March 31,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 10

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In response to an

issue raised yesterday in the House regarding the Workers' Compensation Appeal

process, we are currently investigating the matter. If we discover overpayments

have been made they will be recovered, and if we discover breaches of the Act,

they will be dealt with in the appropriate manner.

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

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

pleased to see that government is looking into this matter so quickly. To me it

highlights that there is a great deal of concern on government's behalf about

this matter, and I commend my colleague the Member for Kilbride for raising it.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take

this opportunity to inform my colleagues that the wildlife division of my

department, working with the Newfoundland and Labrador Trapping Association, has

developed a trapper education program for the Province. We are the last province

in Canada to implement such a program.

This program includes a Province-wide delivery of a course

which covers a variety of topics including: trapping techniques and sets; humane

trapping and pelt preparation; wildlife management principles and regulations.

The first phase of this program will require all prospective

first-time trappers and those who have not held a trapper's licence in the last

three years to successfully complete the trapper education course. This course

will now be a mandatory prerequisite for licencing by my department. This

education program will also be phased in for existing active trappers in

Newfoundland and Labrador who will eventually be required to complete a one-time

trapper education program within the next very few years.

This initiative that I am announcing today is part of the

commitment made by the Canadian wildlife ministers in an attempt to improve the

way that trapping is carried out in all of Canada.

This program will fulfil the Newfoundland and Labrador

commitment to humane trapping which is an important goal of all trapping

organizations, including the Fur Institute of Canada.

I would like to express my department's appreciation to the

Newfoundland and Labrador Trappers Association for their commitment to the

development and advancement of trapper education in this Province. Their input

will ensure the validity of trapping as a commercially viable industry in our

Province.

Prospective first-time trappers, and those who have not held

a trappers licence in the last three years will be required to complete the

trapper education course in the next few months if they wish to apply for a

trappers licence this fall, 1995. Additional information and details will be

forthcoming from the wildlife division of my department and the trappers

association.

The course is available now and people who are interested may

contact my department or the trapper's association. The course itself will be

presented through the trappers association.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, this course will greatly enhance the

fur industry in this Province and provide individuals who are applying for a

licence with a basic knowledge of humane fur bearer harvesting practices and

regulations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: It is not trapper Tobin I say to the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology. By the accounts of the first Ministerial

Statement here this morning it is trapper Byrne.

What the Minister has announced here this morning has the

approval, the blessing, and the endorsement of the Newfoundland & Labrador

Trapping Association who are going to be involved in the educational program,

the same program, I am sure, that the government has developed in conjunction

with other associations throughout the Province. This seems to be a very

positive announcement by the minister and again I commend the Newfoundland and

Labrador trapping Association for working with his department in bringing this

about.

Oral Questions

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations indicated to the media outside, that because of

the questions I raised in the House yesterday it was the first time he was aware

that this was an issue. I ask the minister can he confirm that indeed yesterday,

when I asked these questions, was the first time that he became aware that there

may be a problem at the Workers' Compensation Review Division?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: The second supplementary, I think, that the

member asked yesterday indicated that I was aware of his accusation that there

was an overpayment and/or a case was paid for twice.

Now, let me ensure the hon. member, the House, and all hon.

members that at no time did I have a meeting and/or discuss with the Chief

Commissioner or any other commissioners the invoicing and anything subject to

the invoicing, so I want to make that clear to the hon. member and his innuendo

is totally incorrect and he should be more responsible.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I need no lessons from the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on what moral responsibility is. Let

me ask the minister this, directly, and let me refresh his memory. The minister

said yesterday to the media that: until yesterday, he had no knowledge, no

knowledge, that no one brought it to his attention that these questions about

double payments or overpayment had been brought to his attention.

Let me ask the minister: Isn't it a fact that on March 7, at

2:30 in the afternoon, representatives from the Newfoundland and Labrador

Injured Workers Association, some of whom are present in the gallery this

morning, met with the minister and in his office at that time also was the Chief

Executive Officer of Workers' Compensation, Barbara Taichman, and a question was

directly asked to the minister then: Do commissioners get paid for postponing a

case and then get paid again for hearing that case, and the minister, at that

meeting, my source tells me, said: Well, it is the first I have heard of it but

I will check into it. Let me ask the minister: Can he confirm that and if he did

meet with them and that question was asked, why didn't he check into it and why

is he only checking into it today?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member is correct. I did meet with the injured workers

with Mrs. Taichman and we dealt with a tremendous number of subjects, not

specifically with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). ask you (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Not to my knowledge, I say to the member, not

to my knowledge. I -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Just a minute now, just relax please. I can

only respond to what the hon. member said. We discussed many issues and I don't

specifically remember that issue coming up and I say that in all honesty to the

member, and you know, I have no records of it, we didn't have a tape recorder, I

have no records of what was said but I can say to the member: no, no.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, representatives from the

Newfoundland and Labrador Injured Workers Association, who took minutes of that

meeting certainly remember asking the minister a question and I would like to

give the minister one more chance and ask him simply this: Did he meet or

discuss at any time over the past several months with any of the commissioners,

the issue about billing for postponements and then again billing for when the

case was heard? Did he at any time meet or discuss with the commissioners that

issue?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I met with the Chief Commissioner, Mr. Gullage, on two

occasions, I met with Commissioner Brace and Commissioner O'Brien, and at no

time did the billing subject ever come up. The only issue that was ever dealt

with was the caseload and how it was disbursed. I can honestly say that to the

member and add nothing else to it.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Education today. I will give the Minister of Finance a break this morning.

To the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker: The Auditor

General reports in her annual report this year that the University Act, as the

minister knows, requires the University to submit an annual report to the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council. The Auditor General points out that this, in

fact, was not done in 1992-'93 and in 1993-'94 - that is two years that the

University has failed to provide an annual report to Cabinet. In addition, Mr.

Speaker, under the University Pension Act, the chairperson of the Board of

Regents is required to report to the minister on the pension fund and the

minister is required to table those reports in the House of Assembly. This was

not done in 1993 and, to my knowledge, had not been done in 1994, although I

understand a report has been provided. Would the minister like to tell us, since

the Department of Education Act requires the minister to oversee all matters

relating to the University and to report to the House of Assembly thereon, why

were these annual reports not submitted to Cabinet as required? Why were the

reports of the pension fund not tabled in the House? What action has the

minister taken to correct this situation?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the University Act states that

the University must prepare an annual report which it makes to government on an

annual basis. I should tell the hon. member that the University has an audited

statement done, an audited financial statement, which is a report, and that

report is dealt with in the appropriate manner every year. As for the tabling in

the House of Assembly, the pension report, Mr. Speaker, if that has not been

done it has probably been just an error. We will rectify that as soon as

possible and make that presentation to the House.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me advise the minister that

an audited financial statement is totally different from an annual report which

is an important part of the whole accountability process, Mr. Speaker. I remind

the minister that the University gets $138 million in funding from the Province

and is not accounting to this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this: The Auditor

General has been requesting additional information and, in trying to do her job,

her responsibility to the House of Assembly as an officer of this House, has

been asking the University for additional information in order to carry out an

audit on the University. This has been going on since 1992 and the Auditor

General, in fact, went to the Supreme Court and received a ruling there that she

had not been provided with the information that - and she says in the report

this year, `Since I have been denied access to documents necessary to carry out

my duties as Auditor General, I am unable to commence my additional examination

and investigation of the Memorial University of Newfoundland,' as is required by

her Act.

Will the minister now direct the University to provide the

information requested by the Auditor General, in accordance with the Memorial

University Act and the Auditor General Act?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how the hon. member

can ever conclude that the University is not accountable. We have in place a

Board of Regents which is appointed by the Government of this Province. We have

delegated to that Board of Regents, responsibility for the accountability of the

$112 million that we put into the University, plus the money that we put into

the health centre over there, so to say that there is no accountability is

absolute, total nonsense. The hon. member knows that.

When we are not satisfied with the accountability that the

Board of Regents is providing, then we will remove members, or the total Board

of Regents, and replace them with other people. We have delegated our authority.

It is all tied in with the concept of the institutional freedom, the academic

freedom, that we want to see over there.

As for the matter about the Auditor General, there are three

types of auditing. There is the auditing where the auditor will attest that an

institution has done something. There is the type of auditing where the auditor

will prove that the institution is in compliance with the act; do they tender

properly, and so on and so forth. The other kind of auditing is comprehensive

auditing, value for money, where the auditor gets involved in policy. Now, this

might indeed be a very desirable type of auditing; however, it is not the kind

of auditing that this Province requires of our Auditor General. It is not the

kind of auditing that any other province in the country requires of their

Auditors General. When we decide to give that kind of authority to the Auditor

General, we will change the act accordingly.

The University is arguing, and I agree with that, that the

kinds of questions the Auditor General is asking are questions which belong to a

comprehensive audit - a totally different audit. Now, when it is proven to me

that what the Auditor General is looking for is not the kinds of answers that

will be provided in a comprehensive audit, then I will intervene. As of now, I

am not satisfied that she is trying to do her audit as by her terms of

reference.

The hon. member talks about the court case. The court case -

it was assumed that the University was being treated as an agency of government.

When we put the Auditor General's Act in place, we did inadvertently say that

the University was an agency of government. It was not the intent of this

government to have the University be an agency of government; consequently, we

changed the Act. The University operates arm's length from government. That is

our intent.

When we want to change that, which I suspect we never will,

we will deal with it. Hon. members might want to have a University that they

control: they control what is taught, they control who is admitted, they

control. So the University becomes a farce in the world, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: The University of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is not what the University is going to be in

this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I thought for a moment I was in

church. The minister knows full well that it is not whether or not the

Opposition wants the government to be accountable, it is whether or not the

people, the taxpayers who provide $138 million a year to Memorial University,

want the University to be accountable. I say to the minister that the Board of

Regents is not accountable to the minister or to this House of Assembly, and

therefore to the people. That is the whole problem here. It is the only agency

or government-funded body in this Province that is not properly accounting to

the House of Assembly, and through the House of Assembly to the people who are

paying the bill. I say that is absolutely and totally unacceptable. It has

nothing to do with academic freedom, as the president of the University likes to

try to say: Oh, you are getting involved in academic freedom. Absolute nonsense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: That has absolutely nothing to do with it.

We are talking about financial accountability.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like the member to ask a question at this point.

Question?

