November

25, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 69

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise this hon. House today

that government has approved an amendment to the Wildlife Regulations 1984,

which will be gazetted in the next few days. These regulations will allow the

sale of moose and caribou antlers and other parts such as hooves for the purpose

of manufacturing of crafts by recognized craft operators resident in the

Province. I emphasize the "resident in the Province."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: This has been done to facilitate the use of

both the shed antlers and those antlers acquired through legal hunting. Mr.

Speaker, in the past it was legal for hunters to give away antlers and parts

from moose and caribou but they were not allowed to sell them. While that

provision was meant to ensure the elimination of illegal hunting for antlers and

other parts, it created problems for legitimate use of these parts in the crafts

industry which could not get enough material for their operations.

The new regulations will require the purchasers of antlers

and other parts to obtain a permit from the Wildlife Division of the Department

of Natural Resources. The permit holders will be required to maintain records of

their acquisitions and information from licence holders from whom they make a

purchase. These procedures are aimed at ensuring that only legally taken antlers

and parts are sold. The new regulations will also allow under permit the

gathering of antlers shed annually by animals. The sale of the shed antlers will

now be permitted.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that these regulations will maintain a

balance between the need to protect our valuable wildlife resource and the

legitimate needs of the craft manufacturers of this Province to utilize these

normally discarded parts for various products. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Here is an example

again of what we have been saying all along about this government and different

ministers in this Administration not listening, not consulting with people. Why

should people in this Province have to be criminalized before such an action is

taken? Just in the last couple of days, my colleague, the hon. the Member, for

Green Bay, brought in petitions on behalf of a constituent of his, and now the

minister has acted in a rational way to try to help the craft industry in this

Province.

That is the way it should be done, not the other way. Tell

the people up front, consult with the people, you would be much better off.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not having a

written statement. I would like to announce simply that government has decided

to refund the RST on the unused portions of the Hiland Insurance policies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: This is to avoid double taxation, obviously,

and it will amount to a cost of about $800,000 to government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another example of the government yielding to pressure but

better late than never.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Now, let's have the inquiry, let's have the

independent full inquiry into the government insurance regulatory system. The

inquiry can be set up now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: - it doesn't conflict with the criminal

investigation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to some

answers that the Premier provided to the House and to me last Friday concerning

the Trans City contracts. Last Friday he told us that he had

appointed a committee of Cabinet consisting of the then Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir; the then

Minister of Justice; Your Honour, the Speaker, the Member for Humber West; the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the President of Treasury Board

to take care of the tenders and the contracts for lease purchase of the three

health care centres in question.

Now, taking the responsibilities out of the hands of the

officials in the Department of Justice, and so on, passing them on over to a

committee of Cabinet ministers is highly unusual. Before we had public tendering

it was probably normal. But could the Premier explain why this Cabinet committee

was set up in the first place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, it is

incorrect to say that I appointed a Cabinet committee. Cabinet appointed a

committee. It was done in a Cabinet meeting. Secondly, it is incorrect to say

that it related to Trans City. It related to the entire program of building

health care facilities. Why it was set up in the first place was fairly simple,

Mr. Speaker. My recollection of it, and I would have to go back and check this

to be sure, so I do not want anybody to hold me absolutely to this unless I

check it, my recollection is that the government had received some considerable

pressure from a number of sources, including in the health care, to say part of

the reason why you are running into high cost for building health care

facilities is you are coming out with these detailed and extensive

specifications by architects, engineers, and so on, and this is running into

excessive costs. Why do you not invite proposals? You would be surprised, you

may get some very good proposals, get good health care facilities, and save you

a lot of money, so we invited proposals, Mr. Speaker.

That was a different process. We set the standard. It was not

the conventional design and call tender process, so a committee was put in place

to deal with this whole process. It was the Minister of Finance, the Minister of

Justice, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. That was the

committee and that is why it was done.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it would have been more plausible

if the Premier had admitted that the purpose of the committee was to make sure

that Marco Construction got the contracts to build those hospitals because that

is what this is all about.

Let me ask a straightforward, simple question. Why would the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology be on this particular committee if it

was set up to deal with the building of hospitals, and why was the Minister of

Health not on that committee?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it was not set up to deal

only with the building of hospitals. Health care facilities was what was before

us at that point in time, but the objective of it was to take a new approach to

it in the Province and to consider taking a new approach, not just to hospital

buildings, hospital is one, it could apply to other buildings as well, schools,

university construction buildings, any variety of buildings that government

builds. The same approach would apply to all such buildings.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that is what the

Premier told us in the House last Friday. I believe he told us it was set up to

deal with this issue of the tendering on the question of the hospital health

care contracts so it is one thing or the other, you can't have it both ways.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a further question to the Premier.

We now have learned that taxpayers are paying for a private

lawyer to represent the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,

the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir in the current court proceedings regarding

these hospital contracts. That too, is highly unusual, because I think it is

well-known that a Minister of the Crown or a former minister for that matter

would be normally entitled to and given the services of a Crown solicitor from

the Department of Justice on any matter arising from the performance of his or

her legitimate responsibilities as a Minister of the Crown, so I would like to

ask the Premier and the Minister of Justice, two short questions: Is the former

minister's interest in this particular matter different or at odds with the

interest of the Crown, would that be the reason why you would provide him with a

private lawyer and how much will this cost the taxpayers? What rate is being

paid to this private lawyer?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know the detail of it. It was done

during the period of my predecessor in office but I will find out the detail and

advise the House; but I do recall the reasoning given for it because the

minister at the time enquired of me as to my views as to the acceptability of

doing it, and it is a fairly straightforward position.

Mr. Gilbert, who is the former minister that is involved,

felt it inappropriate and so did the minister, that he should be taking advice

or depending upon advice from an official from the Department of Justice when in

fact that same Department of Justice was in the process of conducting an action

against him on a criminal matter, so it just separates the two.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier will

table the information for us as to what the rate of pay and the cost is?

Well, just one final question: The Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir was a member of the Cabinet committee that we talked about earlier;

what I would like to ask the Premier is this: does the government expect that it

may have to engage private lawyers to advise the other ministers who are on this

patronage committee to oversee this particular matter?

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not getting up?

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier too; questions about the

conduct of the Member for Naskaupi while he was still Attorney General.

According to the Premier's own statement announcing the

resignation of the member as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the

statement the Premier issued on Tuesday, after search warrants were issued for

the RCMP to search the premises of the member's businesses, the member

interfered with the police investigation while he was still Attorney General.

In paragraph three of the Premier's statement it says that

the member, while still Attorney General, along with certain directors and the

company solicitor, caused enquiries to be made, and turned over to the police

further information in relation to the activities of certain employees of the

businesses.

Now, the police had search warrants for good reasons. Will

the Premier admit it was completely wrong for the Attorney General of the

Province to meddle with the police investigation by influencing which documents

were turned over to the police?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is difficult to believe that any hon.

member could devise such a totally unfounded proposition and put it forward.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I said no such thing. If the hon. member

is prepared to read the whole statement, she will know that the instruction by

me to the Deputy Attorney General was: the Attorney General was not to be aware

of it at all until the search warrants were fully executed and the police had

whatever they wanted. That was done and complete, and it wasn't through the

Deputy Attorney General or it wasn't through me that the minister became aware.

The minister became aware through company sources, as far as I know, through the

company solicitor, who advised the minister.

After the search warrants had been executed and the police

had obtained whatever information they wanted, it was then that the directors

took this additional action and found additional information that the police had

not sought, that they turned over to the police. Now I can only commend such

action, not condemn it as the hon. member seeks to do.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is shameful for the Premier of the Province to be

covering up for the former Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Now, I am not asking about just any company

directors. I am asking about the former Attorney General who acted, while he was

still Attorney General, by causing enquiries to be made and influencing which

documents were turned over to the police.

Now I say to the Premier, as Attorney General now, will the

Premier cause a police investigation to be conducted into the conduct of the

former member in meddling with the police investigation by attempting to

influence which documents were turned over to the police? Doesn't the Premier

believe that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The only thing that I have seen that

warrants investigation is the reprehensible conduct of the hon. member.

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

for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has gone along with the pretence of

the Member for Naskaupi, who seems to lead a charmed life in the Premier's

administration, that the member was at arm's length from Pharmaceutical

Supplies, which was selling millions of dollars worth of supplies and drugs to

the Province's hospitals and nursing homes each year. If the member was at arm's

length from Pharmaceutical Supplies what was the member doing while still

Attorney General, while still in the Cabinet, along with company directors and

the company lawyer, causing enquiries to be made and turning documents over to

the police? Will the Premier finally do the proper thing and drop this member

from his Cabinet altogether?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is fortunate that this

government believes in prosecution in accordance with the rule of law, not

persecution in accordance with furthering political objectives.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister

of Education and Training. There are 211 recommendations in the Williams royal

commission. The minister knows that 80 per cent of these recommendations -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm having trouble hearing the hon. member.

MR. HODDER: There are 211 recommendations in the Williams

royal commission. The minister knows that 80 per cent of these recommendations

can be implemented under the legislative authority already granted to the

government, and that a further 10 per cent has been approved in principle

through consensus building between the government and the church leaders. If the

minister is truly committed to reforms in the educational system, why does he

not introduce his legislative amendments in this session of the House?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for

his question, but I have to confess I'm having a difficult time keeping up with

members opposite. One minute they come in and criticize government because we

are not moving fast enough with the implementation of the royal commission; the

next day they come in and say: Let's give the churches a solemn declaration that

no matter what we will not touch the Constitution. That in itself is saying:

Slow down the implementation. I think it is time to have a christening. I use to

call the hon. member `flip-flop,' but he is changing so swiftly I think it would

be more adequate for me to call him `spin top.' He is continually going around

and around. I can't keep up with the hon. member. From henceforth he is no

longer `flip-flop,' it is `spin top.'

The royal commission is divided into two broad general

sections. About twenty of those recommendations have implication for governance.

