. Let's go on over, Mr. Chairman, to another page. Vocational Services, last year $1 million, this year $3.4 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: My God, they cannot read!

AN HON. MEMBER: They cannot do (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: They cannot read.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, again this is not a spurious point of order, this is a serious point of order. The Minister in debate is trying to defend the estimates of his department by comparing them with the budgeted amount of his Department last year, not what the department spent. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is clearly misleading the House, and he should stop playing games and tricks and be honest and straightforward. Tell us what you spent last year and what you plan to spend this year. That is all you have to do, be honest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, let me clarify the final on page 273, and I will say it slow. Probably it is my Port de Grave accent that the hon. Members do not understand. Let me say it slow. Look, Home Support Services, last year $9.8 million and this year $13,120,000. It is there in black and white. Fifteen million dollars increase. Increase for single parents, $55 a month including widows with children, the first child treated as an adult; $50 a month for six months of year, fuel allowance; increase for foster parents; increase in foster children's clothing; increase in child welfare allowance. What more can I tell you? Increase after increase after increase after increase. Simple, simple, simple.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not obliged to have to rise after the Minister of Social Services. I never saw anyone twist figures as much as the Minister of Social Services. I have seen some good twisting in my time, but nothing as good as that - some good twisting, but that takes the cake. A man is standing in his place and refers to 266 in the Budget, Child Welfare, where there is a reduction of $192,300 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I can read. Oh yes, I can read.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I would suggest to the Minister of Social Services that he take some of that eye glass allowance he has and go see somebody tomorrow before he comes to the House because obviously with some of his figures he must be seeing them bottom up because there is a reduction in Child Welfare of $192,300 from what was

spent last year to what is budgeted this year. Now, that is a decrease of $192,000.

In the Minister's Department there is a decrease of $4 million, from $148,142,200 to $144,114,900, $4 million less that the Minister of Social Services has in his budget this year. Now, how he can get increases out of that, I do not know.

Now, I can understand the President of Treasury Board shaking his head about it, because we know what he has done to a lot of the figures in the budget this year. His figures, and the tales that he tells about this budget, are quite different from what many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians think about it.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman -

MR. BAKER: Tell the truth, boy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Tell the truth, he says, and then he starts to laugh. Make no wonder he laughs, because he knows what I am going to say to him. He should have stayed teaching biology. He was a better biologist than he is the President of Treasury Board. He is a good MHA, but he is not a good President of Treasury Board. He was a very good biology teacher, I might add. But he did not have too much control over this Minister of Forestry now, with the spray programme. He lost his control.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to some points that the Member for Bonavista South brought up in debate. I was quite delighted to hear him tell the House where he was yesterday, that he was out in his district and he did three or four things. That is quite interesting. He talked about tax increases over seventeen or eighteen years. I want to say to this Member for Bonavista South, who is a member of this Government, that in three budgets his Government has increased taxes in this Province by $285 million, three budgets, not seventeen or eighteen, three, $285 million in additional taxes from poor Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I have to say to the Member for Bonavista South, that you must have forgotten the debate a couple of years ago, when the Minister of Finance did not understand the formula to calculate taxes, and he argued in this Legislature, and he told the press of the Province, and, consequently, the people of the Province, that we were not the highest taxed people in Canada. Can the member remember that?

MR. GOVER: Yes, definitely.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, that is good. At least you can remember it. Once you have been in Government for seventeen or eighteen years, I suppose, it is natural that you forget some things, but when you have only been in two years, it amazes me how conveniently the Member for Bonavista South has forgotten things. He has forgotten things so conveniently.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the 20 per cent increase in electricity.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, yes. He forgot that. He forgot the payroll tax. He forgot the 2 per cent personal income tax increase imposed by this administration. He forgot all that. I will bet you, though, he remembers the free snares. I will bet he remembers that. He does not remember that the funding for the Youth Advisory Council is slashed and gone. I will bet he does not remember that. I am surprised the Member for Stephenville does not remember it, though, when every time the Member for Stephenville stood in this House, in the first term he was in here, he talked about the Youth Advisory Council and the great job they were doing, and how I, as Minister responsible at the time, should provide more funding for the Youth Advisory Council. What happened? Just two years, less than two years, after he became a member of the Government of the Province, they wiped out the Youth Advisory Council.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does the general youth think of that?

MR. MATTHEWS: I met a young gentleman going out over the steps of the building, when I was coming in this morning - and the Member for Stephenville knows him - and he was very disappointed about what happened, because he, and the council, used to look upon the Member for Stephenville as an ally in their cause. He did very well it, but how quickly he forgot, because I have not heard him mention a word about the Youth Advisory Council. He has been in government two years now, and I have not heard a word.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the Member for Bonavista South - and he talked about the concerns in his district - a lot of members opposite and on this side have concerns about problems in their districts, particularly with health care over the last few weeks, the cutbacks in the Budget. A lot of us have concerns. I have concerns in my own district. I have had them for the last two years, moreso than any other of the nine I have been here. I have seen in-patients phased out in two of my hospitals. I foresee this year further reduction in the operating hours at St. Lawrence. We really only have half a clinic at St. Lawrence now, which two years ago was a full-fledged memorial hospital which the people of St.Lawrence and Lawn take great pride in, that they have that hospital as a result of their heroic efforts in rescuing many American sailors in the Pollux and Truxton disaster. The Member for Bonavista South said this was only short-term pain, and a number of members opposite, over the last few days, have talked about short-term pain. I can say to the Member for Bonavista South that I really hope there is no pain. I only hope there is no pain, because a lot of people in those rural communities that have been used to health care facilities, if they have any pain at all, it is going to be too much, because they are going to have much further to go now to be treated. As I said today, in my question to the Minister of Health, that is going to mean, not only a reduction in services in their own communities or close proximity to a community, they are going to have additional travel and accommodation costs to go and get medical treatment. They are going to incur a lot of other costs. And I think it is rather unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that whenever they are sick and need treatment, people always rally to the cause and come up with the few extra dollars that it takes to go to be treated.

I am sure, as members, we have all had calls from people on social assistance, who, in my case, have had to come to St. John's for medical treatment and are looking for a few dollars to pay for the transportation or to take care of accommodations while in St. John's. Sometimes they are successful in getting a few dollars, sometimes they are not. Sometimes, for good reason, they do not get it because of undisclosed income of which the people in Social Services had been unaware. But it does cause considerable hardship for people when they have to travel long distances to see a doctor, and to go for tests, particularly, when they need overnight accommodations, and we are going to see much more of that now. The people of rural Newfoundland are going to have to travel a lot more to these regional health care centres for treatment and it is going to cost them a lot of money.