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, it is not whether or not I have

decided that the University has not provided enough information. The Auditor

General as an officer of this House has reported -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: - that the University is not providing the

information.

MR. SPEAKER: Question.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, will the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, obviously I will get to

the question. Will the minister direct the University now to comply with the

request of the Auditor General? Will he direct that annual reports be submitted

to Cabinet so that at least Cabinet, even though we disagree with the reports

only going to Cabinet - they should be coming here - but the Cabinet doesn't

even know. That minister is responsible to answer to this House for the

University and he doesn't even have the annual reports. Will he now direct them

to bring forth those reports, and will he bring forth an amendment to the

legislation to require the University to be accountable to the House of Assembly

and the people of this Province who are paying the tab?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: The hon. member thought he was in church. I

thought he was on the road to Damascus, Mr. Speaker. Talk about a change. Talk

about accountability, when he slapped out $25 million on Sprung and would not

even open the House of Assembly so we could ask questions about it. That is the

road to Damascus, it is not church.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, nobody believes in

accountability any more than this government. We practically invented the word.

Every cent that is spent, we make sure that someone is accountable for it. We

have put in place a process. We have respected a process which has been in place

in this Province for many years, where we have delegated to the Board of Regents

the responsibility to make sure that every dollar is accounted for. The Board of

Regents submits to me its minutes after every single meeting which takes place

on a monthly and in some places on a bi-monthly basis. I know more about what is

going on in the Board of Regents than I know about what is going on in my own

house. I know exactly what is going on there.

The independent audit. The University has an independent

audit done every single year. Not by someone who the University goes out and

says: Come in and tell us what we want to hear. The books are open. Every cent

is accounted for. When that report is made to the University, that independent

audit is made, the Auditor General has the right to take that audit and examine

it. If she is not satisfied with some part of that audit then she can go back

and ask for it and have it examined, explained why she has done it.

What the Auditor General has done, according to what the

University is telling me, and I have no reason to disbelieve what the University

is saying, the University is saying the questions that she is asking are

questions that are concerned with policy. Whether or not they should have a

certain policy, whether or not they should teach a certain course, whether or

not the Senate should confer a certain degree. This is outside of her mandate.

One of two things will happen. Either we will change her mandate, or she will

comply with the law that the Auditor General has to abide by as everyone else

does in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: The University is breaking the law.

MR. SPEAKER: I remind members there is only fifteen

minutes left in Question Period. I am sure we will get another question

answered.

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess further to the notion of accountability, the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology, over the last number of months, has been

quite prominent on the world stage. Indeed, while waiting my turn to speak on

the Open Line on a matter pertaining to my district a little while ago, I was

somewhat pleased to hear the minister call in from Tokyo to give a report on his

latest travels with regard to the Province's EDGE legislation, but I would ask

the minister specifically, with regard to the EDGE program, how many real jobs -

because jobs are a very important subject to Newfoundlanders out there suffering

under a 20-odd per cent unemployment rate, an official rate of 20-odd per cent -

how many real jobs have so far been created through this much touted EDGE

legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member means

real jobs as opposed to unreal jobs, the kind that were fabricated with Sprung.

Mr. Speaker, Canada Vodka Corporation propose to create

twenty-one jobs. Lotek Industry, the second corporation under EDGE, proposes,

over the next three years, to create thirty-two jobs. In the initial phase, I

think, there are twenty-six jobs to be created. I noticed in The Evening

Telegram just last week, they have advertised for four senior positions. The

average salaries will be roughly around $30,000 to $40,000. That is pretty good

performance, and they are real jobs.

We have also just approved two EDGE corporations, one who is

joint ventured with a British group to bring in investment from Great Britain.

The second is a group from the United States, which currently operates in the

Province, and I will hopefully be in a position to announce those shortly.

The board also just met, on Tuesday past, on eight other

applications. They have approved three of those. I hope to announce those in the

near future as well. There are seven other applications which are pending, and

there are twenty companies in discussion with the government currently. Real

jobs, Mr. Speaker? Yes, they are real jobs, forty-one of them to date.

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

Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes we have, I guess, in the Smallwood parlance, not one but

several - we have tens of jobs coming out of the EDGE.

Mr. Speaker, while the minister, I guess, has been travelling

the globe, and while other ministers and the Premier have been travelling the

globe, in pursuit of this EDGE legislation initiative, we have lost a number of

jobs in this Province in the aviation industry, well-paying jobs, I might add,

as well, Air Canada telemarketing, Canadian Airline sales, Air Atlantic head

office, the bottling facilities for Coca-Cola, and so on, well in excess of 100

jobs gone while the minister was travelling the globe.

I would ask the minister: What representation did he or his

officials make to try and prevent these sorts of things from happening while he

was away?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: The hon. member continues to refer to travel.

I don't know where he is coming from. I heard him thirty days ago on the radio

saying the EDGE legislation is terrific stuff, but the minister has to now get

out and aggressively promote it. Now either I get out and aggressively promote

it, or I don't. I assume the hon. member was speaking honestly - I believe it

was on KIXX Country Radio - where he said the minister is not out there enough;

he is not travelling enough; he is not promoting enough.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about some of our companies in

this Province. Little EDM Consultants, from the hon. Member for Humber Valley's

District, let me tell you about them. They dared to step out on the

international stage, and they captured a contract in the Caribbean, in Jamaica,

to develop the airport there in Kingston for $12 million. We should commend them

for that. They just signed a $3.5 million agreement with a joint venture out of

Singapore, to do a waste water treatment plant in the Philippines. We should

commend them for that.

Ultimateast Data Communications is doing a joint venture with

Hong Kong Telecom, creating new jobs, exporting technology from Newfoundland.

Provincial Airlines, who have become the world's experts on

coastal surveillance, is exporting their technology to Ireland. This is all new

money coming into the economy, putting Newfoundlanders to work, and we should be

very proud of it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay, a final

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I do commend local companies for being very successful,

but the people under questioning here are not local companies; it is this

provincial government. Is the minister telling me that basically there is no

system in place with regard to this government, that when the cat is away - in

Tokyo or wherever - our mice are free to play on the mainland, is that what the

minister is saying?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the

aviation industry. It wasn't this government, Mr. Speaker, that sent EPA out of

the Province and the high tech jobs and the maintenance jobs that went across

the pond, but I will say this to him, that Inter Provincial Airlines, yesterday

announced ten new crew flights because they are creating and building their

industry; that's expanding the economy, it's having confidence in ourselves and

its building new jobs, Mr. Speaker, that's the record of this Government.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This morning my question is to the Minister of Health.

With the formation of health boards, particularly the Avalon

Health Care Institutional Board that was formed, that included Carbonear,

Harbour Grace area, Lower Trinity, Whitbourne and Placentia, there was fair

representation taken from those people and they made a joint board.

Minister, can you tell this House this morning, why there is

no equal representation made on the Eastern Newfoundland Community Health Board?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure what the hon. member is trying to get at in

that type of question.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) you are playing politics with the

Board, that's what he is talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. minister.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: When the hon. member becomes the

Minister of Health then he can answer the question otherwise I would appreciate

it that he let me answer it.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) play politics with health care

(inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The boards that have been put in place and the restructuring

of health care in the Province, have been put in place to cover off fairly

large, regional, geographic areas and the hon. Member for Placentia just

described a particular geographic configuration that is being taken care of by

the new Eastern Health Care Board.

What was done in putting these boards in place, was an

attempt to put a board together that gave regional representation on a

geographic basis, gave some consideration to gender representation, gave some

consideration to a community of interest that the individuals might have and the

expertise that they might be able to bring to that type of board, and so, these

are the types of considerations that were given to putting together the

institutional health care boards and the community boards.

Now, when the member talks about equal representation, if he

thinks that on a board of fifteen people that covers 150 communities every

community can be represented, then he just doesn't acknowledge living in the

real world. Every area of the Province on a geographic basis has some type of

representation on all of the new boards, and if there happens to be a

circumstance in the configuration of the eight or ten or twelve new boards we

have put in place, an area that might have a perception that they do not have

adequate representation, I am inviting them to just let me know that and at an

appropriate time in the future, if and when a vacancy occurs we will see that

the appropriate adjustments are made so that everybody has a level of comfort

with the composition of the boards, that they will have the assurance that the

board will be able to represent their interests and deliver health care in their

region on a proper basis.

If the hon. Member for Placentia -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I must make a supplementary at this point.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister should have known. I described easily in the

former board which was taking care of the institutional, that is well

represented, but it is the non-institutional, it is the community health boards

which will take in health promotion, health protection, community care, mental

health, drug dependency et cetera and God knows what else they will be doing in

the future. The eastern side of Placentia Bay, Long Harbour, the Placentia area,

the Cape Shore is not represented, while six people from the Lower Trinity,

Conception Bay area are on the board out of fifteen. You told the board in

Placentia and other representatives that when there is a vacancy - when there is

a vacancy, they will consider putting someone on. That is not good enough, sir.

That is not fairness and balance! That is not fairness and balance!

Mr. Speaker, there are 9,500 people to 10,000 people who are

not going to be represented.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Get to the question.

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, when is he

going to do the right thing?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to tell the member that that is one of the marvellous

pieces of board construction that was completed by my predecessor -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - and it is an absolute work of art in

terms of the people that he drew together to make up that board and I can tell

you this, that there is no imbalance in that board that should cause the

minister to have any concerns. If there are any vacancies coming up in the

future that we can more equitably address a regional situation, we will be the

first to do it. I would have to also inform this hon. House that members on the

other side who talk about not being asked to give names for hospital boards,

people who are saying I was not asked are simply admitting to their lack of

diligence as members of the House in not having names in front of the minister

so that he has a list to choose from when those vacancies come forward. Members

on this side of the House write me on a regular basis and say: These are good

people to be considered. People on this side of the House do not even take the

initiative to put forward a name for the most part and when the board is

appointed they are crying like babies and children. It is just an indication and

the confirmation of your lack of diligence in doing your duty on behalf of your

members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister for Health as well, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to ask the minister what rationale was used when it was

decided to take the home support services from the Department of Social Services

and transfer it to the Department of Health and if there was any consultation

done with the people involved?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The delivery of home support services and services to the

mentally and physically disabled, as of April 1, are being transferred to the

Department of Health and that is not something that happened quickly. Over the

past year, with the evolution of the new community health care boards and after

consultation between health and social services, it seemed to be the fit, proper

and appropriate thing to have community based services become more and more the

responsibility of the new community health care boards. In line and consistent

with that approach to delivering these programs, the programs have been moved.

