May 6,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 43

The House met at 2: 00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before moving on to our regular business, I would like on

behalf of hon. Members to welcome to the galleries today, eight Grade XII

students from H.L. Strong Academy, Little Bay Islands, in the district of Green

Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: These students are accompanied by their

teacher, Mr. Wayne Rodgers.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the

Premier.

People going in and out of Confederation Building have

noticed the names of certain individuals in the security register at the desk,

where one signs after one comes in after hours for example, and they identify

themselves as: "The Public Relations Group", and I have a couple of short

questions for the Premier. Could he tell us what this group does, who exactly

are they, when was it formed and how many are in it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

identifies themselves as: "The Public Relations Group". I can say that when we

formed the Government, there was a slew of press aids to Ministers and a slew of

other departmental public relations or information officers and we put the whole

thing together as a single operation, cut their size to about in half I guess

and saved a good deal of money, I do not know how much we saved but I can get

the information and pass it on, if those are the people he is talking about,

maybe that is what it is, but other than that, I cannot imagine what he is

talking about, I have no knowledge of it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Yes, it is a little bit surprising, because I

understand they are under the Executive Council but nevertheless, is that the

same group of people then, maybe that he replaced? He replaced all of these

slews of public information officers as he referred to them with directors of

information, and made quite a big fanfare about it a year or so ago by saying he

was going to assign these directors of information to the Departments, and not

be dictated to by the politicians and the Ministers, is that the same comments,

the same group?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge

all are assigned to departments. There may be one or two that have

responsibility for an individual department, there are a number that have

responsibility for individual departments, and in other cases there are at least

four or five, I believe, that have either two or three departments for which

they do work because there was not enough work in that department to have an

individual one. I think there are probably eight or ten altogether, maybe ten. I

can find out the exact number, and they are headed by Judy Foote who works in my

office, who works out of my office and they run the information and press

services. It is all tied together with the Newfoundland Information Services to

provide information. Now, whether they were doing some work on the weekend or

after hours, I guess they are pretty diligent people, I do not know. If that is

the group he is talking about I do not know, I do not know what group he is

talking about.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Premier the

question: What is the "Public Relations Group?" That is what I am asking him. I

have asked him if he could perhaps tell the House what they do and who they are?

Thus far he has been fairly evasive and cannot answer the question. Can I ask

him this then? Does he know where the salaries of all these eight or ten public

information, or directors of public information come from? Where are they shown

in the budgetary document? Is it in the departmental salary details, is it in

individual departments, or is it, for example, in the $229,000 salary vote shown

for temporary employees in Newfoundland Information Services? Is it perhaps in

there, which incidentally had a zero vote last year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned that some of

these people worked through Newfoundland Information Services, or maybe they all

do, I do not know how the things is managed. I will get the President of

Treasury Board to solicit the details. The first thing I need to find out, Mr.

Speaker, is who describes themselves as the "Public Relations Group?" I do not

know who does that. Once I find that out I will bring the information to the

House. I have told the Opposition House Leader that the only thing I think it

would be is the ten or so people that we put in place to replace the slew of

press aids that the former Ministers used to have together with the other

departmental information offices, press aids, press officers, and so on. We cut

the number down. Under NIS apparently there are four; Richard Sparkes, Michelle

Whelan, Paul Chislett, and John J. Doody, those four are covered under NIS, and

that is probably because they are not attributable to any particular department,

so they are paid -

AN HON. MEMBER: What vote?

PREMIER WELLS: 0.1.03 - Salaries and Other Employees. And

it is a total vote shown on it, I believe, of $208,400, and Salary for Overtime.

And I guess there are other. Under 01.03 - under NIS. The number on it, whatever

the magic of these numbers is, not the one under Temporary Employees, that is,

01.02 - it is 01.03 - Salaries Other Employees.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader, a final

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the Premier

then, if he will quickly consult with the President of Treasury Board, can he

tell us the answer to my last question: $229,000 salary vote for Temporary and

Other Employees in NIS, when last year the vote was zero - what is the extra

$229,000?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know. I will let the President of

Treasury Board answer that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual, we are doing the

Estimates of Executive Council today and this is one of the questions I have

been asked, and I was going to answer during the Estimates in a ten minute

section. Salaries of Other Employees, Mr. Speaker: there are salaries for four

people and there is a clerk stenographer in there for $20,000; the salary

adjustment is $615, there is a director, salary $46,000. Then there are three

others, a public relations director in NIS.

