April 19,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before going on to our business of the day I would like, on

behalf of hon. Members, to welcome to the galleries today sixty Grade XI

students from Ascension Collegiate, Bay Roberts, accompanied by their teachers

Claude Taylor and Corbett Newman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, I would like today to announce

that effective May 6, 1991 payment of driver's licence and vehicle permit

renewal applications will be accepted at chartered banks and credit unions in

the Province.

Drivers' licences and vehicle permits or stickers will not be

issued at renewal time. Payment at a bank or credit union will extend the

current validity of the applicant's driver's licence or vehicle permit for

thirty days from the date of payment. All payments with accompanying

documentation will be forwarded to the Motor Registration Division for

processing. Permanent drivers' licences and vehicle permits will then be

forwarded to the applicant by the Department. The bank or credit union will

charge a fee to the applicant for this service.

Any outstanding fines will appear on the renewal application

form. The renewal forms have been changed to an 8 1/2" by 11" format to

accommodate this change in payment procedure. This affects May expiry of vehicle

permits and June expiry of drivers' licences. Renewal applications issued prior

to this month will not be accepted at chartered banks or credit unions.

Mr. Speaker, this change will mean that residents who live in

rural areas of the Province, including coastal Labrador, can now go to the

nearest bank or credit union to utilize this service. It will also mean that a

person who has regular daily working hours can take advantage of the extended

hours offered by the banks and credit unions in order to renew a driver's

licence or vehicle permit.

By tapping into an already existing network, extending the

availability of driver's licence and vehicle permit renewals through banks and

credit unions will result in an expansion of service for all Newfoundlanders.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want

to thank the Minister for providing me with an advanced copy of his statement. I

do not know, they must be desperate for news to be putting this out. It is old

news. This has been announced several times before. Mr. Speaker, when a

Government has to lay off 2,000 public servants and pass the responsibilities

for some of those public services over to the richest corporations in the world

so that they can make larger profits, Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with

the thinking of the Government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it does not say in this how

much the fee for the application was. The Minister suggested last year that the

fee would be $1 each, I am not sure if that still holds. The banks control what

the fee will be, and if the fee is going to be $50 it will be $50; if the fee is

50 cents, it will be 50 cents. The Government has no control whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this helps people. But to put out a news

release to say that the renewal forms are changed into eight and a half by

eleven format, Mr. Speaker, is kind of a ridiculous statement in my mind, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: I would ask whether the House would grant

leave to respond to Ministerial Statements?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Ministerial Statements?

Oral Questions

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Premier. While the Premier was away this week several matters again came up

regarding the Minister of Social Services and his departure from the straight

and narrow. The most recent allegation of wrongdoing is that, number one, the

Minister or someone in the Minister's office has leaked confidential information

to a job applicant from the Minister's district, and number two, someone at the

Public Service Commission quite possibly has broken the act and the law in

making that information available to the Minister or to someone in his office.

Now the Premier has said that the Public Service Commission is going to examine

these allegations. The question I have for the Premier is, how can the Public

Service Commission be expected to impartially examine itself?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member has

fabricated quite a web that he speaks of as being real or something. There is a

suggestion, and this is the only thing I am faced with at this moment, a

suggestion, that apparently an applicant who was applying for a civil service

position may have had some questions made available to him or her by somebody

somewhere along the line. Now under the Civil Service Commission Act, which is a

statute of this Legislature, the Commission is charged with the responsibility

to make whatever enquiries are necessary into the running of their office and

the proper management of the office; they are given specific powers under the

Act. As a matter of fact, they are specifically given the powers of a Commission

of Enquiry under the Public Enquiries Act, and they are carrying out that

investigation into these allegations. The hon. Member is talking as though all

these facts are apparently proven. They are not. If, as and when the Commission

reports that something is amiss, the Government will then make a decision as to

whether or not the Commission is in any manner incapacitated from conducting the

investigation.

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

MR. DOYLE: I agree with the Premier, Mr. Speaker, there

is a (Inaudible) plan but it is being woven by the Premier (inaudible) social

service. Now the Premier must have some impartial party or individual

investigate this matter. The Premier himself is not impartial enough to

investigate the Minister of Social Services and the Public Service Commission is

not impartial enough to examine itself and to investigate itself. In any event,

the public is not well served by that process. Now the question I have for the

Premier, why was an impartial enquiry conducted by a supreme court judge

required last time and it is not required this time? If it was right, reasonable

and honourable last time, why is it not right, reasonable and honourable this

time? And why is the Premier dragging his feet on this issue? The Premier has a

right to let the public know.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the initial allegation that

was made was that somehow the Minister interfered with or caused the increase or

extension to a Level 2 of the Members of the Social Services Appeals Board so

that they could get higher pay. This was the whole thrust of it. That has been

determined to be totally without foundation, completely false and fabricated by

Members opposite. Mr. Speaker, I tabled in the House yesterday the full details

of all that and it is ready for all to be seen.

Now in the meantime, nobody in this Province is at all

blinded to the fact that the Opposition have now said this is get the Minister

of Social Services week - let us fabricate whatever we can to attack the

Minister of Social Services. They did it with the first allegation, we saw

another indication of it yesterday when they were talking about the awarding of

a contract for consultants to build a hospital, as though that was somehow

affecting the Minister of Social Services. We have seen clearly, Mr. Speaker,

that there is no substance to anything that has been put forward yet. Now I do

not know whether there is any substance to this allegation about the Civil

Service Commission or not, but the Civil Service Commission will conduct its

investigation and will advise me. And if there is substance, action will be

taken. But I am certainly, Mr. Speaker, not going to respond to this vengeful

act of the Opposition in this particular way.

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

MR. DOYLE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Public

Service Commission Act,

Section 20-1, says a person shall not directly or

indirectly endeavour to influence improperly the Commission or any employee of

the Commission.

Now let me ask the Premier, in view of the fact that no one

knows who leaked this information, and in view of the fact that it appears as if

someone at the Commission is involved in this scam, and further in view of the

fact that the Government has decided on two occasions that Government bodies

cannot investigate themselves, once when the RNC was involved in a death at the

Lester Hotel and a partial investigation was conducted, and once when the

Minister was investigated by a Supreme Court Judge, now in view of the fact that

the Premier has decided on two occasions that these Government bodies cannot

investigate themselves, why not now call in the RNC or the RCMP or a Judge of

the Supreme Court to impartially adjudicate on this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that is the same question

asked three times, and I will state again the position. We are not going to

create a witch-hunt to satisfy the political blood lust of the Members opposite.

We are simply not going to do it merely because they choose to attack the person

of an individual Minister who has served this Province and its people well and

in a distinguished way.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if anything of substance is put forward or

demonstrated which justifies an independent assessment, I can assure this House

and the people of this Province that an independent assessment will be

undertaken. But I am not about to run before vengeful political blood lust of

the Members opposite.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the

Premier as well. In The Sunday Express the Premier is quoted as saying all

Members of his Cabinet have been told that both they and any company in which

they have business interests as well as those involving immediate family

members, are forbidden to do business with Government. Because of events of the

past few days in which several allegations have been made with respect to

conflict of interest of several Cabinet Ministers, will the Premier tell us if

he is still following the same guidelines as he espoused in this article?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what he is

talking about, the several allegations of conflicts of interest of Cabinet

Ministers. Of course, that is the standard and we are continuing to follow it.

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

MR. WINSOR: In that same article, Mr. Speaker, the

Premier refers to immediate family members. How does the Premier define

`immediate family members'? Does it include a brother, a sister, a son or a

daughter? Exactly what does he mean?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is not my personal definition, Mr.

Speaker, it is a definition out of the act and the regulations and it is

normally taken to be the husband or wife of a Minister and the direct children,

is what it is usually confined to. But I think it really should be extended

beyond that. It is difficult to try and do business in an independent way if the

Government, for example, is doing business with a brother of a Minister. But

when you stop to think about it and try and enforce it, it is very difficult

because this is a very small Province. But I have been applying the definition

in The Conflict Of Interest Act to the husband or wife and the children.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since the allegations

of improper behaviour on the part of Cabinet Ministers has surfaced recently,

our office is flooded with calls and reports with respect to the (inaudible) of

some Ministers. Would the Premier tell us if he would consider it appropriate

for the brother of a Cabinet Minister to enter into a lease agreement with the

Department that Minister presides over?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It certainly would be inappropriate for

the Minister or the Department to just go and negotiate and enter into a lease.

I do not think that would be at all appropriate. However, when tenders are

called by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation in the ordinary

course, if the tenderer involved somebody who was a brother or a sister of a

Cabinet Minister or a company owned by a brother or a sister of a Cabinet

Minister, there is nothing in the conflict of interest regulations as they stand

at the moment that would preclude that. As the law stands at the moment, it

would only be precluded by a company in which the Minister - I have forgotten it

- holds 25 per cent, or holds a substantial interest. I have forgotten now, I

will get the exact wording of it.

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

MR. WINSOR: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the

Premier then, in his investigation into the Minister of Social Services,

investigate this charge: That the Department of Social Services has entered into

a lease agreement between a social service recipient and the brother of the

Minister of Social Services for a St. John's residence, and is paying $475 a

month to the brother of the Minister of Social Services for a social services

recipient?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: It is difficult to imagine that they could

MR. FUREY: Why did you not ask that, Len? Because it is

too low.

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

MR. FUREY: You did not have the guts to ask it.

PREMIER WELLS: -stoop this low, Mr. Speaker and it just

demonstrates that the objective is to get this Minister - for whatever reason,

this is the objective. There is no interest in protecting the public interest,

it is a personal attack on this Minister. But I will take a look at whatever

allegation is raised and make sure that -

MR. FUREY: Oh, come on. (Inaudible) rookie up to ask

that!

PREMIER WELLS: I will take a look at whatever allegation

is raised. I will not close my eye to any allegation that is raised in this

House or outside this House. I will take a look at any that is raised but I will

express soundly my opinion of those who raise it without foundation in an

attempt to cast aspersions on individuals involved.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the conflict of interest regulations would

not in any manner prohibit that particular thing, so far as I know, as they

stand at this moment, it would not prohibit that. For example, I believe one of

the landlords in the former government who rented to a lot of these tenants was

Mr. Morgan, was he not? Did he not own a lot of these houses that were rented in

this same way? He himself personally as a Cabinet Minister directed -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: - or he was a Member at the time. He was a

Cabinet Minister originally, yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: We will take a look at it and see, Mr.

