December

11, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 89

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, municipal

elections were held Tuesday in the three newly amalgamated areas of the Province

including Twillingate, which is comprised of Twillingate, Durrell and Bayview,

Centreville-Wareham and Trinity, and Badger's Quay-Valleyfield-Pool's Island

with Wesleyville-Newtown.

In each of the three new municipalities, the councils were

enlarged from seven to nine including a Mayor elected at large; five councillors

at large; and three ward councillors - each ward generally equating to the

boundary of the amalgamating community.

Although some people were elected by acclamation and their

names are known, I would like to publicly recognize all of the councils from the

three newly incorporated areas.

The new council of Twillingate is comprised of Mayor Harry

Cooper and Councillors Gerald Loveridge, William Cooze, Edward Stuckless,

Clayton Collins, Brian Guy, Edgar Hunt, Wilfred Scott and Robert Stockley.

The new council of Centreville-Wareham-Trinity is comprised

of Mayor Stanley Hunt and Councillors Harvey Fancy, Eric Yetman, Alexander

Brown, John Ackerman, Kenneth Hunt, Bill Noble, Brian Pickett, and John

Waterman.

The new council of Badger's Quay-Valleyfield-Pool's

Island-Wesleyville-Newtown is comprised of Mayor Eli Cross, and Councillors

Christine Spurrell, Winston Norris, Valerie Norris, Wayne Perry, Walter (George)

Cross, Edgar Winsor, Morgan Hill, and Earl Spurrell.

I'm sure all hon. members join me in extending our best

wishes to all of the newly formed municipalities.

I think we all recognize that municipal politicians make

significant contributions to the growth and development of our Province and, it

is nice to know that, in these difficult times, we have so many people coming

forward to serve their communities. In all, Mr. Speaker, a total of forty-five

men and women contested the elections in the three newly amalgamated areas. It

is my understanding that approximately 50 per cent of the eligible voters went

to the polls. As a matter of fact in Twillingate, in that area, Twillingate,

Durrell and Bayview, 60 per cent of the people went to the polls.

As the minister responsible for local Government I extend

congratulations to all candidates who contested the elections including those

who were successful as well as those who were not.

It will be my intention to work with all new and existing

councils in the interest of sound municipal practices throughout the whole of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is not much to be said in response to the statement by

the Minister except to say that in some of those communities - I do not know,

maybe in all, but I know, for instance, with regard to the Centreville - Wareham

- Trinity amalgamation effort, they took a vote and, I think, in Wareham it came

out to 54 per cent or 64 per cent in favour of amalgamation, Mr. Speaker. That

is the type of amalgamation that I was talking about before. This is giving the

people a choice. I think if that had been done from the outset the Minister

would have had a lot less problems along the way than he has today with

amalgamation.

I would like to echo the comments by the Minister in

congratulating those councillors and the towns themselves. I wish them success

in their endeavors, but I suggest that I would not say too much about the 50 per

cent. I think that says something as well, a 50 per cent vote of people turning

out at the polls. That doesn't bode well, I don't think, for municipalities in

the Province.

I will also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that over the next -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is high.

MR. WOODFORD: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is very high.

MR. WOODFORD: Well, in some areas it is high and, I

suppose, when you look at some rural areas it could be. But I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that over the next few months - and I do not know if the Minister is

going to be as fast to get up and announce that - I think you are going to have

some other troubles. That is, the mayors around this Province are going to throw

in the towel and say to the Minister, 'Thanks, but no thanks. You run the

communities, if this is what you are going to do with municipal grants.' When

those people get their feet wet and see what is happening to municipalities with

regards to municipal operating grants and the debt on servicing water and sewer

projects around this Province, I am sure some of them will have a different

tune.

I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that as far as I am

concerned the volunteers in the Province or anywhere, but more specifically,

when it comes to a community council or a council in this Province, are the real

unsung heroes in public life. As far as I am concerned, hats off to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to Oral Questions, on

behalf of hon. Members I would like to extend a cordial welcome to fifty-two

Grade IV students from St. Kevin's School in the Goulds. They are accompanied by

their teachers, Barbara Wiseman and Gail Hynes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I was a bit surprised this

morning when, on CBC Radio, I heard an interview with Cyrus Eaton, the American

industrialist, who plans to move the Piper Aircraft Corporation from Florida to

Canada. I understood from the interview that he has received eight proposals, I

think, from other provinces in Canada to locate the corporation in their

particular home province.

The only province, it appears, for which there is no proposal

is here in Newfoundland. So I want to ask the Premier: Why did the Government of

Newfoundland not submit a proposal for an industry that could create 550 jobs, I

think it is, and perhaps upwards of 3,000? Why didn't the Premier get involved?

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't know about it.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Eaton said was that

there was no formal proposal. What the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

did, in concert with the Town of Gander and the Economic Development Group in

Gander, was put forward a very comprehensive package with respect to what's

available at Gander, the infrastructure, and all of the work force. There was a

comprehensive package and I'd be happy to table it in the House.

When you say proposals-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FUREY: Yes, that was the word he used, but what the

Government did was supplied a very comprehensive package. In fact, we discussed

with-

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it.

MR. FUREY: The hon. member says, 'Table it.' I said I

will table it. I have absolutely no hesitation in tabling it.

What the hon. Leader of the Opposition has to understand is

that when an American company tells a group in Canada that they are going to be

moving out of the US, automatically what happens is that company puts itself in

a position where they create a bidding war. Essentially you're asking the

poorest province in the nation to compete against other provinces to supply tax

concessions, grants, monies, and whatever is available from that province, and

it's very difficult to do that.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will know that after

that interview this morning I did an interview equally with the same

to the Provincial Government's proposal for a foreign trade zone over a

year-and-a-half ago that we tabled with the National Government, he would have

known that we would have had a fiscal instrument which would have given us a leg

up from every other corporation and every other province - pardon me! - in the

nation. But we didn't get that. It would have allowed us to create a tax-free

environment that maybe would have been very attractive for the people at Piper

Aircraft, Mr. Speaker.

I should tell the hon. member, also, that we followed up with

a number of calls to try to locate Mr. Eaton; it was very difficult to reach

him. We followed up with a letter which we faxed December 5, inviting Mr. Eaton

to the Province, inviting him to Gander particularly and saying that I would be

available as a senior minister to discuss this proposal on behalf of the

Government. We never did get a response, but I can also tell the hon. member

that officials from my department finally did locate Mr. Eaton this morning and

the answer was that, although they were very, very impressed with Gander, very

impressed with the infrastructure, very impressed with the Government and the

local council, that at this time, they want to locate in an area of a greater

population and also, Mr. Speaker, as I said, when a company says it wants to

move from the U.S. -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is taking up an excessive amount of time on

this, and generally repeating himself, and the Chair is satisfied that he has

answered the question.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.

My question was directed to the Premier for a very specific

reason and I am a bit disappointed he did not want to answer the question

himself. Perhaps he did not know what was going on and that concerns me even

more. I want to ask the Premier - he has heard what his minister has had to say,

which is a very weak attempt I think, at trying to explain his way out of this -

MS. VERGE: To cover his tracks.

MR. SIMMS: - trying to cover his tracks as best he can.

The fact of the matter is that not much at all had been done in the last month

or month-and-a-half since this whole question arose. Now, I want to ask the

Premier, where were all the economic geniuses that he and his Government had put

together? Where was the Economic Recovery Commission? Where was the Department

of Development? - obviously, nowhere. Where was the Economic Advisory Council,

for example? Where were all those economic geniuses that he had put together?

Why were they not involved? Did the left hand know what the right hand was

doing? Why was he not involved?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, all those economic geniuses

to which the Leader of the Opposition so disparagingly refers, were doing their

work in promoting economic development throughout the Province in other areas

that are likely to be far more productive and they were doing what they should

have been doing. Now, in the meantime, the Province has made a proper effort at

trying to attract the Piper Aircraft Corporation, but let nobody be under any

doubt as to what the Piper Aircraft Corporation is doing. They are starting a

bidding war in Canada, amongst the provinces.

Now, what is this little Province of Newfoundland going to do

to bid against British Columbia, Ontario or Quebec or any of the other major

wealthy provinces of this nation? What are they going to do to outbid them? Be

realistic. At least be frank and straightforward with the electorate and let

them know what we are dealing with. Do not try to pretend that this Province sat

back and did nothing, and because we sat back and did nothing, something that

was certain to come here is now going to British Columbia. Utter nonsense, Mr.

Speaker!

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard such a

disgusting performance or answer by a Premier of a Province which needs all the

work it can get. What a terrible, terrible attitude for a Government to take.

One thing is for certain, Mr. Speaker, one thing is for certain, you will never

do anything if you take that kind of an attitude, I say to the Premier.

Now, I want to ask him, since this proposal could have

created or could create over the next number of years, up to 3,000 jobs

according to Mr. Eaton himself, doesn't the Premier think that is important

enough for him to personally get involved? Did he seek a meeting with Mr. Eaton,

himself, when this matter became public back in November, or is he content to

take the answer of the minister who said on CBC radio this morning: 'I have had

somebody standing by my fax machine all week waiting for an answer.' Is that the

approach?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we maintain a ministry of

economic development. We have a very competent minister of economic development.

He carries out those normal activities on a day-to-day basis. If there is any

real prospect that I could make a difference with Cyrus Eaton, I would go to

wherever Cyrus Eaton is, anywhere in the world. And to say it is too late now is

utter tripe.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, it is utter tripe. Mr. Speaker, the

Leader of the Opposition should not try to mislead the people of this Province.

They know what Cyrus Eaton is doing, he is starting a bidding war. He is trying

to start a bidding war in this country. Well, this little Province, without the

kind of help that the minister spoke about, the creation of a foreign trade zone

here - had the Opposition supported that and talked to their cohorts in Ottawa,

we might have had a chance to attract Cyrus Eaton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I said order. One thing the Chair does not

at all appreciate is after my calling order, the minute the Chair takes his

position, for somebody to be shouting across the floor. I ask hon. members,

please, to follow the rules of the House. My job is to enforce them, their job

is to follow them.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government in

this Province has entered into competitive bids before, but we have never quit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister of

Finance were in Halifax, I believe, yesterday, negotiating with the other

provincial premiers and ministers of finance, talking about co-ordinating fiscal

policies. Would the Premier like to tell us what agreements were met yesterday,

and what areas of fiscal policy are being negotiated with the other Atlantic

Provinces?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There were no negotiations whatsoever.