MR. SIMMS: A public relations director?

MR. BAKER: Yes, in the NIS group, whose salary is

$46,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not temporary.

MR. BAKER: No, no, Temporary and Other. You have to

separate the two, there is Temporary -

PREMIER WELLS: I think the total is $21,000, is it not or

$29,000?

MR. BAKER: Yes, Salaries Temporary Employees, oh, I am

sorry that only amounts to $21,400. So that is temporary, you understand that.

Then we switch to Other Employees that are not temporary, under the same

heading, and that is where we have the salaries for these individuals that the

Premier mentioned. So they are not temporary, they are listed under Other

Employees under the heading Salary and Other Employees.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question

for the Premier also. Maybe when the Premier is finding out who this PR group

is, I wonder would he find out for this House whether the PR group answers to

the Director of Information Services or do they meet and answer to Judy Foote,

who would be the political PR person within the system, I would imagine?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, when we restructured the

Government, we looked at the structure that was in place with public relations

people and specialists in the different departments. Not all of them had them

but most of the departments had individuals like that. Some fifteen of the

twenty-two or twenty-three Ministers, I believe, had press aides and so on, and

we wanted to cut out the waste and the expense so we put in place a single

system. For the most part, Mr. Speaker, obviously Judy Foote who heads it works

out of my office as the governmental information, and the individuals who are

assigned to the different departments or have two or three different departments

report directly to the Deputy Ministers concerned. But the general

responsibility for public relations performance is still under the supervision

of Judy Foote who is Director of Public Relations.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is all political.

PREMIER WELLS: No, it is not all political.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed to hear the

Premier admit that all this great PR system that he put in to answer to Deputy

Ministers are actually, he finally admits that they are actually coming under

the political PR arm of the Premier, and that would be the eighth floor and it

would be Judy Foote.

Mr. Speaker, maybe when the Premier is checking around on

this PR group, whoever they are, and I am really surprised that he has not heard

Building as the PR group. I wonder would he find out where their offices are

located, Mr. Speaker, and give this House some information on where their

offices presently are and are they planning on moving into the Confederation

Building sometime in the near future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand what the

hon. Member is saying because he heard me say specifically that they report to

the Deputy Ministers for the departments for which they work. Now the overall

public relations and public information of the Government is supervised by Judy

Foote, including the capability of these individuals and the quality of their

performance as public relations people is supervised by Judy Foote, but they

take their directions on a day to day basis from the Deputy Minister concerned,

and no matter how the Member for Kilbride restates it, that is the reality. He

can restate it or express his opinion any way he wants to, but I want this House

to understand, Mr. Speaker, what is being heard is the hon. Member's opinion,

not his rephrasing of what he attributes to me. So I just want to make that

clear.

Now as to where they work: I believe that some of them are

either now in offices adjacent to NIS in the corridor area going over to the

West Block or they are about to move there. I think that is where some of the

offices are. There are some of them that are in offices outside the building

because there was no space in the building at the moment, so they are going to

be brought in when this space is renovated and I believe that they will be

working there. But I will check and find out exactly where each individual is.

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

Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad once

again the Premier has reconfirmed that all his PR group in the Departments are

answering to Judy Foote. He said it twice already today. Now he is denying it

when he sits down but when he stands up he admits to it. Well, I do not

understand what he is trying to do here today.

But maybe the Premier when he is investigating who this PR

group is will call telephone number 737-3895, and the phone will be answered by

the PR group. And their offices will probably, he will find, be located on the

outskirts of the city in the Thorburn Road area, about 303 Thorburn Road, in

behind the building. And he will also find that they all -

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: - meet there every morning and have a

private meeting - not every morning but most every morning - and they have a

private meeting -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: - with Judy Foote who gives them -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: - their political directions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: - for the rest of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is on a supplementary and

should be asking a question and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

-I would like to hear the question. And besides that point he

just cannot go on and on. He seems to be making a speech (Inaudible). Would the

hon. Member please get to his supplementary?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Sorry about that, Mr. Speaker. I

apologize. I got carried away there for a minute.