The other problem we are going to have, Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out over the last week or so, is that the pressure is going to be so great on those regional health care centres, there could be a backlog from those communities so great that they will not be able to get to see a doctor or have their tests. Consequently, people in those rural communities are going to find it much more difficult. They are not going to see doctors when they should. Conditions that should be treated are going to get progressively worse through not being treated and, although members opposite and members on this side do not want to hear about it, inevitably, this backlog is going to lead to people in this Province dying because of not being treated in time.

It is foolish for one to sit here and not take this stuff pretty seriously. What I find very alarming and surprising is to see so many members opposite who know what I am talking about to be true. They have facilities in their own district that are being closed or downgraded. It is going to inflict hardship on their constituents, and I think they should openly and publicly stand up for the people who sent them to this legislature. I mean, it is a democracy. Particularly those who are not Ministers - I mean, you are firstly responsible to the people who sent you to this legislature to represent them. It really amazes me that so many members opposite - and I don't have to name them because they know who I am talking about - are uncomfortable. I have noticed how uncomfortable they have been since March 7. They have been very, very uncomfortable. They are under tremendous pressure from their constituents.

MR. HOGAN: You do not believe that do you?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I believe it, even about the Member for Placentia, who, I thought, was invincible and did not show pressure, but he has been a different man the last two weeks, and I say that to him with all due respect. I am not saying it because it is funny. I know what constituent pressure can do to a member of this legislature. I have been through it myself a number of times when I have had problems with fish plants, with mines, and with threats of hospital closure in my own district, as a matter of fact, when a Royal Commission recommended it. I went through a very difficult time but, thank God, I had enough influence inside the Cabinet room and enough people there who stood with me, that officials, I must go on record as saying, in the Department of Health, who tried to get their way then, did not get it. But I am very sorry to say, for members opposite, they got it a few weeks ago. I can tell you what happened once we lost government, by the way, that there were a few over there who used to look at me and sneer because they thought to themselves, `Well, we finally got you.' They were not thinking about the people that I represented, and their needs. Their agenda did not change from the time that I was a member in the Peckford Cabinet until March 7. Their agenda was the same. Those very same people, who inflicted hardship on the people out in those communities and have inflicted severe pressure on members of this Government, are still over there. I say it very sincerely because it is true.

The members over in the Department of Health who read Hansard and listen will hear me tonight. They will read it tomorrow, they will read what Matthews said in the legislature, and they will know it is true. They already know what I think about them.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is why we have politicians, for checks and balances.

MR. MATTHEWS: Precisely! And I can tell them, if I ever see the day again when I am a member of the Government of this Province, it will not be the people in St. Lawrence, Grand Bank, Placentia and other places who will have to worry, it will be those four or five over in the Department of Health, and they know who I am talking about. It will be the four or five in the Department of Health.

As a matter of fact, when you have been in this racket for a certain length of time you get fed up and you get tired, and sometimes you need a reason to carry on. Sometimes that is the reason I get a little bit excited about politics again, when I think about those four or five people. Because I would like to make them feel the same way that they made thousands of my constituents feel, and particularly the people who worked in the facilities. I know members opposite are going through the same thing now. It is very, very unfortunate, because they make all kinds of recommendations but you have to have the checks and balances, you have to have the political will to take them on and stop them and stymie them. I have seen so many recommendations come to Cabinet that they thought were the right ones, but it would have created so much hardship on the people of this Province, particularly in some communities, that that is what you have to have. I say to the members opposite, stand up for your constituents and remember that you are responsible to them first, because I know what some of them are going through over there the last few weeks.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we are talking about interim supply, and it is pretty wide-ranging. We have been dealt a pretty severe Budget.

MR. TOBIN: What about the fisheries?

MR. MATTHEWS: Fisheries! Well, what can I say about the fisheries? In two years, we have seen the fisheries budget decrease by $7.1 million, $2.1 million last year and, the Minister knows full well, this year, $5 million less in the Department of Fisheries. There is one thing I must say about the Minister of Fisheries, he does not get up in his place and try to say that his budget is not cut by $5 million. He gets up and tells it as it is. He will not get up, like his colleague, the Minister of Social Services there, and even though he is getting $4 million less, say he is getting more.

MR. EFFORD: How do you know? Get him up.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Fisheries will acknowledge that he is getting $5 million less.

MR. EFFORD: Do I have to get up and tell you off again?

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I do not care. You can get up and tell me all you like, but I have very closely scrutinized this budget, I tell the Minister of Social Services, and particularly his department, because he claims to be such a champion for the underprivileged in this Province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! By leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will carry on. What I was saying is that the Minister of Social Services claims to be such a champion of the underprivileged.

MR. EFFORD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: I just want to bring to the Chairman's attention that due to the positioning of the Chair, you did not see my hon. colleague on the back when he was standing up. I just want to bring that to your attention.

MR. MATTHEWS: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the point of order, the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: To that point of order, I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that before you came to the Chair, the Member for Bellevue was there and he had no trouble whatsoever, from the same position, recognizing the member for Bonavista South. He recognized him over the Minister of Social Services. So the Minister of Social Services does not have a very good point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

To that point of order, the Chair recognized the hon. the Member for Grand Bank. He was the first member that was seen standing, so that is why the Chair recognized him.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

I have no difficulty, whatsoever, in listening again to the Member for Bonavista South and if we were running out of time, I would let him have half my time so that he could get up and express his opinion in the legislature, tonight. But, having said that, there is lots of time.

MR. TOBIN: I wonder if you would tell about him being my poll captain.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I cannot bring up about him being your poll captain because that is unfair to the Member for Bonavista South. It would be unfair to him to even talk about it.

MR. TOBIN: The only poll I ever lost.

MR. MATTHEWS: I did not know you ever lost a poll, to be very honest with you. This is the first time I heard you ever lost a poll.

What I was saying to the Minister of Social Services before I got interrupted, Mr. Chairman, is that for years he championed the cause of the underprivileged in our Province. For a short while after he became Minister, he was doing a pretty good job, I thought, and I used to commend him and compliment him, at times. I really thought his heart was in the right place. But there has been a change in him over the last year or so. I do not know what has happened to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No. I hope he has not burned out too quickly. I hope he has not burned out too quickly. I know he has a very difficult department and maybe he is getting worn thin. When I look at his budget - as I said, I have looked at it very closely. As a matter of fact, I was home after the Budget Speech and from the Thursday night on, and I particularly looked at the Minister's department. It is a department that means so much to so many Newfoundlanders - who need it, through no fault of their own - for it deals mostly with those people less fortunate in our society. I was really, really surprised, I mean, the Minister of Finance announced there would be no increase in the assistance to social assistance recipients in the Province. There is no increase. It is frozen; it is the first time in I do not know how many years that the level is frozen and I was really surprised that the Minister of Social Services would stand for that.