In order for us to go ahead with these twenty-odd recommendations we would

either have to have a consensus by the churches or we would have to have a

change of Constitution, whichever way we want to do that. We can't move on these

twenty. That is what all the talks have been about, these twenty. Some have said

twenty-five, some have said fifteen, but there are a certain number of

recommendations that have implications for the Constitution.

The hon. member is quite right. All the other recommendations

can be implemented without consent of the churches. What the hon. member doesn't

seem to realize is exactly that is happening. For example, the hon. member will

realize that a few days ago we published some of the results of the

standardization tests. That is right out of the royal commission. We are trying

to determine how one school is doing in comparison to another. We have developed

testing which is second to none in this country. We are using the testing.

The kindergarten. We plan to go ahead this fall, if not with

a full-fledged full day kindergarten, but we will be going ahead with some pilot

projects. The curriculum for kindergarten has been fully developed. We are now

talking to the NTA about it to get further feedback.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. minister to draw his answer to a close.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I can go on with a whole lot of

recommendations. The teacher training has been dealt with with Memorial

University, the curriculum in the high school has been totally re-evaluated, Mr.

Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the minister for his answer and I

will ask for a supplementary from the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a year ago the reforms were due

to be implemented by September. In fact, at one point they were to be introduced

last spring. Put off to some time last year, then it was going to be in this

session of the Legislature. I say to the minister, three of the government's

primary objectives, as I understand it, and he can confirm it, have been

achieved in negotiation with the churches. It is my understanding that

agreements in principle have been reached on a Province-wide prioritization of

school construction, the reduction of school boards to ten, and an acceptable

model to rationalize school bus transportation. These were primary objectives of

the ministry. Will the minister confirm that agreements in principle have been

reached on these three primary objectives of the Administration, and would he

therefore implement the necessary legislative changes to the legislation of the

Province to get on with the job of reform?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to have

half the facts. Remember where the mate on the ship was drunk and the captain

wrote in on one entry that the mate was drunk today, and that was the truth. The

next day the mate wrote in that the captain is sober today, and that was the

truth, but the log showed only one entry that the captain was sober. It was the

truth, but not the complete truth.

Here is the problem with the hon. member. Yes, we all agree

on ten boards. If we really pushed it, I believe we could get the church to

agree on five boards, but the problem is, when we talk about a board, what is a

board? What government means by a board and what churches mean by a board are

two totally different things.

For example, one of the problems, government wants ten

interdenominational boards with provision for the non-adherents to have

representation on the boards as well and, in most respects, that board would

govern the school system with provisions made for some of the uni-denominations

where a committee of the board would have input into the hiring of teachers,

(inaudible) in the schools, and pastoral care.

Now the churches, on that particular issue, are insisting

that those committees on the boards would have statutory authority; they would

be there by statute. They would, for all intents and purposes, on many issues,

become boards in themselves, so you would have boards within boards. Ezekiel

talked about the wheel within a wheel; we are talking about boards within

boards, and those boards, in many respects, those inter-commissions that the

churches want to call them, would have more authority on some respects than the

whole general board would.

So, yes, we can get ten boards. Yes, we can get five boards

if we wanted to, but when you consider the power of those commissions within the

boards you could end up with - well, I suppose in an extreme case you could have

a board with five commissions within that board, and each commission would have

more authority than the board, in certain respects. So that is the problem. The

hon. member has half the truth when he knows there are ten boards, but it is the

power of the commissions within the boards.

Now, the hon. member talked about the school construction

committee. I have to answer it, Mr. Speaker. If he keeps asking questions that

need long answers, I have to answer it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister has taken about two-and-a-half minutes

already. I will give him thirty seconds to complete the answer.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, you will have to put those

questions on the Order Paper because I don't have time.

The school construction body the hon. member talked about,

yes, we agree on a school construction body. Yes, at least one of the churches

is prepared to forget the cyclical nature whereby every five years we balance

out, but at least one of the churches is insisting that over a certain period of

time that their church would get their amount of money over a five year period,

so instead of having nondiscriminatory distribution in one year, that church -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the minister is going to take any longer, the minister can

put it on the Order Paper (inaudible).

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, a final

supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in 1962-'63 there were 1,249

schools in this Province. Through a process of negotiations, compromise, trust,

and consensus building, that number has been reduced to 477 as of today's date.

That means we have closed an average of twenty-four schools per year for

thirty-one years.

These changes were achieved without constitutional amendment.

Why does the minister not today open up a new dialogue with the churches and

abandon his threats, his intimidation, and the whole process of referendums and

constitutional amendments?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, in 1962 - well okay, in the

1970s, I am not sure of the '62 figure. In the 1970s, there were 179,000

students in this Province. Today, Mr. Speaker, there are less than 115,000. This

past year alone, enrollment declined, Mr. Speaker, by 4,000 students. That is

one of the explanations why the number of classrooms is getting smaller. It is

simply declining enrollment, Mr. Speaker. What the hon. member does not pick up

and he is talking the line that the churches are talking. The churches are

suggesting that we can achieve what we want to achieve by joint services. The

system remains the same in most respects but where it is impossible to have a

viable school, you would have a joint service. Now that is what the church is

talking about.

Government is talking about a true inter-denominational

system, church based school system, true inter-denominational, Mr. Speaker,

where you will not be busing your high school Catholics out of Pouch Cove to St.

John's, your high school Protestants out of Pouch Cove to St. John's and trying

to maintain two elementary schools side by side in Pouch Cove, Mr. Speaker.

One example he says. I can take him up to Roddickton, Mr.

Speaker, two schools 1,000 feet apart. I can take him to dozens and dozens of

communities in this Province where two schools and sometimes three schools are

trying to deliver education but the argument comes back, `but look what we have

done.' What we do not point out is that we still send buses out to Brigus every

school morning and pick up all the Protestant children in Brigus and move them

to Bay Roberts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: And then we send a bus into Bay Roberts and

pick up all the Catholic children and bus them into Brigus, Mr. Speaker!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister is -

MR. DECKER: This is what we are trying to (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the minister to resume his seat.

MR. DECKER: Every morning children are bused past Prince

of Wales -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

When I call the House to order I would like the members to at

least listen, particularly the minister answering a question. Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Premier, who is now

responsible for Justice as well as other responsibilities, on November 23, on

Wednesday of this week, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking on a petition here in the

House pertaining to Hiland Insurance.

The Premier, in response to that petition, said that he had -

in debate I mentioned the fact and asked the question I suppose, in an indirect

way, about the reporting requirements of Hiland Insurance. The Premier, in his

response, five times stated, `so far as I know, to the best of my knowledge.'

`So far as I know,' and I assume that Hiland had met the reporting requirements

as it pertains to the insurance industry in the Province. Could the Premier now

be more categoric today and tell me if Hiland Insurance had met all the

reporting requirements as it pertained to that insurance company?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have not done any further enquiries

since. Although since that time I have had a meeting with Mr. Tapper, who is the

Superintendent of Insurance. While I did not discuss that issue with him

specifically at that time, my recollection of the context of that whole

discussion, was that indeed there was no concern about the filing requirements

of Hiland in March, April or up until August. The license, I believe, was

renewed in August and the superintendent was satisfied that the requirements up

until August, at least, were met.

Now I remind hon. members of this, there are two aspects to

this. There is the aspect of the level of reinsurance, the contracts for

reinsurance obligations being taken on and the extent to which Hiland was

required to provide for reinsurance, they were deficient some time in January.

The superintendent tells me that was corrected on January 19, that was fully

corrected and maintained in a correct state.

They were also concerned about the level of capital because

of the level of insurance and the lack of reinsurance but the level of capital

in the company, that too was corrected by, he says, the injection of some

$300,000 of additional equity capital in the company and over the period of time

that was maintained. So that in August of 1994, when the license was re-issued -

MS. VERGE: But the other concern (inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: If the hon. member would stop prattling I

would try and answer the member's question.

Up until August 1994 when the license was re-issued, the

superintendent was satisfied that the reporting and other requirements were met;

but now I also remind hon. members that there is a police investigation underway

at this moment into certain matters relating to the handling and management of

Hiland Insurance. There are certain aspects of it that I would be causing

interference in that police investigation if I mention it to the House. I just

say to hon. members, let the police do their work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Stop trying to interfere with what the

police are doing. I am satisfied on everything that I have seen to date that Mr.

Tapper, at least up until August 1994, and I presume sometime thereafter, fully

met the requirements of his responsibility as Superintendent of Insurance. I am

satisfied as to that.

Now, in the meantime, other actions were taken with respect

to Hiland Insurance. There is a police investigation with respect to that

matter; please stop trying to interfere with it and let the investigation take

its course. They will finish shortly and if the superintendent did anything

wrong, the government will answer for the superintendent.

MS. VERGE: What about if the minister is doing something

wrong?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The question that I am asking this morning does not only

pertain to Hiland; those requirements and regulatory processes apply to every

other insurance company in the Province, it has nothing to do with a court case.

Now for the first time since the questioning began on this,

about a month ago, since November 4 especially, it goes back to October 3, that

the Premier has admitted that there were some concerns as it pertains to the

reporting requirements of Hiland. He just said that there were deficiencies with

regards to re-insurance; there were deficiencies with regards to capital

requirements. I ask the Premier today, could he tell me now if there were any

other deficiencies that were found by the Superintendent of Insurance back as

early as March, Mr. Speaker, that this government and the Superintendent of

Insurance did not take any action on?

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to read

all of the documents tabled in the House on November 18, and he will see

everything I have just said with respect to the reporting requirements, he will

see everything -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - he will see everything that I just said

with respect to the level of capital in the company, he will see everything that

I have just said with respect to the contracts of re-insurance, all of that was

there and reported by the Minister of Justice on 18 of November in documents

tabled in the House.

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

for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Could the Premier, in his capacity now as Minister of

Justice, tell the House today or confirm to the House that all other insurance

companies in the Province operating under the auspices of the Superintendent of

Insurance have met all the reporting requirements?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have no reason whatsoever to think

anything to the contrary, but I will enquire of the Superintendent of Insurance

and I will ask him to enquire and report to the House. You see, we have a civil

service system. The politicians do not run the system of insurance; we have a

civil service system and we entrust those responsibilities to the civil servants

and I am confident that Mr. Tapper has performed his duties in that. If I did

not have that confidence in Mr. Tapper, I would put somebody else in to perform

the duties, but I will make an enquiry of Mr. Tapper, I will tell him of the

concern expressed by the hon. member and ask him to provide the information to

assure the hon. member that the reporting requirements have been met.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Provide For Economic

Diversification And Growth Enterprises In The Province".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic

Act".