There were discussions about our mutual concerns, and the way in which we might

work together to deal with them. They dealt, in the main, with the concerns that

the four governments have about a reduced level of revenue and our ability to

cope with providing public services with this reduced level of revenue. There

were two things that motivated the four provinces getting together; one, to

explore the possibility of doing things on a four-province basis that could

lower the cost, or cut the cost of each province doing it individually; and

secondly, we explored the possibility of dealing with these revenue shortfalls

on a similar basis. That is, each of the provinces has to deal with

post-secondary education, health, municipal matters and so on, and if two of the

provinces were going in one direction on it, and the other two provinces going

in another direction, it is more difficult for the public to understand that

kind of an approach. So we looked at the possibility of making sure that we let

everybody else know what we were proposing before the decision was taken, so

that we could all consider working in the same direction. That does not obligate

the Government of this Province to go in any particular direction, but what we

have done is gotten some good ideas from the other provinces, and I hope that,

in return, we shared some ideas with them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, on a

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for that.

Would the Premier tell us then, does he have any ideas, or did he get any ideas

yesterday, on common policies relating to taxation; on financial incentives for

business development, for example; perhaps on Government expenditures? Just

which areas are we looking at taking a common approach here?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: We were looking, in the main, Mr. Speaker,

at management of expenditures on a generally common basis, or considering moving

in a similar direction. For example, all of us are dealing with the cost of

post-secondary education. If we were dealing with it in generally the same

manner in the four provinces, with such adjustment as is necessary to

accommodate the differences, without any absolute commitment to follow it, but

this is the kind of thing we explored. Mr. Speaker, it is not the kind of

proposal that we can put forward in detail because, essentially, as the member

knows, they are budgetary measures and they will be dealt with in each Province

at the time that the budget is delivered. But this is an exploration,

beforehand, of areas where we could either save money or move in the same

direction.

Another thing that we looked at - for example, we are now

looking at putting in place a single securities regulatory body for all four

provinces, and saving the cost of having four individual ones, because there is

really not enough securities activity in the four together for one significant

one. So, we are looking in that direction.

Another similar area that we could take a look at, for

example, is the regulation of insurance companies. The same insurance companies

that operate in Newfoundland generally tend to operate in Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick and PEI. So, if we had a single regulatory and policing body for

insurance companies we could probably save a good deal of the cost of

administration. These are some of the kinds of things we were exploring during

the week.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would concede that some of

these areas may well be handled better in common, but I think we need some

caution here.

Would the Premier like to tell us: Were they also discussing

a common approach to wages and benefits in the public sector? Are we looking at

some sort of a system of co-ordinating increases or decreases in the public

sector? Specifically, Mr. Speaker, was the Premier discussing with the other

Maritime Provinces the possibility of a wage rollback this year? I am hearing

rumours that we may be looking at a rollback in the public sector.

I asked the minister yesterday about whether or not the

increase that was frozen last year would be coming forward this year. Let me ask

the Premier now: Are we talking about wage rollbacks this year? Specifically,

are we looking at rollbacks in the area of 8 per cent, as I am hearing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I can say we did not

specifically talk about wage rollbacks. We talked about dealing with wages in

the public sector, in general, but not wage rollbacks. That was not mentioned.

The rollback that the hon. member is referring to results

from the fact that unlike Nova Scotia, unlike New Brunswick, unlike

Newfoundland, the Province of PEI provided for a 6 or 8 per cent increase in

public sector wages last spring in its budget. Halfway through the year they

discovered they could not cope with it, and they agree to a rollback. So, they

were rolled back to the position they were in before, give or take. All but the

teachers, I think, were involved in it.

Mr. Speaker, no, we have not been specifically talking about

rollbacks. As the hon. member, I believe, knows, we have already met with the

public sector unions in this Province and talked to them generally about it, and

we will be meeting with them again to have further discussions on the issue.

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

MR. WINDSOR: I am aware of the discussions being held

with the unions, Mr. Speaker, and this where I am hearing the fears that,

indeed, we may be facing an 8 per cent rollback.

Last year, the Premier issued a report entitled, 'Challenge

and Opportunity' which was basically advocating economic integration of the

Maritime Provinces, the Premier just told us all of these areas that we are

discussing. Will the Premier not confirm that, indeed, what we are talking about

here is moving very, very much toward economic union of the Maritime Provinces?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I disagree, for one

simple reason. I do not think economic union can be achieved without political

union. You can have governmental co-operation, there is no question about that.

You can save a lot of money by having a single securities regulatory body. You

can save a lot of money by having a single insurance regulatory body. You can

save a lot of money by co-operating in terms of the kind of post-secondary

education facilities you provide, instead of duplicating them. You can have all

this kind of co-operation. But, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have economic

integration without political integration; the two must go hand in hand. So,

unless we are prepared to talk about political integration, it is pointless to

talk about economic integration.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. On Monday, the Premier met

with the Prime Minister, who was in St. John's for the first time since Meech

Lake. The reports of the meeting say that they focused on process and not

substance. I ask the Premier, when he met with the Prime Minister, did he tell

the Prime Minister of our need in Newfoundland to protect transfer payments and

social programs and our need to ensure regional equality as a fundamental value

which must be written into the Constitution? Did he tell the Prime Minister that

that was important to Newfoundlanders?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, two years ago, one year

ago, six months ago, three months ago, I have been saying this every time I have

spoken on the issue, but not that we just write in constitutional protection for

federal transfers, what I am talking about is building the economy of this

Province so that we can produce on a comparable basis with the rest of the

country. That is the kind of protection we need. That is what I am talking about

in terms of joint management for our fisheries, so that we can protect our

future in the fisheries.

I talked to him about economic development, and we spent a

great deal of our time, most of it, on fisheries, and another major part of it

on the economic situation in the country, generally, as well as the Province,

and we talked also about the constitutional issue, but that was towards the

latter stages of the meeting and it was not the primary part of the meeting.

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

a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The medical director of St. Clare's Hospital on Monday spoke

about the problems of health care and doctors' frustrations with the inability

of the Province to provide adequate health care. When is the Premier going to

make a statement concerning the current economic union proposals, which I

believe will have the effect of constitutionalizing regional inequality in this

Province and destroying the ability of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to share

in the wealth of Canada by the constitutional proposals that are now before us?

When are you going to make a statement on that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have already indicated my disapproval of

that kind of an approach, of the down-loading onto the provinces which do not

have the ability to provide for those kinds of public services. I have already

done it. The hon. Member sat in the Chamber, I believe, and listened to me do

that. I have spoken about it in a variety of other places.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the kind of

economic changes that are proposed in the Federal proposal will, in fact, take

place, because they have gotten such an unacceptable reaction throughout the

rest of the country.

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

MR. HARRIS: On a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier indicate to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, that in this constitutional round he will focus on the major issues of

substance that affect the best interests of this Province, and demand that in

the new constitution that we are going to have, that there will be explicit

protection for spending on social programmes and regional equality in a form of

social charter that guarantees these basic rights?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, either the member has not

read the proposal that I have put forward or he is specifically ignoring it or

denying that it exists.

You see, you can't put into a constitution. You must be able

to go to the hospital and get an x-ray at least four times a year. That does not

belong in a constitution. That is for governments to provide. You put into a

constitution principles that require the protection of the social needs. That is

there in

Section 36, it is there now in

Section 36 (1), that commits the nation

to the provision of ensuring the well-being of citizens wherever they live. That

means educational well-being, health well-being, and social services well-being.

It provides for economic opportunity and it commits the nation to providing for

an acceptable level of public services.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I have proposed is that you put teeth

into that. That is what is missing. You do not spell out the number of x-rays to

which anybody is entitled in a constitution. That is just for show. If you want

to put on a good show and pretend you are doing something then, yes, you would

do that. But if you really want to make it work you do it right, you operate on

the basis of principle and you put teeth into it so that you can implement those

principles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Of

late the Minister in the media has sounded somewhat less positive about hydro

development prospects in Labrador. Perhaps the Minister could give us a very

brief update on the situation?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there is really nothing new to

add since I answered a question on this matter about a week ago. The most recent

meeting was about two-and-a-half weeks ago and there is another one that is

scheduled now, which is the pattern that we have been following for about two

years. We are going to continue to negotiate. I can't really say there will or

there won't be an agreement by a certain date. I am cautiously optimistic, but I

do not want to hold out false hope.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Globe And Mail reports, Mr. Speaker, that Hydro Quebec

appears to be determined to go ahead with Great Whale regardless of what the New

Yorkers think or not. Is the Minister concerned that that might put more

emphasis on the part of Hydro Quebec in its dealings with the Americans, than it

would in its dealings with us?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that

particular issue has any effect on our discussions.

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

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

When will the Minister admit that his constant stream of

statements on this issue have been nothing more than a smoke screen to cover up

the failures of the Wells' administration?

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

DR. GIBBONS: My statements, Mr. Speaker, have never been

a smoke screen for anything. I just state the facts as I know them.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. In recent months it has come to our attention that it is taking

increasingly longer to have cases dealt with at the Workers' Compensation Board.

Can the minister explain to this House why it takes so long for the WCB to

respond to the claims of injured workers?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm the premise on

which the hon. member bases his question because the information I have, in

fact, is that there is no difference in terms of the time to respond to a case

before the Workers' Compensation Commission now than there has been at any time

in the past several years. From time to time there are individuals, who because

of the nature of their injury and their own particular case, might take a

lengthy period of time. The number of cases and the number of claimants in the

system has actually decreased. The amount of time on a claim has increased, on

average, but the time limits are no different now, on average, than they have

been for a number of years.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: The Minister should talk to the injured

workers in this Province and find out how long it is actually taking.

I ask the minister this then. It is quite common for delays

to be as long as three months, and in some cases longer in processing claims.

Since you are the Minister responsible, what are you going to do now to remedy

the situation, and not wait until some report gets dealt with my Cabinet months

down the road?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the answer

previously, there is no evidence right now that there are any undue delays,

anymore so than there has ever been in the Workers' Compensation system for a

number of years.