MR. TOBIN: The first time since 1949.

MR. MATTHEWS: The first time since 1949, the former Minister tells me.

Look at some other reductions. Look at his total department, you know, the numbers being down, which really, really surprised me because, ordinarily, when other departments get cut back, and for very good reason, the social services are always given very special consideration. I know, before the year is over, the Minister of Social Services is going to have to look for more money, with special warrants or whatever, because his social assistance caseload is going to get much bigger.

MR. EFFORD: No it is not.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I hope he is right. I hope the Minister is right, because that would be good news to us all. He stood up a few minutes ago and bragged about the subhead, the amount of money voted for social assistance in the Province, and he tried to boast that there is more money budgeted this year than last year, which is true.

MR. EFFORD: A lot more.

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, I say to the Minister of Social Services, knowing the Budget this Government was bringing down, there is good reason why there is more money voted for social assistance recipients -

MR. WINDSOR: And more needed.

MR. MATTHEWS: - and more needed, because there is going to be a lot more people dependent upon the Minister's department, to keep body and soul together, within the next twelve months. Now, that is why there is more money budgeted in that particular subhead. I want to say to the Minister that I hope what is budgeted is enough, because, if not, then that is going to cause further financial hardship on the Province; but, of course, if money is needed for those people, it has to be found always. It will be quite interesting to see as the year goes on and we get the financial forecast reports from the Minister of Finance, just what is happening to the financial position of the Province, particularly with the social assistance caseload and the amount of money that the Minister is going to need for the remainder of the year.

So, Mr. Chairman, these are the comments I want to make on the interim supply bill.

MR. EFFORD: What comments?

MR. MATTHEWS: What comments? There is one thing I have to say about the Minister of Social Services -

AN HON. MEMBER: He has a bit of humour to him.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is right, he always has a little bit of humour. No matter how tough it gets, he can always create a light moment, which I admire. I admire that in people, because these are very serious times for all the Province. It is a particularly rough time to be a Minister, particularly the Minister of Social Services, but to be a Member of the Government it is a rough, rough time.

MR. EFFORD: I know you would not like to be over here!

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, let me say to the Minister of Social Services about liking to be over there, there are days I would, and more days I would not. I am sure there are members on the other side, who, over the last two weeks, have wondered, really, what they are doing over there, not over there with the Liberal Party, but what they are doing in politics. That thought occurs to us all, many a time. I have to say to him, that over the last two years, I have had more relaxed days than I had the previous four years. There are times when I have actually enjoyed life a bit more. I know what both sides of it are about. There are days, when you are a Cabinet Minister, you need someone steering you around, telling you where you have to go next, if you are doing your job and working hard at it.

MR. EFFORD: That is obvious, from what you left behind.

MR. MATTHEWS: He is getting nasty, now. All I say to the Minister, again, is he should not forget there is going to be someone coming behind him. There is always someone to come behind, and there will be some terrible horror stories, I am sure, coming out of the office of the Minister of Social Services.

MR. WINSOR: Services to children, $19 million, and they are going to spend $13 million.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, they are going to spend $13 million this year. They budgeted $18 million last year in services to children, as the Member for Fogo points out, $18,767,500, and this year, $13,400,000. Now, when the Minister of Social Services gets up, he will somehow get an increase out of that.

MR. EFFORD: I will.

MR. MATTHEWS: He will get an increase out of $5 million less, I bet you any money!

Now, what I was going to say to him about his office, and horror stories, perhaps before long there will be somebody come behind the Minister, and if he gets his wish there will be somebody going into his office soon, because I hear he would like to have a change now, he would really like to have a change.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, yes, the word is out on you, boy, you are bored over there now. I think that is why you are not looking out for your department quite as well, we see slippages in certain votes. You do not have the enthusiasm for that department, anymore. You spent a few good years as the critic, worked hard, and spent some late nights, I might say, about the Minister of Social Services. I can see why he is wearing down, because when he was the critic for Social Services he worked long hours. That is one thing about him, he worked day and night, then, doing his duties.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did a good job with it, too.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, yes, he did a marvellous job, Mr. Chairman, I must say. I have commended him a number of times on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: He forgot his compassion.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, his compassion left him within the last twelve months. His compassion has left him, and, consequently, the people out and about the Province, who really need the Minister's help and caring, are not going to get it. And, as a result of the March 7 Budget, they are going to be much worse off, which is unfortunate.

MR. EFFORD: You did not read that page very well, did you?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I did read it. Well, I only read what the person passed over to me.

MR. EFFORD: Oh! I will correct it for you.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am sure you will. Give it to me again. He is going to read the revised figure now.

MR. EFFORD: You cannot read.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay. I will let the Minister correct me, now, Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, it is, indeed, a great honour for me to rise in this House, again, to have a few words to say. The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, who spoke a short while ago, indicated that a news release went out from the Opposition Office, from the Leader of the Opposition, indicating that the hon. the Member for Bellevue, Percy Barrett, was not in the House yesterday afternoon for a vote.

MR. EFFORD: Did he actually do that?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, and I would have great difficulty voting for that particular resolution. I do not know if hon. members suffer from amnesia or what, but the resolution says, `Be It Resolved that the House defer the decision announced in the budget with respect to the hospitals at Bell Island, Bonavista, Springdale, Baie Verte, Port aux Basques, Bonne Bay, Brookfield, Old Perlican, Placentia, Burgeo, St. Lawrence, and Come By Chance' -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Come By Chance?

MR. BARRETT: There used to be a hospital in Come By Chance, the Walwyn Hospital.

AN HON. MEMBER: When was it closed?

MR. BARRETT: It was closed under the previous administration's rationalization program. It goes on further `to indicate and conduct an independent review of these decisions.'

Now, I have said in this House over the last few days - and I have heard of backbenchers on this side of the House not being consulted and having no input. I can assure you that I have tremendous input into what happens in the Bellevue District.