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Livestock Insurance

Act".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce the following bills, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act",

"An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act", and "An Act To Amend The Mining And

Mineral Rights Tax Act".

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Wilderness And

Ecological Reserves Act".

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for St.

Mary's - The Capes last week in the Legislature was asking for information with

respect to the amounts of money spent to date in planning, studying, and

preparing for the Caboto Legacy Building. I will table the information. The

money has been coming forward from the budget of Works, Services and

Transportation in advanced planning and studies. The tabled amounts here today

will show that as of November 21, 1994 the total paid was $304,659. Ongoing work

not yet invoiced would bring it to $400,000 and we expect additional commitments

with the site study for Fort Townsend which is ongoing now, conceptional design

and so on, to bring the total to the end of December, 1994 to $530,000. I would

like to table that information, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, when I rose in this hon. Chamber

yesterday to answer the question regarding the issuance of sea urchin processing

licenses posed by the hon. Member for Grand Bank I interpreted the question as

to whether government had recently issued a stand alone license for primary

processing of sea urchin who are 3 T Fishery of Bonne Bay.

Since that time I have acquired a copy of Hansard and I

realize that I interpreted the question wrong. The question that was posed was:

can he confirm that a sea urchin processing licence was issued in the last few

days to 3 T Fishery of Bonne Bay? Of course the question that I had interpreted,

whether a stand alone licence was issued was definitely, no.

To answer the question that was recorded in Hansard I must

tell this House that government saw fit to issue three additional licences in

order to further develop that species.

In order to be fair to all, government solicited proposals

from all interested parties in this Province and we received twenty-eight

proposals. We reviewed them carefully, and on the strength of those proposals,

three additional primary licences to process sea urchin were issued to companies

that already hold primary processing licences for groundfish. One of those was

indeed 3 T's of Bonne Bay.

So the three licences that were issued were licences to

process sea urchin, and were tack-on licences to already existing primary

processing licences. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House there

were a couple of questions, and I now have the information that I can provide.

One was from the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, who asked me if I

knew what date HMDC expected to get the work that was being sent to Saint John

back and completed. He asked me what date they expected to get it from Marystown

had it been left in Marystown. I knew the answer with respect to Marystown. I

told the House I wasn't certain of the answer with respect to Saint John.

Yesterday afternoon, at a meeting with the Marystown Town

Council and Mr. Ken Hull of HMDC, I asked that question. He told me, the date

they expected to have it completed at Saint John was October 15, 1995.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I undertook to inform the House, so I've

informed the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, what he expected for Marystown was

sometime in 1996.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not what he (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I know what Mr. Ruelokke told him, but the

question was when HMDC expected to get it, so that is the answer I have given.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was the Member for Grand Bank who

asked me another question about the role played by my executive assistant in

Corner Brook, Eddie Joyce, in relation to the application for a sea urchin

processing - primary licence to process sea urchin in Frenchman's Cove in the

Bay of Islands. I am pleased to advise the House that virtually every allegation

made in the course of asking that question is false, is totally wrong, totally

incorrect.

Mr. Joyce did indeed release the information but he released

it with the full consent of Mr. David Joyce, the proponent, having obtained it

beforehand.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. David Joyce says it is true, Mr. Eddie

Joyce says it is true. I certainly accept their word over the hon. member's

allegation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: As to the allegation -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The mayor told me that Dave Joyce

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: As to the allegation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Does anybody wonder why I repeat myself in

Hansard? It is pretty obvious. You have to, trying to get over the roaring

noises from the opposite side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: As to the allegation that Mr. Joyce

interfered with the application to promote the interests of others, Mr. Joyce

advises me - and I have no reason not to accept what he says - that his first

knowledge of that application was two weeks after the request was rejected.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I say to the

Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, I asked you to table a list of all

the sea urchin processing licences issued and when they were issued, and I say

to the Premier that Mr. David Joyce told me yesterday, that Mr. Eddy Joyce

released this information without his permission and he summed up by saying that

he has been ruined by Mr. Ed Joyce. He spent $20,000 preparing this and your

assistant went and made it public to every processor in the Province. He has

ruined him, and I say to the Premier, the information you have been getting is

not correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member does not have a point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order, let me

say simply that -

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I don't need to

hear from the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may make a further point

of order, then?

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

MR. ROBERTS: What I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is this: my

submission is that the hon. the Member for Grand Bank inadvertently abused the

rules of point of order and in making that submission, I want to point out that

if the hon. the Member for Grand Bank has a quarrel with anybody, it is not with

those of us on this side who have told him the truth -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from Mount

Pearl by way of Lewisporte should try to keep quiet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) all day telling people to sit

down, now it is your turn to sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Let me hear if the Government House Leader has a point of

order or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I still can't hear the hon. the Government

House Leader. We could be here a long time trying to find it.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the point I was making is in

the same vein as that of my friend, the Member for Grand Bank, that if he has a

quarrel with anybody, it is with the gentleman whom he told us, and I accept the

hon. gentleman's word - who told him yesterday -

MR. SIMMS: Do you like to listen to yourself or what?

MR. ROBERTS: I would rather listen to myself than to the

hon. the Member for Grand Falls. At least, Mr. Speaker, I make some sense. Mr.

Speaker, when I am being obnoxious it is because I am trying to be, unlike the

hon. gentleman from Grand Falls who makes it on his own.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I always find Friday mornings are a little more boisterous

than normal. I am struggling with the early stages of laryngitis, I'm sure, but

if I could have the silence of the House for a few minutes I will hear the hon.

the Government House Leader, and perhaps make a ruling, if not -

MR. ROBERTS: All I was trying to say is that my friend -

MR. SPEAKER: - with the due leave of the - I will sit him

down if he doesn't have something, I tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition,

otherwise, I will never tell if I don't hear him.

MR. ROBERTS: - the Member for Grand Bank, if he has a

quarrel - and I accept what he says in this House, as I know he accepts what the

Premier says - if he has a quarrel, Mr. Speaker, the quarrel is with the

gentleman who gave him the information, because it appears that the gentleman

who gave him the information, for whatever reason, misinformed the hon.

gentleman and I accept that.

MR. WINDSOR: A point of abuse, Mr. Speaker - that's all

that is.

MR. SIMMS: You're better off, sitting down, `Ed'.

MR. SPEAKER: Well I don't really need to hear more on the

point of order. Hon. members rise at any point to use points of orders as an

opportunity to put matters before the House in contention with other members

and, of course, the problem with the Chair is, you have to hear something before

you decide whether or not it is a point of order and usually the member has made

his point and then sits down. If the hon. member has a legitimate point of

order, I will hear him, but if he just wishes to pass argument back and forth, I

would rather not get involved in that. I will give him the opportunity in this

case.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I was responding to the

point of order made by the Government House Leader and I just want to say to him

that, I mean, what I reported to the House is what happened yesterday and I

can't believe that Mr. David Joyce would call me, so concerned about what has

happened to his business plan. I mean, why would he do that?

Now, I am not saying that the Premier didn't report what he

was told by Mr. Ed Joyce, or whoever, I'm not saying that, but I can't believe

that Mr. David Joyce would call me yesterday, so concerned about the release of

confidential information from his business plan that he paid for and that he

says has ruined him because other processors now have available, the information

that they can utilize. So I say to the Premier and to the point of order, that I

think the Premier should look at it again and make sure that what he reported to

the House today is indeed correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just on matters such as this, I will refer the members to

paragraph 494 of Beauchesne which addresses these circumstances and it has

occurred before, has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members

respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be

accepted", as the hon. the Opposition House Leader says. "It is not

unparliamentary temperately to criticize statements made by Members as being

contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is

permissible. On rare occasions this may result in the House having to accept two

contradictory accounts of the same incident." I think that is very

straightforward.

Petitions

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of thirty-three

people in the community of Point Lance in my district. Yesterday, due to Roberts

rules of order, I was not permitted to present this to the House, and I am very

pleased to have the opportunity to present it today.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am presenting this on behalf of

several people who are in desperate need of employment and are looking forward

to this Provincial Government bringing forward some type of employment

generation program. Mr. Speaker, the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland

in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asks for the House of Assembly to accept

the following prayer:

`We, the undersigned, do hereby request the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to

generate desperately needed employment in our communities. As in duty bound,

your petitioners will ever pray.'

Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of weeks, my office, and I

am sure, offices of hon. members on both sides of the House, have received

several requests and more or less concerns about the possibility of an

employment generation program this Fall. I am pleased to know that the hon. the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is in Ottawa now trying to work out

some type of deal with the Federal Government on a cost-shared agreement, to

come forward with some type of program but, at the same time, I think the onus

is on the Provincial Government to come forward with some dollars, too.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about the amount of dollars being spent,

while I sit here and thank the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation for

tabling today expenses that have so far been utilized in relation to the Caboto

Centre - we are looking at around $400,000 that has already been spent on this

piece of property and on four sites that were being looked at for selection -

and at the same time, after this money has been spent, Mr. Speaker, the

department decides to select another site. There seems to be a fair amount of

money for some things, Mr. Speaker, while people who are looking for work in,

not only in my district but indeed the districts of all of us, that there does

not seem to be the dollars there to take care of those people.

Mr. Speaker, there is a fair number of people who have been

lucky enough, should I say, to be part of the TAGS Program, but then there is a

fair number of people who are not so lucky, who had what you would call indirect

jobs in relation to the fishing industry. Those people didn't have the

opportunity to be part of the TAGS Program and therefore, now, are finding it

very difficult especially as we are only a month away from Christmas. Those

people are very concerned about Christmas time and beyond. Young families, Mr.