With respect to what we are going to do immediately, I can

assure the hon. member and all members in the House, that there is a great

likelihood that our response to the Review Committee's recommendations early in

the new year will be a lot more speedy than the absolute zero response that came

from the 1986 review which has yet to be acted on at all by the Government of

that day. There was no action at that time whatsoever.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One has to wonder, then, why we are getting all the calls in

our offices, if there are no undue delays, and we also have to wonder why the

previous Minister of Employment and Labour Relations said that most of the

recommendations in the report were implemented.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister this: Will the Minister

confirm that deliberate instructions have been given to the claims adjudicators

at the Workers' Compensation Board by the Minister or senior management, to help

lower the deficit by deliberately delaying the payments to claimants by the

Workers' Compensation Board and that, in addition to that, the medical

department has an inadequate staff there to deal with the number of people who

are expecting to get claims?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there is, to my knowledge,

absolutely no basis or foundation whatsoever that there is any direction from

either the Minister or senior staff to delay claims, or anything of that nature,

so that there would not be money forthcoming to worthy recipients, clients that

deserve assistance under the Workers' Compensation system. There is no such

directive, to my knowledge, other than that claims should be dealt with as

expeditiously as possible.

The nature of the medical staff and the idea of having

reviews and medical information required before claimant's positions can be

finally determined, has always been a troublesome area. It is one that is

referenced in the Review Committee Report and one that we will be trying to deal

with early in the new year, as we deal with all aspects of the report, a number

of the recommendations dealing with reorganization at the Commission itself.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. On December

2 he made a statement and took a position with regards to a hook and release

program for the recreational salmon fishery. Over the last day or so we have

seen some strong statements coming from the Salmonid Council and from the

Outfitters Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am wondering, Mr.

Speaker, if the Minister consulted with both those associations before making

his statement and, as well, was that just an opinion of the minister or is it

the official position of Government, that this hook and release program should

be implemented?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I have explained now several

times precisely what I said on December 2, and while maybe my choice of words

was not good, what I said in effect, I guess, is that hook and release is one

option that will be looked at. If the biologists feel that a certain river

system requires that kind of an approach then, of course, why not? The

commercial fishermen will be sharing a certain amount of pain from what the

federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans intends to do and, if it's found that

river systems require a cautious approach then, as I said, maybe a suggestion

would be hook and release.

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

supplementary.

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

minister that the Outfitter's Association, the outfitters of the Province have

been having a pretty rough time the last few years, since a lot of the anglers

are going to other provinces because of the decline in our rivers, of salmon,

and some of them are saying that if the hook and release program is implemented,

then they probably will go under. Has the minister put any thought into, or

discussed with his colleague, the Minister of Tourism and Wildlife, and so on,

any possibilities of compensation for the outfitters of the Province if his

recommendation for a hook and release program is implemented? Has the Cabinet

looked at some kind of formal compensation package for the outfitters, to get

them through?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. gentleman is

reading something into what I said on December 2 that certainly wasn't intended

to be there. With respect to the concern being expressed by outfitters, I

suspect that maybe hook and release, if it is widely applied over all rivers,

would have an adverse effect on them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why did you recommend it?

MR. CARTER: Certainly, I did not recommend it, Mr.

Speaker, and the record will show that I said, that is a suggestion. I would

suggest to the hon. gentlemen opposite, Mr. Speaker, that instead of trying to

read something into what I said, or maybe did not say, they should be using

their influence on their soulmates in Ottawa to ensure that the commercial

salmon fishermen of our Province, some of whom are represented by members

opposite, to make representation to their friends in Ottawa to ensure that there

is a good, solid package put together to compensate commercial salmon fishermen

who, if reports are accurate, will be asked to forego their licences.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

for a short supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you Mr. Speaker. What a bunch of

quitters we have over there, Mr. Speaker! What a bunch of quitters!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: No, no, (inaudible) what he said is wrong.

'Mr.Carter is wrong,' the editorial in 'The Telegram' says. It's in there again,

today, that you're wrong. I want to ask a supplementary of the Minister of

Development and Tourism: What impact would such a hook and release program have

on the tourist industry in this Province? A lot of people come to the Province

for angling and so on. From what I read, the impact could be devastating on the

outfitters and the tourism industry in the Province. Would the minister have any

idea what the real impact would be on this Province if the hook and release

program is implemented?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member calls this

Government a bunch of quitters. Had the other government only known when to quit

on cucumbers, perhaps we would be better off today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has

told the House that the Government is looking at a number of options. Now, you

don't have to be a genius Mr. Speaker, to figure out that if it is hook and

release, obviously, it will have an effect and an impact on the outfitter

industry and on the tourism industry. Sure, it will have an effect, make no

mistake about it. But, I mean, we are trying to be responsible and not

political. Hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to play politics with a very

sensitive issue. The salmon are in deep trouble. Our commercial fishermen are in

deep trouble. There will be nothing there for tourists or outfitters or locals

if we don't address this very serious problem Mr. Speaker, and we choose not to

play politics with it but do what is responsible, look at all options, and take

the right decision for the long term.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

A moment ago, when I introduced a group of students, my notes

were not accurate. I said that the students were from St. Kevin's Elementary

School when, indeed, they are from the Gould's Elementary School.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, could we revert to Presenting

Reports?

MR. SPEAKER: May we revert to Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I simply wish to

table three annual reports: The annual report of the Livestock Owners

Compensation Board, 1989-1990; the annual report of the Farm Development Loan

Board of Newfoundland, fiscal year ending March 31, 1990; and the annual report

of the Newfoundland Crop Insurance, again, 1989-1990. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, in debate concerning Bill 53,

"An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting The Prevention Of Fire", I

was asked a technical question concerning the occupancy regulation for

buildings, and in reply to that question, Mr. Speaker, to which I said I would

respond - several members on the Opposition asked the question - in answer to

that, Mr. Speaker, the occupancy loading ratings are set depending on a number

of factors, the main factor which may vary the occupancy rating between similar

types of structures, is the use of the premises.

The occupancy factor for eating establishments, for instance,

and public assembly halls, would be different. The occupancy loading is

established in accordance with the national building code. There are

considerable numbers of variables which influence each use and uses are broken

down in the building code into assembly uses, institutional uses, residential

uses, business and personal service uses, mercantile uses, industrial uses and

other uses.

Within each of these main uses, a number of variables has to

be considered and these include whether the occupancy required was a space with

fixed seats, space with non-fixed seats, stage for theatrical performances,

space with non-fixed seats and tables, standing space, dormitories, dwelling

units, offices, storage, kitchens and there are many others.

Other influencing factors would be the type of construction,

both inside and outside, the number of exits, the proximity to availability of

fire fighting water flows, whether or not the property was sprinklered -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MR. SIMMS: I appreciate the fact that the minister is

trying to give us some information, but the question was asked in debate. He

should have provided the answer when he was here to close the debate, so perhaps

he could just table it rather than take the time of the House now to read all

that detailed and technical information, because it is not really in order,

anyway.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: The question was asked in debate and in

Question Period, Mr. Speaker, which I omitted to say earlier. Just one more

sentence and I am finished. One cannot say, Mr. Speaker, that because two

properties appear to be alike in structure and type of construction that the

occupancy loading would be the same. In order to make a particular

determination, one would have to know the two buildings in question and do an

individual assessment to determine whether maybe they may be given different

occupancy load levels, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the Chair is not

aware, at the moment, of whether or not Answers to Questions are only

specifically for Question Period. That has been my understanding, that Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given ought to be for questions asked in

Question Period. The Chair will research that. Obviously, if it is in some other

forum, then the minister will answer that in the appropriate debate. I think it

has been customary that Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given has

been for questions asked during Question Period, but the Chair will research it

a little further.

MR. GULLAGE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that

is academic, because I was also asked the question in Question Period.

MR. SIMMS: Did he (inaudible) notice of the question,

that is the (inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Yes I did.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I take the minister's word, again, and make the point that

anybody giving answer to a question, obviously, it is for notice that has been

given, and the Chair does not always know that the notice has been given, in

view of the debate that has taken place the day before. So one would have to

leave it to the integrity of the ministers. Barring that - not barring the

integrity,

because I think we have that, but if there is some dispute,

then the Chair will research it.

Petitions

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by

residents in my district, 132 residents of the community of Hodge's Cove.

The prayer and the format of the petition do not conform to

the rules of the House. I request the leave of the hon. House to present this

petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Could the Chair take a look at the petition?

For hon. members, what the petition is doing is requesting

the Government to pave roads in a certain area - upgrading of roads. It does not

have the normal format of a petition, but that is its request. If hon. members

would agree, it is signed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed!

The hon. the member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I thank hon. members for their kindness. The

prayer of the petition says: 'We, the undersigned residents of the Community of

Hodge's Cove, in the electoral district of Bellevue, specifically those who are

served by gravel roads, do hereby petition Her Majesty's Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to have these mentioned roads paved in the 1992 paving

season.

To give some history of Bellevue district, when I got elected

some two-and-a-half years ago, despite the millions of dollars being spent in

this Province on road work, there were eleven communities in the district of

Bellevue that did not have pavement within the communities, themselves. The main

roads, the bus routes within the communities, did not have pavement. Hodge's

Cove, of course, was one of these communities, and Hodge's Cove is a fairly big

community. When you look at the amount of money that Government spends in some

of these small communities, it is very, very little. We hear from time to time

in Question Period, and particularly, talking about municipal capital grants,

equalization grants, and householder grants, there is a lot of money being

passed out to the urban areas in this Province in the form of direct Government

grants. In a lot of these smaller communities, normally, the only thing they ask

for is a few paved roads in their communities, and for the roads to be ploughed

and maintained. Sometimes, they request a few little water grants. So these

people in the Province contribute greatly to the taxes within the Province but,

in a lot of cases, receive very few benefits in terms of Government grants and

other forms of funding.