As a matter of fact, the hospital board which was appointed by the previous administration recommended some months ago that the clinic in Come By Chance would close. I found out about that particular resolution from the board. I was not impressed by their decision and I met with the Minister on at least five or six occasions and also with the Premier, whose door, I must say, is open at any time. The Government commissioned an independent review done by Irene Baird who went out in the district and consulted extensively. Of course, when you look at the rationalization of the system - and I admit, as the Member for Bellevue, I do not agree with closing anything down in my district - I realize there are decisions that have to be made. The objective of the previous administration - and if you read the Royal Commission report, the bed studies and everything else that has been published - they talked about creating regional hospitals and the ultimate objective would be that the cottage hospitals would close. As a matter of fact, one section in the report specifically refers to St. Lawrence, Grand Bank and Come By Chance, and it says that when the regional hospitals came into being in Clarenville and Burin that the hospitals in Burin, St. Lawrence, Grand Bank and Come By Chance should be closed. Of course, we all know what happened. The hon. the Member for Grand Bank lobbied hard, I guess, and the decision was made that the St. Lawrence and the Grand Bank hospitals did not close, but I do not know what happened to Come By Chance. I have no idea what happened to Come By Chance.

With regard to not being in there, I could not vote for this particular resolution because it was inaccurate, plus there was already an independent review done of the clinic in Come By Chance and that particular person recommended that the clinic be closed. I had difficulty with that particular decision but if I had been here I would have voted against that particular resolution.

Now, why was I not in the House? If it was not a news release, of course, and if it had been said in the House, I would have been up on a point of privilege.

About a month ago I had a visitor to my office who happened to be a good friend of mine, a good friend for many years, a constituent of mine, and the ex-Member for the District of Bellevue. At that time he was zone Chairman for the Lions Club for the area, and he said, `Percy, I would like for you to come out to Whitbourne on March 20 to chair the judging of the District's speak-off for the Lions Club.' He said, `We are meeting at 5:45 p.m., at Monty's Place in Whitbourne, with all the judges and all the organizers, for a meeting, and we would like you to come out since you are the chairperson for the judging,' and being an MHA who likes to support and wants to be a part of activities that support young people in my district. I think the Lions Clubs are doing a tremendous service in communities in this Province and, specifically, the speak-off they organize is tremendous. I am sure that the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes would agree with me that they provide a tremendous opportunity for our young people and great training. The teachers in our Province do a tremendous service in coaching these people over many, many months in public speaking. Also at the time I met with the town councils and the leaders in Whitbourne. Shortly after the meeting we had at Monty's place I had to rush to the town hall to meet with the community leaders in Whitbourne and Markland and that particular area they wanted me to come out and talk about the Provincial Budget. Of course for me to go in to the community of Whitbourne and to defend the Provincial Budget is no great task. When you see in the Budget last year $8 million for a youth remand centre, this year $3.5 million for the expansion of the youth remand centre. As the Mayor of Whitbourne said last year: since you have been elected, $2.5 million went into the community of Whitbourne for water and sewer. As a matter of fact if you drive along the Trans-Canada, my good friend the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, you will see a water tower in Whitbourne. And it is getting to be called the Percy Barrett Tower. So I am leaving my mark on that particular district.

The people in that particular area have said to me as I have moved around, and I went in to Markland this morning and visited some people. Wherever I went everybody said: keep up the great work, you are doing a tremendous job. And what this Government had to do it had to do. As a matter of fact -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: I will not be unkind. So in the community of Whitbourne there was not any difficulty in defending the Budget. And there is no difficulty whatsoever in any part of my district to defend the Budget.

I was sorry to see the Come By Chance clinic - I was sorry to see the Come By Chance hospital go. For those of us who live and grew up in Bellevue district the Walwyn Hospital in Come By Chance has a lot of good and bad memories. And when you see an institution like that close it hits you in the heart. I went out to Come By Chance last Tuesday - I took a day off from the House - and met with all the people out there and talked to them and everybody accepts the decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: No leave?

MR. BARRETT: No leave? I will get up again because I need another ten minutes.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is not that we would not give the hon. gentleman leave but he has the opportunity again and he said he needed extra time. I just want to remark a couple of things about some of what he said.

He talked about speak-offs. And certainly yes, I readily acknowledge that the speak-offs held throughout the Province, some of them sponsored by Lions' Clubs and some of them at the school level, have done a tremendous amount for our children. In fact, that is the reason I was not in the House today. I was attending a number of speak-offs in the southern shore area. And the calibre is unbelievable.

I remember back just a few years ago going to speak-offs and you would always pick a winner. No doubt about it, there was always somebody who stood out. Today, in all categories, there was certainly a doubt right to the end as to who was going to win. And for the first time since I remember going we had an equal number of boys and girls. In the early years you would see about six girls to one boy. And today in all categories they were at least even, and in a couple we had more boys than girls.

There are a lot of budding politicians up the Southern Shore much to the chagrin of the Liberals opposite. Some of them are not but my daughter won one of them by the way.

The other thing the Member mentioned that interested me was he said he was consulted about the closure of the clinic in Come By Chance and agreed with it because the experts agreed with it and the independent study recommended it and whatever. The big question, I suppose is, did the residents of the area agree with it, because if they did not, the Member should make his decision based on what the Member's or his constituents wanted. It was remarked tonight, I believe, by the Member for Torngat Mountains or the Member for Ferryland that you are elected to do the wishes of your constituents and not some private consultant or not some Members of your own Party. So, if your constituents did not want the clinic closed then I am sure they are not going to be too pleased to hear you say that you agreed with the decision.

The more interesting thing about that was the admission that he was consulted about the closure of his clinic and we saw right next door in the District of Placentia, the Member for Placentia being ignored when the decision was being made to close the clinic or the hospital in Placentia.

One might ask why would the Premier consult with one Member about the closure of a facility in his District and not consult with another. Certainly it was not because he could not find the Member for Placentia, he is in here every day a very hard working individual who has had to take a fair amount of pressure the last few days simply because of what has happened in his District. Here he was caught not knowing this event was going to occur which was extremely unfair on behalf of the Premier and the Minister of Health.

Now getting back to the Budget, tonight we saw something new unfold and maybe something new being uncovered. We saw some of the figures that are being thrown out by hon. Members more closely scrutinized. The Minister of Social Services thinking he was very smart in pointing out some of the great expenditures of his department really created the awareness of the sham the government is perpetrating on the people of the Province. The Budget Speech itself when it was read was called as last year's Speech was, and was proved correct, a fraudulent document. There is absolutely no doubt about it the interpretation of the Budget this year by the Members opposite is nothing short of fraudulent. The figures quoted would open ones eyes. So, just seeing that the Minister of Social Services and the figures that he had been quoting in the last few weeks in relation to the increased expenditures were not really factual.

I started to look at the Department of Education because I said I wonder is the Minister of Education doing the same thing. Lo and behold the Minister of Education is doing the same thing. This year in the Budget the Minister of Education is going around talking about the great increase in educational funding despite the fact that yes, certain areas have to be tampered with, there is a great increase in the Department of Education budget. Well, there is almost a $16 million increase. That is significant.