Speaker. But, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - I will respond and assess (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the

Premier is aware that British Columbia has established an independent

commissioner who recently reported on allegations against the former Premier in

British Columbia. He would also be aware that recent allegations made in Nova

Scotia concerning a salary supplement paid to the former Premier Buchanan when

he was leader of he Party have now been referred to a judge of the Supreme

Court. Indeed, there is an indication from Premier Cameron that Nova Scotia also

intends to appoint an independent commissioner to investigate allegations

against Ministers as they arise from time to time.

I would like to ask the Premier this question: Are these

statements attributed to the Premier on April 7 in a Sunday Express story

accurate, and I quote 'any serious alleged case of unethical behaviour will be

referred to an outside party for investigation.' Close quote. Are those accurate

statements by the Premier and is that a policy that he still adheres to?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is not accurate in the sense that it is

not complete. The complete statement from my recollection that I gave to The

Sunday Express was that if there is anything of merit, any allegation that

is made that appears to have some substance in relation to a Minister, I will

not deal with it inside, I will seek outside advice. Usually a Supreme Court

judge. And what I was doing was pointing out that it was not necessary to have a

full time commissioner on conflict of interest because this Province cannot

afford to pay those kinds of monies to do it. If you are a rich province like

Ontario or BC, maybe you can afford it but you cannot if you are a poor province

like Newfoundland. Supreme Court judges are available and they can do an equally

good job.

But the complete statement said that that was the course that

would be taken. But I would not be running to the Supreme Court every time the

Opposition made these kinds of unfounded allegations. If there was anything of

substance that had merit we would indeed go that course. And I do not know

whether The Sunday Express published the full statement or not but that

was the statement that was given to them.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I think the one thing the Premier

is missing in all of this is that all of these allegations are not coming from

the Opposition. Many of them have come from citizens in the Province. That is

the point my colleagues have been trying to make.

Can I ask the Premier a supplementary? Does he agree with his

Government House Leader who said in that same interview and I quote: improving

the Province's conflict of interest guidelines has been revived by the BC

scandal. Our position is that the Premier is responsible for his Ministers. Then

the question comes up: who judges the Premier? I think in the case of BC - this

is continuing this quote - it was rather fortunate that they had that mechanism

in place. End of quote.

Does the Premier agree with his Government House Leader when

he says it was fortunate they had a conflict commissioner in place? And if he

agrees, can he also tell us who judges the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have had in the past in

this Province, the British Parliamentary traditions; the former Governments did

not have it any differently than it is at the moment, there is no change at this

stage and the practice has been that the Premier is responsible to the House and

to the public of this Province and he has to answer. As well he is responsible

to his Party because the Members of the Party in the House would withdraw

support from the Premier, if he did not meet an acceptable standard.

Now I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, that what I think should

be done if there is an allegation of any substance, not just the kind of

low-minded things that have been coming from the Opposition this week to try and

smear people, it has not done them any good in the past and they should learn it

is not going to do them any good in the future. If, Mr. Speaker, there is

anything of substance, the Lieutenant- Governor would have my resignation

immediately and then you could appoint whomever you wanted to investigate the

Premier.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I

am sure the Premier would admit however, not withstanding his thoughts on an

independent commissioner, I am sure he would admit that one way to have public

confidence in the system would perhaps be, to have an independent person

responsible for these kinds of situations. I mean that would certainly be a way

to have public confidence in the system. If he was prepared to reconsider his

position on an independent commissioner, perhaps have a closer look at it, this

side would be quite prepared to agree with speedy passage of such legislation.

Would he be prepared to bring in an amendment to the legislation to allow for

the appointment of such an independent commissioner?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that they

now find this necessary bearing in mind the scandals their Government had to

cope with in the past. All of a sudden it is necessary for an independent

commissioner and they are standing with these pious expressions of support for

an independent commissioner, Mr. Speaker. No, Mr. Speaker, I would not introduce

such legislation, of course not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Premier, and it concerns the public interest in matters such as retro-active

pay which Bill 16 dealt with in one particular; in the documents tabled by the

Premier yesterday, indicates that, in addition to the Social Assistance Appeals

Board that other Boards such as the Mental Health Review Board, The Mining Tax

Review Board, also received increases in the pay compensation for board members,

would the Premier advise the House as to whether or not these payments were also

made retro-active to April 30, 1990, in addition to the Social Services Appeals

Board?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not have the information readily at

hand, but I would certainly undertake to obtain it and advise the House.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, also in respect to the public interest

in public confidence in the impartiality of boards appointed by this Government,

would the Premier not agree, that it is improper and in fact would be totally

unacceptable for social services recipients to have to appeal to a board,

sometimes perhaps appealing decisions of the Minister himself, when that board

is composed principally of appointees of the Minister, who are political

supporters of him, who live in his district and who are campaign workers for

him, is it not improper for people to have to appeal to that kind of body,

knowing that the body itself is dependent upon the Minister for its further

appointments and because they receive those appointments in part at least

because they are political supporters of the Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, just to demonstrate the

extent to which they are stretching to try and make this look somehow terrible,

just bear in mind now what the hon. Member asked. Is it proper for a board made

up of members from the hon. Member's district to have to appeal against a

decision? There was one member from the hon. Member's district out of four on

the board. One out of four. There are four members who deal with that board;

three operate on a full-time basis, and one as an alternate. So of the four

members who serve on that board, one is from the Member's district. So that will

just tell you the direction and validity of the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that the board

has been doing its job. I have had no indication that the board has not been

acting properly or has been giving decisions that are unduly preferential to the

department of Social Services as opposed to the individuals who have appealed,

but I will take a look at the whole performance of the board, and if I get any

complaints, and I have not received any complaints from persons who have gone

before that board, Mr. Speaker, so I can only operate on the assumption that the

board has been performing its duties quite well. The only problems we have been

dealing with are largely the problems fabricated by the Members opposite in the

last few days.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier splits

hairs. The former Chairman of the board, although not from the district as the

Minister said his parents were, worked on his campaign, and the current Chairman

is also a campaign worker of the Minister. Despite the fact that individual

social services recipients have not complained to the Premier that they have not

received treatment, does he not agree that it is improper for them to have no

way of having public or personal confidence that they are going to get a hearing

when they are appealing a decision of the Minister to one who is dependent upon

the Minister for his appointment and who happens to be a political supporter or

a political worker for the Minister? Does he not feel that that is improper,

that if he wants to appoint political appointees to boards he should have

appointed them to some other department, not his own.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no indication

whatsoever. I have received none. I do not know of anybody else from the

Government who has received any indication whatsoever that that board has been

performing in any manner in an improper way the duties that have been assigned

to it. There have been no complaints whatsoever. Now it may well be that as of

right now there is a substantial lack of confidence in that board, not because

of any improper performance of their duties, or not because they have been

making decisions that are unduly favourable to the Department of Social

Services, but because of the hatchet job that has been done by the Members

opposite in the last week. It may well be that the credibility of that board has

been greatly diminished or destroyed, and we may well have to look at replacing

it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier. In a speech to

the Board of Trade this week, the Minister of Fisheries urged that a joint

Federal/Provincial management board be set in place to manage the fishery. I am

wondering if the Premier could advise if a detailed formal proposal has been

submitted to the Federal Government on this matter, and would he consider

tabling that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have been corresponding with the Prime

Minister for about three months on the matter. It has been limited

correspondence, I think it has involved three letters. I do not think it is at a

stage where I would want to table that publicly right at this point in time. I

am more concerned with being successful in the end than I am with gaining any

political advantage out of it right now, and I think it would be far better if I

refrained from tabling the correspondence at this time.

AN HON. MEMBER: They do not understand.

PREMIER WELLS: Now in terms of the detailed presentation,

the detailed presentation is prepared and in the course of revision, but the

detailed presentation has not been formally presented.

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

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say

at the outset that I hope the end result is productive. That is not why I asked

to have it tabled, so that it would not be. But on a number of occasions the

Minister of Fisheries and the Premier have mentioned the Offshore Petroleum

Board as a model for the joint fisheries management board. The difference

between the board and what the Premier seems to have in mind is that the

Offshore Board is not just an administrative arrangement, it is a board

established under joint legislation with legal rights and obligations. Is that

the kind of joint fisheries management board the Premier is thinking about? And

is this exactly the kind of board he wants?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I say again the detailed

proposal has not yet reached the form we are prepared to release it in. A great

deal of work has been done on it, and I doubt if the Minister of Fisheries, even

if he were here, would want to discuss the details of it publicly this morning.

We envisage a board somewhat like the Offshore Petroleum Board, established

under legislation enacted by both the Parliament of Canada and this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, this Legislature does not have jurisdiction in

certain aspects of the fisheries and the Federal Parliament does not have

jurisdiction in other aspects of the fisheries. We would envisage the passage of

legislation by Parliament to deal with giving to the board powers that it has,

and legislation being passed by this House to enable giving to the board powers

the Department of Fisheries in this Province would have, so that together they

could manage the fisheries in this Province in a co-ordinated way, that would

see a co-ordinated management of processing facilities with catching capability,

with catching rights and opportunities, and have the whole of the fisheries

managed in a co-ordinated way. As the Member is quite aware, it is a split

jurisdiction with the Province having jurisdiction over the processing and the

on-land aspects of it, and we would see a joint fisheries management board that

would operate in such a way as to co-ordinate both aspects of it.

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess we only have a

couple of minutes left in Question Period, so I will not worry about a

preamble.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance a question on established program

financing which is basically made up of both cash transfers and tax credits. The

Minister of Health and the Minister of Education have said on several occasions

that we will be out of established program financing - the Federal Government

will - and we will receive no money as of the year 2004. Could the Minister tell

us if there have been detailed studies, and what scenarios have been worked out

where we will receive more tax credits, less cash transfers? And in effect, will

we really be out of Federal money to give to health and education in this

Province by the year 2004?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That question has been asked. I have received preliminary

information on that and I am having it re-analyzed and will be responding to the

House shortly. It is true that the cash transfers will disappear in time and we

will be responsible basically, but there will be tax points transferred to the

Province. As I say, the complete answer will be available shortly.

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

supplementary.

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, it will be just a very brief

supplementary. Of course the Budget cuts in both health and education are

expected to be, I suppose, accepted by the people of this Province because there

are no cash transfers coming by the year 2004. I just want to ask the Minister

again, although I think he mentioned it at the end of his answer, when those

detailed studies are done, will they be made available to the House? And I would

also like to see the study the Minister of Health in particular continuously

quotes when he says in a very definitive way that studies have been done and

that by the year 2004 we will receive no cash transfers to this Province on EPF.