I support this petition. Out of the eleven communities in the

Bellevue district that were unpaved when I got elected, we have already looked

after five; there are only six more. I guess one of my objectives, in my first

term in office in Bellevue district, is to ensure that the other six communities

in the district will be paved before I go back to the people seeking my second

mandate.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in support of the petition of the hon. member

representing a district that had a lot of communities with gravel roads, whereby

people find it very, very hard to get to school and work, etc. I can fully

appreciate the position the people are in, and I certainly support their

petition for improvements in their district.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: The member presented a petition in the House

on behalf of his constituents. I would think it rather strange if the Minister

of Transportation or the Government did not get up on behalf of the Government

and acknowledge, on behalf of the constituents of the hon. member, that there is

a problem with the roads.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The Government will respond and speak to

issues as the Government sees fit, and not as the member opposite thinks it

should happen. We will leave it entirely to the Government. That is the normal

process of operating, and we are not going to waste the time of the House with

these kinds of points of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I remind hon. members that the Chair is

standing and asking for order, and just simply to say there is no point of

order.

Order, please!

Orders of the Day

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Department of Mines And Energy Act, 1989." (Bill No. 60).

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, a couple of very minor

amendments to The Department of Mines and Energy Act. Last year, when we studied

petroleum product pricing, we found some minor weaknesses in the gathering of

information and the posting of prices, so this bill would amend the Act to give

the Minister of Mines and Energy the authority to order a person engaged in the

refining, distribution or sale of petroleum or petroleum products to provide

information respecting activities that may be prescribed by regulation.

Presently, any information that we get from the industry is on a voluntary

basis. This would allow us to get some information more directly, by regulation.

The second point is the bill would authorize the minister to

order a person engaged in the retail sale of petroleum or petroleum products to

post the prices at which they are being sold in a manner again to be prescribed,

so there would be some consistency in this as people approach a gas pump.

It is very minor, Mr. Speaker, and that is all I have to say

on it.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaking for the

Opposition, we have no problem with this particular bill. It contains minor

housekeeping amendments. However, it is, I should say, in a more political vein,

in line with the Minister's duties as the good news Minister of the Wells'

administration. Much has been said about the regulation of petroleum products,

little has been done. At least, now, we will have some enabling legislation.

With that, I have nothing further to say, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to offer my

support in principle for the changes to the legislation to give the Government

some power to do a proper job in monitoring retail prices and getting

information from the suppliers. But I wonder, in the Minister's cluing up of

debate, would he give the members some assurance that his Government will be

active in pursuing this issue, particularly, as it relates to complaints that we

keep getting from the coast of Labrador.

I know the Member for Eagle River does not like to talk about

it, but there is a consistent, annual series of complaints about the high cost

of petroleum products on the coast of Labrador, the variations between

communities which are very extreme, and an apparent monopoly that needs the

constant attention of this Government. I ask the minister, in replying to this

debate, would he give the House the assurance that this winter, in particular,

he will be very vigilant with respect to this problem on the coast of Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now, he

closes the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

comments by the hon. members opposite. As was said, this will give us some teeth

now to actually get some detailed information,

whereas previously everything had

to be done on a voluntary basis by the companies. We will be able to find out

some details on cost in places like coastal Labrador that we could not find out

before. So my staff will certainly be doing that. I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Mines

And Energy Act, 1989," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of

the Whole House presently, by leave.

MR. BAKER: Order 13, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 13.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the

Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend Certain Departmental Acts And The

Newfoundland Public Service Commission Act, 1973." (Bill No. 36).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 14.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act".

(Bill No. 45).

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 3, carry?

Just a second now; just go back to Bill 45 for a minute, to

get the clause and the title, as well, the enacting clause.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 15.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, 1977 (No.

3)". (Bill No 47).

On motion, clauses 1 and 2, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 3, carry?

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: An amendment to clause 3, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. GRIMES: In

section 9.1 (4), the inclusion of a phrase

- and the Opposition critic and the Table have the amendment - 'In the absence

of existing agreements', so that the only time that the board would have to look

at a past and area practices would be, if in fact, all other things are

unavailable because it has been pointed out to us in consultations since, that

when there are existing agreements, previous decisions of the board and other

adjudicative bodies, and so on, that there is no need to go to past and area

practices.

That process is very lengthy and we have agreed with the

suggestion that when the other sources of information and evidence are

available, there would be no need to go to past and area practice as a reason

for making a decision with the board. So, in that case, we move this amendment

for the inclusion of the phrase: in the absence of existing agreements', in

section 9.1 (4).

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 4 as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 5 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carry all clauses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All clauses?

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Again, with clause 5, Mr. Chairman,

Section

70.15, has just been restated in the positive. The wording in Bill 47, as

presented, was worded in a negative fashion. It is the exact same statement of

position except that it is worded and restated in the positive so that the

"Notwithstanding the accreditation of an employers' organization in the sector,

an employer in the sector is bound by a collective agreement", previously it

stated, 'would not be bound unless,' so it is worded more clearly and this

facilitates the reading of this particular section.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 5 as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 6, carry?

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: An amendment in clause 6, subsection 88.1

(2), to be replaced and substituting the wording here. What this does, is there

were two instances where the board could order that the facts would be adduced

and the knowledge that material to the allegation would have to be presented

before the board. It was there in two different sections in 88.1 (2) and also in

89.6. It was stated with different language in the two sections, even though the

intent was exactly the same, so it is changed here to make the wording in

88.1(2) coincide exactly with the wording in 89, subsection 6, so it is the same

intent and now will have the same wording.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 6 as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 7 carry?

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman?

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

MR. HARRIS: On clause 6, Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet

and not recognized by the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not see the hon. member

standing. So clause 6 has been carried as amended.

MR. HARRIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not know what I am

required to do. I understand that the rules require me to stand to be

recognized. If the Chair did not recognize me, I can only assume that -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member is standing.

MR. HARRIS: I can only assume that standing is not

sufficient in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has stated to the hon. member

that he did not see the member standing, and the Chair cannot recognize an hon.

member if he does not see him standing. Those are the rules of the House, and if

the hon. member wants to ask for leave to revert back to clause 6, then the

Chair has no choice but to do that, if it is approved by the House.

MR. HARRIS: I ask the Chair to seek the leave of the

House to revert to clause 6.

MR. MURPHY: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the hon.

members, in particular the Member for St. John's South, for giving leave on this

matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on clause 6 and the particular

wording of clause 6, particularly as it relates to an attempt by the Government,

through this legislation, to avoid some of the practices being undertaken by way

of double breasting or avoidance, really, of the provisions of the Labour

Relations Act.

One of the most common practice developed in recent years,

Mr. Chairman - and it is not something that is brand new, it did not happen

yesterday or the day before, but it has been in practice for the last couple of

years - is, in essence, a form of double breasting. What happens, Mr. Chairman,

is that companies - and this happens quite often with construction companies,

but it happens with other companies as well - that what they do is, instead of

setting up a new company or a double-breasted company that is owned by the same

people, they will have what is called a payroll corporation.

If one looks at some of the applications that have been

before the Labour Relations Board, for some strange reason accountants initials

seems to be the names of most of these corporations. In fact, I understand from

the applications that I have been involved with myself, when in practice, that

certain types of companies can be set up on a matter of a day's notice. All of a

sudden the employer is no longer the employer that everybody thought it was, but

the employer is an accounting firm which is, in essence, acting as a payroll

company.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there have been applications before the

Labour Relations Board where the board has determined that the real employer, in

the case of interpreting this Labour Relations Act, was, in fact, the company

that was providing the money to the payroll company to make the payments. Mr.

Chairman, it does not take terribly much imagination for these companies, that

are trying to avoid the provisions of this act, to put in place one or two

people who may have some expertise to get around the rulings that the Labour

Relations Board has made.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister whether he would not

be prepared to propose an amendment to clause 6, or to

section 89 of the act

coming up in clause 7, which would ensure that the Labour Relations Board was

certain to have the power to determine, for the purposes of the Labour Relations

Act, that such an activity or such a company conducting payroll activities and

only peripherally involved in any other activities, would be, in fact, for all

purposes of the act, considered an employer. It might require, Mr. Chairman, a

minor technical amendment to clause 88.1 or clause 6.

What it reads now is, "Where, in the opinion of the board

associated or related activities or businesses are carried on," and it goes on

to talk about the ownership of those companies, Mr. Chairman. An amendment to

that would provide that the associated or related business being carried on

would permit the board to declare that a corporation, person, partnership, or

syndicate, would be an employer for the purposes of the act, even though they

were not related or under common control.

So, I think the Minister is aware of this problem. He knows

that this is a practice that goes on, and he knows that the Labour Relations

Board is not certain that the Labour Relations Board has jurisdiction. It is

going to be a difficult time over the next few years, with people having to

fight off various applications to do this, and I wonder would the Minister

address that issue to the House and advise the House whether he is prepared to

accept an amendment to the new

Section 88.1, which would guarantee that this

type of activity would be considered to be part of the common employer

provisions under the new section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I recognize fully and having discussed the matter previously,

as well, with the Member for St. John's East. This whole issue of the payroll

companies and so on has been raised in some of the discussions that have been

carried on with the unions involved here, representatives of the employees, as

well as representatives of the employers, and this consultation has gone on now

extensively and in a detailed fashion over the past six months. Prior to that

the issue was also raised before the Legislation Review Committee briefly last

year.

The difficulty, Mr. Chairman, is that nobody has yet brought

forward any kind of proposal for amendment to include that kind of provision

that meets with any kind of agreement. No one has really proposed that that be

dealt with at the same time as the rest of these matters. Everyone is aware that

there is another issue there that will have to be dealt with at some point in

time and, based on the consideration that we have given to the matter to date

and the fact that that has only been raised tangentially and has not been part

of any detailed consultation process with the main players involved and affected

by this change, it wouldn't be proper, in my judgement, to entertain amendment

along that line now. But it is certainly something that is under ongoing

consideration and might be part of some changes in the future dealing with the

same types of matters that are dealt with here now.

On motion, clauses 7 through 8 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with

amendment, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the following

bills without amendment, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act."

(Bill No. 57)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act." (Bill No.