The responsibility, the budget for the programs have been moved over to health

as of April 1. So the moving of the programs is just a continuing evolution of

trying to provide the appropriate service at the appropriate level by the

appropriate people with the tools and resources to do so.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Social Services also

transferred the sum of $20 million, I understand, over to the Department of

Health with the transfer of that service. A service that cost the Department of

Social Services last year, I think, in excess of $27 million. I ask the minister

if this represents a $7 million shortfall or will this program be watered down

and the level of services not be continued as it has been in the past?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Department of Social Services did not transfer anything

as such. Government made the decision that commencing April 1, 1995, the

responsibility for the delivery of those programs would fall under the

Department of Health. So, consistent with that, there had to be a budget put in

place that seemed to be appropriate to cover the reasonable and fair cost of

those programs and as a consequence, the figure of $20 million has been

identified in our budget to deliver these variety of programs. Now in the $27

million that the member refers to, some of those dollars remain over in social

services to cover some of the generic aspects of services that are delivered to

those people that they were previously serving in a more holistic area. So it is

incorrect and inaccurate to say that there has been a total reduction of $7

million or $8 million. Some of that money is still over in Social Services to do

the generic side of the things that they do but for the more hands-on services

that go into the homes and that sort of thing, the responsibility has come to

health and that is the basis on which the programs will go forward in the

future.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the

House of Assembly six pathfinder students from the Newfoundland Career Academy,

and also fifteen ABE students from the Seal Cove campus of Cabot College in

Harbour Main district, accompanied by their instructor, Genevieve Murphy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two procedural

matters. The government earlier made it known that if the House does not grant

Interim Supply today, this being the last day of the fiscal year -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. friend for Grand Bank is correct, as I

advised the House, we are in the position where we cannot release the pay

checks, and, of course, we shall not release them. Now, I do not expect we will

need to sit beyond noon, but if in the event we might decide as a House we want

to, let me first of all move that the House not adjourn at noon today.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do

not adjourn today at noon, carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I gave notice of a

motion which stands as number two on the Order Paper today. It is a motion with

respect to a Private Members' Day standing order. Now, it is my understanding

that this represents an agreement among, if not every member of the House,

almost every member of the House, and I shall call it for debate with that

thought in mind. I do want to advise the House that if it becomes obvious that

members wish to debate it, as we have every right to do, then I shall arrange to

have the debate adjourned so that we can return to the Interim Supply Bill.

With that said I would ask if Your Honour would be good

enough to call Motion 2, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2 (

a) is a lengthy motion and I am

sure the House does not want me to read it. It is on the Order Paper.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate.

MR. CARTER: Would you mind repeating, Mr. Speaker, what

is the intent of this resolution this morning? I did not hear it and I am sure

my colleagues here did not hear it either. There is too much noise.

MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Government House

Leader spoke about the intent of it. He said he wanted to bring it up for

discussion and if it did not pass in short order he might adjourn the debate to

get on with Interim Supply. I ask the hon. Government House Leader if he wishes

to clarify it

MR. ROBERTS: That in fact is what I did say. I say to my

friend for Twillingate, or others who might not have been able to hear me, my

understanding is that this motion represents an agreement to which almost all,

or perhaps all members of the House, subscribe, but I do not know that to be the

case. If it is not the case I shall introduce the motion and then we will hear a

speaker, or two or three, and if there are other members who wish to speak I

shall then arrange to have the debate adjourned and we will come back to it

another time.

The important business of the day is to get the Interim

Supply motion through, but it was, perhaps is, my understanding that this is a

consensus among members on both sides, but if members want more time to discuss

it then, of course, I am in the hands of the House.

I now proceed to introduce it, if I may, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

The hon. Government House Leader speaking to the motion.

MR. ROBERTS: The motion would amend Standing Orders in

two respects. The first respect was set out in Part (

b) of the motion as it

stands on the Order Paper and that is simply to implement formally the change

with respect to sitting hours that have been in effect for, I guess, six or

seven years now, and in my understanding represent a consensus among all members

of the House. We have not done it before simply because we have not had occasion

to do it before. I do not think it is controversial so I will say no more about

it.

The change, if adopted, would implement formally the

arrangements which have been in effect informally by consensus. I should add

that any member at any time can withdraw a consensus and that could cause

difficulties because members make their plans on the basis of the House meeting

at 2:00 o'clock, adjourning in the usual course at 5:00 o'clock, and meeting at

9:00 o'clock on Friday morning and adjourning in the usual course at noon. I do

not think it is necessarily a very desirable thing to have a situation where any

one member, for whatever reason at any time, could exercise his or her right and

simply disrupt the other fifty-one of us.

Now, Your Honour, that brings me on to the first part of the

motion which stands in number (

a) and that would replace the present Standing

Order and substitute for the present Standing Order, 53.1 a new 53.1. I will not

run through it in any detail, Your Honour. It was drafted by the table clerks in

the usual way and it implements with one exception, which I shall refer to, it

implements what I understand to have been the arrangement that was in effect in

the House from the post 1989 election session, the first session of whatever

general assembly that was, the 40th or 41st, whatever it was, and was in effect

until last June when a member exercising his right withdrew the consent. That is

fine.

The effect of withdrawing the consent was to put us back

under the old rules. I believe there is a consensus among the members that that

is not where we want to be, that that is not a procedure we wish to follow. So

the only way to change that is either to change the rules formally, as I now

propose, or to be in a situation where every week we need unanimous consent.

That again puts the entire House in the gift of any one of us. I don't think

that is proper, Your Honour, with respect. I don't think any one of us has the

right to have that kind of arbitrary power. So I suggested a rule change.

It will take two-thirds of us to make a change in the rules.

Not two-thirds of those present and voting; but two-thirds of the members of the

House, as I understand the House of Assembly act, must vote in favour of a rule

change before we can effect that change. So it will take, if there is a

division, thirty-five members unless my arithmetic has failed me completely.

The new 53.1 represents the arrangement which has been in

effect. First of all, I will just refer to each subclause. Subclause (1) makes

it clear that the motions are to be called alternately between the members

sitting to Your Honour's left and the members sitting to Your Honour's right.

Secondly, we are formalizing a custom that I believe has grown up over the

years, and which I believe to be a correct one, that the first motion in any new

session will go to a member who sits to Your Honour's right, sitting in the

Opposition side of the House.

The third subclause is the procedural thing, that somebody

has to indicate to the House which motion is to be called, if there is more than

one standing on the Order Paper of which notice has been given, and that is

vested in the two House Leaders: the one sitting here speaking for the

government, the one sitting opposite to me speaking for the loyal, the Official

Opposition.

Subclause (4) provides again the arrangement that we only

debate a motion for one day. The House could extend that if we wish or we could

have a similar motion for another day, but the normal practice has been one day

only, and then the debate comes to a close and it is put to a vote. That is what

subclause (4) does.

Subclause (5) implements the change that has been agreed to

twice since this session began, and that is that the normal rule that a person

may speak for twenty minutes on a private member's motion is varied, and instead

a member may speak for only fifteen minutes. The mover has fifteen minutes to

open and fifteen minutes to close. Everybody else gets fifteen minutes. I

believe the feeling is (

a) fifteen minutes is long enough to make one's points,

and (

b) it allows more members to get into the debate.

Subclause (6) simply crystallizes or incorporates the right

of the mover to close the debate, makes that clear. Subclause (7) is addressed

to the situation that grew up during the years when Mr. Moores was premier, if I

recollect, when Private Members' Day could be frustrated either by government or

by Opposition by a combination of ministerial statements and petitions.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend for St. Barbe reminds me,

said about the pension years. I guess that was before 649 so you had to have a

pension in those days, I would say to him. Try again, Chuck.

That brings me to -

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible) last time you will come out to

dinner (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That is my last dinner invitation from my

friend the minister, I understand. Fortunately his spouse will I hope be kind

enough, and that is the reason I go for dinner with you anyway.

Your Honour, that brings me to subclause (8). Subclause

(8) is an attempt to incorporate into the rules a degree of fairness, and to

recognize that there may from time to time be situations such as the one that we

now have. Where we have an Official Opposition that is made up I believe of

sixteen members, and we have one member who happens to be a leader of a party,

but in the parliamentary sense sits solely as an independent. We have no rule as

to where a party is recognized, though I believe there is some precedence that

two or three members taken together in the name of our Lord will be called a

party for certain parliamentary purposes. But the Standing Orders are I

understand silent on the point.

They are clear, or the practice is clear, that one member

sitting by himself or herself does not constitute a party. I think most of us -

even my friend for St. John's East, I venture to suggest - would concur that one

person should not be a party. When he can return -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: He wouldn't agree with that.

MR. HARRIS: I don't agree with that.

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend wouldn't agree with that. I

am disappointed then, because he is letting his partisan feelings get in the way

of logic, reason and good sense, but sobeit.

What we suggest to Your Honour in subsection (8) is that Your

Honour, who has an obligation to decide which motions are to be called, will

take due heed of the proportionality of the members sitting on the other side.

The effect of the rule is written, if for example there are twenty members - to

take an easy number - sitting to Your Honour's right, and two of them were

sitting as independents, that one out of every ten motions to be called during

the Opposition's regular bi-weekly turn would be a motion moved by hon. members

opposite. Now, there are other ways to do that but, in my view, this is an

appropriate way and accordingly we put it forward.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the threats of the ilk from the

gentleman from Bonavista South neither move me nor unmove me. I would say we

will get Interim Supply when the House chooses to give it to us, and unlike the

party of which he is part, we believe that the House should vote Supply. The

party of which he is part spent $24 million on the Sprung thing and never once

brought it to the House of Assembly, in fact, refused to open the House. So I

simply say to him, he should hang his head in shame and the gentleman from Baie

Verte should hang his head in shame with him.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Churchill?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: He wasn't in this House when Sprung was done.

MR. ROBERTS: Now, Your Honour, the hon. gentleman may not

have been in the House when Sprung was done but he will be long gone before

Sprung is paid for. We will all be long gone before Sprung is paid for; $24

million forever is one devil of a lot of money.

MR. TOBIN: You were in the House when Churchill Falls was

given away.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why a

perfectly innocuous speech prompts hon. gentlemen opposite to this display of

vitriol.