I would like to see that study, as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

MR. SPEAKER: Before moving on to the next item of

business, on behalf of hon. Members I would like to extend a warm welcome to

sixty democracy students from Vaters Collegiate here in St. John's, accompanied

by their teacher, Robert Ryan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure

this morning to table the report of activities on the $300 million

Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Fund which my Federal colleague, Mr.

Epp, is releasing today as well in Ottawa. This report highlights the

significant contributions made by both Governments to establish the educational,

research, industrial and social infrastructure which would put the Province in a

better position to meet the future challenges related to the offshore oil and

gas developments.

Our Governments consider this investment in Newfoundland's

future to be of strategic importance and of a high priority. We look forward to

the immense opportunities the industry will bring, confident in the belief that

with the diverse initiatives we are undertaking through this fund a strong

foundation is being laid to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

reap the maximum benefits from offshore petroleum resources. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise to

table the report of the Government Services Legislative Review Committee

respecting the draft bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, 1977, (No.

3)." This particular bill, of course, deals with what is commonly known as the

double-breasting legislation. We had fourteen presenters, and I might say that

the quality of those presentations, the briefs, was excellent. It took some

twenty-odd hours to receive those briefs, and some twenty-odd hours to meet in

Committee to put together the report.

I want to thank the Vice-Chair, the hon. the Member for

Kilbride, and the hon. Members for Harbour Main, Pleasantville and LaPoile for

their contributions, and of course the Deputy Clerk, Miss Elizabeth Murphy. So

at this time I would like to table the report. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride on a point

of order.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I just received a copy of

this report, and being Vice-Chairman of the Committee - I do not know if this is

a point of order or point of privilege - at least I would expect that Members of

the Committee would have been given copies of this - it is dated April 17, so it

was prepared at least two days ago, and I would think Committee Members should

have been given a copy of it.

Now I was given a copy of the rough draft of this a week ago

and I went over it and it seemed to be reasonable. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not

sure - I tried to peruse this in the ten or fifteen minutes I have had it - that

the recommendations in this reflect what I thought on the Committee or what I

recommended. I would think they would, but I am not sure, so I would just ask

Committee Chairpersons on that side of the House - and they have control of when

they present this - if they would at least do the courtesy of having each

Committee Member get a copy of reports at least a day in advance - I do not

think that is unreasonable - just a day in advance, so that we can go over it

and make sure that something has not been inadvertently omitted. The Chairman

would not do it intentionally I know, but maybe inadvertently. If two or three

of us read it over, or the whole Committee read it over, we could make sure that

there would be no omissions from the report.

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

There is no point of order. The hon. Member took advantage of

the opportunity to point out some concerns. These are matters which have to be

dealt with by the Committee and are not for the Chair at this particular time.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, a

question on the Order Paper to me from the Opposition House Leader concerning my

trips for the year, April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991: I would like to table the

answer to that question.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further answers to questions for

which notice has been given?

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am rising, as well,

to present the record of my trips in the past year, in response to the question

by the same hon. member.

Petitions

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the honour and

privilege to rise and present a petition on behalf of 192 residents of the

District of Conception Bay South, the district of the hon. the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations.

The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is to the Honourable

House of Assembly, the Province of Newfoundland.

`The undersigned Friends of MUN Extension state that

whereas

MUN Extension has provided and continues to provide an

essential service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

whereas no

other agency is capable of providing that service, MUN Extension should be

reinstated.

Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House

take such action as may be necessary to ensure that Memorial University

reinstates its Extension Service and that it be funded and equipped to provide

the service it has traditionally provided.'

This petition, Mr. Speaker, is one of a number of petitions

presented to this House. Now I do not know whether the hon. the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations was asked to present this petition and refused,

but it has been the practice in the past, that members for the district have

been asked to present, and if they are unwilling to do so, an Opposition member

was sought to present these petitions.

I want to say in my remarks today, Mr. Speaker, this is one

of dozens and dozens of petitions from thousands of Newfoundlanders all over the

Province, from the very remote and rural areas of Newfoundland to the urban

areas, such as St. John's and Conception Bay South, which is sort of semi-urban,

semi-rural.

These residents of Newfoundland recognize the value of the

Memorial University Extension Service, and I know the Government is now taking

the political position and is talking about academic freedom as if it has no

influence whatsoever over the affairs of Memorial University, to which it gives

in excess of $100 million per year. The Government is pretending it has no

influence over that, and the Government House Leader, the President of Treasury

Board, took pains yesterday to quote a letter that was written by a former

Minister of Education, now the P.C. Member for Ferryland, indicating that that

Government also took the position when it was convenient to do so that they

would not interfere with Memorial University.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that contrasts quite strangely and quite

obviously, I suppose, with the position the Government takes when it wants to

say something positive about what it is doing in relation to Memorial

University. During this campaign, for example, the Liberal Party campaigned on

the promise of opening a new campus of Memorial University in Central

Newfoundland, of having first year courses in various places, of having

degree-granting institutions in Corner Brook, and Grenfell College, to which

students could go and get their full degrees.

This, Mr. Speaker, seems to have no taint of interference

with Memorial University, yet it obviously involves the university doing things

at the behest of the Government, conferring degree-granting status on an

institution in Corner Brook, having a whole new campus set up in Central

Newfoundland.

The Government went through for a period of some months, a

year or more, with some sort of charade about competition between Lewisporte and

Grand Falls, Botwood and various other possible places, Government inviting

submissions. What role was the Government playing there? Did it have any role at

all? Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it has a role when it wants to have a role. It has

a role when it suits their political motivations to do so and, in this

particular case, this Government has decided that it wants to see Memorial

University Extension die, is prepared to let it die, and is prepared not to do

anything about it.

So they can get up all they like and talk about academic

freedom. This has nothing to do with academic freedom, it is only a political

posture by this Government. They can get up and say all they want about that,

but the reality is when it comes right down to it, this Government has said it

is prepared to see Memorial University Extension die, a service that

Newfoundlanders relied on for nearly thirty years and still rely on,

particularly in rural Newfoundland where there are very few services and very

few opportunities for communication between groups. And problem-solving

facilities offered by Memorial University Extension workers, there may not be

hundreds of them, as the Minister of Education said in his hyperbole one day,

about how there were hundreds of people working for Extension when he worked for

them. There may not be hundreds of them, Mr. Speaker, but they are very well

regarded and very well received by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. And

this is noted, not only by the residents who signed this petition, but also by

people who have spoken publicly on television programmes and news programmes,

who have written numerous letters to the editors of newspapers in Newfoundland,

extoling the virtues of Memorial University Extension Service, repeating the

great service they had provided to these communities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the prayer of

the petition presented by my colleague for St. John's East regarding the cutback

of MUN Extension Service in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I think the prayer of

the petition says basically everything that needs to be said, when one looks at

the addresses and the signatures on this petition and the places they are from,

places like Kelligrews, St. Thomas, Paradise, Topsail, Holyrood, Manuels, Upper

Gullies, Brigus, Topsail - the whole piece - St. John's, Corner Brook and the

names go on and on.

Most of the signatures there are from the area represented by

the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, as I understand it. I want to speak to

this petition and make a few comments, particularly because of some of the

non-factual information presented yesterday in this House, which has become the

mode of the President of Treasury Board, when he spoke as it relates to who

presents the petitions, who spoke and who did not speak. Obviously the President

of Treasury Board makes these accusations about people not supporting various

things within their districts without even bothering to check Hansard. But that

is one of the characteristics of the President of Treasury Board; he has never

made a factual statement in the years he has been in this House.

When it comes to MUN Extension Service, I am sure his brother

does not support the decision of the President of Treasury Board to cut funding

for MUN Extension in the Province. And I know the Minister of Social Services

does not support the cutting of funding for MUN Extension Service. But I want to

support the petition which has been presented.

And, you know, it is strange that when the Member for

Stephenville was in Opposition he could write a Minister of the Government and

ask if he would interfere -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Stephenville. When he was in

Opposition he wrote to the Member for Ferryland, who was then Minister of Career

Development, and asked the Minister if he would interfere with the operations of

Memorial University and ensure that the University -

MR. GRIMES: That is not true (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: - and ensure that the University that -

MR. GRIMES: That is a lie.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, is it parliamentary for the

Member to say `it is a lie'?

MR. SPEAKER: If a Member has said it, of course it is not

parliamentary. Is the Member saying somebody said it?

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Exploits, Mr. Speaker, said it

was a lie.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Member for Exploits, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Twice.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Member for Exploits said that

something was a lie, then the hon. the Member knows it is unparliamentary and I

ask him to withdraw.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I apologize. In the heat of

the moment, having heard something I understand to be definitely not true, I did

use that phrase and I apologize for using an unparliamentary phrase.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is strange how some

Members when in Opposition could ask that Government interfere with the

operations of the University and ensure that MUN Extension was maintained

throughout Newfoundland, and yet, when they become Members of Government, they

change their tune. Probably when the President of Treasury Board stands to speak

to this petition, as I am sure he will, he will be able to tell us why Members

of his Government wanted it supported, why Members of the caucus of which he was

a part asked to have MUN Extension continue in Newfoundland.

He got up, Mr. Speaker, about the Government's (inaudible)

changing it from one place to another place, moving it from Marystown to

Clarenville and things such as that. Well, I can say to the Members opposite

that MUN Extension was alive and well when the Progressive Conservative Party

reigned in this Province; there were MUN Extension Service offices throughout.

Why is MUN Extension being cut out today, being eliminated in this Province if

it was not done before? What hogwash, Mr. Speaker. What hogwash!

There is no commitment to Newfoundland in this Cabinet nor in

the caucus. If there was in the caucus, Members opposite would stand up and

support the people who elected them. They should never forget that no one in

this House voted for them, that it is their constituents to whom they are

responsible, the people who elected them. Those are the people who went into the

ballot box, not the Premier, not the Cabinet. So get out and stand up and

support your constituents, instead of having the Member for St. John's East and

the Member for Ferryland and the Member for Port au Port presenting petitions

day after day which you refuse to present. It is the second time this week that

Member has presented petitions on behalf of other Members, who refuse to present

them on behalf of their constituents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up

Orders of the Day

AN HON. MEMBER: Motion 6.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole to consider certain Resolutions relating to the Guaranteeing of

Certain Loans under The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957, (Bill No. 18), Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday afternoon

when I finished debate, when I was so rudely interrupted by the clock, I was

speaking about servicing municipalities and a whole new concept of providing

funding for water and sewer facilities. I know hon. gentlemen were tremendously

interested in what I had to say, but I am not going to go over it again - I am

sure they have heard me say most of it before. So I just want to make a few

final remarks on this particular Bill at this point in time - I may have other

opportunities to speak.