Is it not true that the Premier has a knack for setting up

powerful ministries outside the regular political system, such as the Economic

Recovery Commission? Is it not a fact now that he is setting up the "Ministry of

Truth" outside the regular government system again to answer to the Premier only

and not to answer to anyone else in the system?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: One is tempted, Mr. Speaker, not to play

these silly games. They are utterly silly games. Before the hon. Member asked

his question, in answer to his first general question as to where they were

located, I advised this House only two or three minutes ago that to the best of

my knowledge, some of them at least, those that were not specifically assigned

to a particular department - I will repeat, Mr. Speaker, I advised this House to

the best of my knowledge some of them, those who were not assigned to a

particular department, were still at some office outside of Confederation

Building. Now, I do not know where that office is. It may be out on Thorburn

Road, as the Member says, I have no idea where it is. Mr. Speaker, I did advise

the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: Let me repeat again, Mr. Speaker.

I have no idea where that is but it may be out on Thorburn

Road, as the hon. Member says. I did advise the House only three or four minutes

ago that offices were being renovated in, I believe, the corridor area going

over toward the West Block adjacent to the NIS office and that is where they are

going to be working from, in that area, now whether they are there at this

moment or they are still out in the outside offices at Thorburn Road, or

wherever it may be, is more than I can say at the moment.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Following up on that same topic with the Premier, one of the

things the Premier maintains is that Government has cut back on expenditures of

the public relations specialists in the Premier's office, but really are there

not more public relations specialists than ever now reporting to the Premier's

public relations director, and responsible only to the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will get the full detail

and table it in the House, then the House will be able to judge, and I think the

House will come readily to the conclusion that we saved a good many tens of

thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, for the people of this

Province. That is what the answer is.

MR. SIMMS: That is what the answer will be, but the

question is, for the all important Premier's office, and the answer is, yes.

MR. DOYLE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I never recognized the hon. Member yet because there seemed

to be other Members asking supplementaries that were not recognized. Now, I will

recognize the hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Will the Premier confirm that his public

relations staff, number one, begins with his chief of staff, Edsel Bonnell

the well know PR person, and includes Judy Foote, and as well

the so called Public Relations Group, and many of the PR personnel appointed

from the various Government departments who now take direction from that PR

group which reports directly to the Premier's office?

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bonnell has nothing

whatsoever to do with it. He filled a role that was carried out by two or three

people in the former administration. One was a principal secretary, the other

was a chief of staff, and I have forgotten who the other was, a principal

advisor, I believe. I will find out and I will table the information in the

House. He has nothing to do with public relation's matters.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: Well, no we are not, he is paid on the

same salary scale that the Leader of the Opposition set up, precisely the same

salary scale. He is doing the job of three people. We will table all the

figures, Mr. Speaker. Judy Foote is the equivalent and went on at somewhat less,

I think, than Greg Stamp, a fellow by the name of Greg Stamp, because the

present Leader of the Opposition, when he became Premier for a couple of weeks,

gutted the office and incurred $400,000 or $500,000 in severance pay, and so on,

put in a whole new staff, one of whom was a fellow named Greg Stamp who was -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. Members know that Question Period is for the soliciting

of information and we ought not to be getting into areas of debate. I realize

the type of questions that are now being asked are probably the type of

questions where one can get into an area of debate but I ask hon. Members to

please abide by the rules and ask the Premier to clue up his answer very

quickly, please.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the question I am trying to

answer is the role that Judy Foote was playing and the cost. Judy Foote, filled

the same position essentially or took over the salary position that the hon.

Opposition Leader had for a fellow named Greg Stamp, except her pay was $5,000

or $6,000 less, and Mr. Speaker, we eliminated all the press aids for Ministers,

there was not one put back in place and I do not know, I think there were twelve

or fifteen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Fourteen, was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

PREMIER WELLS: Fourteen press aids, we will find the

list, and, Mr. Speaker, also, there were a large number of departmental public

relations and information people, who have all been combined into one, all with

a view to saving many thousands of dollars.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, I will ask the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. I did not recognise that the

hon. Member for Harbour Main was still following through on a supplementary. If

the Member for St. John's East will yield.

The hon the Member for Harbour Main followed by the hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. DOYLE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask

the Premier: how can the Premier criticize unions for spending tens of thousands

of their own members' dollars on public relations campaigns during the time of

restraint, when he, as Premier of the Province, is spending hundreds of

thousands of dollars of the tax payers money on a public relations campaign

during a time of restraint?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have not spent a dollar on

public relations campaigns in relation to the unions. What we have done, Mr.