Now, Your Honour, let me just make one other comment. This

arrangement represents what I understand to be the consensus of the group who

sit to Your Honour's left, of which I am part, and what I am told is the

consensus of the view of those who sit to Your Honour right, of whom I am not a

part. I believe and I accept the assurances given to me by their spokespersons

but I cannot speak with any knowledge beyond that, of course.

There are other ways to achieve this, one could, for example,

do as my friend, the Member for St. John's East suggested in a motion he brought

yesterday, one could draw by lots. Some Parliaments, I believe, I say to my

friends, the members for Terra Nova and for Bonavista North, do draw lots as to

which motion comes up. Others have a practice not unlike the one that we have

had in this House, which is simply precedence on the Order Paper, and that led

to the spectacle we used to see on opening day, whether it would be twenty or

thirty motions down.

I believe, the present practice, which acknowledges the

duality of the House, acknowledges the fact that there is one group who sit to

Your Honour's left and support the ministry and one group who sit to Your

Honour's right and who oppose the ministry, but that is an appropriate

parliamentary practice. We have taken what I believe to be adequate, proper and

sufficient measures to ensure that the lone Member for St. John's East, as is

now the case, or any other lone member who sits, not as part of the Opposition,

but as an independent - that he/she has an adequate and fair opportunity

proportionally to have a motion brought forward and to determine the subject for

debate.

With that said, Sir, I move that the motion be adopted.

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

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

I just want to make just a few brief comments on the motion.

I basically have no difficulty with what the Government House Leader is

proposing here. We have discussed it. It really incorporates what we have done

for the last five or six years except, as the Government House Leader said, when

the thing fell apart a little while ago when, I guess, some private members felt

that they were not getting a fair chance to participate in Private Members' Day,

to have their private members' resolution debated and that was a fair concern,

because it is Private Members' Day. We cannot forget what the day is on

Wednesday, it is Private Members' Day.

So this basically incorporates it and changes the Standing

Orders to accommodate that, which I have no difficulty with. The only thing, I

say to the Government House Leader, the only point that probably will cause some

concern, I guess, is subsection (8). We don't have any problem with that

because, with all due respect to the Member for St. John's East, he shouldn't

get any more than his fair share of opportunities to present private members'

motions, which this will enable him to do. Of course, I guess in the final

analysis the responsibility rests with the Speaker, with Your Honour, which is

fair enough. I have no difficulty with that.

What I sense happening on the floor of this House this

morning, just looking around, I say to the Government House Leader, I think that

the biggest concern may be with the government's private members, and I don't

know why it is. All I can say for our situation, what we do as a caucus, is that

we decide amongst the full caucus what Private Members' resolution we will give

notice of on the Monday that we will debate on the Wednesday which is ours; so

we operate as a caucus. So the one that is announced on Monday -

AN HON. MEMBER: We are a team.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is a team approach. That is the

way we operate.

I don't know; perhaps I am wrong, but I sense that there may

be some concern on the other side. I don't know if the government operates the

same way, and I guess they are a little bit -

AN HON. MEMBER: We do.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You do? Well, then, there should not be

a problem. The only one I can see having any concerns at all, if that is the

case, might be the Member for St. John's East, but I can't even see him having

one really, if he is going to get his fair share of the seventeen of us who are

now on this side. If he is going to get his chance like the rest of us, I can't

see why there would be a problem with this, and I think it's time that we

cleared it up, changed the Standing Orders, and not get back to what we were

years ago, and what we were back a few months ago when the whole thing fell

apart. We were here for two days debating a Private Members' resolution, which I

think is utter nonsense, absolutely no need of it.

DR. KITCHEN: It was a good resolution.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, perhaps it was, I am not denying

that. It was a good resolution, but it could have been dealt with in one day, I

say to the Member for St. John's Centre; so I support the motion, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, as the House knows, placed the Private Members' resolution

on the Order Paper by giving notice yesterday, and later on in the afternoon the

Government House Leader, by the unanimous consent of those present at the time,

introduced this Notice of Motion for this to be debated today, and done today

before, I think, hon. members have really had a chance to consider the motion

that I presented, although I did provide copies to all hon. members yesterday

afternoon by having them distributed to their desks in the House.

I would like to speak to this, because I think my motion

intends to change the orders, which I think everybody agrees have to be changed,

because the orders, as they stand, are unworkable and are inconsistent with the

practice of the House, but my motion was designed to have a Private Members' Day

that was truly a Private Members' Day, not a caucus day for the Opposition, or a

government motion's day for the government, where motions would be chosen on the

basis of government policy, or an Opposition agenda. And I have no difficulty

with both the government side and the Official Opposition side having their

political agendas that they could use any tactics for, but that can be taken

care of by an Opposition day, and by having specific Opposition days for

Opposition motions.

The government, as can be seen by today's motion, can bring a

motion any time they like. All the Government House Leader has to do is get up

in the House and say: I am going to put a motion for the House for tomorrow, or

for the next day, sometimes by unanimous consent, or otherwise by just giving a

regular Notice of Motion, and the government can debate any motion it wants -

any motion it wants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like they did with the Premier's motion.

MR. HARRIS: Like they did with the Premier's motion, or

at any time, even without unanimous consent. So I don't see why Private Member's

Day should be hijacked by the government, or by the government caucus for that

matter, or by the Opposition caucus.

With all due respect, I understand what the Opposition House

Leader has said. I understand that there are co-operative efforts in caucus with

tactics for Opposition and that sort of thing. I have been in larger caucuses

than this, I say to hon. members, and I do know how caucuses work when you have

to have consensus amongst members. I don't have any difficulty with consensus.

So my motion that I put before the House was an attempt to

incorporate the practices of this House with the notion of truly having a

Private Members' resolution, because a private member on the Opposition, whether

it be Official Opposition or otherwise, may have a resolution that the other

members of that caucus don't agree with, don't support, and yet, that Opposition

member has the right, on behalf of his or her constituents, to put a resolution

to the House and seek the word of the House on that resolution, and then

similarly on the other side. There may be a government back-bencher, or even a

Cabinet minister - although they don't normally participate in private members'

business, because they have Cabinet solidarity and the Cabinet process to help

them - but there may be an Opposition back-bencher who has a resolution that his

or her caucus members don't agree with. Is that person disentitled as a private

member to present a resolution to the House? With this rule, they are

disentitled. They can put them on the Order Paper but they can't have them

debated and they can't have a vote on them. So I think that is fundamentally

unfair.

There may well be a consensus between the Opposition House

Leader and the Government House Leader as to the changes in the rule

incorporating the status quo essentially, with one exception. But I don't know

if -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I will get to that exception in a moment. But

incorporating the status quo ante, we will say, the status quo before people

realized that you could use unanimous consent to foil the efforts of Government

House Leaders or Opposition House Leaders. I think, to incorporate it into a

rule deprives individual members of an opportunity of playing a more significant

role in the House of Assembly.

Each Parliament, Mr. Speaker, has Private Members' days or

Private Members' opportunities. This would essentially deprive this House of a

real Private Members' Day and make it - every Wednesday would be either an

Opposition day or a government motion day. I think that would be unnecessary to

meet the needs of Parliament and unnecessarily deprive the private members of

the right to play a role.

So, first of all, I think we are going too quickly into this

as a result of the Government House Leader getting unanimous consent around 4:00

p.m. yesterday to introduce this resolution. To have it debated and over with

this morning, is what he wants.

MR. TOBIN: Why did you give it?

MR. HARRIS: I didn't give it, I say to the Member for

Burin - Placentia West. I wasn't here at the time, and perhaps the hon. the

Government House Leader brought it in when he knew I wasn't here. He probably

wouldn't have brought it in if he had known I was here.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, that was unworthy of the hon.

gentleman, it isn't even true. If the hon. gentleman doesn't attend the House

(inaudible) when things happen without him (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Don't get me wrong, I say, Mr. Speaker, I'm

not whining at all, I'm just stating the facts. The unanimous consent was sought

when I wasn't at my seat in the House and the Member for Burin - Placentia West

was wondering why I gave unanimous consent. I said that I wasn't participating

in that particular unanimous consent. But I say this is a very speedy dispatch

of a major change in the rules of the House. I think hon. members on both sides

of the House perhaps might want to take another few days to consider whether or

not it is a good time to change the rule and have a true Private Members' Day.

As to the exception that is included in this, I don't think

it adequately addresses the private member's role. If I may explain my own

motion for a moment to hon. members who haven't had a chance to read it yet, it

would provide for a lottery system where any motions on the floor on the Monday

prior to Wednesday would have an opportunity to have their particular resolution

chosen for debate on Wednesday. That would go equally on both sides of the

House. Every third Wednesday I think or every fourth Wednesday would be an

Opposition day - that could be every third Wednesday, it doesn't matter to me -

to give the Official Opposition a chance to have Opposition motions. There is no

need for government motions on the Wednesday. Every member on both sides of the

House would have an equal opportunity, as private members, to have their motions

heard.

Therein is the flaw with subclause (8). The flaw with

subclause (8) is that, first of all, it is a contradiction. There is a

contradiction between subclause (3) and subclause (8). Because subclause

(3) gives the right to either the Government House Leader or the Opposition House

Leader to announce to the House the private member's motion to be debated. Now,

how can that stand along with subclause (8) which says that the Speaker, in

recognizing motions, shall ensure that motions made by Opposition members who do

not sit with the official Opposition are called for debate in proportion to the

number of members of all Opposition members in the House? How can the Speaker do

that if Rule 3 requires the Opposition House Leader to designate the motion?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I don't.

MR. HARRIS: I don't see how both of those can stand

together. If what the Opposition House Leader says is true with this rule here,

and let us take the current circumstances, that I would have an equal

opportunity, along with other members in the Opposition, to have a motion

debated, that sounds great in theory, but let's look at the practice of

seventeen people on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. When was the last time

this House sat for thirty-four weeks in a particular session? The person who has

been here the longest may be able to answer that. I don't know if the Member for

Bonavista North, the Government House Leader, or perhaps the Member for

Twillingate, who has been here and there, and here again, could tell us? How

many times has this House sat for thirty-four weeks in a session?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Never. Let's do it this time.

MR. HARRIS: Never, and if we do it this time perhaps the

Member for St. John's East might get his motion heard after everybody in the

Opposition who wants to have their motion heard.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You don't have to be last.