58)

MR. BAKER: Order 18, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 18.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Assignment Of Book Debts Act,

The Bills Of Sale Act, The Conditional Sales Act And The Registration Of Deeds

Act In Relation To The Offshore Area." (Bill No. 59)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 2 carry?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking to Bill 59, Mr. Chairman, a lot of people in my

district have a lot of concern about the power, or exactly what this bill does

to them, the tremendous impact that parts of this bill has on what's occurring -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are on the wrong one.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if this new House

Leader has deliberately misled me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The Chair called Bill number 59.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. BAKER: My understanding is that the Member for

Menihek wished to put on the record his comments about Bill 57, and we had

already done that. So I am wondering if, by leave of the House, we could allow

the Member to make his comments about Bill 57 for the record?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the House agree to revert back to

discussion on Bill 57?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

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

I certainly appreciate the House granting leave to allow me

the opportunity of speaking on a bill that has such a tremendous impact on the

residents of Western Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, we all know that the role of a Crown

Corporation can play a very important economic role in the economic development

of a province or an area, specifically. We have seen other provincial

governments use Crown corporations such as a hydro corporation - Hydro Quebec in

the Province of Quebec - as being part of the industrial strategy. We have seen

Ontario Hydro, in the Province of Ontario, being used, some funds from Ontario

Hydro, to specifically help an area that has been hit harder than other areas in

the Province of Ontario in the recession. We have seen funds through Ontario

Hydro being used in a diversification fund in northern Ontario to help alleviate

unemployment problems and to diversify the local economy in northern Ontario.

More specifically, Elliot Lake.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good government.

MR. A. SNOW: A very good government, Mr. Chairman, in the

sense that they are responding to the needs of people. Of course, labels do not

necessarily make a good government. You have to have people involved in that

particular party or governments of all parties, Mr. Chairman, who have a concern

for people, who put people above the bottom line.

I firmly believe that this is what this Government does not

do. It should direct its Crown corporations to participate in moves that would

and could help people, and help them in a region such as Western Labrador. One

of the few advantages that is left that we can offer from Western Labrador to

attract new industry, to service the mining industry that is now presently

located in the Province of Quebec, one of the few advantages that we did have

was providing the opportunity for them to move north, set up their shops in

Western Labrador, provide services to the mining industry and, thus, create

jobs. That is what it would do. It would allow the opportunity for these

entrepreneurs to establish in Western Labrador rather than in the Province of

Quebec and create more employment opportunities for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, not only would it provide that opportunity, it

would also create or continue the opportunity for people in Western Labrador to

maintain the lifestyle that they have become accustomed to, in knowing the fact

that they do not have to pay a high, exorbitant cost for electricity. A lot of

the people who went to Western Labrador to work in the mines were enticed there

because of low housing costs and low heating costs in the housing units that

they had to live in, recognizing, of course, that they consume more energy than

other areas of this Province because of the extreme climatic conditions.

So, Mr. Chairman, this Bill facilitates Newfoundland Hydro

taking over the Carol Utility Company, Mr. Chairman, which will undoubtedly

offer tremendous increases to the people of Western Labrador. In Labrador City

right now Newfoundland Hydro are asking for a 30 per cent increase, Mr.

Chairman, to electrical charges. Hopefully, they will not get the right to

increase the electrical charges by 30 per cent, and 15 per cent in Wabush, Mr.

Chairman. If the people in Western Labrador are going to have to pay 30 per cent

more for electrical energy next year, and the following year the intent of the

hydro company has been stated publicly, that they want to have a uniform rate,

and the people of Labrador will have to pay as much as 300 per cent more than

what they are paying today.

MR. GRIMES: That is unfair.

MR. A. SNOW: The Member for Exploits says that is unfair

and I thoroughly agree with him, that it is unfair. I am glad that he recognizes

the unfairness of this and that he is going to speak up for the residents of

Western Labrador. If this proposal ever comes to Cabinet, I hope that he will

speak up for the residents of Western Labrador.

I believe that the Government should direct Crown

corporations, such as Newfoundland Hydro, to play an important role in the

economic development of the Province and areas of the Province. The opportunity

has been there. You are missing an opportunity to do it. It can be used as a

lever to entice businesses to come and reside, operate, and create more

opportunities for employment, and economic activity in Western Labrador, but you

have to have the understanding and the caring of putting people above the bottom

line and thus making this Crown corporation work for the people rather than just

working to expand its own territory or its own domain, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Order 19, Mr. Chairman.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Chairman, just to correct one error, in

fact, from the hon. member opposite. This particular set of amendments has

nothing at all to do with Hydro Corporation taking over the private grid in

Labrador City, absolutely nothing. It does include Labrador for the

cross-subsidy, but it has nothing to do with taking over the grid.

A bill, "An Act To Establish An Advisory Council On The

Economy." (Bill No. 61)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. BAKER: By leave, committee stage on Bill No. 60, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave Bill No. 60.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Mines And Energy

Act, 1989." (Bill No. 60)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de

Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker the Committee of the Whole have

considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to report Bills 36,

45, 57, 58, 59, 61, and 60 carried without amendment, and Bill 47 with

amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to

sit again presently by leave.

On motion, Bill 47, amendment read a first and second time,

bill ordered read a third time presently by leave.

MR. BAKER: Order 21, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 21.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The

Regulation Of Lotteries And Amusement Devices In The Province." (Bill No. 32).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill. There has

been a fair amount of discussion about this bill in the last couple of days, and

I would like to inform the House as to the reason, one reason, really, why it is

important that this be dealt with now.

First of all, just a brief

summary of the bill. It has to do

with the licensing and the control of certain devices. In terms of the

licensing, clause 4(1): In accordance with the regulations, the Minister of

Justice or a person designated by the Minister of Justice may issue a licence to

the owner of an electronic or mechanical amusement device.

Now, this is in addition to the lottery aspect of it.

Clause 4(2) says: 'Where the owner of the electronic or

mechanical amusement device referred to in subsection (1) fails to obtain a

licence, inspectors appointed by the Minister of Justice may seize and retain

that device.'

Mr. Speaker, to go a step further, if you jump to clause

6(1): 'A person who fails to comply with or otherwise contravenes this Act or

the regulations is guilty of an offence and every person who is guilty of an

offence is liable on

summary conviction in the case of a 1st conviction to a

fine not exceeding $1,000 and in the case of a 2nd or subsequent conviction for

a similar offence to a fine not exceeding $5,000 and, in either case, in default

of payment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months.'

Those are the consequences of disobeying, or going against

this particular bill and the regulations contained. The penalties are even

greater than that, because if you go to clause 6(3): 'Every continuance for a

day or part of a day of the failure to comply or other contravention referred to

in subsection (1) constitutes a separate offence.'

So it is not that a person can get charged and get off with

paying $1,000 fine, while he perhaps had the illegality continuing for a number

of days, weeks, or months and hence could make thousands of dollars. Every

single day or part thereof constitutes a separate offence, which makes the fines

or whatever that much more serious.

Mr. Speaker, the question will be asked: Why am I insisting,

or is Government insisting, on doing this piece of legislation right now? I

would like to explain that. First of all, the first point that I want to make is

that this piece of legislation gives the Government and Cabinet, or whatever,

exactly the same powers it has under the Criminal Code, with one exception. So,

we are, in a sense, taking powers that exist under the Criminal Code and putting

them in the bill, but we are making an exception. There is a difference between

what we can do under the Criminal Code and what is here, and it is that

exception I would like to explain, but, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you a

little story first.

I would like to tell you about what has happened in New

Brunswick. Of the devices we mention here, we have lotteries: the Atlantic

Lotto, Lotto 6-49, that type of activity. But we also have the so-called slot

machines, or the electronic machines.

AN HON. MEMBER: Slot machines.

MR. BAKER: Whatever they are called. I have heard them

called by a variety of names. But there are electronic machines, Mr. Speaker, on

which people can go and play a variety of gambling games. That is what is

included here in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain to you what has happened

in New Brunswick, and not only New Brunswick, but in some other provinces with

regard to these machines. I would like members opposite to listen because that

is the crux of the reason why we want this bill through now. The machine is not

a lottery, but simply an amusement device like a pinball machine. I used to play

pinball when I was a kid for five cents. These are amusement devices, but they

were put in corner stores and made highly available all over the Province of New

Brunswick and in some other provinces, as well.

What these machines do, and I have researched this, these

machines, you put in your money and you play certain games of poker, games of

chance, and you either win or lose. Now, most of the time you lose, and your

quarter or whatever is gone, but sometimes you win. And when you win a number of

times in a row, you build up credits in the machine. Now, so far, this is just

an amusement device, just like the pinball machines where you win your free

games, you get your credits show up free games. However, credits build up if you

win, and when you stop playing, you push a button and a printout comes and you

are told how many credits you have. Now, Mr. Speaker, you cannot do anything

with credits, so, ordinarily, that would be the end of it. The person would have

the satisfaction of playing the device, being amused by it, which was supposedly

the function of it, and that would be all. However, Mr. Speaker, there was

another side to these machines, and the other side was this: these credits, in a

lot of cases, could then be taken - I am talking not about what is happening

here, but what has happened in other provinces, I will get to what is happening

here - could be taken and turned in to the proprietor who would illegally -

because legally he or she could not do it - pay off for the credits obtained in

the machine. So, in other words, legally these machines were entertainment

devices, but in reality, with what was happening, they were gambling devices.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) entertaining questions.

MR. BAKER: Yes, sure.

MR. MATTHEWS: Why would they do that? I mean, even not

knowingly playing it for money, I would think, where would the money come into

the transaction?

MR. BAKER: Okay, here is the catch. I did not really go

into how the machines function. You see, there is a little chip that you put in

the back and it controls the number of times people win and this kind of thing,

so the people who owned the machines were putting in a chip that indicated the

machine would pay out a certain percentage of times, and there would be a split

of the money because, as members opposite know, it is one thing to put your

money in and be amused, it is another thing to stand a chance of winning money.

And the word very quickly got around that you could actually win money with

this, so that is what stimulated the interest. There was a run on these

machines, and the under the table pay offs that were associated with it, and the

machines could be manipulated. One week, the owner of these thousand machines,

or whatever, would come in and put a chip in, and that chip would cause a fairly

large payout, and word would get around that this machine had a large payout.

Then he would come in the next week, change the chip, it would be a lower

payout, and make a killing.

The profit was then split between the person who owned the

establishment and the person who owned the machine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Okay, but I will get to the difference now.

What was happening was that these machines then proliferated all over the

province - I will use New Brunswick as an example - and there was a tremendous

amount of illegal gambling happening in corner stores and bus stops and

everything all over the place.