Mr. Chairman, the real question here then is - we asked the

Minister who was not in his seat. He is now, or at least he is in the Chamber -

when is the Minister going to come forward with the capital works programs for

this year? I realize the Premier is taking his attention now, but it is

important, Mr. Chairman, that we move ahead with a water and sewer program in

very short order. We are at that time of the year when construction is at a low,

where we need the employment and the activity generated by the Government's

water and sewer program, and I think it is absolutely critical to municipalities

from a planning point of view that they be allowed to go ahead. So why has the

Minister not moved? He is on record many times as saying that he is greatly in

favour of early tendering and awarding construction contracts early, and I know

his personal views are that he would like to do that. Why then is he not doing

that? What is the hold-up? He told us in the House yesterday in answer to a

question that this program is being reviewed now and will soon be ready. Well

let us move on with it, unless there are some other reasons why the Minister

does not want to move on with it.

Perhaps there is another question here we need to be

addressing; perhaps the Minister is delaying so that he can implement his

amalgamation program first. Is that why the Minister is not approving water and

sewer grants for this year?

MR. DOYLE: I think I know.

MR. WINDSOR: Is that the reason?

MR. DOYLE: It is so thick (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No doubt. No doubt it will be the same as

the roads program. There were 64 out of 68 projects in districts represented by

hon. gentlemen opposite. That is the fairness and balance the Premier promised

us in the election campaign. No doubt we will see the same thing when it comes

to water and sewer programs. But I am more concerned - Mr. Chairman, if we could

just take the opportunity to welcome my friend, the former Member for Conception

Bay South, Mr. John Nolan. The House should welcome him here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Chairman, that is the question

though, are we seeing our water and sewer program delayed so that the Minister

can implement his amalgamation program? And how would the two be interconnected?

Ah, we finally got the Premier and the Minister to break up

their little huddle and pay attention. You may leave. It is all right, I am

after your Minister this morning.

PREMIER WELLS: Was something important being said?

MR. WINDSOR: Absolutely. The Premier was out doing other

business yesterday afternoon, too, when I was making one of the finest speeches

I have ever made here. I can do it again.

PREMIER WELLS: I heard part of it. There were meetings

upstairs (inaudible). And I must agree with the hon. Member, the

part I heard

(inaudible) was making a lot of sense.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, I was trying to make a point. There is

a better way and there is a need to rationalize water and sewer funding. I will

not go through it again in detail, but just in a nutshell I was making a number

of points.

PREMIER WELLS: When I had to leave and go somewhere else,

it sounded like the Member was making a lot of sense.

MR. WINDSOR: Okay, thank you. Please do read it. But in a

nutshell what I was saying is that there are inequities, there are inequities in

the cost of servicing municipalities simply because of the terrain. Burgeo was

solid rock; I was involved in a water and sewer program down there and there was

horrendous cost per unit to service Burgeo. Labrador is another question

altogether. When you compare Burgeo with a town like Cormack, which has

beautiful sandy conditions and not a rock out there, you do not use a stick of

dynamite, the cost of servicing is much less. On the other hand, Cormack is

spread out over a long period. And we use the example of Dunville, and my friend

for Placentia is so familiar with it, where it is ribbon development on a

highway and the cost of servicing each lot is incredible because you are only

getting one lot serviced for each

section of pipe, basically, that you are

installing; you may be servicing five or six hundred feet of highway to connect

one house because they are so spread out, on such large lots.

I made the point that we need to have a capital improvement

assessment on those areas, within reason, within the ability of the people to

pay and the value of the property in that community.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) enhance it the better

(inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Because it enhances the value of the

property.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) should do that.

MR. WINDSOR: Exactly.

PREMIER WELLS: This is the point the hon. Member was

making. Would the hon. Member give me just one second?

MR. WINDSOR: I will yield to the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: That is the point the hon. Member was

making, this concept of a capital assessment, that people who were serviced

would pay. Because the minute you put water and sewer by a house its value goes

up by several thousand dollars and it is unfair to people living in subdivisions

who bought their lot with that cost included, or to taxpayers who do not

have water and sewer, that their monies are used to enhance the value of the

property of others. So this results in unfair treatment. That is what motivated

us during the campaign to talk about the concept of a water and sewer

corporation, where we could allocate the cost. But, frankly, we have taken a

preliminary look at it and the possibilities of doing it just do not seem like

they could work. Now we have not done a detailed, thorough assessment, but a

preliminary assessment has been done and it appears as though it would be

impossible or quite impractical to put in place. But I agree with the hon.

Member that we have to find some means of doing it fairly so that people are

treated fairly, and still provide the maximum possible level of water and sewer.

I thank the hon. Member for giving me that few minutes. Thank you.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, I have to go to take an urgent call

from a Premier.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Premier. I thank you for your

comments. I am delighted to hear your comments on the water and sewer

corporation. I agree it could not work, and to be fair it would cost you

billions of dollars to buy the infrastructure that municipalities have already

invested before you could set up your corporation.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) most of it now.

MR. WINDSOR: You have it now, but not from the larger

municipalities. They are paying their way, and they always will pay their way.

It is the smaller municipalities which are not paying now. The ones which are

not paying now will never be able to pay. That was the other point I made, and

for the Minister's benefit I will just complete that. The other point was not

all municipalities are able to pay the same amount. You cannot say to every

municipality pay $1000 or $1200 per house otherwise you will not get water and

sewer. Because many people, and I use the example of Buchans where you have

about a 95 per cent unemployment rate, those people are not in a position to pay

$1200 per house. So we have to accept our social responsibility on a provincial

basis and have a program which accommodates that. And even though we have paid

the full shot for our building lot, we may well have to pay.

I am sorry the Minister is leaving. Is the Minister going to

stay, or is he going to run as well? Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult to speak

to a Government that keeps running away. Before the Minister goes, will he

please tell me this? Will he answer this question? Is the delay in the water and

sewer program in any way connected with his amalgamation proposals? Is he

delaying for that reason? He tells us not. You can tell us that. I wish the

Minister could stay. I appreciate he has other business, but I would like to

know when the Minister is going to deal with the amalgamation program.

amalgamation program. Communities all across this Province would like to know,

particularly in the urban area, the St. John's Metropolitan area, the northeast

Avalon. We would like to know.

It is time, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister made some

decisions and moved forward with whatever he or Government is proposing to do.

And I would hope they would listen to the people when they make the final

decision on that and when they move forward, and they should do that very, very

quickly. Because the uncertainty in this region now is hurting the

municipalities; the uncertainty of their future is drastically holding back

municipalities from moving forward with their plans for further developments and

further investments. It is holding back investment in the private sector.

Private sector wants to know what municipal structure they are going to be

dealing in: who will be the taxation authority, what kind of a system will be

established. And it makes a tremendous difference to them.

So it is imperative that Government move ahead forthwith with

whatever they propose to do in the area of amalgamation. And it is absolutely

critical in the northeast Avalon area, because developments are being held up,

private developers are holding up, waiting to see exactly what will take place.

Mr. Chairman, it is critical that we move ahead and that the Minister announce

his amalgamation programme forthwith, and he announce his water and sewer

programme forthwith.

Let me say once again - I am tired saying it in this House -

that he stop procrastinating and he establish the Mount Pearl Fire Department

with whatever structure he is proposing to establish. Be it part of a regional

system, if the cost is reasonable we do not have a problem with that. But if

not, then he should stop procrastinating and allow the city of Mount Pearl to

move ahead with their fire department. It is costing us $300,000 a year in

interest alone for the most modern, up-to-date, state of the art fire department

and fire trucks and equipment in that building, in there with the doors locked

now for two years, while the people of Mount Pearl do not have as good a level

of service as they deserve and they wish. They are paying a lot more for it.

They have their own fire department there and the Minister refuses to allow them

to man it. There is absolutely no justice whatsoever in that.

So I do not think there is any point in delaying this piece

of legislation any further. I think I have made the points that need to be made.

We are obviously not going to get any answers from the Government at any rate,

so I am going to take my seat, Mr. Chairman, and we will have an opportunity to

speak another day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Question? Are we ready for the question?

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: I just want to take a minute or two to

answer certain questions the Member for Mount Pearl raised. He asked why we

ended on February 21, our schedule. As Members will remember, the House was

called to meet on February 21. It was deferred to February 28, because we

deferred it for a week, and that is the reason for that date. The other point

was, what about the fact that some are ten years and some are twenty in the

schedule. The `ten years' refers to paving and the `twenty years' refers to

water and sewer.

I might add that these amounts are not the amounts the NMFC

has put in place, they are the amounts the Minister of Finance has guaranteed

prior to - these are works in construction, things under construction. When each

job is finished, the Newfoundland Municipal Finance Corporation will set up a

term loan to the municipalities involved. But in the event that NMFC does not do

it, then the Government is on the hook for ten years and will arrange a

long-term payment schedule. Anyway, these are the explanations the Member

requested, and that is all I will say at the moment.

On motion, resolution carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the

resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I want to move to Motion 5, Bill

No. 19.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 19.

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, the same rules apply for

speaking.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Bill 19 is "An Act To

Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957." Basically what we are doing now is

amending the

schedule to report the changes we have made in our loan guarantees

since the last amendment was presented. As indicated here - and I will just

review what is in the

schedule and perhaps add certain points to it - we have

guaranteed to St. Lawrence Fluorspar Limited a loan of $42,850.57, which can be

explained in some detail. We had a large guarantee in place of $3.3 million, and

it was demanded on by the bank. Another bank had an interest in that and it

agreed to advance $400,000 - that is Barclays Bank - if the Bank of Nova Scotia

which had the guarantee would defer interest, and the Bank of Nova Scotia agreed

to do this if the Province guaranteed the interest. So that is a guarantee of

the interest to enable Barclays Bank to put in $400,000 to keep the mine open

for a little longer, while they were making up their minds as to what they were

going to do with it.

MR. WINDSOR: Forty-two thousand.

DR. KITCHEN: I am sorry, $42,000, right. Well, no, the

$400,000 was what Barclays Bank put in to keep the mine open for three or four

months in the interim because they thought they might be able to keep it open

longer. And we were guaranteeing the interest to the Bank of Nova Scotia during

that interim period.

The other one was Smith's Seafoods, where we advanced a loan

guarantee to a fish processing plant at Chance Cove, Trinity Bay, a guarantee

which will expire in November.

Clause 2: We extended the date of a loan guarantee of

$500,000 to A. L. Stuckless and Sons, from July 31 to April 30 1991, a nine

month extension in time, that was all that was involved in that.