MR. HARRIS: No, you don't have to be last, you don't have

to be first, you don't have to be there at all, I say to the hon. member, if the

session doesn't last for thirty-four weeks, because there won't be seventeen

Opposition days. I say to hon. members that the Government House Leader has

obtained a cleverly worded Clause 8 from the Clerk, whom I don't blame for this.

I don't blame the Clerk for the wording. The Clerk was only performing his duty.

The policy and the intent was set by the Government House Leader. In reality,

this doesn't provide any guarantee at all for individual members of the

Opposition who don't happen to sit with the Official Opposition. Whether they

are a party or not, I say to the Government House Leader, is irrelevant in this

context - whether they are a party or not.

There could be twelve members of the New Democratic Party

sitting in the House and thirteen in the Official Opposition - the Official

Opposition Liberal or Official Opposition Tories - and there would be no right

of the third party with ten or twelve members to have a particular motion called

on a particular day. That wouldn't be the right at all. So I don't think Clause

8 is really a workable rule. It looks good on paper but when you think about how

it actually operates there is a conflict there between what the Speaker's rights

are and those of the Opposition House Leader.

There may be other hon. members on either side of the House

who want to comment on these relative differences in the motion, the motion here

to incorporate the status quo which, in my view, makes it no longer a true

Private Members' Day, and an opportunity for the individual members, or

caucuses, to consider the possibility at this time of changing the rules to

permit a Private Members' Day to actually exist. I would rather take my chances

on a lottery, I say to hon. members.

MR. SHELLEY: There is nothing wrong with that.

MR. HARRIS: `There is nothing wrong with that,' says the

hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, and I imagine the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology would agree with him. I would rather put my

chances on a lottery to get my Private Member's motion heard because that means

if there are five, six, or ten Private Member's motions on the Order Paper, I

would have one chance in six, and if all back-benchers and all Opposition

members all had motions on the Order Paper at any one time they would have an

equal chance, too. So it is a lottery amongst those who wish to have motions

debated. That would be far more preferable, in my view, than one that is

controlled in the manner suggested here.

I ask hon. members to consider that and consider a request to

postpone this matter for a week so that caucuses could have an opportunity to

consider this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay

proceedings here this morning. I realize that we are operating under certain

time constraints with respect to Supply, and I must apologize; up until the time

the hon. House Leader rose in his place to propose the motion, quite frankly, I

had no idea what was going on. I wasn't here yesterday afternoon when notice was

given and I had not received a copy of the routine proceedings up until that

time, so the hon. gentleman's comments came as a complete surprise.

I am not against making changes, Mr. Speaker, to the

procedure with respect to Private Members' resolutions. We all realize that the

practice followed prior to 1989 was totally impractical. In fact, it was

somewhat embarrassing on opening day when we had the center part of the Chamber

here filled with dignitaries of state and church, and eighteen or twenty or

fifteen members bobbing up and down like yo-yos, trying to get their Private

Members' resolutions on the Order Paper.

I have more than a passing interest, Mr. Speaker, in Private

Members' resolutions and the procedure that's followed in selecting the

resolution to be debated. I am the - I suppose, you could call me the culprit,

who last Fall, foiled the system that prevailed in the House after 1989, and I

did that for a very good reason; I make no apology for doing that. I had on the

Order Paper what I considered to be a very important Private Members' resolution

and subsequent events proved, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution itself was a good

one, in that the government, in fact, pretty well adopted what my resolution was

intended to do. So that proves, I think, beyond doubt, that the Private Members'

resolution I was anxious to have debated was not a frivolous resolution it was a

very important one, and if I hadn't taken the action I did, I don't think my

resolution would have been debated, and who knows, it might well be that today

we would be seeing garbage being trucked in to Baie Verte or to Long Harbour.

That's very much a possibility, so I have more than a passing interest in this

whole procedure.

What worries me, and it caused me a lot of concern last Fall.

In fact, my actions last Fall came close to having me expelled from caucus, and

I think that's a matter of public knowledge. In fact, the newspapers of the day

carried the story.

So I think it is very important and I think the procedure

followed in selecting the Private Members' resolution is equally important,

because I view the role of a Private Member in this House, now that I am one -

in fact, I started off as a Private Member back in the early 1960s - I view the

role of a Private Member as being a very important one and I am probably as

guilty as the others who, as a minister maybe, didn't pay enough attention to

the role of a Private Member and maybe was a little bit too insensitive to their

roles and to their problems. I plead guilty to that and I am sure other

ministers here, former ministers will probably have to say the same thing. But I

view the role of a Private Member as being a very important function and I will

not subscribe to any action in this House that will jeopardize the role of a

true Private Member.

Now, what bothers me, and I suppose this is a matter that

must be debated within caucus, is how the resolutions are selected. A Private

Member in this House - and it is happening all over; I have read copies of the

MCGrath report, for example, it was commissioned in the House of Commons back

in, I think, 1983 or 1985 - the Member for St. John East is nodding - I think it

was 1985, when it was found necessary - no, December 5, 1984, when the

government of the day in Ottawa recognized the need for change and they

commissioned a study into the whole proceedings of the House of Commons. Our

Newfoundlander, the hon. Jim McGrath, was noted for being probably one of the

best parliamentarians in the House of Commons, certainly in those days, and I

think the Member for St. John's East will have to agree to that. Jim McGrath was

looked upon as being one of the top orators in the House of Commons in that

period, and certainly a very effective orator and a man who knew the rules, I

would say maybe not as well as Stanley Knowles, but certainly he came close to

it. Jim McGrath was selected by his government at the time, by the then-Prime

Minister, to undertake a thorough study into all matters pertaining to the

procedures in the House of Commons.

Mr. McGrath and his committee submitted their report in 1985,

and it was adopted by the House of Commons. The McGrath report was adopted.

Mr. Speaker, it made some very interesting observations as to

the role of a private member. Private members' resolutions, contrary to what

some people might think, do not threaten the government. They do not threaten a

government's existence or a right to govern. It is purely, as the title implies,

a private member's resolution that is presented by a private member on behalf of

his or her constituents on a matter or on matters of extreme importance. For

that reason, I think it is awfully important that everything possible be done to

ensure that the rights of private members are protected, and that they are not

impeded in any way, shape or form by house leaders on either side or anybody

else.

I realize that is an issue that must be debated and decided

on within caucus. I have no quarrel with most of the recommendations contained

in the resolution presented here this morning with respect to the duration of

speeches and the custom of alternating back and forth. Again I repeat, Mr.

Speaker, we have to be sure that the rights of private members are protected and

that nothing is done to impede their rights as private members, and to continue

to give them the opportunity to speak out on issues that affect their

constituencies and their constituents.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on

this, as well. I've certainly listened with great interest to what everyone has

said, starting with the Government House Leader, our own Opposition Leader, the

Member for St. John's East, the Member for Twillingate. There is a lot of merit

in what everyone has said here this morning. There is a lot to be said about

this.

I know from being within Opposition that it is not the same

as being in government when it comes to a private member's bill. Because in our

caucus we don't have any great difficulty in determining which bill it should

be. We go in and we discuss it. We say: Probably we should bring in a private

member's resolution, ask what it should be, and we will debate it and see. There

has never been a problem in our caucus in terms of what resolution should be

brought in, for obvious reasons, because you are part of the Opposition.

As it relates to the Member for St. John's East, he raised

some very legitimate issues, as well. But the bottom line is that as one member

in this Legislature, he should be equal to the same opportunities that I have as

one member.

MR. HARRIS: So, have a lottery.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not much of a winner. He

should be equal to one opportunity, the same as the rest of us.

MR. HARRIS: You have admitted you're a loser.

MR. TOBIN: That's right. I'm not going to lose on this

one, though, I say to the Member for St. John's East.

What happens in government caucus, I say, having been there,

is one of the reasons why we are debating this issue here today. Because the

Member for Twillingate tried to bring in a very important resolution to this

Legislature last Fall, and the Member for Fogo had given notice that he was

going to bring in a very important resolution. And we all know what happened. As

a matter of fact, I've been told by sources that they were told by the Premier

that they would be kicked out of caucus if they continued to proceed with the

resolutions. That type of bullying must not be allowed.

And I say to members on this side of the House that someday

we may be back in government, and they may find themselves in the same

situation.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You should take a lesson in the truth.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Not in my lifetime. You tried hard enough to

run for this party on a couple of occasions, and spent money enough trying to

win nominations - spent money enough down in Pleasantville trying to win the

nomination, too, I say to the Member for St. John's North. There's another

example of why Private Members have to be careful, because can you imagine if

someone wanted to bring in a Private Members' resolution condemning the

Department of Health for the callous actions of the minister, someone over there

who is shafting the health care system in this Province, who is crucifying the

sick and suffering? Can you imagine if someone over there wanted to bring in

that resolution?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Through the bulldog tactic, through a lack of

judgement, how respect for the truth would be thrown out the window by that

minister, as he would attack the Private Member who would try to bring forth a

resolution; can you see that happening? That's what I am talking about, being

bullied by members opposite, by ministers opposite, and that is exactly what

would happen. That is why I say, a lack of respect for judgement and the truth

is what we have to be careful about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I said in my seat about what? About you? I

said you would bully the Private Members not to come at the Department of

Health, because anyone who would attack the sick and suffering in this Province

the way you do would do anything with Private Members who are healthy and

strong. That is what I say to the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: That is why we, as Private Members, have to be

careful.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a wimp.

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

That is why - and I say it to all members - we, as Private

Members, have to be careful of people who are liars, who don't tell the truth.

That is why we have to be careful of people who have no respect for the ordinary

Newfoundlanders, why we have to be careful of people who are being sent - we

were all sent by a constituency here, to represent them, and we cannot allow

ourselves to be dictated to, as Private Members, by government bulldogs in the

front benches, if you want to refer to it, which happens at times, and we saw

that last fall. We saw members being threatened to be kicked out of caucus

because of their beliefs and what they wanted to propose.