Now then, Government would not want that to happen. This is

an illegal activity. Right? So do you know what they tried to do? They tried to

stop it. But they found out, because of the way the court system works - and I

am not a lawyer, so I do not understand the intricacies of the court system -

but the way the court system works, they would have to get conclusive proof,

using undercover agents, and so on, that this activity was happening. But they

had to get this proof in every individual incident. And there were not enough

undercover people, they just did not have enough policemen, to actually lay

enough charges to have an effect on the number of machines in the Province.

MR. HODDER: I just wanted to make a comment.

MR. BAKER: Sure.

MR. HODDER: When I went to the University of New

Brunswick in the 1960s, these machines were around. They weren't in Nova Scotia

and they weren't in Prince Edward Island. I would submit to the President of

Treasury Board that the reason these things were allowed to - and he gives the

New Brunswick experience, which I do not think is a valid experience. I think

the problem there was that the Province never did outlaw the things and they

turned a blind eye to them right from the late l950s and early 1960s.

MR. BAKER: Yes, I was going to get to that. That matter

will be dealt with a little later on. I just wanted to first of all set the

stage and point out what these machines were, how they could be manipulated by

the chips, and what happened in that instance.

Now, the hon. member, when he went to university, that was a

long time ago, and there were some of these machines around, certainly, but

nothing like what has happened in the last year or so. What has happened is -

well, a number of things have happened. Number one, the machines have been

outlawed - a certain type of machine has been outlawed in some of the states in

the United States. So they have this hardware that they wanted to put in use

somewhere. So that is why there is now a flood of these machines into Canada

coming through New Brunswick first, and Nova Scotia has a tremendous problem in

the last number of months. I am just talking about recent history now. In the

last number of months hundreds of those machines have flooded into Nova Scotia

and are starting to flood the market in Nova Scotia the way they did in New

Brunswick.

The reason it is happening is simply that there is no

control. We had some of the machines in this Province, and they were showing up

in the bars and so on. So this is one of the reasons why the decision was made

to try to control what was happening in this Province. Because a couple of

hundred of those machines had already come into the Province this summer. So by

controlling it we do a number of things.

We ensure that there is control. If it is left wide open they

are going to show up everywhere because we have no way of telling someone: you

cannot put an amusement device in a corner store. We just cannot do it. If we

knew and could prove it was gambling we could do it. We can't stop it otherwise,

it is the only way to stop it. It gives us control over where these machines go,

to ensure that if they are not to be used - now this is a separate issue.

Members might want to suggest that we should, after we have this control, then

make the decision that we will not licence any more and that if any more show up

we can simply go and seize them, we now have the right to do that. Members can

make that point. But in order to do that you first of all have to have the

control which this bill gives. It is as simple as that. It is a matter of

control. Right now they are limited to places where people over the age of

eighteen - what is the drinking age now, eighteen?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nineteen.

MR. BAKER: Oh, nineteen. Anyway, where people of drinking

age go. They are limited to that. They are not in places where kids can get at

them and so on, and spend hour after hour shoving their quarters in.

MS. VERGE: Just intoxicated adults.

MR. BAKER: Well, I remind the hon. member that she was

part of the Government that got us into the lottery business in the first place.

I remind the hon. member of that. Like I say, that is not the issue here, the

issue is control. If the hon. member wants to talk about the way the control is

used that is a totally different issue. As a matter of fact, it is a totally

irrelevant issue until we pass that bill because we have no control over these

machines, because the gambling will go on under the table like it has been going

on in other parts of Canada, and we will have no way to control it.

I will say one other thing to hon. members, that across

Canada where there have not been the controls, the people who have been

controlling these machines are members of organized crime. Organized crime has

been controlling these machines.

AN HON. MEMBER: Most of the machines I see are owned by

Lotto Canada.

MR. BAKER: Well, if the hon. member would listen, I just

finished explaining. That is why we decided to go the control route and not the

route that New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have gone, and they are now kicking

themselves because they did not go, and are wondering how they can get back to

where we are now, to get control of the whole thing before it gets out of

control. It is out of control in those provinces right now.

So, right now we have, I suppose in one sense, said to these

establishments that Atlantic Lotto will be allowed to put those machines in but

you cannot have any other machines. So right away that has kind of shut down the

operation of what I now call the illegal machines. Once this bill passes we can

then say, 'This machine in this place is illegal, there is no license for it.'

We can then go in and seize it, if they do not immediately stop the operation

and get rid of the machines. If they start showing up in corner stores, we can

shutdown the operations.

Right now we have some indirect kind of control through the

licensed establishments to sell liquor. We have an indirect kind of control now.

This would give us direct control over every single establishment that wants to

put one of those machines in. I can tell you that a matter of two or three

months is serious in this particular case. There are thousands of machines now

in the process of flooding the market and it has only been in the last month or

so, couple of months, that they have really started to hit in Nova Scotia. Some

of them have already shown here but the flood has not hit yet .

MR. HARRIS: In what month did Atlantic Lotto put theirs

in?

MR. BAKER: It was about six months ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was to replace the underground

machines that were already there.

MR. BAKER: That is right, yes. There are a lot of

underground machines in there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NOEL: There are no machines down my way, and I am

going (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: That is right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The President of the Council is speaking. If other members

would like to take

part in the debate there will be an opportunity.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, this bill gives us control over

not only the gambling devices, not only the normal gambling means like Lotto 649

which is just as much a gambling device or gambling activity as the electronic

machines, not only does it give us the control that we already have over Lotto

649 and all of those activities, but it gives us control over the electronic and

mechanical amusement devices that we did not have before. That is really the

only change from the control we now have under the Criminal Code.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important that this bill be

dealt with now. It has nothing to do with the issue of whether we should get

involved or not. It really deals with the fact that if that activity does happen

in this Province then the Government will control it one way or the other. I

would suggest that that is the way that this should be dealt with. I know that

some members opposite have been taking it in an entirely different light, but it

has nothing to do with the philosophy of whether we should be involved in

gambling or anything else. All it has to do with is allowing us to control the

illegal gambling activities, and then, if members opposite want to suggest we

should cut down our gambling activities once we have the control, I would agree

with you. We need the control to do it because if we do not get the control, I

can guarantee you that within a short time there will be illegal machines all

over this island, ten times as many as are there now. They will be all over this

island. I guarantee you they will, and I that is why -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well I am just telling you the truth now.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) put them all over the Province.

MR. BAKER: Okay. I am trying to explain this in a

non-partisan, realistic way. I admit that we have put 782 machines in the

Province. That is well known. That was never hidden.

MS. VERGE: That is not well known.

MR. BAKER: It is well known.

MS. VERGE: There were no public hearings about it.

MR. BAKER: It is well known that there are 782 machines.

The member, in her usual way, is being totally partisan, ignoring the purpose of

this act, and trying to score a few political points. Well I wish her luck. That

is fine. That is fair ball. But I just want it to be known for what it is. This

act gives us control, then when we have control, it is up to us to decide what

to do with it. These machines are in existence now in the Province. We have put

782, I believe, into this Province, 782 machines. But I will tell you that if we

do not get control there will be 7,082 in very short order in corner stores and

grocery stores all over this Province.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the legislation

before the House. What the hon. Government House Leader is talking about here is

a piece of legislation that is to authorize the Government monopoly on gambling.

That seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to be the purpose of this legislation.

We have heard the minister tell us what he wants to do, what

he wants to control, and he wants to do this. What did they do so far, Mr.

Speaker? They wanted to give the carte blanche to the Cabinet of this Province

to undertake gambling activities on behalf of the Government. He has already

done that.

AN HON. MEMBER: We already have that.

MR. HARRIS: He has already done that. What he wants is a

monopoly to raise funds through gambling.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Government has not given any commitment

whatsoever as to what they are going to do with the power they are asking the

Legislature to give them. They are asking for the power to control it, but what

they have done so far is engage in the prospect themselves. The Minister has

admitted that they have 782 machines. We were told the other day that there are

782 machines in 276 establishments that were put in by Atlantic Lotto. This is

the Government gambling scheme, Mr. Speaker, for which there has been no public

debate or discussion about. There is no commitment from this Government to do

anything other than take control over this and continue their monopoly on

gambling as another way of raising funds, Mr. Speaker, from a type of activity

which has been condemned, not for its moral value - if somebody wants to gamble

a few shekels here and there, then I do not think that there is any suggestion

that the secret police should go around and see if the Member for St. John's

South is playing poker with his buddies on a Thursday night. If he wants to do

that, Mr. Speaker, then I do not think that even the Government's (inaudible)

police would want to interfere with that. But, Mr. Speaker, what we have here is

a different type of activity all together.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister could get up and tell the

House in how many of these 276 establishments where Atlantic Lotto has now

placed these slot machines - and let's call them what they are, slot machines -

how many of those 276 establishments have these other machines in them? The

Member for Burin, the Opposition House Leader, says that there were none down

his way until Atlantic Lotto put them in. None!

MR. HODDER: And none in St. George Bay either.

MR. HARRIS: And the Member for Port au Port says there

were none in St. George Bay. So what did the Government do so far. They are not

there to control this activity, Mr. Speaker, they are there to monopolize on it.

So far, that is the evidence that we have on this side of the House as to what

this Government intends to do with this power that they want. Even without the

alleged power that they are asking for, they have been out promoting this kind

of activity as the Government of this Province and I think there is something

wrong with that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe the public wants to have gambling.

Maybe they do, but they have not even been asked. I think this is a very

controversial kind of activity. Service clubs and service organizations have

complained about this in the past. There is a whole big issue here which the

Government is hiding its head under the sand about, wants to, and has already

been for the last six months, engaging in a new form of gambling, which twenty

years ago, Mr. Speaker, I think you had to go to Las Vegas to do. It was all a

big deal, go to Las Vegas to find out what slot machines were all about, or go

down to Placentia to the Argentia Naval Base and play the slots for a bit. I

think some people used to do that.

MR. MURPHY: Or go down to Pepperrell (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Or some elderly Members, like the Member for

St. John's South, remember going down to Pepperrell during the War. Mr. Speaker,

perhaps the Member for St. John's South will get up and tell about the nature of

gambling activities and what it does to people and what his experience of it is.