Clause 3 has to do with James Doyle and Sons Limited. They

had two guarantees in place, one of which expired at an earlier time than the

other. And what we did is we extended the time so that both guarantees would

expire at the same time, namely March 31 1991. And we are presently trying to

decide whether we are going to give a further extension to that loan guarantee.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that that is all I would like to say

on that particular bill.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak for

too long on this bill. There are a few questions that I would like to ask. I

guess - St. Lawrence is a question. Obviously there is nothing in the bill

itself but it does give an opportunity to raise some questions about exactly

what was happening at St. Lawrence and what efforts if any Government made to

try to keep that mine alive.

I am painfully aware of the difficulty of that, and of the

markets, and was responsible for having the mine reactivated a number of years

ago, and for dragging it along with more guarantees and more investment over the

years. I think it was a wise investment. I think Government got good value for

its money over those years. It created a lot of employment, a lot of economic

activity and spin-off in the St. Lawrence area and the Burin Peninsula

generally. Government may well be called on to honour some of the guarantees

that we have had in place on that operation, that industry.

But I think over the last - my guess is what, about seven or

eight years? - it has been a good contributor to the economy of Newfoundland and

Labrador and it was a good investment on behalf of government. The question is:

is it not possible - I wish either the Minister of Development or the Minister

of Mines was here to tell us what efforts have been made to try to keep that

mine alive. I understand that recently now the mine is flooding and naturally

will fill with water unless pumps are maintained to keep it pumped out. And I am

just wondering what efforts have been made to try to keep that industry in this

Province, to keep it from shutting down. I know there were some efforts made by

Government and if one of the Ministers can give us some details we would be very

interested in hearing them. I wish either the Minister of Mines or the Minister

of Development was here. No doubt they have been most directly involved in it.

But it is unfortunate. It is a major employer in the St.

Lawrence area. It is a major loss to the economy of that area and no doubt will

be felt tremendously on the Burin Peninsula. And the Minister will feel it,

because he is going to lose a lot of revenue from personal taxes and so forth

that were paid by the people who worked there.

Perhaps the Minister could tell us a little bit more about

James Doyle and Sons Limited. Is that a forestry operation in Gambo? Am I right

on that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) New Ferolle.

MR. WINSOR: It is probably New Ferolle? I wasn't just

sure where it was. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, a question one could ask - because, you know,

this is a valid programme of Government to assist industry, and I have said many

times in this Chamber, that we do have to put these types of guarantees in place

to assist industries. It is quite an interesting thing that during the election,

the Premier indicated that maybe they would not use this mechanism of supporting

industry. I believe, at the time, he felt that it was a false economy. It is

interesting now, and I am sure the Minister of Finance does not agree that it is

a false economy. I said at that time, and I say again, it is a necessary part of

our economy. The financial institutions, the banks, when you get in trouble,

they want to bail out, and bail out quickly. They pile more trouble on your

shoulders. I have seen it so many times when I sat in the Minister's office. How

many times did I call the banks and say: what are you doing to this industry?

They have been a good, successful industry for thirty years, they have had one

bad year and you want to call their loans; you want to put them into bankruptcy,

show no confidence at all. It has been said many times, the banks will only loan

you money when you can prove to them that you don't need it. Unfortunately, that

is painfully true, particularly at a time like this when we are into a serious

recession. No doubt, the banks are finding it tough. They are finding it tough,

because they are having a lot of loans defaulted. They take the bite on that,

and naturally, they have to be very careful. But I would urge the financial

institutions in this Province, and in Canada, generally, to have a little bit of

confidence. And the Minister of Finance can play a key role

here as the liaison between industry and the financial

community.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I realize the Minister is having trouble

hearing, because our friend from St. John's South is overpowering the P A system

here. But, the Minister can play a key role as a liaison between industry -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in the

letter the Member for St. John's South has. Would you please ask him to be

quiet, because the Minister of Finance is listening intently and he is having

trouble hearing what I am saying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister plays a key role

as a liaison between business and industry and the financial community, and it

is a critical role, I say to him. I am sure he is aware of it, but it needs to

be said. It is a critical role in letting the banks know that this Province and

this Government is not prepared to watch industries fold simply because the

banks get cold feet. The boys up in Toronto say: Oh, oh, the economy is bad.

They are having a rough year down in Newfoundland. We had better tighten up. The

first thing they do is raise the interest rate, they will up the interest rate,

so, when you are having a tough time, they charge you more for your money.

Instead of giving you a break - you know, I guess you could hardly expect them

to lower the interest rate, but it would make a lot of sense if you were having

tough times. No, the banks do not play a role in dealing with the recession,

they make it worse. They tighten up. The money supply is tighter. It is harder

to get a loan today. It is harder to start a business; it is harder, again, to

keep a business going, because the banks start tightening up on the reins and

they start demanding.

Every day, I hear people saying: I am getting calls now from

people to whom I have owed money for a year or two and just because things are

getting tight now, they are starting to call whenever they want their money in.

It is no trouble to borrow money when times are good, when there is a lot of

money on the go, but when it gets tough, when you really need it to get you over

the hard times, it is very difficult and very expensive to get it.

The Minister can play a key role - and I have had to do it

many times when I was Minister of Finance, call a particular bank and say: Look,

this company has been in business for thirty years, you can see their record,

the Government is behind them, but now, at this time, when they need another

$300,000 to get them over this bad fishing season, or whatever the case may be,

you are saying, no, you won't give it to them. The banks play hardball, I say to

the Minister of Finance. They play a little poker game. And, if they can, when

an industry is ready to falter, if they know that Government is ready to step in

and accept the risk, the bank will shift that risk over on to the shoulders of

Government. They will shift the risk over to Government, because they know that

Government cannot allow a fish plant with 400 employees in some small community

- Flower's Cove, I say to the Member for St. Barbe, is a good example - cannot

allow a fish plant like that to close down for the lack of $300,000 or $400,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sandy Cove.

MR. WINDSOR: Sandy Cove.

For the sake of $300,000 or $400,000, the impact of that fish

plant on that community and on fishermen all along the shore, is horrendous if

it were to shut down.

So, the Minister of Finance has no choice but to step in and

say: we will guarantee that $300,000. So, all of the risk, therefore, is carried

by Government. Now my pet peeve on that, if we were to do that, if the bank

says: That is it. We are not prepared to lend 5 cents unless it is fully

guaranteed, and if that is their final position then the Minister has no choice.

I say to the Minister that I would be very reluctant to agree to that sort of

thing. I am very reluctant to agree to any guarantee unless the bank is putting

in some money too. I will guarantee half of it. How many times have I said that

to them? I will guarantee half of it, but you guys have to put some money in

too.

I think I may have mentioned this to the Minister in the

House once before, the other thing that I was trying to do was to say that if we

are guaranteeing the money, there is no risk to you, so we should have a

drastically reduced interest rate. I mean it is free money. You are loaning the

money out and you are absorbing absolutely no risk whatsoever, there is not a

chance that you will not get your money back. Obviously the higher the risk, the

higher the interest rate. That is the way the system works, and naturally so,

and so it would be. You are into venture capital, risk capital, and you expect

to pay a higher interest rate for it. But I think the opposite should also be

true, that if there is absolutely no risk whatsoever because Government is

guaranteeing the money then we should have a lower interest rate. Otherwise, Mr.

Chairman, it may be just as well for the Government to consider setting up a

fund and instead of guaranteeing the loans, actually loan the money directly at

Government's borrowing rate which would be lower, I say to the Minister of

Finance, than the fish plant would be paying to the Bank of Nova Scotia who

would be - The Bank of Nova Scotia has most branches in rural Newfoundland and

actually holds most of the loans in the fishing industry. So Government may well

be served by actually borrowing that money themselves. It would not change the

fiscal position of the Province. A guarantee is a contingent liability on the

Province. It will appear in a prospectus anyway, so the Province's financial

position does not change, it is just that the Province gets into the business of

loaning money unless, I would say to the Minister, the bank is prepared to loan

the money at the Province's current borrowing rate, then I do not have a problem

with it. But why should the Province pay more for that money? Why should

industry pay more for that money when there is absolutely no risk whatsoever to

the bank?

So, Mr. Chairman, that is the sort of thing I would like the

Minister to think about. And I would just take the opportunity to make this

point that I was starting to make a moment ago, the Premier during the election

said: We do not like loan guarantees. In fact, he threatened not to honour loan

guarantees. There were particular ones, at least, that he said: We will not

honour those loan guarantees when we get in office. He soon learned that you

indeed will honour those loan guarantees. He had no choice but honour those loan

guarantees or we would destroy the integrity of this Province altogether, the

credibility of the Province. We would have no credibility whatsoever in the

financial community. The Minister's borrowing is tough now, it would be much

tougher then, because if you can refuse to honour a loan guarantee, you can

refuse to honour a loan. What is the difference? What is the difference, if some

legislation could be passed to dishonour a loan guarantee it could be used to

dishonour a loan itself.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see the Government's position

has changed. I am glad to see that the Government is still making this vehicle

available to support business and industry. I suggest the Minister have a good

look at how we do it, and I suggest that he play some hard ball with the banks.

I think it was time they were told that there should not be any more free rides.

There should not be any more interest being collected with absolutely no risk

whatsoever at higher than necessary rates. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few words

to say to this piece of legislation as well. Some of the issues -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Do not bother.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: What did he say (Inaudible)? Mr. Chairman, I

would like - why does the Member not stand in his place and say what he just

said and I am sure the Chairman would make him withdraw it.

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

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Chairman, comments like that are not

allowed in this House and the Minister should know full well, he has been here

long enough. Let me say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, let me say to this piece of

legislation, particularly as it relates to the St. Lawrence operation, I take

that quite seriously, as obviously the Minister of Forestry does not take St.

Lawrence very seriously, nor do the Members of his Government take it very

seriously. Nobody took John (Inaudible) pretty seriously in 1982.

Now let me get on with this piece of legislation. What we

have happening here in this Province particularly in St. Lawrence as it relates

to the mine situation - and I am sure my colleague for Grand Bank will be here

momentarily to speak to this as well - what we saw last week in St. Lawrence is

again something that is typical of this Government. When you see the police

moving in, when you see court injunctions, and you see everybody moving in to

basically bring St. Lawrence back to its knees once more, one has to wonder

about the sincerity of this Government in keeping that operation going.