Speaker, is cut, by at the very least a third, perhaps more, the cost of public

relations and news information and that kind of expenditure that the former

Government had.

Now there has been no campaign; the NTA have been taking out

full page ads. I do not know where they get all the money to do it - full page

ads.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Okay, I understand all that. The NTA have

been taking out full page ads; other unions have been taking out ads carrying on

these public - and we have spent not a dollar on it, Mr. Speaker; the normal

course has been followed by Government, we spent not an extra dollar. Maybe we

should have, maybe we have not done a good job, maybe we should have done like

the former Government did and paid, week after week after week, tens of

thousands of dollars to have their pictures appear in the papers. We cut all

that out too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: We cut all that out too -

AN HON. MEMBER: No you did not.

PREMIER WELLS: Indeed we did, Mr. Speaker, cut the works

of it out. Virtually every Minister had his or her picture in the paper

virtually every week; we have cut all that out. We will get all that public

relations information and table all that too, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the absence of the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, my question is to the Premier. Is the Premier or the Government aware

of a further accident at Bull Arm last Thursday, where an individual fell from a

barge and was in the water for some period of time without anyone on the barge

noticing it and in fact had to be - people from the shore noticed it before

anyone on the barge did and a rescue was just barely effected. Has that incident

been reported to the Government or do we have another communications lapse by

Nodeco?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, finally a question of some

importance and significance and I commend the hon. Member for putting the

interest of the people of the Province ahead of narrow-minded, political

campaigning.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have personal knowledge of it, but I

will undertake to get the information right away and I will either give it to

the Member directly or with the House's permission, Mr. Speaker, I will announce

it in the House, I will get the information immediately.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, does the Premier have any

concern that there may not be a proper safety regime in place out in Bull Arm?

There could not have been one imposed by this Province because the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, in fact, was not aware that she had any

responsibility for occupational health and safety that was not on the land, in

other words, the water portion, before the matter was raised in this House, by

me several weeks ago.

Is the Premier concerned that there may not be in fact, at

this point in time, a proper safety regime in place to protect the workers at

Bull Arm in the Hibernia site?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of

statements inherent in the Member's comment that I do not believe are correct. I

do not believe it is correct that the Minister was not aware that she was

responsible for occupational health and safety in matters in relation to water

adjacent to the shore. I do not believe that that is the Minister's position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is not my understanding of what she

said but I will speak to her directly. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, if there was

a second incident when an employee fell over a barge or fell off a barge in some

way in that area, that proper safety precautions are not being taken. I

understand from the Minister that a thorough investigation has been under way by

officials of her Department and I believe also officials from the Canadian Coast

Guard and the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. All of them have

some degree of responsibility in relation to the matter but clearly so does the

Provincial Government.

Now I understand from the Minister's comment that that

investigation was under way. I am not aware that it has been finalized. If in

the meantime there has been a second incident where a man or an employee was at

risk then yes, I am quite concerned. And I will undertake to determine what

causes this increased hazard.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, as a final supplementary. If the

Premier would read Hansard it would become quite clear by the statements of the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that she was not particularly aware

of that jurisdiction that she had.

In view of this second incident - if the Premier can confirm

that that took place - would he not think that it is time for an urgent,

thorough review of what safety plans are in place for that project? Particularly

the water project where we have had now two incidents, before any further action

is taken. Does this strike him as being an emergency situation where there ought

to be immediately a thorough review, and not waiting for some Federal report

which might be months in the making, or the completion of a report that could

have been completed in a matter of days as they normally are?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have just been advised -

and I will check and see whether or not it is the situation - that the

Minister's statement was that the legal advice she received was that there was

some question as to her jurisdiction. But she went ahead and assumed that she

did have jurisdiction in the matter and was proceeding. So that is quite

different from what the hon. Member implies in his comment.

In terms of this second incident, assuming that what the hon.

Member says is correct - and I would like him to give me some more detail if he

has it available - but I will undertake to determine immediately from the

officials in the Department concerned exactly what occurred. And if that is in

fact a second incident that put this person's life at risk then I agree, steps

should be taken immediately to determine whether or not appropriate life safety

and work condition measures are in place for that project.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, earlier last week I asked the

Premier a question relating to his amalgamation proposal and he confirmed his

position at that time, that he is prepared to force his amalgamation concept

through the House of Assembly using his majority in spite of the wishes of the

community.