I would say the biggest concern that we, as Private Members,

have, is not on this side of the House with that piece of legislation, it is on

that side of the House. Personally, I don't have a problem with the motion that

the minister brought forth this morning. I don't have a problem with it, none

whatsoever. I have been a member of this side of the House, and I can say that

we don't have a problem, but I would say that as a member of government - and

the Member for Twillingate said it best, and I happen to have served in Cabinet,

as well. And when you get in Cabinet, for some reason, not intentional, but for

some reason, you tend to lose the perspective of serving as a Private Member,

and I think it happens to all of us. I think it happens to all of us, and most

of us, those of us who are honest, have no difficulty in saying that what the

member said is true, but I will say that Private Members on the government side

will be much more intimated by what can happen as a result of this piece of

legislation. From our side, I have no problem with it, no difficulty in

supporting it, but this all happened because of what happened last Fall. I

believe the Government House Leader gave notice first when this House opened,

that he was going to change this, and we allowed it to happen for one reason,

and the notice

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Right, we allowed it to happen. So, for the

Member for St. John's East or anyone else to say that this happened too quickly

is not necessarily right. There was ample notice given by the Government House

Leader that this was going to be dealt with forthwith and it happened, Mr.

Speaker. We said that for one Wednesday, for one week only, we would deal with

it under the other system. The rules would have been brought in last week and

not this week, as I understand I was given. So, Mr. Speaker, I would say that

from the position of a private member in the Opposition I don't have difficulty

with it, but from the position of a private member in government I would be very

careful.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am in a bit of a quandary, because I know that there are a

number of people who wish to speak to this motion and I also realize that the

hon. minister has requested that we get into Supply. He indicated in his opening

remarks that if the debate dragged on in this, he would like to have it deferred

to another time. So I think what I would like to do is to move that this debate

be adjourned now and taken up at some other time, if that is in order, Mr.

Speaker.

On motion, debate adjourned, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. gentleman

opposite assuring us we will get Supply.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) more sensible than what we

are going to hear.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I accept what my hon. friend, the

Member for Grand Bank says, that what we have been saying is more sensible then

what we are going to hear, because what we are going to hear is primarily from

the Opposition, I suspect. With that said,I wonder if Your Honour would be good

enough to call Order 2(

a) which is the Committee on Interim Supply, Sir?

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

Supply to grant Interim Supply to Her Majesty, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

On Supply

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

It is a little too late now, Mr. Chairman, for the Government

House Leader to try to get nice and want - why don't we just pass Supply and

revert to the Member from St. John's? It is a little bit too late now, I say to

him - he knocked it off the rails earlier this morning and we got it back on,

and now, with his sarcasm, his insults again now, he is off the rails again.

AN HON. MEMBER: His usual self.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, imagine!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I hope that no one has tickets brought

now for whatever.

MR. ROBERTS: This is a great weekend for Kentucky fried

chicken.

AN HON. MEMBER: I got tickets for the game tonight

(inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You got tickets for the game? Get rid of

them. Get rid of the tickets for the game. I hope no one has any big plans.

Seriously though, the Government House Leader, what nerve! You know he gets up,

insults people and then expects them to give him Supply today.

AN HON. MEMBER: And insults the House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, and insulted me. I don't care about

him insulting anyone else on this side, but to insult me.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible). I didn't think it was possible

to insult my friend, the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, my point was that I was hoping that

the Member for St. John's Centre would continue on with our debate on the

private members' resolution because -

MR. ROBERTS: No I am serious, if you want to do it, do

it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh no, no, you can't have it all, I say

to the Government House Leader. He went up to the Member for St. John's Centre

and talked him into adjourning the debate. The Member for St. John's Centre

wanted to speak -

AN HON. MEMBER: The independent Member for St. John's

Centre.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Member for St. John's Centre wanted

to speak, and I think the Member for Pleasantville wanted to speak, I believe.

You know why the Government House Leader wants to adjourn this today, because he

knows he cannot get the support for his motion. He cannot get the support for

his motion so he wants to adjourn it now. They will have a caucus meeting

sometime tomorrow after we grant supply. I would say tomorrow afternoon when we

grant supply there will be a caucus meeting then he will see if he really has

support for his motion, the Private Members' resolution.

My point was that we were having a very reasonable, sensible

debate here this morning, I must say, and I commend all members who have

expressed their opinions on this. It is a big concern for a lot of Private

Members, a big concern. We saw what happened a few months ago as a result of

this. We may as well have stayed on the Government House Leader's motion because

those of us who are going to speak now are going to speak on that anyway because

it is a finance bill and you can speak about anything.

I had the consent of my colleagues that we were going to

grant supply by 12:00 o'clock today but I am not so sure now that the crowd are

in the mood after the performance by the Member for Burin - Placentia West who

the Minister of Health stirred up this morning. The Minister of Health stirred

him up, got his back up. I am not so sure now that he is going to want to grant

supply by 12 o'clock. I am not so sure if the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes

want to now be cooperative with the government. Even the Member for Bonavista

South back there, even though he is not recognized he has been speaking more

than I have, so I kind of think he is not too happy to let supply go either.

AN HON. MEMBER: By 12 p.m. tonight.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: By 12 p.m. Well, maybe 12 p.m. I see the

Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island nodding his head. It looks like he wants to

stay as well. We just might stay here and celebrate the Government House

Leader's birthday which I understand is April Fool's Day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, we recognize the

importance of supply. We realize what it means to the government, a little over

$1 billion they are requesting in Interim Supply to keep the Province moving and

to pay the bills until they get the Budget approved. We understand the

importance of that. We went through it when we were in government. We knew the

importance of it.

Almost every year the Opposition would threaten not to grant

supply. There were times when we were here at night, going until the eleventh

hour not knowing if you were going to get supply. The Minister of Finance should

know as he was the big orchestrator for many years of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: I believe it was Beaton Tulk.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, he was part of it, too, the Member

for Fogo, and Mr. Neary. They used to keep us here wondering if we were going to

get supply, and some people were so naive that they actually worried about it, I

say to members opposite. They would actually worry as to whether or not we would

get supply.

I know that this government is mature enough about that, they

do not worry whether or not they are going to get supply to pay the bills,

because no Opposition in their right mind would even consider that. Every now

and then we get a little bit hot under the collar and perhaps go a little longer

than we really wanted to, by actions such as we saw by the Government House

Leader who gets people upset, gets their backs up.

MR. TOBIN: Bill, keep her going like (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I do not know, I say to my friend for

Burin - Placentia West. It depends on what he is going for. It could be quite

awhile. He did not tell me why he is leaving.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is gone for the weekend.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He told me earlier he was leaving right

after Question Period and I said thank God, but then the Minister of Health got

him upset and since then he wants to get up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I am being very boring this

morning as you could tell, and I am trying to see how many of my colleagues will

leave and then I will have full control and then we will see what happens.

AN HON. MEMBER: The hon.gentleman (inaudible) was bored.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes, yes, boring but it is Friday

morning, it has been a long week and I have a bit of a flu and stuff and I

really wasn't scheduled to speak this morning but the Government House Leader -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - but you could tell by my lack of notes

AN HON. MEMBER: I think he should go home for a hot

toddy.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, well maybe but I should get

something but maybe there will be hot toddies when I do get home, I say to the

Member for Bellevue. Hot toddies, yes, that goes on down my way I say to him and

as he knows; speaking of supply, there are different kinds of supplies I say to

the Member for Bellevue but it is not Interim Supply -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) supply.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It's what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Regular.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It's regular supply, the Member for

Bonavista South says, regular supply at a reduced price and maybe, if -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) supply.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) supply.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But speaking of supply, I wonder if the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has really considered reducing the cost

of alcohol in our liquor stores, has he really considered to knock some of the

taxes off?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, it has gone up but I don't think

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is responsible for that, I think

that's to do with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, (inaudible) exchange rates at some

of the distillers or whatever I think, also go up by thirty-five or forty cents

but I wonder if the minister, did he ever consider it, with all this ongoing

debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) appreciate (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am not allowed out there, I say to the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology because he knows I wouldn't go within

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) sail boat.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The closest I go to St. Pierre now, is

Point May.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, Point May and that's the place in

my district that is closest to St. Pierre so that's why I go that far. If it

wasn't in my district I wouldn't even go that close.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What's that?

MR. FUREY: When were you banned?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, not banned but I just don't feel

comfortable going there. No, it's to do with the scallop dispute, I say to the

minister. It's a strange kind of thing that happened there in this scallop

dispute, the demonstrations that took place a year or so ago on the Fortune

wharf where the Mayor of Grand Bank at the time, who led these demonstrations,

last name was Matthews.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, they got (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, it is the only thing I could put

it to because, I mean, the only other thing that I had ever said that I suppose

could be half-inflammatory was when the French officials took this trawler out,

do you remember, it was the governor or the prefect and all that crowd went out

and intentionally got arrested? Well, I did make a public statement saying that

I didn't think that was you know, very good and that I thought that they should

come to their senses, there wasn't any fish to give them, you know, that sort of

thing, we all knew there wasn't any fish; we didn't have any fish to catch and

how could France and the people of St. Pierre et Miquelon really expect us to

have any fish to give them, so I said: You know, they should get their act

together sort of thing.

I know there were some of them who took great exception to

that but I think what really caused it all, was the confusion over the Matthews,

and God, it wasn't long after, I had reports back that, never, never show your

face in St. Pierre again, which -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) any cigarette lighters.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, but it was kind of strange because

for 20-odd years I had gone there every year you know and some years, several

times, five or six times. I have a lot of friends out there, a lot of friends

and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Whenever the supply was limited?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I really enjoyed going there, I

started out in my soccer days going over there once a year playing but then -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: You lost every game.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no. At first, when we went out we

did but after that, we were superior, I say to the minister; we used to beat

them rather badly at the end of it but at the beginning they were far superior,

we couldn't touch them at all, they were professional, I say to the minister as

he knows, but it is kind of sad what happened there because, as I said, I used

to look forward to going there but they are the only losers there, because now I

don't spend my $1,000 a trip every time I go over there you know, but having

said that, there is a lot of friends I had there and I don't feel good about

that because it is confusion, it is over nothing that I did but they have a bad

taste in their mouths about it, they really do and I am not going to go over

there very quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the bad taste about?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I think it was something to do with

scallops. It was over scallops, you know, the scallop dispute.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to say too much more and I

don't think any of my colleagues are going to have a few words but I am talked

out for now.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like just a few brief words in this bill to grant

Supply to Her Majesty.

I am sure my constituents in Green Bay do not begrudge Her

Majesty's Supply but in return for so granting, I think they would wish me to

have a few words on a matter that's the cause of some consternation and debate

in my district, and that is regarding a matter that was raised in the Throne

Speech, and that is with regard to the electoral boundaries issue.