Speaker, for the first time in their lives, many have had to resort to social

assistance. While this is a sad commentary on behalf of the Province, Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the government of the day has an onus to provide at

least some type of work. That is not the answer to all of our problems. These

short-term programs are definitely not the answer to the problems that we face,

not only in rural Newfoundland, from what I hear on the radio, the problems are

just as huge right here in the City of St. John's and indeed the whole Province.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is an onus on government to come forward.

I hope the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

returns from Ottawa with some good news, but in case he doesn't, I hope for some

reason or other that he can convince his Cabinet colleagues to come forward with

some type of employment generation program so that these people who are in

desperate of some type of employment will see at least some dollars put in their

pockets before Christmas, or early in the new year.

The thirty-three people from Point Lance who signed this

petition which I present to the House today are people who have decided to make

their homes in rural Newfoundland, who have decided to stay in their home town

of Point Lance, and for that reason I believe they are being penalized. Over the

years we talked about the TAGS program or the NCARP program, and all the

different types of training that is available to these people, but most of this

training is more or less provided so that people can find jobs that are

definitely not in the community of Point Lance, or in the immediate area, but

are a one-way ticket off the Island.

I think this, Mr. Speaker, is wrong and I think people should

have an opportunity at least to do whatever they can to stay in their own

community and do some work. Last week I heard the Minister of Finance relate to

a positive review of this year's finances with hopefully saving some money on

the borrowing of the government. While I realize that the minister has a debt to

worry about, he should also hopefully lean towards the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations with some dollars to provide this very necessary work.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise today to support the petition presented by my

colleague, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, and strongly urge the

government to consider the points he has made here today in responding to a

crisis in this Province at the moment where people who never before will end up

on the social services lines like they never have.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations after his discussions yesterday with the federal minister for

Newfoundland, Mr. Brian Tobin, comes back successfully with some dollars from

the Federal Government. The fact remains that it is not the Federal Government's

responsibility to respond to this issue. It is the Provincial Government's

responsibility. It has been, it is, and it always will be their responsibility.

Over the last three years this government in times of crisis

saw that an emergency existed in the Province and responded with an emergency

employment program. Today the unemployment rate in this Province is higher than

it has ever been and this government has decided to do nothing.

MR. GRIMES: That is not true.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is so true, I say to the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation and he knows it. If he talked with Statistics

Canada last week he would know that the unemployment rate today is 20.9 per

cent.

MR. GRIMES: It has never been higher than that since -

MR. E. BYRNE: That is not what I said.

MR. GRIMES: That is what you just said.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the reality is this, and the

minister may try to detract from the issue by getting into what is the

unemployment rate, but the fact is that there are 20.9 per cent of

Newfoundlanders who are unemployed today and that is unacceptable.

Province need a program today. Why the Member for Windsor - Buchans who publicly

supports such a program did not stand in this House and support these petitions

is beyond me. The Member for Twillingate did stand and said that he would be

remiss in his duties if he did not stand and request his government, the

government which he sits with, that they respond to the crisis and this

emergency. The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains publicly indicated that he

needs in his district a program. They have not spoken to this petition or to

petitions presented by this House, and as a matter of fact they have not

presented petitions themselves.

The reality is this, whether you like it or whether you lump

it, people in this Province today need help, and this government has not

responded to date. Now, what we may in fact see next week is the long arm of the

Federal Government reaching out to this Province, accepting responsibility that

this government should have accepted six to eight weeks ago, but the jury is

still out on that and we will see what next week brings.

Now, last year the former minister brought in a $6 million

program to respond to an employment crisis in this Province. The people need it,

they people deserve it, and we have a moral responsibility to respond. This

government has spent close to $7 million on the privatization of Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro, that people clearly did not want. They clearly did not want

it.

We have spent $1 million putting together an Income

Supplementation Program that was presented to the Federal Government without any

consultation. Where is that proposal now? It is a million dollar proposal

sitting on the shelf, collecting dust, that will never be implemented - a

complete waste.

This government recently spent $1 million on reforming or

updating the Elections Act, or the election enumeration list. We are at least

two-and-a-half years away from a provincial election - a complete waste, I say

to the relic sitting opposite me, a complete waste, yet no response to the

people of this Province who need two, three and four weeks work to gain enough

insurable weeks to keep food on their tables, to pay their mortgages, to pay

their rent, to pay their light bills. No, this government has not responded -

has not responded to date.

Mr. Speaker, day after day we have presented petitions here.

We have outlined the real stories. I, myself, told the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board three specific incidents of 195 people I have on a list from my

district who are in desperate shape.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of citizens of this

Province who, `as undersigned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, vehemently

oppose the proposed changes to the Highway Traffic Act regarding the elimination

of the motor vehicle safety inspections, and demand this be reconsidered in the

best interests of the people of this Province.'

Mr. Speaker, this particular petition is signed by fifty-six

Newfoundlanders, but I am told that it represents part of a petition being

collected that has anywhere between 25,000 and 50,000 (inaudible) signatures so

far of people who are opposed to changes brought about by this government under

the name of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, changes that

will eliminate the mandatory requirement of annual inspections for older

vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister concerned, the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation, has gotten involved in a lot of

rhetorical badinage back and forth in the House about this issue, and some might

think he doesn't take it seriously, but I want to say to the House that this is

a very serious safety issue, and that the people who were involved in the

protest outside the House yesterday were people who were sincerely concerned

about the issue as it related to public safety.

Now, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was

there at that protest demonstration, and he engaged in some conversation with

the people who were there, and it was fairly obvious that the minister was not

prepared to listen to these people because he said they had a self-interest; all

they were interested in was their own business interest. That is all they were

interested in, and he was putting this forth as the only people - and he said

this in the House yesterday - that the only people out there yesterday that he

believed concerned about this issue were the people who stood to gain or lose by

it.

Mr. Speaker, that is so far from the truth, as will be

presented to this House when the 50,000 signatures - there aren't 50,000 garage

owners or mechanics in this Province. The ordinary people of this Province are

concerned about safety on the highways.

The minister tried to justify this in various ways. One of

his justifications for removing the inspection procedure was that only 1 per

cent - he said only 1 per cent of fatal accidents in Canada were caused by motor

vehicle defects. Since he said that, it has come to light that in 1991, of the

sixty-one motor vehicle deaths in Newfoundland, seven of them were the result of

accidents caused by defects to motor vehicles. Seven people died in this

Province as a result of defective motor vehicles. That, to me, is a serious

matter. I understand that these statistics have improved in the last couple of

years, which indicates once again that the system of motor vehicle inspection,

the tightening up that had been done in the last couple of years by the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation, in fact was having some

effect.

The same minister two weeks ago brought legislation to this

House to reduce the alcohol content of drivers as an offence on the basis that

if one life could be saved it was worth doing. This same minister now is

throwing safety to the wind by suggesting that we don't need to have a mandatory

inspection policy for vehicles.

In listening to the minister talk about this, and in seeing

him operate yesterday outside the House - he turned his back, essentially, on

the people who were protesting, saying that they did not really have a

legitimate voice on this issue because they had a particular interest in the

matter. When I gave that some thought my first reaction was: This is crazy, that

you don't listen to people who know about the issue. This is not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a

petition on behalf of fifty residents of the community of Branch in my district.

The petition reads: To the hon. House of Assembly of the

Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asks for the

House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

`We, the undersigned, do hereby request the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to

generate desperately needed employment in our communities. As in our duty bound,

your petitioners will ever pray.'

The petition comes from the community of Branch, St. Mary's

Bay, with fifty signatures. People have asked me to bring this petition forward

to the House of Assembly because of the inaction, I should say, of this

government in relation to some type of employment program for this coming

winter. These people are concerned as Christmas is closing in. For many of them,

their UI benefits are being exhausted and, for the first time, many have had to

turn to social assistance. They have asked me to bring this petition forward in

the hope that our Provincial Government will come forward with some type of

program in the next few weeks.

I should add that I think it is, as a matter of fact, a month

or two later than they have been in announcing anything. Usually, we are glad to

hear around the month of October that some money is being announced for

employment generation, but now we are closing in on December 1 and still we

haven't heard of anything from the Provincial Government.

I'm sure that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

would like to stand in this House and announce something, but from what I

gather, there seems to be a problem in getting consensus from some of his

Cabinet colleagues in relation to this program. I would like to emphasize,

especially on behalf of the people of Branch, that they are at this time being

hard hit because of the crisis in our fishery. Several years ago the plant was

closed in Branch, which had provided a fair amount of employment for that

community down through the years. Then, a couple of years after that, the

fishery closed down, to all intents and purposes, and indeed several of the

people in the community of Branch were successful enough to be part of TAGS

program. But then, many others who had, as I said before, indirect jobs, were

not fortunate enough to be part of this program and were left out in the cold.

I had a call from a lady in Branch the other day who has

three small children, and is finding it very difficult living on less than $600

a month coming into the household, and finding it very difficult to come

forward, keep food on the table and keep the bills paid at $600 a month. When

the expenses of the Premier's latest trip to Asia were tabled the other day, we

found that he paid $600 a night for a hotel room, and here we expect a family of

five to live on $600 a month.

I ask the government, really there should be some very

intense negotiations and consultations in relation to an employment generation

program coming forth. Not only the people in Branch, but indeed the people

throughout my district, and a fair amount of this Province, need this money.

Mr. Speaker, we look back over the past year or so and we

talk about $1 million being spent on coming in on the ISP program - an

incredibly stupid program. Over $1 million was spent on it, and the people's

backs were put to the wall over the past couple of months and all this

government has come forward with is the ISP program. The people rejected that,

even though there is some - I think what the provincial government did, in doing

that, was give an opening to the federal government to bring in changes to the

UI system that will definitely hurt Newfoundland. The latest social reforms they

are talking about are, from what I can gather, certainly being put together for

central Canada, not for Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think we will suffer in

the long run.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present this petition in the

hope that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations makes an announcement

in a couple of weeks so people will have the opportunity to maybe have some

extra dollars in their pockets for Christmas.