MR. SIMMS: I wonder did the news media pick that up.

MR. HEARN: I certainly hope that the news media is starting to pick this up because if we have any investigative reporting left in this Province, we do not have a lot of it, but if there is any then they had better start thumbing through the Budget, because there are some startling figures there when they contrast them with the figures that are being kicked out by the different Ministers when they talk about increases and expenditures in their department. So, if we have any investigative reporters lo and behold look at the Department of Education budget. The total budget for Education has increased, as I have said, by some $16 million, a tremendous amount of money compared to what, however? When you compare it to an expenditure of $761 million it is paltry, an increase of $16 million when you look at an expenditure of $761 million. Well let us look a little more closely; of that increase of almost $16 million almost $11 million of it is in teachers salaries alone, something over which the hon. gentleman had absolutely no control. And notice I said hon. gentlemen, I did not say lady and gentlemen or hon. Members because I am sure that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations had nothing to do with this Education budget. I am sure she did not sit around the table and watch the Department of Education, especially the primary, elementary and secondary section, be scuttled. I will give her some figures if she is not aware of them now because over the last few years when she was with the Newfoundland Teachers Association she was extremely concerned about educational funding. In fact, no one in this Province was more concerned or more vocal than the hon. Minister about educational funding.

So now we will have a look at the real figures, of the close to $16 million increase in the budget, almost eleven goes to teachers salaries alone. What does that leave? Around a $5 million increase in an overall Budget. That is an increase of 3/4 of 1 per cent; 3/4 of 1 per cent compared to a 5.7 inflation rate shows that the field of education certainly did not get very much money.

The Minister also has been spreading false information when he talks about the amount of money going into tuition. His defence of the Education budget is we put - and the hon. Member should take note of this - the Minister of Education's defence of the Education budget in spite of, you know, slashes to school board, loss of teaching jobs, gutting the department, the Minister's one defence is, 'We put $3.5 million into student aid - $3.5 million into student aid. Untrue! Untrue, not true at all. The Minister put $1.4 million into student aid, that is a lot of difference from $3.5 million. The Minister of Education is perpetrating the same sham as the Minister of Social Services. He is looking at budgeted amounts last year compared to budgeted this year, not the amount spent, the amount that was needed, and you find out that the increase this year is not $3.5 million, the increase is $1.4 million to student aid, and that is the overall total, the amount of direct student aid is in the vicinity of $1 million. If you look at the fact that 500 to 1,000 new students will be entering Memorial University and post-secondary institutions this year, well certainly 1,000 or more in total, it means $1,000 for each one of them. That is less than the average amount that post-secondary students will pick up from the student aid programme. So what it really means, instead of students who are attending post-secondary institutions this year having more money to assist them through the student aid programme, students are going to have less money this year than ever before. So the Minister is spreading his false propaganda by saying this big increase in student aid, is not being truthful or factual.

The other interesting thing in the Department of Education Budget, if one thumbs through it, is the amount of cuts in the various sections, especially in primary, elementary and secondary education. Here comes the Minister. We know now that in the total Department of Education now comprising primary, elementary, secondary and post-secondary that the Department is being run not by the Minister, but by officials who have come up through the post-secondary section. Now everybody tells me that, even Members opposite. Their biggest concern is that the Department of Education is being run by people who are familiar only with the post-secondary.

The Budget last year - I pointed this out - in the Budget again this year we see the same thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up .

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HEARN: We will have to come back to it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman - to get back to Chapter Two. I guess I should finish Chapter One of my speech and indicate that in the speak-off we had five beautiful contestants who did a tremendous job and it was very difficult to pick a winner. But we finally decided on a young woman from Dunville who was in the hon. Member for Placentia's district who did a tremendous job, and of course all of us in that area are rooting for her to win the Provincial. I do not think she will be competition for the hon. Member for Placentia because I think she happens to be of the same political stripe. So I do not think she is going to be competition. But I am sure that once the hon. Member for Placentia retires that she will be a great replacement for him.

The hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes made some comments about educational funding. I see sometimes in this House people going through Departmental estimates of the various Departments, particularly the Department of Education, and noticing cutbacks at the Departmental level. I guess over the years of involvement in education in this Province I probably visit more staff rooms than anybody else in the whole Department of Education. As I go around my district and sometimes in other districts and go in to staff rooms now talking to teachers, people know that the amount of money allocated in terms of salaries and travel and that sort of thing at the Department of Education and a lot of other Departments do not have much effect on the quality of education in this Province.

The quality of education in this Province takes place in the classrooms. One of the problems - and I have said it in this House before - that in the areas of education and health we at one time used to have a centralized system of education in this Province, where things were operated and run directly by the Department of Education from the Department of Education in St. John's. In the late 'sixties we went with a decentralized system of education in this Province and we passed a mandate for administration and control of programmes over to school boards in the Province.

At that particular time there was a skeleton crew at the Department. Over the last three or four years, particularly under the leadership of the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, we saw a great mushrooming of the number of people and the bureaucracy within the Department of Education. So we built up a centralized system within this Province. At the same time we built up a great bureaucracy at the board level. I can tell you as a person who has great concern about the education system in this Province, it hurt me no end to see the mushrooming of the bureaucracy.

If you go out in the classrooms, and I talk to teachers every day in my district and in other districts and I receive calls, as a matter of fact I have had numerous calls from teachers saying: you are doing a great job. I think reductions in the Department of Education, the bureaucracy, and reductions at the board level, had to come.

AN HON. MEMBER: They must be all Tories.

MR. BARRETT: No, they are not all Tories, they are concerned professional teachers and I have to say that they were very concerned about the educational system in this Province. But I can assure you that you were not a Member of the previous administration that built up a great bureaucracy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Built up a great bureaucracy and had no effect whatsoever on the quality of education. (Inaudible) created the Department of Career Development and Advanced Studies. We have a great bureaucracy in post-secondary education in this Province, and it has little effect on the quality of education in this Province.

I guess one of the things of which I have great regret and I see the people who are now at the Extension Service of Memorial University, it is unfortunate that the Board of Regents and all the people involved in that institution decided to cut the extension service, the Extension Service of Memorial University. As we know the Department of Finance and the Government allocates the money to the university and I am sure that being a student at Memorial and being around Memorial University, I am sure that if I was the President of Memorial University my priorities would be much different than the priorities right now. I would probably have found a way to have kept the Extension Service.