The Government House Leader tabled a mandate for a

commissioner in this House a few days ago, a mandate to redraw the electoral

boundaries in the Province. As far as I understand, the mandate will have to do

with drawing the boundaries for a forty-eight seat Assembly.

Prior to Christmas, I do believe, we had a briefing from a

government official as to at least the rough outlines of what a forty-eight seat

Assembly would be like, and there was a major change in the outlines of a

forty-eight seat Assembly as opposed to a previous proposal by the Electoral

Boundaries Commission regarding a forty-four seat Assembly - at least as far as

Green Bay is concerned.

Speaking as the current Member for Green Bay, I had no

particular problems with a change in the forty-four seat configuration which

would see Badger and Buchans added to my district, and the district being

renamed Green Bay - Buchans. It would involve, obviously, some considerably

greater travel, and my having to get to know, I suppose, the people in Badger

and Buchans in terms of going door-to-door, I guess, to introduce myself and to

meet these people if I wish to represent them when the next Assembly is called;

but the forty-eight seat Assembly involves a change which a number of my

constituents have a problem with, and a change, I should say also, that I have a

problem with, and that is the deletion of a number of communities in the

existing Green Bay District from the newly proposed Green Bay - Buchans

District.

The areas around King's Points, Harry's Harbour, Jackson's

Cove, Little Bay, Beachside, St. Patricks, would all be removed from Green Bay

under the forty-eight seat proposal, and they would be put in with Baie Verte

District. That changes a long-standing historical trend. These communities have

always been in Green Bay, and, from what I can gather, the public sentiment in

the area is to the effect that these communities do not wish to be removed from

Green Bay and placed in another district.

I guess from the point of view of the current Member for Baie

Verte - White Bay having to service these communities in Green Bay would

involve, for him, considerably greater travel in that his district is currently

situated on the Baie Verte Peninsula, and in order to service these current

Green Bay communities he would have to come out to the Trans-Canada, drive along

the Trans-Canada to the Springdale turn-off, and thereby be able to service

these communities, but after considerable travel.

The travel for myself, if I become the Member for Green Bay -

Buchans, would be much the same under a forty-four or a forty-eight seat

Assembly in that I would have to do extensive travels in Central Newfoundland,

but the major concern is that the King's Point, Harry's Harbour, Jackson's Cove

area, Little Bay, Beachside area, have always been in Green Bay. They are

members of a political unit called Green Bay; they are members of an economic

unit called Green Bay, and the change would involve having the members of the

current economic Green Bay unit being split politically, and when one is faced

with the realities of no guarantee that electoral districts even side by side

being with the same political party, being able to avail of government funding

with the same ease, that sort of thing, there are distinct concerns that a

community of interest that has existed for many, many years, since

Confederation, would be split under the forty-eight seat proposal. So I think I

am duty bound to raise these concerns and ask the Assembly not to exclude these

communities from Green Bay District.

I, as a sitting member, would have no problem with having to

deal with an enlarged Green Bay District, the new district of Green Bay -

Buchans. I do not object to having to travel greater distances or meet new

people but many of my constituents would not want to be removed from the

district that they have been a part of since Confederation. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It gives me pleasure to speak to the bill to grant Supply. I

would like to make a couple of references on what was in the Throne Speech to

the economic zones that originated out of the Strategic Economic Plan. These

nineteen zones, that will take in this Province of ours, is a method designed

for control. It is a method that is designed federally and provincially.

Amalgamation of these regional committees is designed to take most of the

fifty-nine rural development associations, that exist today, right out of the

system.

In the Southern Avalon there are six regional development

associations. They hope to get three representatives on such a board. Three

representatives out of six would leave this board seeing only part or, at the

most, half of the regional development associations funded. These development

associations came into existence many years ago because of plights within their

areas because of economic situations, because of one person rule or two person

rule. These associations started to spring up - I think the first one originated

in Green Bay in the late '60s. I know the one in Placentia sprang up sometime -

it was due to the resettlement program and due to the massive lay-offs at

Argentia Naval Base that occurred in the late '60s.

The past president of the rural development association, some

weeks ago in a newspaper headline, was talking about associations that would get

funding from now on are those that do something. Well it was a poor statement, a

very poor statement from a person who was involved in rural development

associations for a number of years. The development associations have done a lot

of great work. The associations have become victims too of doing work for

government. When there was a quick job to be done, they were there. They were

affiliated and marked with make-work which in itself is no disgrace but it has

come to, by many government members over the years, putting it down to second

class status, and development associations were never second class, always first

class, no matter what part of this Province. Their interest was to the people

that they served and they served well. What we will see now in these nineteen

zones is that many, many of these people - many of these dedicated volunteers

will be gone for the sake of control and for the sake of government not telling

them which ones they won't fund. They will let the people on the board - the

board members eventually will say who gets funded. A cowardly way but also a way

to control.

We have seen many changes in our lifetime. We have seen

Canada supporting rural developments. We see them now, with the Province,

getting ready to at least cut half of them out. Community Futures will be gone.

Community Futures will be amalgamated with BDCs, the Business Development

Centres but a good many of these great volunteers will be gone because boards

will only have so many members. These zone boards will only have so many members

and a lot of these dedicated volunteers as well will have no work.

What should they do? Will they form their own committees?

Will they keep on slugging? What will they do without money, what will they do

without support? The way these economic zones are being structured, I'm saying

to the minister - I'm glad to see him back - I think that some people in these

economic zones, Mr. Minister, when only so many people can be on these regional

boards, there is going to be a lot of good people not going to be able to sit on

these zone boards.

Obvious. There is only going to be certain numbers of

business, volunteer, municipal people, gender equity, what else I don't know.

What is going to happen to all these dedicated people who put in so many years?

When they see things that are happening that they cannot get in on will they

form their own committees? Will there be other committees knocking at gates

making their cases known? Will they be supported? Can they be supported? I doubt

it. Because if the federal and provincial governments are only going to be

recognizing these zone boards what is going to be the end?

I can see trouble looming. We all know that the money is not

there like it used to be. If it was I wouldn't be here today talking about zone

boards. They would never have been put in place in the first place if the money

was there. There would be no need of zone boards today if we could continue the

funding of the fifty-nine rural development associations. What we are going to

be seeing is probably half of them cut out. The numbers are not going to be

there, Minister, they can't be.

The minister was away the other day, but today is the eve of

an anniversary, of Confederation. Confederation has brought a lot of changes to

this Province. Some of them have been good, I must say. I showed a few members

here over these past few days a telegram from March 31, 1949, and I would just

like to have it into the record here. It was sent from St. John's to Point

Lance, St. Mary's Bay, to a certain John F. Careen, my father, who was a devout

anti-Confederate, and still is at eighty years old. He thought that Newfoundland

never got a fair shake. He thought Newfoundland's was an orphan's fight, and it

still is an orphan's fight. We are 2 per cent of the population.

I'm glad in the last few days parts of this country have come

out to support the eastern side of this country with Minister Tobin. Because I

always wondered and worried and wasn't pleased with the manufacturers out of

Ontario or the Saskatchewan wheat farmers when our fish was being pawned off in

favour of those.

Into this record today, sent by one -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Oh, yes, amazing. Anyway, sent by one Fred

Marshall. I don't know if the Member for St. John's Centre might be familiar

with him, but he was one of the leaders of the anti-Confederation fight with

Major Cashin and Mr. Higgins. The message read: Many thanks your message. Our

thoughts will be in close association as the end of our independence hastens.

Good luck.

We have become dependent, and far too dependent. I wish this

House here was much better off than it is financially. I wish that we could be

in control. With offshore looming we won't be in control. That is sad. We used

to see Lougheed, regardless of his political stripes, when the oil companies

interfered, he interfered. Largely they did their own business, but the people

of his Province came first. We don't have the money to control, we are not in

the driver's seat. We are subject to the dictates of these others.

I conclude my remarks by -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: You have a good heart, Minister. I've seen it

on occasion. You should use it more often. Thank you kindly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: I yield.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to

begin my remarks by complimenting the Minister of Finance on bringing in a

balanced budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: It is something that we should have done

years before. If we had been doing it years before, as some of us really wanted

to do, we wouldn't be in the sad pickle we are today.

It is very hard for a province like Newfoundland to be

forever sliding into debt and to pay ever more money to the bankers in the form

of interest. We've seen more and more money going to interest and less and less

available for other good things. So I'm glad that the minister was able to bring

in a balanced budget. I hope next year that the economy improves this current

year to the point where he can bring in a balanced budget next year, and the

year after. I would go so far as to say this, although other members may not

agree, that I would sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in order to balance the

budget for the next couple of years. Hopefully that will not be necessary. But

it is more important to balance that budget so that we will have money to spend

and not to spend on interest, than to keep that facility.

However, I'm extremely concerned about a particular matter, a

complex of matters, that are contained in the Budget, and that is the difficulty

Newfoundlanders are having to keep warm. Many Newfoundlanders are finding it

very difficult to keep warm. One of the measures in the Budget was we took I

think it was $19.6 million in dividends from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

That is great - I suppose it is - but I suspect that down the road the prices of

electricity may very well go up as a result of that, particularly if we continue

to take dividends from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Because in order to

produce the surplus that is required to take the dividend the rates are going to

have to be increased.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

DR. KITCHEN: Well, you can't take surpluses unless

someone puts the surplus in there, and the surplus comes from the pockets of

Newfoundlanders. It is not produced in some magic way by Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. They don't wave the wand and the money appears. Their income is

almost totally from the people of this Province. Not entirely but almost all,

because some of it comes from CF(L)Co. But a lot of it does come from the

people, and that bothers me very much.

I found out that in the Department of Social Services this

year it is going to discontinue a very important practice that it used to carry

on for many years. If a person was going to be cut off by Newfoundland Light and

Power because they couldn't pay their electrical bills, very often the

Department of Social Services would pay the bill and set it up as an

overpayment, and collect 5 per cent of the regular social assistance each month.

I understand that is now going to be discontinued. That will mean, for many

people, that they will be cold, they will freeze. I shudder to think in my

district, where there are so many people who cannot pay these tremendously high

electric bills, which they use not only to cook but to heat, that they are going

to be cold. It bothers me very much.