In view of the division that is taking place, particularly

between St. John's and Mount Pearl, over this very important issue over the last

week, and in view of the fact also that a couple of his own backbenchers have

had the courage of their convictions to speak out against forcing amalgamation

on people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: - will the Minister now reconsider this? And

will he assure the House that he will not force amalgamation through this House

against the wishes of the people of the municipalities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will not force anything

through the House. This House is the supreme legislative body of this Province

and they make the final decisions. The Government, when it brings measures

before the House, normally requires Party discipline of its supporters, as the

former administration does. Occasionally an individual who is a supporter of the

Government may feel strongly that they disagree with a particular approach and

they may well vote against a Government measure. That is rarely done. It is done

only in a case where an individual may feel strongly, as a matter of principle,

and that may or may not occur.

But in terms of amalgamation: I indicated, and the position

that I had taken, is that Cabinet would not sit in the secrecy of a back room

and make these decisions and force their application. I felt that if people were

not prepared to be persuaded or induced by logic and sound reasoning to provide

for amalgamation and, in the public interest it was necessary or the Government

felt it was appropriate that amalgamation should be considered, I would bring

the matter before the House for full discussion.

That remains the position of the Government. And where we

feel that it is necessary we will bring the matter before the House for

discussion.

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

short supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say there is

nothing democratic about the way the Premier operates in this House with his

majority. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, relating to the Mount Pearl - St. John's

proposed amalgamation or the supercity concept: will the Premier assure this

House that prior to coming to the House of Assembly and forcing it through, will

he assure this House that he will hold a plebiscite in the City of Mount Pearl

to determine the wishes of the people of Mount Pearl, as he did in the Town of

Pasadena, who decided they did want to be part of an amalgamation, South Brook

and Pasadena amalgamation. Will he assure the people of Mount Pearl that he will

give them the same consideration that he gave the people of Western

Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know who ordered any plebiscite

in Western Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. We did not.

AN HON. MEMBER: The former Government.

PREMIER WELLS: Okay the former Government did. No, Mr.

Speaker, I will not assure the people of Mount Pearl that there will be a

plebiscite in Mount Pearl. When this House takes a decision, if it takes a

decision on the issue, if the Government asks it to take a decision, we will not

delegate the legal rights of this House to the citizens of Mount Pearl. No, I

will not assure the House that we will not have a plebiscite in Mount Pearl.

Whether or not we will remains to be seen. But I will not give the House any

such assurance of that.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Intergovernmental

Affairs Act, 1975."

MR. SPEAKER: Before moving on to the next item, on behalf

of hon. Members I would like to welcome to the gallery the town councillor

representing the town council of Catalina in the District of Trinity North, that

is councillor Mr. Edward King.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply. We are

examining the estimates of the Executive Council.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole on Supply

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the last day on Friday we were getting into

some in -depth discussion about the role of the Executive Council and Treasury

Board. We had not gotten into the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, and there were a fair number of questions

from my colleague, I think, the hon. the Member for Humber East, in particular,

who is our critic for women's issues, to the Minister responsible for women's

issues, who happens to be the President of Treasury Board, the President of the

Executive Council, the Deputy Premier, although they do not have a Deputy

Premier, but he is the Premier's left hand man without question. And there was

some - oh, the Premier need not get too excited - I was saying there were some

questions on Friday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: His left hand man, exactly. The Premier caught

on real quick.

Anyway, there were some good questions that related to that,

and then there were some questions related to the operation of the Premier's

office and some issue was raised about salaries in the Premier's office over the

years. We had a bit of a debate, in fact a reasonably good debate, I thought,

about that issue. I do not know if anybody won. We had our arguments and they

had their arguments to make. The Member for Exploits was the chief spokesperson

on behalf of the Premier in that debate until my friend from Burin - Plancentia

West got up and tore strips off the Member for Exploits and pointed out the

hypocrisy of the Member for Exploits getting up and chastising the previous

administration for things that they did while in office, and the Member for

Burin - Placentia West had to remind the House what the Member for Exploits had

done in taking the jeep from the Premier's office and going up to Bally Haly

playing golf all day long and things of that nature. So there was a debate about

that and a discussion, a reasonably good debate, but we are only just getting

into it.