The former speaker, my colleague for Mount Pearl, who was

Minister of Development, worked extremely hard, together with my colleague for

Grand Bank, to see that the St. Lawrence mine was reopened. And it was reopened

and it was kept going. And while we were in government the St. Lawrence mine was

operating. People were working and making money and investing back into the

economy of the Burin Peninsula. But all of a sudden Government changed and like

everything else on the Burin Peninsula and throughout Newfoundland, St. Lawrence

mine was on the block again. The jobs and the livelihood of the people of St.

Lawrence once more were thrown into question by an insensitive Government led by

the Premier and the President of Treasury Board.

MS. COWAN: It is Friday, be nice.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, would you ask the Member for

Conception Bay South to contain herself? Please?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I am extremely serious about what is happening

because the economy of the whole Burin Peninsula is affected by the St. Lawrence

mines. And it is this Government that has closed the St. Lawrence mine, the St.

Lawrence Hospital, that has cut the hours of medical services in St. Lawrence

because the mines are closed. Now where and what are we supposed to do? Why has

this Government taken such drastic action? Why have they mounted up such a

vendetta against the Burin Peninsula, and in this case against the people of St.

Lawrence and Lawn and Lewin's Cove and Epworth and other places that worked in

the St. Lawrence mines.

There are a lot of questions that have to be answered. I know

that the Minister of Energy - and I do not mind saying it - is one person whom I

have a lot of respect for. And I know that he has a great commitment to his

Department and to the people his Department serve. But I know that this

Government collectively has no commitment to anyone who lives or operates or

needs Government assistance in rural Newfoundland. And that is the sad part.

Maybe the Minister of Energy should be President of Treasury Board or Minister

of Finance. Someone competent in the job. Rather than who we have.

AN HON. MEMBER: A Member for a rural district.

MR. TOBIN: No, he is not a Member for a rural district

but he has more sensitivity to rural Newfoundland than most Members. For

example, he has more sensitivity and commitment to rural Newfoundland than has

the Member for Windsor. He has twice as much. He had none, he has forgotten

rural Newfoundland, like a good many more once they got elected and became

Members of Cabinet. He forgot rural Newfoundland.

But this is very important to the people of St. Lawrence,

Lawn and to the other parts of the Burin Peninsula that work -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, yes, now there is the

arrogance and I am sure my colleagues just witnessed that. When I said about St.

Lawrence and Lawn, he said: they are gone! Now that is a Minister of the Crown

saying - when I said St. Lawrence and Lawn are now in trouble, he said they are

gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Forestry. Put down (Inaudible)

and the people of St. Lawrence and Lawn. Now that is the contempt, the

arrogance, that is being displayed day after day, day in and day out, in this

Legislature by Ministers of the Crown. Most of them are not as blatant to say it

outright as the Minister of Forestry just did in his thumbs down to the people

of St. Lawrence and Lawn. That will not be tolerated and accepted! The people of

St. Lawrence and Lawn may know it!

And there are a few things that I may say today in this

debate on St. Lawrence and Lawn. Not because they think they are such close

friends with the Mayor of St. Lawrence can they do what they like with the

people of St. Lawrence, let me say that quite categorically. Not because they

think they are buddy-buddy with the Mayor of St. Lawrence he can do what he

likes with the people of St. Lawrence. And that is what this Government is

doing; the Minister of Forestry put thumbs down on the people of St. Lawrence

and Lawn and we do not stand by it. We think it is regrettable that such action

was taken. The people of St. Lawrence have always had a rough time of it, and I

know because I practiced social work on the Burin Peninsula, and did the St.

Lawrence/ Lawn area, for probably ten years or close to it.

I was there when Alcan moved out and I know the feelings of

the people in St. Lawrence and Lawn. I have been there several times and I have

seen the tragedy which has taken place in those communities. But there was hope

again, Mr. Chairman, because of the work of the former Government, in particular

the Member for Grand Bank, and the Minister of Development, the Member for Mount

Pearl. Once again there was hope for the people of St. Lawrence, but then along

comes this Government to axe any commitment to rural Newfoundland, and they will

be known and will go down in history as the Government which slaughtered rural

Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: Slaughtered (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, there is a serious meeting

underway over there. I find it difficult trying to tolerate the Member for St.

John's South and his buddies over there, with their list of former board

members. If they want to do that, they should go out in their common room and do

it, never mind in here where people are supposed to be speaking.

Now what is taking place in this Province, particularly

throughout rural Newfoundland, is the Government is working with a vengeance,

with a single agenda which is to devastate the economy of rural Newfoundland.

And no place - but no place - has received more of an injection of venom than

the people of the Burin Peninsula. There will be 300 people or 400 people who

worked in the St. Lawrence mines have to leave this year; there will be another

300 people or 400 people who work in the Marystown Shipyard who will have to

leave and go to the mainland. So you are looking at close to 1,000 people, I

would suspect, who will leave the Burin Peninsula this year to seek work in

other parts of Canada, all because of the action or the inaction of this

administration.

The Marystown Shipyard where people from St. Lawrence work is

basically closed. That once thriving industry, the pride of the Province, Mr.

Speaker, has now been brought to its knees by an insensitive Government. And

what does all that mean? It means that rural Newfoundland has been wiped out -

wiped out, Mr. Chairman. I spoke to the President of the Marystown Shipyard

Union the other day, who is very disturbed by the arrogance of this Government

towards its workers.

The President of the St. Lawrence Fluorspar Mine was on the

radio the other day, I heard him myself. He could not believe that there is a

Government in this Province, that there could ever be a group of men and women

elected to govern this Province, so lacking in sensitivity to the needs of his

community.

Maybe it is time for some other people on the Burin Peninsula

to speak up; maybe it is time for other people to have their say as to how this

Government is bringing the Burin Peninsula to its knees. I do not know what the

answer is, but I do know it is very sad when you see your friends and your

neighbours packing their bags and moving away. And that is happening day in and

day out.

At Christmas I spoke to a friend of mine from Marystown, a

young man about 25 years old I suppose who is working in Ajax, Ontario, and he

told me he was at a party the night before in Ajax - not in Toronto but in Ajax

- and there were 125 young people there from Marystown. Not the Burin Peninsula

but Marystown, 125 at a party the night before and they had all moved there in

the last year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, in conclusion let me say that I

hope the Premier and the President of Treasury Board will do what they can to

try and improve the plight of the people of St. Lawrence and the Burin

Peninsula.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to make some

comments on the Bill, because it is a Bill concerning Government policy in

relation to support of industry. I have no particular quarrel with the

Government passing legislation to guarantee these particular loans for companies

operating in this Province, but I do have to say that it contrasts with this

Government's attitude towards bringing in legislation which is badly needed to

protect the workers of this Province in industries that are faltering. We know

that Government guarantees, of course, are necessary in certain cases when

industries are in financial, trouble and these particular industries obviously

need Government guarantees for that very reason. But these are the types of

industries, Mr. Chairman, which constantly have a habit of going into

receivership or bankruptcy or going out of business, and often what happens in

these circumstances is that the Government gets called upon to pay the

guarantees so that the banks get protected; the banks get protected, Mr.

Chairman, by these acts, by this legislation, by the actions of the Government,

but the workers who are often owed wages or owed vacation pay or pension

benefits or other work-related benefits, they are left holding the bag. And this

Government has dillydallied around and will not bring in legislation to protect

the workers by making amendments to the Labour Standards Act.

These are not enormous changes which are needed. Mr.

Chairman, it is quite possible to do by very simple legislation, by very simple

amendments, to bring about a change in the Labour Standards Act to prevent the

banks, the bankers, and the Government loan guarantees from having priority over

workers' wages. There is legislation in every other Province of Canada with the

exception, I believe, of New Brunswick - another Liberal Government.

MR. TOBIN: What?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I know the House is not filled

today. We are not allowed to comment on individual Members being absent, but I

see there is Baker's dozen over there; there are 13 Members in the House lead by

the hon. House Leader, the baker's dozen of his caucus present. Only 13 Members,

not even a quorum. If there were not Members on this side of the House, there

would not be a quorum in the House.

Mr. Chairman, there are not a lot of Government Members

listening to what I am saying here, in particular -

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. BAKER: I would like to make two points, Mr. Chairman.

It is rather noisy in here, and I know it is rather difficult to hear what is

going on. The second point is that I do not know if the hon. Member is right in

terms of the number of people we have on this side. I believe he mentioned that

there were 13 sitting in their places and but for there being somebody on the

other side there would not be a quorum. Mr. Chairman, in this House we always

expect that there will be at least one Member of the Opposition in the House.

Now if the hon. Member finds it difficult to maintain that kind of presence,

then we will try to have a few more on this side.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West to that point

of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, very briefly to that point of

order. I do not want to waste the time of my hon. colleague, but what is

happening here is the Member stood up in an attempt to waste the time of the

House so that they could drag in two Members from the common room to give him a

quorum. He was a master when in Opposition at getting up and walking out of the

House and calling points of order. So we want no lectures from him, Mr.

Chairman. It is up to him to maintain a quorum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thankfully there is

one member from the New Democratic Party present to provide that quorum. With

Baker's dozen over there, the thirteen on that side and one over here, there

will be fourteen. So as long as the hon. Government House Leader can keep a

dozen plus himself in, the baker's dozen, I will be here to make a quorum for

him so we can carry on business.

I am glad to see, however, that the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations is here in the House, because the things I am saying have

to do with her portfolio. This is a very serious point, and we keep hearing

about it time and time again, about individuals, whether it be just one person,

or sometimes there are ten or a dozen or sometimes there are very many, as in

the case of Baie Verte Mines. As the Minister of Energy and the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations will know, I received correspondence just a few

days ago indicating that despite the actions of this Government under The Labour

Standards Act, employees are still losing money, becaue the Government's ability

under the Labour Standards Act to provide special relief - and it is

extraordinary relief, not done for individuals but done for groups. The limit is

$2,000 per employee, and many of the employees at Baie Verte Mines are still

owed in excess of $2,000 in wages, benefits and vacation pay, and are going to

be losing that despite the actions of this Government.

So what I say, Mr. Chairman, is if we can bring in

legislation to provide loan guarantees for businesses, we can certainly bring in

not a total overhaul but a small amendment to The Labour Standards Act to

protect workers, so that when companies go bankrupt the loan guarantees which

are looking after the banks can be matched by other provisions which protect

workers who are going to be losing their employment benefits.

Mr. Chairman, all across this country there is legislation

which guarantees that workers are protected to a maximum of six months wages

when companies go bankrupt or when they go into receivership. There are various

methods which have been tried. There is no need to have a four-year, two-year,

one-year or even a six-week wait, Mr. Chairman. There is precedent across this

country for provisions which can protect workers in the event of bankruptcies

and receiverships, whether big or small, so that the workers are not out there

amongst the unsecured creditors looking for money to pay their rent and pay

their light bills and pay their mortgages.