Being involved in adult education and community development in this Province I have a lot of friends at the Extension Service. As a matter of fact, I recall when the late Wallace House was the Minister of Education there was a conference in Corner Brook and at that time with the Division of Adult Education in the Department and Extension Service here in St. John's there was always a bit of a conflict because there was sort of an overlapping of roles and there seemed to be some conflict take place particularly at the upper echelon of the bureaucracy within the Department of Education and the bureaucracy at Memorial University. But out there in rural Newfoundland there was never any conflict.

I remember at a conference where Mr. Howse delivered a speech in Corner Brook and he had a tremendous attack on the Extension Services at Memorial University. For about three months afterwards, my friends at the Extension Service did not speak to me because they accused Bill Shallow and me of writing the Minister's speech, but we never had anything to do with it. I do not know who did it. The Extension Service, the late Don Snowden, George Lee, who was probably one of the leading consultants in community development has worked all over the world, I think he has his own private business now, a former Director of Extension Service at Memorial. It is unfortunate, I think the Extension Services had a lot of successes and they did a lot of marketing of their things in other countries. With the advent of the community colleges their role may not be so important, but I still think there is a role for extension service within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have done tremendous work, the Fogo Island process: they were animated and did the work on Fogo Island that sort of reversed the resettlement program and did a lot of work. Their work is well known.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: If the hon. Member for Fogo wants me to talk about the resettlement program, I will talk about it. I come from a community that was resettled in 1968, Woody Island, Placentia Bay. I can assure you sometimes it is great to say that it is nice to be back there, but if you spent as many hours with your legs dangling over the wharf at Swift Current waiting for a boat to pick you up, it was not all that pleasant. To be isolated in the winter time when the bay was frozen and you had no way of getting back and forth to Swift Current. There were some communities in Newfoundland where resettlement was a good thing and there are others probably where it probably would not have been a good thing.

In regards to the Extension Service and the commitment: normally in difficult times -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, we have had some interesting debates this evening. Hon. gentlemen opposite are putting forward some numbers and continue to be playing games with the numbers in the Budget document. They may be fooling themselves but they are not fooling the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are a number of points I want to make.

This Government has come forward as trying to say: well, we are in a very difficult position here. They have pleaded for sympathy from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for what they are doing, saying: it is tough times, we had no choice but bring in a tough Budget. We had to do what previous governments failed to do. They do not tell the people of Newfoundland that the previous government passed them a surplus and they very quickly turned it into a $117 million deficit. The question they should be answering is how did they do that? Why are we faced with the difficult financial situation this Government would have us falsely believe we are faced with? Yes, it is a difficult time. But not the exaggerated numbers that this Government has been putting forward over the past couple of months to try to set the stage for what they are trying to put over on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador today.

The big thing that the Minister of Finance waves his hat at is that: oh, we have lost so much money, this has been terrible, revenues from the Government of Canada have been down so much. Well I think we should just examine exactly what happened in the Government of Canada this year. The fact of the matter is that the Government of Canada over the last year gave us $67 million less than was anticipated in last year's Budget through various changes in the economy of central Canada, something that was not unexpected. And if the Minister of Finance was worth his salt at all he would have known that he had cooked the books last year, that he could not have expected the amount of money that he received.

The Minister also says: well, Provincial revenues are down, we have lost so much money on the Provincial Sales Tax. Yes he had. He got $35 million less than he predicted from retail sales tax, thanks to the state of the economy at the hands of this Minister. But he does not tell us that he picked up $20 million from Provincial income tax. That is interesting. Picked up $20 million from Provincial income tax over his estimate. So the grand total was a loss of $10 million on those two items. You can do further analysis with a whole bunch of other, smaller items and see where the Government has picked up and where it has lost. The bottom line is, you could probably say there is $60 million or $70 million variance. But that does not account for the $130 million that this Government lost over the course of the year. Where has that gone? And where has the additional $54 million that is now budgeted as a deficit, where did that go? Where has that gone? Why are we in such a situation? That is what this Government is failing to answer. How did they get us in to such a situation in such a short period of time? That is the answer.

Now some hon. gentleman said that the people are accepting the Budget, that he had no problems selling the Budget in his district. I do not know how they can be deluding themselves in such a regard. I just made a note tonight as I was driving home for the supper break. I happened to have the car radio on. I will not name the station but it was a local station. The news came on, the 5:30 newscast. I made a note as I drove of the items that were on the newscast. It was quite interesting. I was quite taken aback in fact to see the level of concern.

And what were the items that were newsworthy tonight? This is not coming from the Opposition. I do not think the Government will claim that the news media are being unfair to them. In fact, the news media were simply reporting statements made by other people, such as the President of the Council of the Student's Union at Memorial University. Major complaints for the cutbacks in the educational system and the implications on students at Memorial University as a result of this Budget. Surely hon. gentlemen are not going to try to tell this House that the students of Memorial University are happy. They tried to delude us with the figure of the increase in student aid. I think my colleague just pointed out that there is only a small increase in actual student aid over what was budgeted.

Second item: MUN Extension Service. People all over rural Newfoundland are talking about the benefits that they have derived over a twenty year period from the MUN Extension Service. People were not very happy with the loss of that extension of this educational institute across Newfoundland and into Labrador where it is particularly important in rural coastal Labrador.

The President of the Newfoundland Teachers Association was involved in a news story, announcing a work to rule to take place on April 8. Teachers have voted overwhelmingly to work to rule effective April 8. The President of the NTA said he was not at all pleased with his contract stripping, which is exactly what this Government is involved in, contract stripping. That is what they are concerned about. They are concerned about the dishonesty of this Government in being up-front and forthright with teachers.

The next interview was no less than the President of the Status of Women Advisory Council who was lamenting the impact on women of this Budget. She was saying that women are bearing the brunt of the cutbacks in this Budget unfairly. Now that is not the Opposition, those are four representatives so far of various sectors of society. That is how they see this Budget.

There was a story about the Placentia Hospital Board and the action that they are contemplating because of the closure of the Placentia Hospital. Surely we are all aware of their feelings from the great demonstration that they staged in this House last week. We know how it affected hon. Members opposite because we saw them sneaking out the back door and trying to find ways up to the eighth floor without having to go through the lobby. So we know the problems that that is causing for them.

Then there was a story about a meeting tonight of the nurses at the St. Clare's Hospital.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I thank the Premier for his compliment in telling us that the Opposition is doing their job, Her Majesty's loyal Opposition are indeed pointing out to the people of the Province the weaknesses and the inefficiency of this Government and the dishonesty of this Government, more importantly. But the nurses at the St. Clare's Hospital were meeting tonight to talk about the negative impact of this Budget on that institution. So that is six groups so far. That is interesting.