I realize that neither this government nor any other

government can provide jobs for everybody who is looking for jobs in our

Province, but indeed I think that there are a fair number of people we can help

out with some type of employment generation program.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, some people ridicule these

programs, but they are indeed good programs and I hope that the government comes

forward with something.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to support the petition by my colleague from St.

Mary's - The Capes. There is indeed a crisis situation here in this Province in

terms of employment. We have seen 12,000 less people in the workforce today than

there were four years ago. We have 19,000 more people on unemployment insurance

than there were four years ago, and the Premier was elected in this Province on

a promise to bring jobs to this Province, to create jobs and economic diversity,

bring home every mother's son, and to create a climate where people could have

dignity and be proud to be able to go to work, instead of the high unemployment

rate.

We have seen, in this Province, a failure by the Premier to

bring in programs to stimulate the economy, and almost into his sixth year, was

tabled in this House today, or notice given, of legislation to deal with

business and future development six years coming, in a promise that was made

back in 1988 actually, six years later, and very inadequate aspects to that

specific legislation have been voiced to government by various groups and

individuals and by the official Opposition. We have indicated there are many

inadequacies in that program. The St. John's Board of Trade recognized it and

did a presentation to government.

We have people in this Province now in a worse plight than

they have ever been. Now, we don't advocate going out and every single person

qualifying for UI, and put them on UI and draw benefits, but this Province has a

moral responsibility to take care of needs of people who never before in their

lives had to go to the social welfare lines.

We have people who have left this Province. In my district

there are about fifty people who left this Province in the past month. One

particular family, both in their early fifties, left this Province - who worked

twenty-five years in the fishery - left and went to Yellowknife early this

month. We have another family who moved up to northwestern Alberta. We have

another forty single people who left my district this past month and went mostly

to Alberta, a few to B.C. and Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories. We are

seeing people moving out of this Province at an alarming rate, and I am sure it

must be happening in other districts around this Province also.

Rural Newfoundland is under attack by this government in many

ways, not only by their failure this year, and they have indicated... The

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations stated - I am appalled by some of

the things he stated. He said first of all the government is not prepared to

have a stand-alone emergency response program. He has gone away, with cap in

hand, to Ottawa, he has gone up to Ottawa now to ask them to participate in a

shared emergency employment program so people can put food on the table.

When the Premier in his trip to Europe spent $40,000 at over

$500 a night in a hotel room - that is an income, for some people on social

assistance, an entire month of income. We have the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations who stood here in this House and said: I'm not going to take

any approach, I say to the member, that is going to impact upon or affect

negatively, the federal government's negotiations with this Province in

addressing the whole social program.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations said: We will

not do anything that will interfere with what the federal government is going to

do. That minister is not a minister in the federal Cabinet, and that Premier is

not the Prime Minister of Canada. Until such time, they should be fighting for

the rights of Newfoundlanders to have an equal opportunity for employment in

this Province. They have caved in and supported all the federal government's

directions in the starving out of people in this Province. We've seen a decline

in our population rate because this government has failed to create an economic

climate to create jobs.

They knew years ago on Hibernia, they have failed to have

trained people, they failed to do their job in Marystown, that has cost this

Province hundreds of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in the provincial

economy because they didn't have the necessary programs in place. They didn't

take the initiative to improve and stimulate the economy. Now they are coming in

with legislation - and any legislation to promote business is good, but six

years into a mandate in which they campaigned on jobs and economic growth? We've

stripped this provincial economy of jobs. We've another 19,000 more unemployed

than there were in 1989. We have almost turned this Province into a ghost town,

and they are leaving -

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

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: On a petition, hon. member.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we've now had three petitions.

I assume we are ready to move on to Orders of the Day. That being so I

anticipate Your Honour may want to call the Orders of the Day. My understanding

is there are no more petitions to be presented today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: To be presented today. Well, we've had....

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Your Honour, We won't get three

every day necessarily unless we do as we've done here, where only one spoke to

the petition, my friend for St. John's East.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That is right, and that is fair enough. Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if we could deal first of all with Order No. 13, which is Bill

No. 20. For the fourth day I think my friend for Gander will ask the House to

give second reading to

An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Between

Reciprocal Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies.

Order No. 13, please, Sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: Behave yourself.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman should talk about

behaving himself. If he and I could have a minute behind the Speaker's Chair it

might be helpful, whenever he is ready. Thank you, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 20.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Didn't you make your speech yesterday?

MR. A. SNOW: I spoke for a few minutes yesterday and I

just want a few more minutes.

MR. SULLIVAN: He had an impressive debate yesterday, it

was impressive.

MR. A. SNOW: It was very impressive, yes, a lot of

content for such a very brief few minutes that I was on my feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: The usual good job.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the name of this bill?

MR. A. SNOW: This is Bill No. 20,

An Act To Ratify,

Government Of The Province Respecting Reciprocal Taxation Of These Governments

And Their Agencies.

Mr. Speaker, this finance bill is a very important bill, and

we all like to speak on finance bills, especially -

MR. EFFORD: Especially you.

MR. A. SNOW: I speak on them because I recognize the

importance of having good financial fiscal policy and good financial policies in

general, because I recognize the importance of the financial security of the

government and the people of this Province and so should the minister, instead

of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who is part of a

government that says that the answer to the problems in this Province, the

answer to the economic ills of this Province and the social ills of this

Province is the recovery of the private sector.

They tout this no matter where they go; they talk about how

the private sector is going to be the engine of recovery, that is what is going

to drive this economy, that is what is going to get this Province out of the

depression that it is in, and then, Mr. Speaker, they come in with another bill,

another piece of legislation that somebody opposes, the first thing that, that

particular minister, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation does,

is, attack members of the private sector and accuses them of self-interest only

of promoting business. That is what he does.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we saw yesterday on provincial TV where he

was attacking the garage owners and the mechanics because they expressed a

concern about the effects of the regulations that he is changing with regard to

motor vehicle inspections in this Province. Now their concerns were about the

safety of people driving and now, Mr. Speaker, we hear the catcalls coming from

the minister saying that these individuals were only concerned about their

business. Now, Mr. Speaker, you know, he of all people should recognize the

importance of self-preservation. I mean, we saw how that minister behaved when

he was a private member.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did a good job too by the way.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, he did in self-preservation. Now, Mr.

Speaker, these people should not be named and belittled because they have an

interest and want to promote the interest of their business which is the repair

of vehicles, they should not be belittled for that, they should not be accused

of being greedy, they should not be maligned as business people because they

want to do business, we should be encouraging more people to enter the business

field especially the small business sector,

whereas this government says on one

hand they are going to do a thing, promote small business, they believe in the

entrepreneurial spirit but on the other hand they will attack you if you are in

business, personally attack you.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that should not surprise anybody because

that is what this government is all about; they are all about smoke and mirrors,

saying one thing and doing another. That is what they are all about, they are

all about window dressing, doing nothing substantive, they don't do anything

substantive. You talk about the promotion of small business. The Premier got up

and -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I can tell you one thing, the polls have

been changing drastically. People are beginning to see this government for what

it is and it is only because this government has shown really, in the last few

months, what they are. People are seeing the arrogance, they behave worse than a

government that was in power for seventeen years and they were not even there -

MR. EFFORD: That is saying something.

MR. A. SNOW: That is true, Mr. Speaker, that is saying

something, that is a mouthful.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Know what?

MR. EFFORD: That is not accurate.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, it is accurate; you talk to anybody

out on the street and they will tell you how arrogant this government is

perceived by the people of this Province and we all know that perception is

reality in today's world. Now, Mr. Speaker, this government talks about

promoting small business, about how that is going to be our engine of recovery,

that is how we are going to get people back to work and that is how we are going

to solve the economic problems and some of the social problems of this Province.

Now, the Minister of Finance stood this morning, Mr. Speaker,

and told us that he is going to be introducing a bill, The Tobacco Tax Act. Now

I am hoping that that is going to be a bill that is going to put the businesses

in Western Labrador on a level playing field with the businesses in their

neighbouring Province of Quebec. Petersbill they are going to call it. It is

going to be named after Peter. That is what I am hoping it is going to be. Now

can the minister confirm that is what it is?

I hope that is what it is, Mr. Speaker, because the people of

Western Labrador believe in the importance of the private sector. Here is a town

that was built by the private sector, an industry that was built by the private

sector and today I would suspect has one of the healthiest economies in this

Province, in that area. One of the healthiest economies in this Province. So

they know and understand the importance of the private sector but they also

know, they are educated enough to know that you need a government to establish

certain rules and regulations that we can live by and accept - give it an aurora

of being able to participate in the economy, Mr. Speaker, to be able to do

business, they recognize that. They know that this government has not responded

to repeated requests to change simple little regulations. A simple change in

regulations would allow businesses, small businesses, to operate on a level

playing field with the competitors in a neighbouring Province.

We see in the Province of Quebec, the Town of Fermont, their

businesses have practically doubled in sales in grocery stores, dry goods stores

and hardware over the last year. They have created employment in Quebec. This

government has created more jobs in Quebec than they have in Western Labrador by

their lack of direction with regard to taxation. They say that they agree with

the principle of creating a level playing field but yet they will not do it.

There is a tax rebate system now - I am sure that some people

are aware of it here in this House - that there is a tax rebate system now in

place where a business is given a rebate in tobacco tax in Western Labrador and

other border communities I believe down in Southern Labrador, to allow them to

compete. Because the tax structure has changed so drastically in the Province of

Quebec and this government, for whatever reason, whether it is the politics of

the Cabinet, that the Minister of Finance cannot convince his colleague the

Minister of Justice, that it is the right thing to do, some people suspect, but

for whatever reason I do not know, they will not increase the tax rebate. So

there is a tremendous difference.

You can go to Fermont, Quebec and purchase a carton of

cigarettes for twenty-one or twenty-two dollars and in Newfoundland they are

fifty dollars a carton. Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that that creates cross-border

shopping. Whether that occurs - there is such a tremendous difference because of

the taxes - as it did down in the Windsor/Detroit border situation with the GST

and everything. We knew what happened down there, we know what happened to the

tobacco, the liquor taxes and everything in that Province and also on the

(inaudible) reserve in Quebec. We know how those governments responded.