Mr. Chairman, that is something this Government can do. It is

not something that involves a big expenditure of money, so they can cry about

how much money they do not have. Never mind that! Let us bring in some

legislation in the event of the bankruptcies which are going on, and they are

going on more and more in the Province as a result of the economic recession.

Let us do something that is going to ensure that at least in these bankruptcies

workers have some protection, that employees who have done the work, who have

worked for their wages or for their employment benefits or for their vacation

pay, people who have done that work and completed that work, will have the same

kind of guarantee the banks have by these government loan guarantees.

Mr. Chairman, that is what I wanted to say this morning about

this legislation, because it is a part of the policy of this Government to

support the companies, the effect of which is guaranteeing the banks that they

will get their money. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations not to wait anymore, not to overhaul the whole

act, but just bring in a specific amendment that would have the effect of

protecting individual workers when bankruptcies occur, that they get a guarantee

that their wages are going to be paid by the company or by the directors, if

that is necessary, or by some fund which the companies are required to provide,

or by a bond the companies could easily provide, as they have to in certain

circumstances, Mr. Chairman, to protect this Government in its retail sales tax.

This Government can bring in legislation and regulations

requiring confectionary store owners to take out bonds so that they will

guarantee the payment of retail sales tax goes to this Government. Why can they

not very simply, very easily require companies to take out bonds to guarantee

that they will pay their workers in the event of a bankruptcy or in the event of

a receivership. That is something, Mr. Chairman, which is not very complicated,

it does not require two or three years of study, it does not require major

legislative review, it requires a commitment by this Government, in particular

by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, who says she is committed to

this idea. Let us see that legislation. Bring it in and we will see that it gets

very swift passage through the House, something that would guarantee that

employees in the event of bankruptcies and receiverships, are going to get the

wages and benefits to which they are entitled.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible) your question.

MR. MATTHEWS: Answer my question? It will be the first

time in weeks you have had an answer, I would suggest to the hon. the Minister

of Health. If he asked me a question, at least he would get a direct answer. I

would not skate around like the Minister of Health has done with the people of

the Province the last few months.

Mr. Chairman, I want to have a few words on this Bill 19, "An

Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act", for the main reason, as mentioned by

the Member for Burin - Placentia West, about Item 1, St. Lawrence Fluorspar

Limited, which is in my district. It is very regrettable that the company has

gone into receivership and consequently the bank, on January 24th, called their

loan, and the interest guaranteed amounts to $42,850.57.

I just want to speak for a few minutes about the plight of

that particular operation in St. Lawrence. I was involved from day one in the

reactivation project of St. Lawrence Flourspar. Of course, as most members know,

once Alcan pulled out in the late 1970s there were four or five years when there

was no mining activity whatsoever in St. Lawrence, there was a great fluorspar

deposit just lying underground not creating any employment or economic activity.

Upon being elected to the legislature in 1982, I immediately

set the process in place to try to find some interested company which might come

into St. Lawrence and reactivate St. Lawrence Fluorspar. In 1983 we were

fortunate enough, after a promotional document put together by the then

Ministers of Development and Mines – two ministers, the sitting Member for Mount

Pearl and the former Member for St. George's, put together a promotional package

on the potential of the deposits at St. Lawrence Fluorspar and fortunately, Mr.

Chairman, there was an interested party in Minworth Limited who came to the

Province and made a presentation to the Cabinet of the day. We wished at the

time that there had been more than one interest in St. Lawrence, but there was

only one and we were grateful for that.

Consequently, over the next twelve months, 1984, with the

assistance of the Burin Peninsula Development Fund we were able to enter into an

agreement with Minworth Limited to reactivate the St. Lawrence fluorspar mine.

And it was a very, very positive development. The town of St. Lawrence had been

really on its knees since 1978. There was a fish plant that had been put in the

town to replace the fluorspar mine. Both levels of Government funded the

construction of the fish plant. But the fish plant was never fully completed,

Mr. Chairman, it was only a partial plant - there was no freezing capability in

the St. Lawrence fish plant. Consequently, Fishery Products of the day operated

the St. Lawrence plant and used it as a feeder plant, where they would fillet

fish, take it to Burin - Marystown, package the product and freeze it.

So, really, with the mine gone St. Lawrence did not get a

full-fledged processing plant, and it really never accomplished the employment

levels the people of St. Lawrence had hoped it would, and, of course, which both

levels of Government thought it would at the time they put the money in.

At the time of my election to the Legislature, the mine was

gone and the fish plant was not operating, and St. Lawrence was a pretty down

and out place, Mr. Chairman. In a matter of a couple years the mine was

re-activated, we were fortunate enough to get a new operator for the plant and

the town really turned around: employment levels went up, the economy improved,

the attitude of the people improved and it was a delight, I might say, to go to

St. Lawrence; it was quite a contrast in a matter of two to three years, the

difference in the attitude of the people from what they were first when I was

elected.

Now it is quite regrettable what has happened to St. Lawrence

Fluorspar. When we were the Government we put loan guarantees in place to try to

keep the company going when they had cash flow problems, and the present

Government continued and extended those loan guarantees to enable Minworth to

continue to operate. But like everything else, I guess, it can only go along on

that basis so long. The real crunch to St. Lawrence Fluorspar came when a cheap

fluorspar finished product was dumped on the North American market by the

Chinese. Of course what happened there was during the Tiananmen Square

situation, the Chinese were not permitted by the Americans to ship any of their

products into the U.S. But once that matter resolved itself and the Chinese were

permitted to ship the fluorspar into the U.S., they dumped I think it was

150,000 tons of cheap product onto the North American market. Consequently, the

buyers were not receptive to buying the product from St. Lawrence Fluorspar and

that really, in essence, was the death knell for St. Lawrence Fluorspar as we

knew it.

But it is very regrettable, because now St. Lawrence is back

to square one: the fluorspar mine is gone, the 110 or 115 jobs are gone and the

future operation of the fish plant seems to be in danger as well. So they have

gone full cycle and are right back to square one, which is very, very

regrettable. And when you have been involved from day one as I have, you feel

the effects and you feel badly for those people who have experienced the ups and

downs over time. They really had their share of hardship, not only from an

economic point of view and an unemployment point of view but, as we all know,

they have lost a full generation of miners to the silicosis disease of St.

Lawrence Fluorspar.

The people are trying to fight and hold on to the Fluorspar

operation. Just last week, last Friday really, I happened to be in St. Lawrence

when the people set up a protest line to try and keep equipment at the mine

site, at least equipment, to try and prevent it from being taken out. Because

they saw that as the first step toward dismantling the assets of St. Lawrence

Fluorspar. Of course they tried to prevent that, but I must commend them on the

way they behaved. They wanted to make a point to the Government and to the

people of the Province and did so, I felt, in a very respectable manner.

Once the sheriff came to the site and served the injunction,

they allowed the equipment to come out. But they at least made their point, that

they are very disillusioned and disappointed at the turn of events there, with

the mine and with that particular employer for the town. Of course there have

been meetings between the Town, the Union and the Minister of Mines to try and

resolve this situation. I do not know if there is anything new on the situation.

I see the Minister of Mines is in conversation with his colleague for Bonavista

South. I do not know if the Minister of Finance - it is his bill I am talking

about here,

An Act To Amend The Loan Guarantee Act - would know if there are any

new developments pertaining to the St. Lawrence situation. The last time I

talked to the Minister it seemed as if there were some parties who were

expressing some interest in St. Lawrence Fluorspar, and we were wondering at

that time if something concrete would develop.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Nothing new? Nothing more? I appreciate

that response from the Minister who, I have to say I find to be a very sincere

Minister. And there is no doubt that he is quite concerned about the situation

in St. Lawrence, and if there is anything he can do about it I am sure he will.

AN HON. MEMBER: His Cabinet will not.

MR. MATTHEWS: Whether or not his Cabinet will is another

question. But I must say I have conversed with the Minister on a number of

occasions during this very difficult time of this receivership of the St.

Lawrence Fluorspar, and I have found him to be most congenial and cordial and

sincerely concerned about the situation.

Those are basically my remarks on that, Mr. Chairman. It is

most regrettable that this turn of events is happening. I only hope and pray,

for the people of St. Lawrence and for the economy of the Burin Peninsula and

the Province, that something will develop at St. Lawrence to re-employ those

skilled mine workers, to provide them employment in their own town, because the

economy of the Burin Peninsula has taken a drastic turn for the worst in the

last couple of years: activity at the Marystown Shipyard, as alluded to by the

Member for Burin - Placentia West, is at an all time low, St. Lawrence Fluorspar

is gone, the situation with the Grand Bank fish plant is still not resolved.

We are still hoping a new operator will come in, but

apparently they are taking a little longer than all of us expected to put that

package together. Layoffs in the health care centre, as the Minister of Health

likes to refer to it, at St. Lawrence: There were some 55 workers there two

years ago and now, I believe, there are only a dozen or so left. The situation

in Grand Bank: There were 63 workers in the Grand Bank hospital and now that is

down to about 20. So all this downturn in the economy, Mr. Chairman, has been

drastic.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. MATTHEWS: I just want to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by

saying that the downturn has been so great on the Burin Peninsula and, indeed,

along the south coast, that the latest statistics show the unemployment rate in

what they call, I believe, the southern region as a little over 27 per cent. The

month before it was 26.6, it has gone up to over 27 per cent, the unemployment

rate in our area of our Province, and that is the highest it has ever been. It

is an alarming rate, and I can only say in concluding my remarks on the Bill

that I really hope St. Lawrence Fluorspar works out.

There is question, I do not know if perhaps the Minister of

Finance can answer it for me, but Smith's Sea Foods for Chance Cove, Trinity

Bay, that is a loan guarantee. This guarantee will expire on the 30th of

November. Could the Minister of Finance inform the House and the Members if it

is the intention of Government to extend such guarantees? I understand they will

have to be looked at at the time, but is Government still receptive to providing

loan guarantees, to extending loan guarantees, particularly to fish processing

companies? You know, it seems that every year there are numerous requests for

loan guarantees and extensions from fish companies. I am just wondering if the

Minister of Finance could tell us if it is the policy of Government to continue

to provide those loan guarantees to fish companies, or to extend them. And

perhaps when he rises he could inform me who A.L. Stuckless and Sons are.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: What was that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you and Aubrey have

(inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Me and Aubrey?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I thought you were saying that me and A. L.