That is a different experience.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a major issue. We are not

government fund-raising activity. I have listened to what the hon. Government

House Leader says, and I listened to what the Department of Finance officials

had to say in the Committee the other day. I do not see the Minister of Justice

in the House defending this Justice bill. Mr. Speaker, what we have here is

something that this Government is trying to - we do not have anything in this

Bill which controls the Government. What about the control of the Government? He

is talking about controlling gambling and giving all the power to the Cabinet,

but what about the control on this Government? What kind of control is there

going to be through this Bill on what this Government is going to do with this

activity? From what we have seen so far, the only thing they want to do with

this activity is have a Government monopoly on slot machines so they can put

them in every bar in this Province. They are in 276 now. I do not know how many

bars there are in the Province. Maybe they will put them in every single bar in

the Province and make sure that the whole Province is covered, so they can soak

every dollar that they can out of the public of Newfoundland who are in bars and

who may be susceptible to the desperation of needing to try and pick up a few

dollars through the hope, the false hope as it turns out, of getting a few

dollars out of a gambling machine, because they are so desperate for work or for

other alternatives. Mr. Speaker, that is what this Government is encouraging

with this policy, with this programme of monopolizing gambling and proliferating

gambling in this Province, not controlling it at all.

Now what I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is what control is

there going to be over this Government? This Government wants to give itself,

through the Cabinet, the power to organize gambling, to control gambling, but

the only evidence we have as to what they want to do is raise money through

gambling.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have not have anything from this. There

is nothing in this Bill, nothing that says what the goals are. What are the

goals of the Government taking over this? Is there some public purpose? Do I see

anything in this Act that says public purpose? Where is the public purpose? All

we are talking about here is power. Power and control is all we are talking

about. There is nothing in here which says that the Government shall control

lotteries in the public good. There is nothing here that says that they will

make sure the conduct of lotteries, the application of lotteries and the

proliferation of lotteries and gambling is going to be such that it does not

interfere with community life, family life, or with any of the public values

that people consider important.

MR. BAKER: Let prohibition do it.

MR. HARRIS: Okay, Mr. Speaker, let's deal with the meat

of the issue. Now we have the Member for St. John's South talking about being

sanctimonious, and the Government House Leader talking about prohibition. Well,

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about prohibition.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what the Government House Leader is

suggesting is that we have it all one way or all another. I am not suggesting

prohibiting all gambling. I didn't suggest prohibiting all gambling. The

Government House Leader would say, 'Let her go, but the Government will do it

and we will make the money on it.' That is what he is doing. 'Let's have

gambling, let's let the Atlantic Lotto Corporation go in there with whatever

forms of gambling that it can come up with, whatever methods whereby that they

can psychologically suck in people to buy these tickets.'

I know, Mr. Speaker, and I can see some of the Members in

this House who, as part of their education, studied a little bit of psychology

and have discovered and know that there are certain rules that apply. How you

can convince people to do certain things a certain number of times? These little

computer chips, that the Government House Leader talks about, are all designed

scientifically, Mr. Speaker, to get people to spend the maximum amount of money

for the least amount of reward. Psychology, Mr. Speaker, and it is

scientifically determined. It is a way to get the maximum amount of dollars for

the minimum amount of reward. The Government House Leader knows all about it. He

probably taught psychology in high school. I know he taught science at one time.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a government prepared to

take control of this, it seems, so far, for the purpose of engaging a monopoly

on it. The kind of gambling that is being permitted in this bill is unrestricted

except at the dictate of the Cabinet.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have not heard any statement of policy

from this Government about what the goals are, other than Government monopoly

and fund-raising. We were told the other day that so far this year - and that is

only so far, the Atlantic Lotto did not get permission to get in there until

July - we have gotten an additional $6 million. Now, the Minister may get up and

say that it was really only $5 million because we really over estimated. Well,

you tell us the truth. Is it $5 million, $6 million, or $7 million? It does not

make any difference, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The report says $6 million.

MR. HARRIS: Something says $6 million? The report says $6

million. The estimates say $6 million. The hon. Government House Leader says

that the estimates are overestimates. Well, what odds? Five million dollars in

six months, Mr. Speaker, is a lot of money to be hauling out of the bars of this

Province through gambling machines that this Government has established for the

purpose of apparently raising money. But he now has a smoke screen about some

mysterious mafioso. The mysterious mafioso coming in and getting all of those

machines. I do not know anybody else who has seen these machines except the

Minister. The Member for Burin has not seen any of them. I do not know if he

hangs around in bars, perhaps he does not. But his constituents would be telling

him about them if they were a problem. The only machines I have ever seen, and I

have not seen very many of them, just as the Member for Port au Port, have been

the machines that have been placed by Atlantic Lotto Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any problem letting the Government

have the authority to control gambling. This Legislature ought to have the

authority and the power to control gambling, and there ought to be regulations

to set it up. But what is absent from all of this, Mr. Speaker, is any

commitment on the part of the Government for any public consultation process. I

do not mean a one day debate here in the House of Assembly, because it looks

like that is all we are going to get, unless our new Clerk of the House is able

to carve up a Christmas turkey and lay out a table on the floor of the House, as

the former Member for Bell Island used to say, have the Christmas turkey here. I

do not think we will be having Christmas turkey here, Mr. Speaker. I think we

are going to have a one day debate about this, but that is not the kind of

public discussion that is needed to deal with the issue.

I would like to see the Minister or get up and, in his

remarks, or someone on behalf of the Government, commit the Government to a

public consultation process on the activities of this Government in gambling. I

think there needs to be some information that the Government has to provide to

the public about the nature of the activities that this Government is engaging

in through the Atlantic Lotto Corporation. I would like the Minister to tell us

about Nevada tickets and how many of them are sold and where they are sold. Mr.

Speaker, we were told by the officials of the department the other day that this

Province, of all the provinces, are the biggest sellers. We outsell all other

three Atlantic Provinces in Nevada tickets. Now what are Nevada tickets, Mr.

Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is three of them put together?

MR. HARRIS: Three of them put together. Yes, we outsell

all of them put together, in Nevada tickets. Now what are Nevada tickets, Mr.

Speaker? They are little cardboard slot machines.

I know the Speaker may not be familiar with these things,

unless he goes to the garden parties in his district or various places and buys

some of them. These little cards are about three inches long, about an inch and

a half wide, and they have four little things on them. Exactly the same as a

slot machine, Mr. Speaker, you haul these things open and if you get three

lemons, three carrots, three strawberries, three cherries, or whatever it is. If

you get three of a kind you win one dollar or two dollars or ten or fifty. Well,

Mr. Speaker, the exact same principle at work. It is designed to get people to

spend the maximum amount of money for the minimum amount of reward. And it

works! That is the thing, it works. Somebody has figured this out, some genius,

maybe someone from the Economic Recovery Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: They've been around for years, 'Jack'.

MR. HARRIS: I know they have been around for years, but

they are around for years now being everywhere in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Candy stores and grocery stores, and groc. and confs., or whatever you want to

call them, have all of these Nevada tickets being sold by the Atlantic Lotto

Corporation.

They are proliferating to the extent that anybody in this

House can testify to having witnessed people spending a twenty dollar bill and

another twenty dollar bill in the desperate hope that they might be able to get

a few more dollars that they really desperately need.

They have been around for years, they are now around and

proliferating and they have been encouraged by the Government by engaging in

this form of activity. So what I think this Government ought to commit itself to

MR. REID: (Inaudible) millions of dollars, service clubs

from one end of this Province to the other, churches, every organization,

legions, have put millions of dollars into this Province through Nevada cards,

and there is nothing wrong with it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Now, you're going to take it away from

(inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, that is very interesting, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Carbonear says that the service clubs have put millions of

dollars into this Province from the Nevada tickets. Where did they get it? Did

they go out to Hibernia and get the millions of dollars from the Nevada tickets

and bring it in? Did they go to Las Vegas and bring in the millions of dollars?

Where did they get it? Where did they get the millions of dollars? Did they get

it from somewhere? Did they bring it into the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) bingo (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: What I want to know, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps

the Member will get up and tell us, how these Nevada tickets brought money into

the Province - how the millions of dollars were brought into the Province by

these Nevada tickets?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. HARRIS: The only thing that has happened, Mr.

Speaker, is that perhaps - I do not know if it was millions of dollars, but how

ever many dollars were sent out of the Province to bring the Nevada tickets in,

they were then sold to the people of this Province and the money gathered in one

place. But no money came into the Province for Nevada tickets, I guarantee you

that.

Let's be honest here, Mr. Speaker. I do not really have any

objection to a church fair or a service club fair selling a few tickets when

people really know what they are doing, just making a donation to a charity. If

the Kiwanis Club of Harbour Grace or Carbonear or the Lions Club want to have a

fair and raise a few dollars for charity and people come and spend a few dollars

to support the charity, there is nothing wrong with that. But what we have going

on is something entirely different.

What I think is necessary, and I will ask the Government

House Leader to commit on behalf of the Government - because they are going to

force this bill through. They are going to keep everybody here till Christmas

turkey time if they don't, they are going to force this through.

But let's hear a commitment from the Government to set up a

task force, a review, a study of the spending habits and activities of the

Atlantic Lotto Corporation in this Province and see where they are getting their

revenue. What kind of money is Atlantic Lotto Corporation hauling out of

communities in this Province, and where are it coming from? Is it coming from

the communities that can least afford to have the money drained out through this

process, or is it coming from the people who have lots of money and do not mind

spending it?

Now that is something we should know about, and the public of

this Province ought to know the facts. This Government can produce those facts

and they can provide the information to the public. There ought to be an

opportunity for public response in it, and there ought to be an opportunity for

the people of this Province and this Legislature to direct this Government as to

what they shall do with this power that they want for themselves now, which they

seem intent on harbouring to themselves, to have a government monopoly on

gambling, to raise taxes, to raise revenue, from this form of gambling which has

been called, I think quite accurately, a voluntary tax on the poor. That is what

it has been called. Government sponsored gambling of this nature has been

called, I think quite accurately, a voluntary tax on the poor, using the

psychology of gambling to extract money from people who can least afford it, a

voluntary tax on the poor.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is the poor people who pay!

MR. HARRIS: Make the poor pay, that is what the member

says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I do not think that is fair, Mr. Speaker. I

do not think that the poor should pay more than they are paying now in taxes. If

this Government is going to continue to carry on these kinds of policies, then

they are going to pay for it at the polls.