This government would not respond, why? Some people say it is

because of arrogance. Some people say it is because of indifference, they do not

care. They get elected, they get $100,000 a year as a Cabinet minister and they

sit in their ivory tower here in St. John's and they know absolutely nothing of

what is going on in a small business, whether it is in Gander, whether it is in

Goose Bay or whether it is in Western Labrador. They do not know and they do not

care, it's indifference: I'm okay Jack, so everything else must be okay.

Now that is what some people are saying out there. They have

lost touch with reality, that is what has happened. They do not understand. They

say that we are here to support small business yet they do not do anything about

it. They will not help small businesses in Western Labrador to be on a level

playing field. What do they do? They go out and arrest housewives out picking up

their groceries, coming back with two packages of cigarettes. Can you imagine

having our police officers down checking grocery bags to see if a housewife has

a couple of packages of cigarettes? Can you imagine? They order the RCMP back

into western Labrador. They get them in. That is the same RCMP that they

couldn't afford to have there a year previous, the same RCMP who were

transferred out and said: We can't afford to police the borders where there is

cocaine and things like that coming in, but if you bring in two packages of

cigarettes we will bring them back.

That is what they did. They hired skidoos, rented

helicopters, did all those things. Boy, they had all the gadgetry of the

Twentieth Century, I tell you. It looked like a war zone there for awhile -

chasing housewives.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's it like now?

MR. A. SNOW: Business is poor, Mr. Speaker; business is

bad.

You talk to the Chamber of Commerce, you have had

representation from the Chamber of Commerce. The Minister of Justice had

representation from the Chamber of Commerce. The Minister of Natural Resources

has had representation from the Chamber of Commerce. The Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation has had representation from the Chamber of Commerce.

Now, they have all had representation. They all understand the problem. The

problem is that the businesses want to have a level playing field.

The Province of Quebec recognized the problem in their

Province with gasoline and tobacco. In border situations in that Province they

have a graduated tax. This Province recognized it. We have a graduated tax on

gasoline. They just don't do it totally. They have a different graduated tax in

eastern Labrador, down in the Blanc Sablon area, than they do down in western

Labrador. I argue it should be the same.

Mr. Speaker, all the people of western Labrador want is to be

treated fairly. That is all the business people want, and that is all the

consumers want. They don't want to be harassed. They don't want to have

policemen going through their grocery bags, and these policemen don't want to be

doing that. Neither do these same policemen want to be crawling up underneath

vehicles checking the brakes, or checking the tires. They don't want to be doing

that. They want to get down to doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board is going to, in his bill, the Tobacco Tax Act, this new bill that

he has proposed this morning, to solve that particular problem, and that is

going to help. Then I will firmly believe, and I will stand in my place here and

praise the minister - I will praise him - for what he has done, because he will

have solved a small problem, such as the Minister of Natural Resources this

morning stood in his place and was going to make a regulatory change about the

antler problem, the antlers that people need in the craft industry, a very

small, thriving, young industry, and it is a growing industry, but they need

assistance in the form of regulation changes.

For weeks the Minister of Justice has thrown the weight of

the Crown behind attacking these small business people, hauling them into court.

It wasn't until they got national news stories on television, national news

stories on the radio and, of course, an uproar raised here in this House by the

hon. Members for Green Bay and Humber Valley.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank god it's Friday.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank god it's Friday, the Minister of

Justice says. Thank god it's Friday, he says; I've had a rough week.

Mr. Speaker, it took weeks for this government to react to

that simple little change, and they say they are business friendly. There is a

distinct difference between business friendly and friendly with businessmen and

women. They get the two things confused. You are supposed to set the climate and

the regulatory regime in place to allow business to operate fairly. That is what

you need to do, and without a heavy tax burden, and without a regulatory regime

in place that they just can't operate.

That is all this person who operated a small business over in

Humber Valley, or Green Bay, wanted to do. That is all they wanted to do. They

weren't into going out and slaughtering animals just for the sake of getting a

piece of bone.

AN HON. MEMBER: They weren't hiding anything.

MR. A. SNOW: They weren't hiding anything. They weren't

being deceitful, but this government saw fit, from their ivory tower in

Confederation Building, to bring the big heel of the law down on them, hounding

them with lawyers and inspectors and everything else. That is what they saw fit

to do.

This government saw fit to do nothing to allow consumers to

stop being harassed in Western Labrador with regard to the tobacco tax. They did

absolutely nothing to allow the businesses in Western Labrador to be on a level

playing field with the businesses in Fermont, Quebec, twenty kilometres away.

They did nothing. Why?

People in Western Labrador don't know why, people in the

Province don't know why. They've had a rough week in the polls this week so we

see some good news coming out now this morning. They've decided to change. They

decided to implement a few changes. They are going to change the antlers, and I

hope that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board this morning when he stood

up and threatened us with a change in the tobacco tax act, I hope that he is

going to change that, fix, solve the problem in Western Labrador. I know that

the Member for St. John's Centre is going to speak up, and I know he would

support that particular bill, I know he would.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes. Because after you sit down - the former

Minister of Health, you know, he and I have had some set-tos here in the House

in particular debates over some issues. But when you sit down and talk to the

Member for St. John's Centre, Mr. Speaker, he is a reasonable fellow. He wants

to see things done properly. He has solved some things in our particular

district with regard to health problems while he was the Minister of Health. I

have to admit that. He did a good job in my district. He came in, held a public

meeting, did a real good job.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No, the former Minister of Health, the

Member for St. John's Centre. He did a good job there in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well, we will see. Yes, there are some real

good people appointed to the board. I don't believe that boards should be

appointed, though, I think that the boards should be elected. I mentioned that

to the minister at the time. I believe that he felt strongly that the boards

should be elected too. I think he believes in the democratic process. I think

that gone is the day when people can sit in a room somewhere and have a payback

system where you get patronage in that manner. I think people, especially in the

delivery of health care, if they have a responsibility, they need to be elected

to have the public have faith in the board, Mr. Speaker, in the process. I think

the process would be better if we did have elected boards.

I hope that the present Minister of Health would continue in

that way. We all know and recognize that there is need to reform the heath care

system in this Province. What we don't want to see are things such as what

happened with the health care facilities down in Burgeo, Port Saunders and St.

Lawrence when we are talking about reform. We don't want to see things where we

are throwing away taxpayers money. Where we've been told that some $18 million,

a substantial amount of money in this Province, and I suppose in any province in

this country, that this government threw away $18 million belonging to the

taxpayers of this Province. This is the same government that says we can't

afford to have an emergency employment program because we just don't have the

money, we can't continue doing this.

The same government threw away $18 million, contrary to their

appointed officials who the Premier defended this morning, contrary to the

opinions, the recommendations of these highly paid, highly professional -

probably the most professional public employees in the country we have in this

Province, for a lot of reasons I will get into some other time. We have very

professional public employees in this Province, especially at the higher levels,

the directors and the assistant directors and the deputy minister levels. We

have very professional employees. This government saw fit to go contrary to

their recommendations and spent an extra $20 million of hard-earned money

belonging to the taxpayers of this Province to build three health care

facilities.

That is the type of thing that has cost this government a lot

of support, Mr. Speaker, because people see it as part of the arrogance when you

can sit in St. John's and divide up the $20 million somehow, I do not know what

they did. I do not know what they did with the $20 million. I do not know why

they would give somebody $20 million extra.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-three million.

MR. A. SNOW: Twenty-three million, and then be completely

indifferent to the plight of the thousands of Newfoundlanders who find

themselves, through no fault of their own, find themselves with no food, no

money in the bank, no job, and no unemployment insurance. This government says:

well, there is nothing we can do. Philosophically we just do not believe in make

work programs. We do not believe we should be able to create a job to build a

piece on the town hall. We do not believe in supporting that concept any more

because it is not a long-term solution.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not creating a job.

MR. A. SNOW: It may not be creating a job but it gets an

addition on the town hall, gets an addition built on the fire hall, and it puts

a meal on the table at supper time. It is a lot more creative and it is a better

solution to the individual problem than wasting $20 million, a lot better

solution than wasting $20 million. It is a better solution than travelling

around the country looking pretty. Window dressing is all it is, all window

dressing. It is better than $500 hotel rooms. Five hundred dollars can buy a lot

of groceries for somebody who has worked for fifteen or twenty years in the

fishing industry and now find themselves thrown out. According to this

government there is absolutely nothing they can do. They will not have an

emergency employment program.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. A. SNOW: I am sure that the Minister of Finance has

never been considered as just another pretty face. Of all the things I have

heard said about him I have never, ever heard anybody accusing the Minister of

Finance as being just another pretty face.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible)

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I have heard him accused of a

lot of things but not of that. I have heard him of being accused of being

indifferent, of not understanding the problems of business people. Well, I can

understand that because he has never been in business. He has no experience in

business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

MR. A. SNOW: The Minister of Finance.

He has been in here so long he loses touch with reality. I

have heard people in his own district say that. He had a social conscience. He

is from similar roots as me. We go back to the NDP, Mr. Speaker, We used to be

NDPers and we had a social conscience. I still have mine but the Minister of

Finance doesn't. He has no concern. At least that is what is out and about in

the Province.

The Minister of Finance is now more concerned with lining up

the millions of dollars, and lining up people in patronage appointments, than he

is with the concerns of ordinary Canadians, ordinary Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. It is bad that he would forget his roots. It disappoints a lot of

people in his district. It disappoints me, and I am sure there are times when he

needs to be reminded, when he slips back into his old mold and says: we have to

do something for these people who just do not have the wherewithal to be able to

get a job today.

Now, if we can get that person over the hump, so to speak, so

that he can qualify for some benefits for the next eight to ten months, or for

six to seven months, maybe he can find a job later on and keep his family

together, put some groceries on the table and pay the heat bill, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sure that every now and then he slips back into that.