And then we had a story about nine Assistant Deputy Ministers being fired. I was just given a list of them, I will not go down through them.

PREMIER WELLS: Nobody was fired.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh. Redundant.

PREMIER WELLS: A number of civil (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Stop playing with words and the lives of people in this Province! Don't be so dishonest!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: You don't like that, do you!? You don't like it! You can't face the truth! That's your problem.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible)!

MR. WINDSOR: Nine dedicated senior public servants who have served this Province well. Unceremoniously fired! Don't play with words about redundancy. Don't play with words. Over the next few days we will talk about some more. And I will talk to the Minister of Housing about two officials over there who were tossed out the door, twenty-five years experience. Redundant. Two of the most qualified housing officials in this Province. And we will have a look at some of these, Mr. Chairman.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) in seventeen years it will take us a while to straighten it out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: It will take a while, yes. It'll take a while to get Liberals in here! Because you won't find enough qualified Liberals to fill the vacancies you're creating! That is what you're trying to do.

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: I will be back again, Mr. Chairman, they are not going to get away (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The hon. Member for Mount Pearl in his opening remarks made a couple of comments that need some clarification. One of the first statements or questions or comments he made was why or what is the problem with the financial position of the Province today? He has such a short memory.

I am going to quote from the Fraser Forum, February 1991, written by Michael Walker. Just listen to the first paragraph: the cucumber greenhouse fiasco in Alberta and Newfoundland should have made us all realize that when it comes to growing food and public policy almost nothing is too bizarre to imagine. Let me quote from the Planning Environment Report of 1988, Planning and Research Division, Department of Career Development and Advanced Studies. Listen to this! "Primary industries, agriculture, expected to post strong growth as Newfoundand Enviroponics Ltd. achieves its target production levels."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Let me go on a little further, "As well, the signing of a Canada - Newfoundland Subsidiary Agreement on a livestock feed initiative in 1987, designed to provide $4.8 million of assistance in the form of capital assistance, technology and industry support services." If I remember correctly, every time I watched the six-thirty news on NTV and Here and Now, the only thing I saw cattle eat was cucumbers. I do not know why a Government of that day would spend $4.8 million on feed for cattle, after spending $27 million growing cucumbers. Now, that is one of the main reasons, Mr. Chairman, why we have a deficit in this Province, and why the debt retirement and interest of the Province is in excess of $600 million. Just imagine, worldwide recognition of a fiasco in this Province!

Let me correct hon. members. Hon. members said that there was $5 million less money this year to service the children in the Province. Again, I will say very slowly, they cannot read. There was no decrease in services to children. In fact, if they had read carefully, there was a $1 million increase in the total budget, on page 267. Their addition and subtraction is totally wrong. Last year there was $14,234,000 spent in capital in the new Whitbourne Youth Correction Center. The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West should know that, because he was Minister when that building was started. This year, in order to complete the building, we need to spend $8.4 million, which means $6 million less in capital expenditure. The overall increase in services to children, which comes under that particular budget, is in excess of $1 million, not a $5 million decrease.

So, Mr. Speaker, very clearly there are no decreases in the budget to the Department of Social Services. There are major increases in all the services necessary to the children, to the single parents, and to the people who are not receiving a heat subsidy. I might point out to the Member for Torngat Mountains, all the people on the Labrador Coast dependent on social assistance receive a seventy-five dollar a month heat subsidy. All of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, who are not receiving a heat subsidy from the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, will now receive a six-month heat subsidy, all people on social assistance.

So, outside of all of the increases through the whole budget, I want to clarify, on page 267, that there is not a $5 million decrease, Mr. Chairman, there is a $1.2 million increase.

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

MR. WINDSOR: I thought the Minister was going to make a greater contribution to the world than that.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me get back to where I was, because I was talking about some of the things that appeared on the news tonight. Again, these are not my words, these are stories -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you see Craig Dobbin?

MR. WINDSOR: No, I did not see that. I heard it was on television. I heard it was a good story. I heard he pointed out the impact the Premier has had on the Canadian economy, through his shenanigans and his deceit and dishonesty on the Meech Lake Accord issue. That is starting to come home to roost, not only to Newfoundland and Labrador, but to all of Canada.

MR. HEARN: Well, we said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: There it is, he is starting to hurt now. His temperature is going up. He is starting to turn red. His level of intelligence is being questioned, and he cannot stand anybody questioning his intelligence or his judgement. That really gets to him, Mr. Chairman.

PREMIER WELLS: It does not bother me.

MR. WINDSOR: "It does not bother me!" No!

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) intelligence, because there isn't any there.

MR. TOBIN: What an attack on Craig Dobbin.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, are we ever getting low over there now. Now we are getting down to it. We can tell he is hurting now, Mr. Chairman. Craig Dobbin got to him I would say. I would say even the supper break did not take the sting out of the words of Mr. Dobbin. There are the facts of the matter. There is what is happening. People like Craig Dobbin, and people who are at that level of business and have that kind of an investment in Canada are starting to feel the implications of the Meech Lake premium on the money they have invested and the borrowing that they have. There are the implications in Canada, Mr. Chairman. There are the implications, Mr. Chairman.

But I am told he did a great interview, I did not see it, but I am told by my colleagues he talked about that and he talked about the Budget that we are discussing here tonight and how that is destroying Newfoundland and Labrador, and it really is. If hon. gentlemen do not believe me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Called us a third world country.

MR. WINDSOR: A third world country, we are only one step away from being a banana republic here because nobody believes the word of this Government any more. This Government not only has destroyed the financial integrity of the Province, they have no integrity, no credibility themselves. So we are very much now in the class of a banana republic, thanks to the present Administration.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there was one more story on that radio news program that I listened to tonight, a good one. A good friend of mine was quoted, my old friend and bosom buddy the President of NAPE. Definitely politically motivated, we all know that, definitely on our side, prejudiced, a good Tory isn't he. Of course, he is. What was he saying tonight, Mr. Chairman. He also talked about the deceit of this Government, the dishonesty and the lack of good faith in the bargaining process. That is what he talked about tonight, Mr. Chairman, as are all collective bargaining units, all public service unions are talking about the dishonesty of this Government. The fact that negotiations were entered into and contracts agreed to, while this Government knew that they had no intention in the world of honouring those contracts.