Stuckless had something in common.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I do not know. That is why I asked the

question. There is an extension here for A. L. Stuckless and Sons Limited for

$500,000 and I was wondering if the Minister -

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. I need help at the end

of the week. I am wondering if the Minister of Finance could inform us who A. L.

Stuckless is and what the loan guarantee is for, please.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A number of points

have been raised. Perhaps to clarify the loan guarantee I will give some

breakdown as to the loan guarantees which are presently outstanding. At present,

the loan guarantees the Government has outstanding total $69 million - $69.425

million actually. In Mining we only have $42,000 outstanding now, because our

large loan guarantees for Baie Verte and St. Lawrence have been paid out, or are

in the process of being paid out, or are in receivership.

The fisheries loan guarantees are a little over $12 million.

The manufacturing loan guarantees are just over $1 million - $1.074 and forestry

- and I will have a few words on that in a minute - $1.35 million. For total

industrial loan guarantees of just $14.6 million. The remaining Crown

Corporations and Agencies, $52.6 million. And there are other guarantees. About

$2 million. For a total of $69 million in loan guarantees.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what is out and about.

DR. KITCHEN: That is what is out there now, right. And if

you like I can give a detailed breakdown, company by company.

With respect to St. Lawrence - I do not want to say a lot of

words about it because the Minister of Mines and Energy is the lead person in

that - but we have met quite a number of times in the past year with the

operators of St. Lawrence mines, and hopefully things can happen there in the

future because the quality of the ore is quite good. I understand it is arsenic

free, which is sort of an unusual thing. Top quality ore. And hopefully when the

market situation improves the mine can find a new operator and things will go

forward.

The Member for Mount Pearl raised the question of interest

rates for guaranteed loans, and perhaps the bank should be approached to lower

the interest rates. Now I might add that we have been in contact with banks. We

have been meeting with them quite frequently and I have had a number of

discussions on that but there are certain problems with it, which are not

necessarily insurmountable. One of the problems is this: If companies with

guaranteed loans pay a lower interest rate than the normal companies - their

competitors - we may be putting these people in a better situation and that

would have to be addressed, and I think it can be addressed.

But we are, to answer the Member for Mount Pearl's question,

negotiating, discussing with the banks the possibility of having lower interest

rates for loans that are guaranteed. Because as he pointed out quite properly,

the risk of banks is less when the Government is there guaranteeing the loan,

and naturally they should not be reaping all this money. And that is a good

point which we have spotted and we are working on.

I want to say - what is the future of a loan guarantee

programme? We have tightened up. We do not like losing money on loans - if we

guarantee loans and we have to pay out, that is not a good thing from the

Province's point of view. So we have to be careful that what we put in place has

a relatively good chance of being successful and that the company will survive

and pay off the loan and the guarantee can be withdrawn. But we also have to

balance that against the employment and the social affects of companies going

out earlier, and other considerations. And not always have governments been -

what is the word? - successful in their predictions as to the companies which

will be successful. And we have revised our guidelines, we have tightened up on

the requirements and we look very carefully - and I personally look very

carefully at the balance sheets and financial statements of companies who come.

And we try to do the best we can with it.

Now I am glad to report that a great many of the small loan

guarantees that have been put in place for small companies particularly, they

get paid out and the companies pay off the loans and the guarantee is withdrawn.

And that is the normal course of events that happen. But sometimes - perhaps

hopefully more frequently in the past than in the future - though a company that

has received a loan guarantee is unable to meet its payments or it is unable to

pay off the guarantee and we have to extend it in time. We have to give them

another year or so, guarantee it for a year or so longer than we had originally

intended. And that is fairly common as well. And also sometimes a company which

has had a loan guarantee is unable to pay the loan at all and it goes broke and

the Government is stuck with paying the banks what is owed.

That does not mean that the banks are off the hook, because

in most cases the banks have also put up money which is not guaranteed, and it

is wrong for anyone to suggest that banks do not take losses in this Province as

a result of money they lend to businesses. They do, and some of the losses are

quite heavy, very heavy. But the Government sometimes moves in and guarantees

some of the loans. The policy that the Member for Mount Pearl indicated, that we

would like to see banks taking a risk which we do not guarantee, before we give

money or guarantee extra loans, which they do, that is the policy that we have.

We are trying to be a little more prudent then in the past because we are

nervous about risking Government money. But that does not mean that people

cannot get it. We have put a number of loan guarantees in place, most of which

have been successful and some which have not been.

I would like to stress that we do not have a blank cheque for

businesses coming and looking for loan guarantees. There is no blank cheque

there. People have to come and make their case, and we look very carefully at

their prospects and at their business plans. The Department of Fisheries does it

for fisheries companies, the Department of Development does it for other

companies, the Department of Mines does it for mining companies, and we look

after the Departments' financing, and we look very carefully at it. Sometimes

three or four Ministers might be involved in their Departments in checking

things out before a loan guarantee is put in place. So we are very, very careful

about it.

The Member for St. John's East was concerned about workers.

Let me say, that many of the concerns that have motivated Governments in the

past in putting in loan guarantees have been, almost purely, for the benefit of

workers. Baie Verte was kept alive for many, many years through loan guarantees

that extended the life of the mine and, basically, the people who benefited from

that were the workers in the mines, not the companies that operated them because

they went down the tubes. The workers kept getting employment year after year

after year, and the Government lost $42 million in Baie Verte. I think it was

$42 or $44 million.

In St. Lawrence, again Government lost $3.3 million, and the

companies themselves went broke. The workers did get benefits because the mine

was extended in time. So it would be wrong to suggest that loan guarantees are

put in place for the benefit of companies. Loan guarantees are put in place,

yes, for the benefit of the companies but also for the benefit of the people in

the communities and so on.

The same thing has happened with respect to Marystown.

Government now has something over $33 million guaranteed for Marystown.

Marystown has taken a lot of money from Government in the past and we have kept

that operation going year after year after year, basically as a result of

Government subsidies and guarantees, and it has been very useful.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is about all I would like to say

on that right now. Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Questions! Questions!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, just a few brief words.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, just a few brief remarks.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I beg your pardon? The Member for

Pleasantville was making a comment, but I did not quite hear it.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Okay. I was hoping the Member for

Pleasantville, by the way, Mr. Chairman, might take advantage of the opportunity

for these little ten-minute back and forth speeches to get up and tell us about

his public meeting he held at the Holiday Inn last week. I apologize to him, I

was not able to get up to it. I did get an invitation, of course, through the

news media, the newspaper. I indicated to him, half in jest, that I would help

encourage people to attend by photocopying the ad that he had in the paper and

passing it out to anybody that I saw. It happened to be the day there were a

couple of hundred people out here in the gallery on the MUN extension issue. So

I did pass it out to twenty or thirty people and -

MR. NOEL: I think you did not get as many people

(inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No. That was the only effort we undertook, and

I did it on the insistence of the Member for Pleasantville.

MR. WARREN: If you had not, he would have had an empty

building.

MR. SIMMS: If I had not done that, by the way, they would

have had an empty building probably, because I do not think too many people in

the Pleasantville district were that interested in talking to the Member for

Pleasantville.

So I gather he had, I do not know, fifty or sixty people, was

it?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is all.

MR. SIMMS: Fifty or sixty people is not all. That is a

fairly good turn-out, a pretty strong turn-out. I have no doubt they are all

supporters of the Member for Pleasantville.

MR. NOEL: There were some who were not from

Pleasantville, but they came (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay. Glad to hear the Member say that,

because what we intend to do is take a transcript from Hansard, when it is

published on Tuesday, and send it out to some of the people we know and give

them an opportunity to indicate whether or not they agree that you were able to

turn them around by the end of the meeting. We will see what they have to say

about the member's.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your protection.

The Minister of Labour, who is not only not in her own seat - I do not know if

she is in anybody's seat up there, she is in the aisle - to be heckling and

shouting across the House is most inappropriate during debate.

As a matter of fact, what would be appropriate is if the

Minister would take advantage of this occasion to stand in her place and tell us

her views and opinions on the latest controversy with the firefighters, for

example, a number of whom I know are from her constituency. She could give us

her opinion on that latest controversy, or she could get up and give us an

update on the health and safety questions that have been asked in this House

over the last few weeks. The Member for St. John's East, for example, had some

very important questions, I believe, a couple of weeks ago; or she could get up

and tell us if she has any concerns about labour relations in the Province and

whether or not they are being affected negatively, as a result of the actions of

this Government, particularly Bill 16; or, we could get the President of

Treasury Board, the Member for Gander, to stand and tell us once again what a

warm welcome he received out in Gander the other night. I think there was a

discrepancy between his description of how he was received and how the news

media certainly described it, as I understand it.

The Government House Leader said he was met by a small

contingent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Twenty-five or thirty.

MR. SIMMS: Twenty-five or thirty people, is the way he

sloughed it off. I did not see him myself, but I gather from friends and

colleagues that the news media kind of indicated it was a much larger group than

that and certainly a much noisier and boisterous group than the Government House

Leader led us to believe.

So maybe the Member for Harbour Grace will stand. I remind

him that he is allowed to speak on any issue at all. I mean, it is a

wide-ranging debate on a finance bill. You do not have to ask the Premier's

permission is what the member said, and the Member for Harbour Grace knows that.

The Member for Harbour Grace is a delightful gentleman. He

has been around a nice while, I guess. Unfortunately, he has been in the House a

couple of years and he has not graced us very often with his eloquence. He has

not stood in the House very often. He must admit and confess, he has not stood

up. I encourage him, because this is a wonderful opportunity in this kind of a

debate, with a ten minute time limit, to get up. Maybe the member is a bit

nervous about getting on his feet, and that would not be unusual, there are lots

of people like that. He is probably not nervous about standing on his feet at a

meeting of the Orange Lodge or anything like that, I am sure. He would not be

nervous about that, or the Masonic Lodge, or anything like that. I am sure he

would not be nervous about that. So, I encourage him to get up in this kind of a

debate.

But, the Minister of Finance will possibly participate again

a little later in the debate and take advantage of the debating opportunity to

attack the Opposition, as he often does, for frequently not being relevant; but,

of course, he must be fair and indicate that in a debate of this kind, relevance

is very difficult to define, particularly in a finance bill, and the rulings

year after year, decade after decade, century after century, have indicated that

the debate on a finance bill is very, very wide-ranging.

I am trying to cover a whole number of bases. I am trying to

encourage members opposite to get up and speak and participate, because it is

supposed to be a debate, and a debate takes two sides. Unfortunately, we have

monopolized the debate in this House since it opened late in February. The

Opposition have monopolized the debate, for very good reasons. We are the