Then of course they call another Cabinet meeting. Boys, we

have to get around the public tendering process here now, what do we do this

time. Because he is the only man who can figure it out, right? He is right out

in the forefront today now on the issue about health care centres. It bothers

me, you know, because this man has credibility. He is one of the few Cabinet

ministers who still has credibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: This is one of the few Cabinet ministers who

still has credibility. He is going to lose it, I think. I hope he doesn't. I

think he could lose it on this issue, lose all his credibility. It should be

important to him. It is bad enough that the Province lost some $20-odd million

but now we are going to see this minister, who has a tremendous amount of

credibility, he could lose all that.

Why is he going to lose it, Mr. Speaker? Because he has been

set up. That is what people are saying. His seat mate across the aisle there. We

know what is going on out in the street. I'm sure somebody has told him. It has

to be done for the party, protect the party. We have to do it with all

conscience now, we have to do it with a clear conscience and we have to do it

properly, it has to be done properly. You are the only one with credibility so

you should stand and take the heat. You can do it. Will you do that? Don't

compromise.

MR. SULLIVAN: They've been rehearsing it three years,

they should get it right soon.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, the hon. Member for Ferryland I think

probably echoes the sentiments of thousands of Newfoundlanders out there today,

who are saying that they've rehearsed it for three years. It is too bad the

notes are still there, too bad the notes were kept. Too bad it wasn't all

shredded. But the notes -

AN HON. MEMBER: Should have been.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board says they should have been. I guess the minister couldn't get the shredder

to get all the notes in.

Mr. Speaker, when you put this political interference into

that situation of businesses competing to do government business, and they throw

away a public tendering act - that was thrown to the wind a lot of people say to

reward political buddies. Payback time. It cost the taxpayers of this time $23

million extra. Kickback time. They said: It is time to kick it back. That is

what is said out and about in the streets of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. A. SNOW: If I could just have a minute to clue up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

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

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

Treasury Board if he speaks now will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would first of all

like to thank members on the opposite side for their rather enlightening and

thorough discussion of the reciprocal taxation agreement between the Province

and the federal government. It is good to see that they are keeping on top of

things and understand the importance of these agreements between the Province

and the federal government to ensure that we pay their taxes and they pay our

taxes. I'm very pleased that we've had a full four days debate on this issue,

and I would like to thank members opposite for their very valued input. I would

like to move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An

Respecting Reciprocal Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies," read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

(Bill No. 20)

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Order No. 16, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 16.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Pensions Funding Act". (Bill No. 35)

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very minor

change but an extremely important change to the pensions funding act. Very

simply, Bill 35, if the hon. member would find it there, as hon. members know,

pension funds and their viability depend upon two things, it depends upon the

money being deposited in the pension fund and it also depends on the rate of

interest that is earned, and the actuarial studies that are done in terms of

pension plans and their viability, would naturally assume that money is

deposited expeditiously and their calculations on the amount of interest that

would be thus generated, is based on the fact that these original amounts are

put in.

We have gone into the situation a number of times in the

past, Mr. Speaker, where, in terms of pension funds matching contributions,

instead of being put in at the same time that the contributions were collected

from the employees, the matching contributions were not being put in until some

time later, thus affecting the funded ratio of these pension plans. So this bill

tries to ensure that the funds that are collected for the pension plans from the

employees and the matching contributions that the employers make, if they have

to make matching contributions, or in the case of where the pension plans are

totally the responsibility of the private sector, that these funds are deposited

in the account in the pension fund and put to use immediately as they are

supposed to have been deposited so, Mr. Speaker, this is just a minor change but

a very important one to all the private pension plans that exist in the Province

for the protection of these workers.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to make a few comments on this particular bill and on

some other issues that are directly related of course.

First of all, I will ask the minister - I don't have a

problem with the legislation, in fact it is probably long overdue; I don't know

how many plans are out there that are underfunded as a result of this problem

and maybe the minister would like to address that.

MR. BAKER: The biggest underfunding is in our own.

MR. WINDSOR: Well our own, I wanted to get into that but

I first of all want to -

AN HON. MEMBER: I would like to get out of it if I could.

MR. WINDSOR: I would like to get out of it, but I wanted,

first of all, this bill primarily addresses private pension plans, not

government, and is a protection for the employee working with a private company

that has a funded pension plan, a cost-shared pension plan, and from that point

of view I support that. Maybe the minister can tell us how big a problem is

this?... the minister did not give us any information that there are numerous,

hundreds perhaps of private plans out there that are underfunded as a result of

this.

I suspect most of them are not because most pension plans are

purchased from insurance companies or something of that nature, so most of them

I think would automatically have to be funded on a regular basis, so it would

only be where a company operates its own pension plan and operates it itself

rather than purchasing from one of the big insurance companies that we will have

this problem, so I would think it would be the larger companies, the larger

corporations primarily that would be involved and a small company would not be

in a position to operate its own plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are some that do it (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: There are some? I will be interested to hear

what the minister has to say if he has some information. I would have thought

that they would be, as I have said, purchasing from a larger company therefore

would have had to keep their payments up to date otherwise they would be getting

in trouble with that company so the minister can enlighten us on that.

Then I get into the question the minister himself has raised,

where are we with government pension plans? I know that they are grossly

underfunded, they have been, but the minister could tell us how much government

is contributing this year. There was a figure in the Budget and I believe it was

in the magnitude of $50 million, this year, being contributed by government

towards the pension plans?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The minister will tell us but I think that

is important for us to know, where we are on that and what progress we have

made. I know back in early 1989 we had discussions with the NTA on the teachers

pension plan and around this very thing, where government does not necessarily

contribute all the money, we borrow from our own pension plan, probably at a

more favourable rate than we would be paying in Japan or in Zurich, so in effect

we are borrowing from ourselves and I do not have a major problem with that, as

long as we are in a position to service that debt on a regular basis.

MR. BAKER: We've stopped doing that.

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

MR. BAKER: We've stopped doing that.

MR. WINDSOR: We've stopped doing that. We've stopped

borrowing from our own pension plan. That is an interesting question. Because

there is some merit in borrowing from ourselves. We are certainly protected from

any exchange rates, any changes in - particularly if we are dealing in foreign

currency, and we are investing in ourselves. We are keeping that money in the

Province rather than borrowing in Japan and then investing the money of our

pension plan in other companies that are generally downtown Toronto. That is

where that money normally goes. The pension funds are invested all across Canada

and not a lot of it in the Province so it seems somewhat counterproductive. I

realize there has to be a good balance but it is important for us to keep a very

close eye on that sort of thing, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister, where are we on that? What negotiations

have continued with the teachers, with the NTA? We made a commitment that we

would honour the shortfall that was there as a result of the fact that the

Province hadn't contributed. We also made a commitment that we would honour the

shortfall that was there because we hadn't asked the teachers to pay enough for

a long period of time. We found when we had that actuarial study completed that

the teachers' plan was grossly underfunded, primarily because neither government

nor NTA had contributed enough to that plan. We advised them at that time that

the contributions would have to increase from both sides because it is a 50-50

cost-shared plan. Teachers would contribute more, we would contribute more, but

because we were managing the plan, and because we had not contributed our share,

and obviously anything we had to contribute, plus interest on that, is a

government liability, but also the shortfall as a result of the fact that we

hadn't asked teachers to contribute as much as they really should have in order

to make the plan self-sufficient, that government would honour that.

I would like to ask the minister to address that. Has this

government fulfilled that commitment that we made to the NTA? Is there a plan in

place now, or is the liability there on the government's side of the ledger

rather than just a shortfall in the plan itself? Because it is indeed a

liability on behalf of government.

Where are we on the other plans? I know the MHAs' plan is

underfunded. Relatively not a major problem because of the size of it, but it

needs to be dealt with. The government plan itself, the public service pension

plan, of course is seriously underfunded. It is a big liability on the books and

that needs to be addressed. I would ask the minister if he could tell us what

progress we've made in the past year or so on that and what he is proposing to

contribute this year to it.

As far as the legislation goes itself, it is very difficult

to argue with ensuring that persons who are contributing in good faith to a

private pension plan have reason to believe that the funding is there and that

the employer is fulfilling his or her obligations to that plan.

I would like to ask the minister a few questions, if he would

be so good as to take notes of some of the questions I'm going to ask him,

dealing with the special warrants that were tabled yesterday. The minister

tabled six or seven special warrants that were approved over the year. Special

warrants, something every government has to use when the House is not in

session. We recognize the need for that, but I think we also recognize the fact

that traditionally government has tried not to issue special warrants at all. If

necessary - it is only under emergency circumstances, circumstances that cannot

be dealt with in any other way, that this is urgently required, cannot wait for

the House of Assembly to open. It could not have been foreseen in the Budget, or

it is a new plan for which government will answer when the House opens, a new

program. Generally speaking, special warrants are issued for something that is

of an urgent nature that was unforeseen and that has arisen and that cannot be

left for another date.

Let me go through some of these and ask the minister. First

of all we have one, Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, production subsidies,

grants and subsidies. This is funds for chicken production subsidies. Can the

minister tell us what has changed with - I assume this is through Newfoundland

Farm Products - what has changed with Newfoundland Farm Products in the last

year that has caused the level of subsidies that we normally put in place. This

is under subsection 3.2.02.10.

I can't even find it here. In fact, there is not even a vote

there. There is not even a subhead 3.2.02.10. There isn't anything here, that

concerns me a little bit. So, there is no provision in the Budget for subsidies

at all, not that I can find, not under that subhead 3.2.02.l0. Maybe the

minister can help me, because I just cannot find it here. Pre-engineering is

3.2.02 so I suspect we have the wrong subhead in here. It is repeated several

times. This is under fisheries, food, and agriculture. I think I was in the

wrong section. Yes, grants and subsidies. There was $125,000 provided. That does

not make any sense either. Has the minister found it? I am trying to find that

subhead but I cannot find it, Mr. Speaker. I am on hold. I will start again if

you wish. Has the minister found it because I cannot find it?

AN HON. MEMBER: I think it is the best conversation I

have heard all day.

MR. WINDSOR: I am looking for the subhead under special

warrant but it does not seem to exist.

MR. BAKER: What is the special warrant number?

AN HON. MEMBER: I think they should issue another

warrant.

MR. WINDSOR: Special warrant number? I do not see a

number.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have that one shredded, too.