Never before, Mr. Speaker, have so many public servants been so mislead by a government in this Province. They are starting to realize now, that although back in the mid-1980s we were in very difficult times a much worse recession than we are in today, all of the public service unions are realizing now that at least we negotiated fairly with them. We were honest and upfront with them and we honoured the commitments that we made. We did not lay off thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We did not do that. We did not try to solve the problems created by the recession on the backs of the public service and that is what you are seeing here, without any regard for the lives of those people or their families. What is worse, Mr. Chairman, over the next number of days we will attempt to show to this House that there is a tremendous amount of political motivation involved in the firing of these people, a tremendous amount of political motivation, and we will show that.

What did Mr. March say? He called for an election, Mr. Chairman, because he represents a tremendous number of people, the public service unions in total represent a very high percentage of this Province. You add to that all the other groups that have been objecting, the citizen groups that have been objecting and it is very clear this Government has lost the confidence of the people of this Province and that they have certainly lost control of the finances of the Province. That was not an idle request from Mr. March, that was a very serious request. Give the people who are most effected by this Budget an opportunity to say aye or nay, then we will see whether or not this is a fair Budget and we will find out whether or not the Member for Bellevue could sell the Budget to the people of Come By Chance, we will soon see.

AN HON. MEMBER: Placentia.

MR. WINDSOR: And Placentia, Port aux Basques, Bonavista, Brookfield, Old Perlican, all of those areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: All around the circle.

MR. WINDSOR: We will soon see, Mr. Chairman, how well this Budget is going down around the Province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I only have another moment or two left, but I am going to just point out a couple of small areas here in the Budget. We will get into details later on. I found it interesting as I looked at some of the numbers in the Estimates, this Government that talks so much about cutting back in unnecessary areas, have tripled this year the Budget for protocol - an essential item protocol. We have gone from $150,000 actual spent last year. I will be honest, we budgeted $190,000 and we only spent $150,000, but we budgeted $520,000 this year, we have tripled it, we tripled the protocol vote. And this Government, Mr. Chairman, this party that had so much to say about Ministers having public information officers, what have they done? They have almost doubled the vote for information services.

MS. VERGE: And they doubled it last year.

MR. WINDSOR: And they doubled it last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: They doubled the salaries of the individuals.

MS. VERGE: They also have directors of PR.

MR. WINDSOR: They have, that is quite right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: And in the Premier's office there is an allowance of $20,000, allowance and assistance.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is that for?

MR. WINDSOR: It was not budgeted last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is that for?

MR. WINDSOR: Well we do not know. It does not say, just allowances and assistance, the Premier's office. There was nothing budgeted last year. Nothing budgeted, zero amount budgeted, $20,000 spent, $20,000 budgeted this year. So that is $20,000. There is $400,000 in protocol, there is $200,000 in information services -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WINDSOR: - and then I look over a little further, Mr. Chairman, and I see provincial advisory council on the status of women and we have taken away $70,000. Good heavens, Mr. Chairman, these are our priorities: protocol, information services, allowances for the Premier's office, but the Status of Women's Council -no, we will cut that back.

Oh but here is a good one. Hibernia Project Implementation budgeted at $200,000 last year, spent $1.8 million. Interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, I could imagine why. I could imagine why.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why did you say?

AN HON. MEMBER: Cocktail parties.

MR. WINDSOR: And then I say: well why do we have this deficit, and I look at Government personnel costs. That is a good indicator of how well a Government has managed the public service. I see that we had budgeted last year $17 million and we have budgeted this year $27 million, a 50 per cent increase in Government personnel costs I say to the President of Treasury Board. That does not show good management. That does not show good management.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good planning.

MR. WINDSOR: No, it is not good planning. It shows that you have lost control of collective bargaining because you turned it over to independent arbitrators. That is what it shows. Then I can flick across the legislature and I see office of the parliamentary commissioner, $200,000 was the total cost of that institution last year, nothing this year because he has been done away with. Where are your priorities, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. WINDSOR: No leave, what a surprise. What a surprise, Mr. Chairman.

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

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to correct a few things that my hon. friend -

AN HON. MEMBER: Listen to the truth now.

DR. WARREN: - the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - the Capes made in a few statements earlier on.

Mr. Chairman, in the past few months I have met on several occasions with the Federation of Students, the students of Memorial University, and one thing that they really appreciate - the students in this Province and the post-secondary system - is what this Government has done for student aid and for scholarships and bursaries in the past year or two, Mr. Chairman. When we came to power the electoral scholarships where $600.569. They had been $600 for years and years, more than seventeen years. Mr. Chairman, there are people on this side of the House, I will not mention their ages, but there are over forty who got electorial scholarships which were $600.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right here behind you.

DR. WARREN: Eight hundred when he got it, and after seventeen years there was not a dollar put into electorial scholarships. It was reduced.

Mr. Chairman, we increased in one year the amount of scholarships from $600 to $1,000. Not only did we do that, Mr. Chairman, we tripled the number of electoral scholarships from fifty-two to one hundred and fifty-six.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: I do not recall the actual figures, but I somehow recall that there was $282,000 last year for scholarships.

Let me speak a word about bursaries. We have a lot of students who live in very small communities in this Province who in order to get a high school education have to go to larger areas. One of the first things this Government did was to increase substantially the amount of money, I do not have the facts, for those students who are disadvantaged because they cannot get a good high school education in their own communities.

Student aid: Let me just tell the hon. Member what we did in student aid last year and correct the misleading information that he introduced earlier on. In student aid we reformed the whole student aid program. I am looking at my friend smiling at me from Humber East. She knows what we did for single parents and for people with dependents last year. She knows we added 28 per cent, the first time in years, Mr. Chairman, that the amount of money for student grants was increased. We increased it for all students, but we added a little extra for those whose needs were greatest.

Mr. Chairman, we added $1.7 million last year in the Budget for student aid. Let me tell the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, student aid is not capped so it does not matter how many students come forward, Mr. Chairman, we try to find the money. So this idea that $1 million this year is going to deny some people the right to get a student grant is nonsense. Last year, Mr. Chairman, we added $1.7 million. Mr. Chairman, it went up more than $1.7 million I can tell the hon. Member and we had to find it. The budgeted figure for last year was $17.3 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: You know the revised figure? - $19.3. It is not capped. This year, Mr. Chairman, we went from the budgeted figure of $17.3 million to the revised figure -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: Let me restate it. Let me put it in baby talk. The budgeted amount last year was $17.392, the actual expenditure was $19.35. This year it is $20.75. It is not capped. It is an increase of $3 million over the budgeted figure last year, $1.4 million over the actual, but there is no cap, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, one more final point. If my friends would only go up to Ottawa and get them to do for the student loan program what this Government did for the student aid program, what a wonderful service they would be preforming.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise and report progress.

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports that it has considered the matters to it referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.