We have, I think, somewhere in the area of - and perhaps the

clerk could help me - about nine hours remaining. Maybe the President of

Treasury Board knows precisely. I think it is somewhere in the area of eight

hours remaining to do one of two things. We can continue using the ten minute

speaking intervals, which seems to be advantageous to all Members of the House

on both sides, and seems to promote a much better debate, or we can conclude our

scrutiny of the Estimates of the Executive Council and then save a few hours so

that we can have concurrence debates on the Estimates Committees; six hours for

concurrence which would be two hour debates instead of three hours.

So we have not quite decided what we are going to do in that

regard. My suspicion is that we would probably continue the debate of the

Estimates of the Executive Council because, as I said, ten minute intervals seem

to be much better and seems to provoke more debate and more response from

Members, even Members on the Government side, backbenchers. For example, I would

like to see the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island stand in the debate and take

the ten minutes available to him to expand on his public opposition to the

amalgamation plan from the point of view of the community of Paradise which he

represents. I hope the Member for Mount Scio stands and elaborates on that

story. I would like to see the Member for Pleasantville get up and attack the

Government, as he did in a recent public newspaper

article about the

Government's withdrawal of funding to municipalities for special events, police

coverage for special events. I would also like to see the Member for St. John's

South avail of the opportunity, the Member for Carbonear avail of the

opportunity to tell us why they oppose salary increases for executives as

appeared in a recent newspaper story just over the weekend. I would really like

to hear all of those comments. In fact, I am a bit disappointed that they would

go outside the Legislature to make all these public statements and not make them

in the House. So I hope Members opposite will take advantage of the opportunity

to get up and expand on their views on these and any other issues that I know

many of them over there in the backbenches have some concern about.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would hope perhaps as well the Minister

of Health might get up and elaborate a bit on the health system in the Province,

about some of the concerns and problems that exist. I have no doubt my friend

for Humber Valley might participate in this debate briefly in a short while. I

hope he does. I know he has a lot of concerns to express on behalf of his

constituents over in the Humber Valley area. The Deer Lake people, for example,

in particular, a group of people near and dear to my heart, having had my own

roots in the Humber Valley District, having been born in Howley, I know how

difficult it is to access good health facilities. The Premier knows all about

Howley. My father did everything but ride on a tractor with the Premier I

suppose to try to get him elected in 1966 and I am sure if he were alive today

he would regret every second of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: No, I do not think so, Mr. Chairman.

Nevertheless the people of Deer Lake have a major, major problem, and a major

concern and I hope my friend for Humber Valley gets up and tells the House about

their concerns, and expresses to the Minister of Health and to the Premier how

serious that problem is, in the hope that the Premier or the Minister of Health

might stand in this debate and give some comforting answers to those concerns

that are going to be raised. Perhaps the group is meeting with the Minister I am

not sure, maybe they hope to meet with the Minister, but there is no reason why

it could not be discussed a little bit in the House before the meeting takes

place.

Now while the Premier is here, Mr. Chairman, I asked the

other day a question with respect to the position occupied by one Deborah Coyne,

and the Member for Exploits who was responding on behalf of the Government did

not answer my question. So I will repeat it again for the Premier, since the

Premier is in the House I would like to respond and answer the question, if I

might. I see the Member for St. John's East on his knees once again to the

Premier, I know how tough it is -

PREMIER WELLS: I am properly discharging (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: By being on his knees to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: He is properly discharging his duties. Well

that is the (inaudible) one yet. That is the biggest admission yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, if ever confirmation were

required on what many people out in the Province have been saying today I would

like to sit in just for five minutes around the Cabinet table or even to the

back of the room, I can just see Ministers now walking up to the head of the

Cabinet table getting down on their knees and saying, Mr. Premier can we do

this, Mr. Premier can we do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Properly discharging his duties.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but I think that one takes the cake. Mind

you it is not surprising to any of us. I said the other day in the House, and I

say to the Premier again in the hope he will answer, we understood that Deborah

Coyne, for example, was hired basically on a contractual basis, a temporary

basis, while the Meech Lake debate was in full swing, to provide the Premier

with some advice, expert advice, presumably, on constitutional matters. She is

listed in the salary details this year, as last year, I believe, as a permanent

employee, so I would like him to explain the terms under which Ms Coyne is

currently employed by the Province, and was she intended to be brought in last

year on a temporary, contractual basis, or was the intent to bring her in on a

full-time permanent basis? What was the intent? Secondly, could he explain why

the salary budgeted for the permanent employee position, Director of

Constitutional Affairs, was increased from $44,790 last year, in the 1990-91

estimates, to $64,350 this year, 1991-92, an increase for Deborah Coyne of

approximately 45 per cent?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SIMMS: Well, that is the difference between the two