I am giving them a request right now, Mr. Speaker, that they

engage in a form of public discussion about this, make the facts available to

the public, set up a Government task force or committee to make those facts

available, hear what the public have to say about it, and listen and change this

legislation so that the Government will, in carrying out the power grab that is

contained herein, conduct themselves in accordance with the wish of this

Province and of the people of this Province, and not in some monopoly tax grab

under the guise of control, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for

recognizing me this time.

Mr. Speaker, we have to ask why the Government is trying to

sneak through this legislation on the last sitting day before Christmas. In my

years in politics, I have noticed that governments at all levels, governments of

all stripes, tend to wait until just before Christmas, when people's attention

is diverted with Christmas celebrations, to institute and announce unpopular and

controversial measures.

We saw it from the Wells Administration last Christmas eve,

when the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs announced his new

municipal grants system - that was the euphemism. The Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs announced a three-year phasedown of provincial funding to

municipalities in the Province.

Now, here we are in the House of Assembly, on the last

sitting day before Christmas, and suddenly the Government has to rush through

this Lotteries Act.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Act was prepared three or four weeks

ago, but it only found its way to the House of Assembly Legislation Review

Committee last week. At that committee meeting, Mr. Speaker, with members

representing the three political parties, all of us agreed that this measure

deserved more public discussion and we all decided to have a public hearing here

in the House of Assembly on January 15. The Committee Secretary issued a news

release to that effect, which went out on December 6. The Committee Secretary

published an advertisement, which has already appeared in the paper, inviting

people to make representations to the Committee by contacting the secretary and

by coming to the public hearing at the House of Assembly on January 15.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why is the Government short-circuiting the

Legislation Review Committee, cutting off the public hearing process and, on the

last sitting day before Christmas, forcing this legislation through the House of

Assembly? Mr. Speaker, the reason is that the Government is trying to cover up

its escalating activity in gambling. The Government put video slot machines in

bars throughout the Province earlier this year, without explaining to the people

the significance of that escalation, without providing for any public

discussion, without asking the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador if they

approved of that revenue measure.

The consequences are alarming, and now the Government is

trying to get legislation to shore up its powers and to authorize the Cabinet to

carry on unlimited gambling activities. Now, Mr. Speaker, nobody would quarrel

with the objective of giving the Provincial Government the power to legislate

gambling and lotteries permitted by the Criminal Code, let me say that up front,

but many people in the Province and many members of the House of Assembly have

serious concerns about what has been happening in the Province.

The Provincial Government has a multitude of choices for

raising revenue; there are many possibilities for taxation. What the Wells

Administration has done, is coldly and calculatedly looked at the options and

chosen video slot machines in bars as a source of millions of dollars of revenue

in lieu of increasing a progressive tax, such as the income tax, which would

take money from the well-off.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget figures tell the story. In the last

fiscal year, this Provincial Government derived $19 million from lotteries - $19

million from the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, a corporation of the four

Atlantic provinces, which until then had been operating the 6-49 lottery and

selling Nevadas, and not all of that I would condone. That is a personal view.

But earlier this year, the Wells administration, in conjunction with the

Maritime Provinces, decided to have their lottery corporation get into a new

business. They decided to purchase and place in bars around the Province, video

slot machines. The Government House Leader has admitted that, to date, there are

782 video slot machines in bars around Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now the effect that escalation of Government gambling

business has had on Government revenue is startling. We have seen a growth in

lottery revenue to the Government from $19 million last year to $26 million, the

latest projection for this year. The Government began the Budget year

forecasting a growth in lottery revenue of $1 million. Twenty million dollars

was listed in the estimates tabled back in the spring. But at mid-year the

Minister of Finance raised that estimate and he is now projecting $26 million in

revenue from lotteries, up from $19 million last year. That is a growth in

Government revenue from lotteries of 37 per cent, 37 per cent in a year of

record high unemployment and in a year of deprivation and worry.

The Government has chose to extract revenue from people who

are desperate, who are out of work, who are poor, who are worried, people who

are in bars and who are drinking and whose resistance is down because of the

effects of liquor. That is what the Government has chosen. The Government could

have rejected that option. The Government could have gotten that revenue from

other sources, from a progressive taxation.

This whole issue of government-operated lotteries is

controversial. It seems to me, however, that there is a broad consensus in

support of the Atlantic Lottery 6-49. I may be wrong. But the revelation of the

Government, through Atlantic Lottery Corporation, raising $6 million to $7

million in the few short months they have had lottery slot machines, and the

discovery that there are Government-owned video slot machines in bars around the

Province, are disturbing people as they discover this, as they find out this

information.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Now the Government House Leader is asking me

to go over the figures. This year, at mid-year, the Minister of Finance raised

his projection of revenue from lotteries to $26 million compared with $19

million last year. At the Committee meeting last week I asked the Deputy

Minister of Finance, Mr. Gill, to explain how that jump in revenue had come

about. He said: $6 million to $7 million results from the addition of the video

slot machines in bars, $6 million to $7 million.

Now, if that is accurate, if the Government has derived an

extra $6 million to $7 million in this Budget year from video slot machines in

bars, given that the bar owners get 35 percent of the take and, given that the

Atlantic Lottery Corporation requires, I would say, 10 or 15 percent for payouts

and administrative cost, that must mean that bar patrons have blown about $ 14

million net on the government-owned video slot machines.

Now, Mr. Speaker, many of those bar patrons cannot afford to

waste that money. I would suggest that many of those bar patrons have children

who don't have enough to eat.

Mr. Speaker, the most objectionable part of what is going on

in this House of Assembly today, though, is the short-circuiting of a public

hearing process, a public hearing process that was decided last week by a

committee of this House made up of members of the three parties represented in

the House.

MR. TOBIN: With the majority over there.

MS. VERGE: That's right. The majority of members on that

committee are government members. The committee is chaired by the Member for

Harbour Grace and the other government members present were the Member for St.

George's and, perhaps I could be corrected, I believe - there was definitely a

majority of government members and then the Member for Fogo and the Member for

St. John's East, as well as myself. That tri-party committee, a committee of the

House of Assembly, unanimously agreed to put this draft legislation out for

public discussion through a public hearing process. We planned a public hearing

for January 15. We issued a news release. We published a notice in "The Evening

Telegram" and, now, on the last sitting day of the House of Assembly before

Christmas, the Government House Leader is ignoring all of that, is going against

the wishes of his own backbenchers on the committee and is ramming through the

legislation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there's psychology at work here. There's

psychology at work, of course, in the government getting revenue from slot

machines, instead of through a progressive taxation measure, but there's

psychology at work in the way the Government is trying to get this new legal

power. It has to do with saving it until the last day before Christmas,

expecting that most of the reporters and most of the members of the public will

be diverted with Christmas merrymaking, so they won't really notice it any more

than people noticed or realized what was happening when the Government allowed

Atlantic Lottery Corporation to put video slot machines in bars around our

Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to cover up its

true intention, which is to grab revenue from the weak and the vulnerable and

the desperate, in the bars, by saying that the Mafia are about to invade us. All

kinds of hoodlums and gangsters are carrying on these types of gambling

activities under the table already and we have to act to keep out the Mafia.

Well, Mr. Speaker, how come nobody over here has seen any sign of Mafiosi

video slot machine activity in our districts?

AN HON. MEMBER: You go home every night.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, we don't have any problem with -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: We don't have any problem with empowering the

Government to crack down on illegal gambling activity, but I would have thought

they already had that authority under the Criminal Code. But, if there is any

doubt about their legal powers of enforcement, by all means, clarify that, but

do not - do not set up this Provincial Government to have a monopoly to carry on

endless gambling activities and lotteries. Do not set up this provincial

government to have a monopoly on slot machines and bars and, in the bargain, set

up the Provincial Government to put slot machines in shopping malls and corner

stores and wherever else. If they can get $6 million or $7 million from 782 slot

machines in bars, well, think what they might be able to get if they had 1,500

slot machines in bars or 3,000 slot machines in bars. While they are at it, why

not put slot machines in shopping malls? Why not have a slot machine out here in

the lobby? There are no limits on the power this bill would give the Provincial

Government to carry on gambling activities.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very controversial area that many

individuals in the Province, some of us here, have serious problems with. There

are people in the Province who would probably characterize these issues as moral

issues. Mr. Speaker, the Government has not consulted anyone. In fact the

Government has gone out of its way, and here today is going out of its way, to

sneak this by people, to get it passed on the last day before Christmas, hoping

that people will be so involved in their Christmas celebrations and their

Christmas preparations that they will not really realize what is happening. Mr.

Speaker, people were not informed, people were not consulted, people were not

asked for their opinions when the Government was considering the video slot

machines.

Evidently, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and his colleagues got a

briefing about video slot machines. Video slot machines were first owned and

operated in Canada by the Government of Manitoba and the Atlantic Provinces

through the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, and our Government were next. Mr.

Speaker, the five other provinces of Canada are not operating video slot

machines.

I see the NDP Government in Ontario is looking at it now.

There was a Globe and Mail editorial yesterday, a headline: 'Bob Rae, one-armed

bandit. They say that gambling is addictive, if so, Canadians know who is really

forced to gamble, as Mr. Rae correctly observes. On the other hand, gambling is

hardly benign in its effects. Every study shows that the biggest purchasers of

lottery tickets are the poor who can least afford to squander their income in

such a fashion. It is hardly a defence for such a regressive means of finance,

that it is legal.'

Here we get into semantics, Mr. Speaker. The Government House

Leader talks about wanting to crack down on illegal activity but, of course, he

is here advocating a law which is going to make it legal for the Government to

have a monopoly. He wants to sanction and cloak with nice words the present

Government activity of owning and operating slot machines in bars. So he does

not want to crack down on that, he just wants to keep out these fictitious,

anonymous, shady, mafiosi.

Mr. Speaker, all the Government is trying to do is to

legitimize a tax grab from the poor, from the unemployed, from the weak and from

the desperate. The Government is operating video slot machines in bars - I am

looking at the Member for the Strait of Belle Isle and I am wondering what he

thinks of all this? I wonder if the Member for the Strait of Belle Isle has any

pangs of conscience about being part