At the same time, I can see the point. Because what we were

really doing before in doing this was writing off the bad debts of Newfoundland

Light and Power. There is no darn wonder it is such a profitable company and can

go out and buy up half of Canada. They own half of Halifax now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Paying the bill, yes, so that Newfoundland

Light and Power had very few bad debts. The problem remains, on the human side,

on the other side, what is the poor son-of-a-gun going to do who cannot pay? You

can't predict, like this winter, and save for what your light bill will be.

I went into a house yesterday and he showed me his light

bill, $400 last month. I cannot believe it. Now, it is all electric heat,

whatever heat is there is electric heat. There is no oil. Now, in the winter our

Department of Social Services has been able to add $51.00 a month as the amount

that people get for heat, but I tell you $51.00 does not meet the difference in

the light bill from summer to winter for many people. It is inadequate. In fact

all our levels of social assistance are inadequate. They are inadequate to

support life in any meaningful way and I believe we have to address that. I am

very disappointed in that but I can see we do have a problem.

Now, I do not know what we can do with Newfoundland Light and

Power. Can we tell them, keep the lights on even thought they do not pay their

bills? It is pretty hard to do. I can see the problem, but I do not believe the

levels of social assistance are high enough so that the person can manage their

money in a better way so that they will have money to take into account for a

bad winter.

The other thing that bothers me very much about heat, keeping

warm, are these outages that we experience. Every time there is a bit of glitter

down go the wires. A man came to me the other day and said, the pole in front of

my house went down the other day so I asked the linesman who was repairing it,

how come the line is down? He says, well, woodpeckers were at it. I said, you

mean the woodpeckers were there picking at that steel in the pole? No, he said

it was not a steel pole. Well, I said you mean you have woodpeckers now who like

creosote? No, he said. I said you mean they were at that worm-eaten pole, that

insect-ridden pole? That was within the city here. Oh, yes, he said.

Now, why do Light and Power not use their surplus which they

use to buy real estate in Corner Brook, or real estate in Halifax, why do they

not use that to fix the darn poles in St. John's, or anywhere else? Why do we

have to have these outages? I believe Mr. Minister of Mines, Energy, Natural

Resources, that you should sit down and have a good chat with Angus Bruneau and

say, Angus, my son, we cannot tolerate the way Newfoundland Light and Power is

sucking the blood of Newfoundlanders to invest elsewhere. We have to do that

because it is not fair to the people of the Province. We cannot have these

outages.

I am also wondering about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

where many poles fall down, too, every time there is a bit of a glitter storm.

There has been no change in that in the past forty or fifty years. Every time

there is a bit of a storm down go the poles. I do not know if it is totally

unnecessary or not, but I do know that some of it is unnecessary and there

should be more money taken from surplus and spent on capital improvements.

Another thing happened this year as far as heat is concerned

and it bothers me very much. The number of cords of wood that a person can cut

on the Avalon Peninsula was reduced from six to five. Now, that means there is

less wood available to substitute for oil or electricity. The forest policy of

this Province for many, many years has been to protect the limits of the paper

companies, and the second policy has been to protect the sawmills, and at the

bottom, I believe, is the needs of households and residents of the Province. I

believe it is topsy-turvy.

At one time it was very important to protect the paper

companies because they provided many jobs for people. Where I grew up in the

town of Millertown we had twenty camps, twenty work camps with fifty men in a

camp, and 1000 people in that little town came to that place to cut wood and now

there are very few people in the logging operation. What has happened is that it

has become mechanized and the people who reap the money from the mechanization

are the bankers and not the people of the Province.

The workers of this Province benefit very little compared to

what they used to from paper companies, but the people who really need that wood

are the people who need it for household fuel because there is no other source

of income. What I believe we should do is that silviculture program should be to

some extent redirected so that it is planted near settlements, so we get wood

planted near settlements, and over time we can develop forests near settlements.

Because that is where the forests have been gutted and where people can no

longer get wood. That is why on the Avalon Peninsula we had to chop her down

from six cords to five. I suppose eventually we will go to four, to three, to

two to zero. That will be the end of that.

I was also disappointed too that we didn't raise the minimum

wage. I can't see how anyone can survive on $4.75 an hour. I was hoping, when

the Throne Speech was brought in and that was eliminated, that it would be

brought in in the Budget. We didn't raise the minimum wage. I don't know why we

didn't raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage is so low now, because most

people on minimum wage are not working full-time, that it is better to stay on

social assistance.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: In government the minimum wage is something

like $9 an hour. What we are talking about is all the exploitation that occurs

in this Province -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will continue

some other time.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member has leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Harvey's there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to have a couple

of comments on a couple of issues.

First of all, I want to talk about the electoral boundaries

report that we had tabled last year. We are now into the third stage of this

particular process. We spent over $350,000 of the public's money. I happen to

represent the district, I do believe, which has the highest number of people in

it. Waterford - Kenmount I do believe has the highest number.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, the new voters list, which of

course is public, shows that Waterford - Kenmount does have the largest number

of qualified electors of any district in the Province, of the present districts.

It is about two and a half times as many as are in St. Mary's - The Capes. It is

an extreme disparity.

MR. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was making the point

that in Waterford - Kenmount, the hon. House Leader has said, that we do have

the largest number of residents, and certainly we all recognize that something

must be done to make the system of representation by population more realistic.

That particular principle is the fundamental principle of the democratic system.

We would recognize that.

However, when the House appointed the Commission several

years ago it gave it a mandate to go out and look at the Province, to examine

the ways in which we could have reasonable representation by population. The

Commission came back and recommended of course a House of forty members. There

was a general - or forty -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: A preliminary report recommending forty

members. There was some comment on that, and I think that was expected to

happen. We don't fault the government entirely for asking the Commission to

re-examine that. However, when the Commission came back with its second report

and indicated a House with forty-four with some special provisions for Torngat

Mountains, it was our considered opinion that that might be the way in which the

government should go. However, we are surprised to find that the government has

now appointed another study done by a retired judge of the Court and to -

MR. ROBERTS: He is not retired, he is still active.

MR. HODDER: Well, yes. A supernumerary judge, I'm sorry,

and he is still an active member of the Court, but doesn't carry a regular

workload, you might say. We have no difficulty with the appointment. We do have

difficulty with what we perceive to be the mandate. That is, that the judge

would look at the whole system, and the intent, I do believe, is that he would

probably come back with a House of forty-eight. We believe that a House of

forty-four with some special provisions for Labrador is a reasonable proposal.

Having spent $350,000 on the commission report we felt that it should have been

accepted without further amendment.

We object to the gerrymandering that is obviously going on by

members on the other side, and when we look at the increasing number from

forty-five members to forty-eight members we question the rationale for doing

it. There only can be one rationale and that is that members on the government

side perceive that they would be at a decided disadvantage if they were to

accept the second report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment on a couple of other

issues as well. I want to go to the Auditor General's Report, and on the

assumption, of course, that some of the matters which are dealt with in Interim

Supply would include allocations to the University, I wanted to draw to the

attention of the House the comments made by the Auditor General relative to the

University and its accountability.

Mr. Speaker, we find on Page No. 5 of the overview that the

Auditor General is not too happy with the way in which Memorial University

accounts for its funds. There is an extensive write-up in the detailed section,

but I just want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Auditor

General is very, very concerned that the University, which of course, gets $117

or $120 million a year of public funds, is not publicly accountable for the

expenditure of those funds.

For example, under

Section 38 of the act, and quoting from

the Auditor General's Report it says: the University is required to provide me

with access to all books, accounts, financial records, reports, electronic data,

processing records, explanations, files, and all other papers necessary for the

performance of my duties as Auditor General. However, when the Auditor General

wrote the President on May 5, 1994 asking the President to forward the documents

required for the audit, she was informed that the President had forwarded all of

the documentation which was approved by the Board of Regents for release to the

Auditor General's office.

However, Mr. Chairman, the difficulty with that is that the

Auditor General is not getting the information required from the University.

What is happening here is that the University is operating as a totally

autonomous body. The minister two days ago in the House said that he was

operating with an arm's length approach to the University, yet yesterday he said

he could not answer any questions about tuition fee increases because it was

somehow jeopardizing their independent intellectual activity, and I have

difficulty finding out how the minister can hide behind that kind of logic.

There is no rationale for the government expending $120

million a year at the University out of public funds, and then the University

not being accountable directly to the House. When the Auditor General sends for

information the University simply sends back and says, no, thank you, we are not

going to give you access to all the information as required under

Section 38 of

the Memorial University Act, so therefore the University is in essence a law

onto itself.

Section 38 requires them to provide information to the

Auditor General but the University President says, no, no, we do not do that. We

are not going to do that. You have all the information you want and we are not

going to comply. In the Auditor General's Report it says, and I am quoting

again: "the University still has not provided me with access to its accounts and

records. The Memorial University Act entitles me to have access to all documents

which I requested. This access is not conditional on the approval of the Board

of Regents."

What's happening is that the Board of Regents at the

University is determining what information will be forwarded to the Auditor

General and which information will not be forwarded, and in the concluding

statement in the Overview, the Auditor General writes: Since I have been denied

access to documents necessary to carry out my duties as Auditor General, I am

unable to commence my additional examination and investigation of the Memorial

University of Newfoundland. Therefore, I am unable to report as required by the

Auditor General Act and the Memorial University Act relating to Memorial

University of Newfoundland.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious situation. This has to

deal with fundamental accountability for public funds. The minister stands in

his place and says that he has an arm's length approach to all aspects dealing

with funding at the University, he does not answer questions in the House

therefore he is not being held accountable by the people of the Province and he

merely condones this process. Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious problem and I

am sure that the people of the Province have some difficulty in accepting the

way in which things are now structured.

I know that the University is very happy with it. Why would

they not be happy when they can take $117 million out of the public Treasury,

spend it as they will and not have to be publicly accountable for it? There is

no threat here to the University's intellectual freedom at all, this is merely

public funds. I would be the first to object, having been a former member of the

Board of Regents for some years and Chairman of the -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member' time is up.

MR. HODDER: - and, Mr. Chairman, having some experience

and knowledge of how the University operates, I would be one of the first to say

that we wouldn't want to do anything that would jeopardise academic freedom.

Academic freedom is a fundamental principle under which

universities must operate, but making them publicly accountable for the

expenditure of public funds, that is a different thing altogether, and when the

Auditor General of this Province makes pointed references to the fact that she

is unable to do a complete audit o