MR. WINDSOR: Everything will be shredded later.

It is under the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

I suspect these subhead numbers have changed.

MR. BAKER: This is what I was wondering. Farm products is

dealt with under 3.4.05. That was in the Budget now, but maybe they have

changed.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, these are the 1994 estimates that I am

looking at, and I am sure the minister is. Is this under fisheries or under

agriculture? Obviously, now they have changed but it would still be under

agriculture, which would have been under forestry and agriculture? Let me try

that. Farm products is 3.2.05. Okay, production subsidies, 3.2.02, Subsection

10, grants and subsidies was $1.7 million. I finally found it. The titles have

changed so much it is difficult to follow.

Maybe the minister can tell us what has happened here and why

that has gone up by an extra $1.5 million. It has doubled over last year. What

has caused that? Does this have anything to do with the sale of Newfoundland

Farm Products?

MR. BAKER: It has to do with the Ontario prices which

have gone way down.

MR. WINDSOR: But where are the production levels in

Newfoundland now? I have reason to believe that we have grossly overproduced

chicken in this Province. I have reason to believe that we recently shipped

hundreds of thousands of chicken to Ontario for sale. What the minister is

saying is quite right the price in Ontario is down, and if we are dumping

300,000 chicken into Ontario then I suspect we are going to lose our shirts on

it. Maybe it would be interesting to hear the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

MR. SULLIVAN: Our production is going up 70 per cent over

the next four or five years.

MR. WINDSOR: Maybe the minister would explain it because

I cannot explain it. It will be interesting to hear the Minister of Fisheries,

Food and Agriculture explain this. I am almost tempted to sit down now, I am so

anxious to hear the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture explain that

one. This should be good. The Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture is

going to explain it - the back of his head; he is not even paying attention. The

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board should rattle his bell and try to get his

attention over there, to get him moving.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, he will get up afterwards. My time is

clicking. I have lost enough now just trying to find out where that one was.

Now, let's have the next one, `forest fire suppression',

$506,000. We had a $2 million estimate; you are asking for another

half-a-million dollars. In my recollection, this summer was not an unusual

summer for forest fires. It was an unusual summer.

AN HON. MEMBER: A very dry summer.

MR. WINDSOR: Very hot and very dry. I didn't hear there

were a lot of fires. I thought we were extremely fortunate in view of the

conditions this summer, the hot weather we had. It was the warmest summer in my

memory, I will say, the nicest summer we have ever had in this Province -

spring, summer and fall - absolutely unbelievable. No question, the forests were

extremely dry, but I wasn't aware that we had any tremendous number of forest

fires. We have had much worse years. There have been years when you couldn't

look at TV without seeing a forest fire. I assume this is just additional

expenditures for forest fires.

Now, we have to do a couple of dillies on the Wildlife

Division of the Department of Natural Resources at the moment, $725,000 -

wildlife regional services, transportation, research and inventories, salaries,

and more transportation. Would the minister like to give us an explanation of

what those things are?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) vehicles.

MR. WINDSOR: No, the vehicles are coming up next. I have

that here, the purchase of twenty-eight vehicles for Wildlife Division. We will

do the two of them together, $560,000. I would like for the minister to tell us

why all of a sudden we needed twenty-eight new vehicles for the Wildlife

Division. Is the minister telling us that many vehicles - is this an expansion

of the program? No? These many vehicles were -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: They were no good? And the minister didn't

know that when he brought in his budget? Did they just all of a sudden fall

apart, or did they drop over the end of a cliff? What happened to them?

Twenty-eight vehicles all of a sudden, I don't know what the date was - that

might be interesting to see - June of 1994, three months after the budget was

introduced, only a month or so after it was actually approved by the House, all

of a sudden there is this great emergency. The Cabinet Minute says: The

necessity is urgent. They weren't urgent a month or so before when the budget

was being done? I am sorry; I can't buy that. Twenty-eight vehicles just didn't

rust and fall apart, or all of a sudden have 300,000 kilometres on them in one

or two months.

AN HON. MEMBER: The new minister appealed to Cabinet.

MR. WINDSOR: The new minister appealed to Cabinet? Well,

I compliment the new minister, because we told this government three or four

years ago one of the great policies announced by the former Minister of Finance

before he got turfed out, in his budget of 1990, I think, no more new vehicles.

What a wonderful, great revelation. We are not going to replace any light

vehicles, any light trucks or cars. Do we all remember that, what a great major

announcement that was in the budget, and we told the government at the time: How

foolish! You have a fleet of hundreds, thousands probably, of vehicles, and if

you are not going to rotate those, not going to turn them over and replace them

on a regular basis, then eventually they are all going to fall apart, and I

don't disagree with the fact that it is urgent, because they were falling apart,

because I saw some of them that weren't fit to drive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Now we know why we had the amendment to the

Highway Traffic Act. Now we know why we just changed the requirements, or

eliminated the requirements, to have annual inspections, because the government

vehicles are falling apart. That's what is wrong. The government vehicles are

falling apart because of this great policy four years ago saying we won't

replace any more vehicles. This is a waste; we don't need to spend all this

money. We are going to keep them on the road longer. Now, they are falling apart

and it is an emergency now, twenty-eight new vehicles for the wildlife service.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with that?

MR. WINDSOR: There is nothing wrong with that. I am

simply pointing out the short-sightedness of this government - not only that,

while we are talking about it, it is a wonder the vehicles are worn out at all

because government has cut the funding for your wildlife officers to the point

where they can only operate vehicles about three days a week; it is a wonder

there are any miles on them and the same is true with the forestry officers and

I have seen it, I have talked to some of the officers and they tell me: We can

only afford to put the pickup on the road about three days a week to go and

ensure that people are not cutting wood where they are not supposed to, they are

not lighting fires and all the management things -

MR. BAKER: We are responding to that need (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: You are responding to the need? It is about

time, it only took them five years to wake up. Five years ago we told the

minister it was shortsighted not to replace vehicles on a regular basis. You can

only maintain a vehicle so long. We all know that, a vehicle that is owned and

operated by a government department or agency or by a private corporation, does

not get the same love and attention that the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board gives to his Cougar. How old is the minister's Cougar? Is it a new one you

have out there now or did you have it painted.

MR. BAKER: The red one (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The red one gave up the ghost, it was eight

years old?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he could get her licensed now.

MR. WINDSOR: He can get her licensed now, no problem to

get her licensed now. That is all, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board can keep a vehicle for eight years, there is not a government

vehicle that is going to last eight years unless it is assigned to the Minister

of Finance and Treasury Board but we don't have that any more; he gets his

vehicle allowance now, so instead of providing him a vehicle for when he needs

it on government business, now we give him the money to go and buy one for

himself and he keeps that, that was a nice little change, a nice little

innovation, that is a great cost-saving measure for this government, too, Mr.

Speaker. That was a good cost-saving measure. So now the ministers own their own

vehicles, paid for by the Province instead of having one made available to him

when he needed it for government business. He got around the problem I suppose

of being able to use it for personal use, didn't it? It did that and you did not

have to be so careful now on the weekends; you can use your own vehicle now

whenever you want to; government vehicles, you used to park them because I did,

believe it or not.

MR. BAKER: Government vehicles are so old now, nobody

wants to use them.

MR. WINDSOR: Government vehicles are so old. When we the

ministers, had vehicles available, I used to park my Chevy in the driveway on

Friday afternoon and take my Pontiac station wagon and go in the country.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. WINDSOR: That's right.

MR. EFFORD: Who had the trailer hitch on it?

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

MR. EFFORD: You had a trailer hitch on yours for the

weekend.

MR. WINDSOR: A trailer hitch?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. WINDSOR: It was on it when the vehicle was bought.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I guess it was!

MR. WINDSOR: It was on it when it was bought.

MR. EFFORD: Boy, oh boy!

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) sit on the parking lot with

trailer hitches on it.

MR. WINDSOR: The one the member is talking about was a

four-wheel drive and had a trailer hitch attached to the bumper. It is as simple

as that.

MR. GRIMES: There has never ever been one sold with an

automatic trailer hitch on it.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, that one had one, that one had it on.

MR. GRIMES: Somebody asked for it or it wouldn't be on.

MR. WINDSOR: You can go back and check the invoice.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) never come out of a plant yet

with a trailer hitch on it.

MR. WINDSOR: I say to the minster, you go back and check

the invoice; you will find no charge for a trailer hitch on that vehicle.

MR. GRIMES: Oh no, no, that is different (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, let's get back to what we

are talking about here. How come, all of a sudden, we have twenty-eight

vehicles, urgent - What was the Member for LaPoile saying to the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: We used to order them with golf clubs in

them.

MR. WINDSOR: Try golf clubs in them, yes. I had forgotten

about that. Yes, the hon. minister had his fingers burnt, didn't he, when he was

up in the Premier's office; driving the Premier's vehicles, one of the car pool

vehicles, out to Bally Haly, was it? I suppose that minister's car came with

golf clubs in it, did it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. I think all ministers' cars should come

with golf clubs in it. Just as well to have them out on the golf course because

that will be the most productive use, at least they will be out hearing what the

people are saying and it will be good for all of them. But I really find it just

absolutely amazing that a month or two after the Budget was brought in, now all

of a sudden, bang! Twenty-eight vehicles in the Wildlife Division have to be

replaced, absolutely amazing!

How about this other $725,000, Mr. Speaker? How come all of a

sudden - what happened in Wildlife that we are $725,000 under budget? What was

so urgent? This appears to me to be normal, ongoing operations of the Department

of Wildlife.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: New survey camp? No, this is wildlife

regional services and protection salaries. It is under Transportation and

Communications, Research and Inventory Salaries and Research and Inventory

Transportation. So would the minister like to tell us what those things are for?

What was so urgent about them? Why could they not have been predicted at the

time of the Budget?

Did the minister get that question? No. Maybe if the

ministers would stay in their seats and listen, when we are talking about their

department, they would have a shot at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, I am talking to the Minister of Natural

Resources now, who is now responsible for this, or the Minister of Finance. The

Minister of Finance u