salaries, unless he can explain it, and we will give him every opportunity to

explain it. As I say to the Premier, I asked the question on Friday but nobody

could provide us with the answer. Presumably, the Premier knows the answer. I

might note for his benefit, last year there was only one position identified as

permanent under constitutional affairs, and that was the director's position,

but there was $167,000 budgeted for total salaries under that particular

subhead, that same subhead, and last year in the debate on the Estimates, as we

are doing now in the House of Assembly, I asked the President of Treasury Board

about Deborah Coyne's salary. It was on May 7, 1990, Page 84, and the President

of Treasury Board said, 'It includes the salary of Deborah Coyne and it is not

$70,000, or anything like that' - we were presumably saying it was $70,000 - he

said, 'It is not even $60,000, it is in the $50s, and $58,000 it will be next

year.' That is what the President of Treasury Board said Doborah Coyne's salary

will be this year, $58,000, and now we see it is actually $64,000. Hopefully, in

view of the fact that I asked the question Friday and nobody on that side could

answer it, and now that the Premier is here himself, perhaps he can answer the

question for us? We would certainly appreciate any clarification he could give

us, Mr. Chairman.

I do not know how much time I have left, but anyway I will

get into the issue of amalgamation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Okay, sure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I think I have all the information but I

will check and make sure it is correct. I am trying to remember when Deborah

Coyne was hired. My recollection is that it was some time late Summer. I have

forgotten. I think it was in the Summer of 1989, the late Summer of 1989, I

believe. Anyway, I will get the detail and advise the Member. The first amount

is a part year, is the explanation for it, I believe.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: 1990-91? Anyway, I will get the

information and find out. You were quite correct, she was hired originally on a

contract basis because she could not commit for more than a year. One of the

things we found, Mr. Chairman, and it came as no surprise because there was such

a lack of knowledge and sensible approach to Constitutional issues, is there was

nobody experienced and knowledgeable on Constitutional issues or Constitutional

policy in the employ of the Provincial Government. Unlike every other

province of Canada, with the possible exception of PEI, we had no constitutional

legal advisor or no constitutional policy advisor. And I think it showed clearly

in the positions that the government had been taking and the difficulties the

government had gotten us into over the years.

So being a sensible person one of the first things I decided

was I would not take legal advice from myself. I would take legal advice from

independent, objective people. That I would not resort to myself for legal

advice on constitutional or other issues. So what I wanted to do was engage a

constitutional advisor. Then the issue came: should that person work out of the

Premier's office or out of Intergovernmental Affairs office? Out of

Intergovernmental Affairs is really where it should work, not the Premier's

office. Should that person work as part of the Intergovernmental Affairs office

or part of a constitutional law

section of the Department of Justice? We looked

at what was taking place in all of the other provinces of Canada, and all of

them with the exception of PEI have them primarily in the Department of Justice,

but some have them in the Intergovernmental Affairs secretariat.

I was casting around for a constitutional legal advisor

because the constitutional issues were coming up and we needed somebody to be on

top of the issues on a constant basis. And I do not remember when we first

advertised for the position, I have forgotten when we first advertised for the

position. But I believe it was after we had hired Deborah Coyne on a contract

basis. And she agreed to come only for one year. And my recollection is her

salary was about $55,000. It was on a contractual basis. She had agreed to come

only for one year. She could not give a commitment beyond that. And the salary

was, give or take, $55,000, $56,000, somewhere in that vicinity.

So we advertised for a full time constitutional legal advisor

and we got some pretty good applications. We accepted one but we accepted that

individual primarily too, because of his competence. Not just in the pure

constitutional document field, the British North America Act of the strict

constitution, but because he had a lot of expert knowledge in offshore

resources, in fisheries in particular. He had many years of experience in the

question of management and fishery's management. Because in constitutional terms

we had to think about more than the BNA Act and more about the pure

Constitution. One of the major - and I say "major" - concerns that the Province

has facing it now - the former government had just been approaching it, had not

gotten into it, they developed a policy; which, incidentally, I commend as being

a pretty sound policy on the whole - was the whole question of native land

claims. That is a matter of major, major concern, and the economic future of the

province can be significantly affected, depending on how these native land

claims are managed.

So it is important that we have proper, knowledgeable and

experienced constitutional legal advice in terms of dealing with that issue, and

as well in terms of dealing with issues like offshore oil resources, offshore

fishery's management, as well as the pure Constitution. So I was looking for not

just a person who was knowledgeable about the constitutional document, but a

person who had a broader knowledge, perhaps a political science background, and

knowledge in particular in offshore resources and native issues.

And the first individual that we agreed to hire had terrific

offshore knowledge. He also had experience in working in Newfoundland, had

taught here at the University. So we were quite pleased and agreed to hire him,

only to have him withdraw after a couple of months after he had initially

indicated he would accept it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, he taught here for about seven or

eight years, I think, at Memorial. I believe his origins were American, I am not

quite sure. But he had the kind of experience and background, particularly in

offshore resources and so on, that would serve the Province well, only to have

him withdraw his acceptance or ask to have his acceptance withdrawn because his

wife could not come for a variety of reasons, she got another position that she

would prefer. So we lost him. So we advertised again for another position and

this time we varied it somewhat and we put it in the Department of Justice,

because we wanted to put in place a full-time constitutional legal

section in

the Department of Justice, which is where we feel the pure legal aspect of it

should be, and as well it has to deal with the major issue of native land claims

and so on. And we were very fortunate, we got some very good applications, some

from Newfoundlanders, some very competent lawyers, but no Newfoundland lawyers

with a constitutional background or experience. We did however get an

application from one individual with a very substantial constitutional

background working for another Provincial Government, and he had made

appearances in the Supreme Court of Canada on constitutional issues. But our

good fortune was even greater when we discovered that he had a substantial

experience in native claims and issues. And that is a quality that will be of

great importance to us in the future. So we have agreed to engage him to head

the constitutional law

section of our Department of Justice, and he will be

there as one individual, and there are some people working in the Department of

Justice now who have a keen interest and who been doing some constitutional work

but do not have his breadth of knowledge and background and training and we hope

the two of them together will be able to give us a good constitutional legal

section.

Deborah Coyne, in the meantime, has continued her work with

the Intergovernmental Government Affairs Secretariat because she has a greater

capacity, and a greater capability in the pure constitutional policy side of it

and constitutional issues affect not only the pure wording of the Constitution.

For example, our economic future, our entitlement in terms of equalization and

other transfers and negotiating these and maintaining the correct legal position

on entitlement to that is a matter of great significance, and she will be doing

a good deal of that for us and a good deal of work in developing the

constitutional policy position of the Province and that is the kind of work that

she will be doing. How long she will be there, I do not know. But she agreed

then to stay beyond the one year period and she is continuing on, and I do not

know on what salary basis she is now, and it seems to me that if it is $64,000 -

MR. BAKER: $63,000.

PREMIER WELLS: $63,000 a year and we got ourselves a real

bargain. Because she is a superb performer in terms of her background and

knowledge, and in terms of her dedication and effort. I daresay she probably

punches in about seventy-five hours a week, if I have any recollection of what

she has been doing, so the Province is well served for that kind of a salary.

If I have not covered all of the questions that the hon.

Member asked I will be happy to dig out anything else.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Premier

for being forthcoming and for his interest. I am glad he is here in the House

actually today, we missed him on Friday. Maybe we would have had a lot of this -

AN HON. MEMBER: He had other commitments.

MR. SIMMS: He had other commitments. I am sure he did.

But we perhaps could have, you know, cleared up a lot of this stuff and we might

not be continuing to debate it. The President of Treasury Board obviously did

not know the answer.

PREMIER WELLS: My left-hand man.

MR. SIMMS: And your left-hand man did not perform very

well on Friday, I am afraid. I regret to say.

Well actually what was happening, Mr. Chairman, is that the

Member for Exploits -

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: She did, she asked the question. But the

Member for Exploits actually -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Now in reading Hansard there, I recommend that

the Premier read Friday's Hansard to see the Minister's answers to the Member

for Humber East about women's issues. They are not really good answers.

MR. RIDEOUT: They do not even make good copy.

MR. SIMMS: Of course what happened is the Member for

Exploits jumped up and wanted to answer the questions that I was asking the

President of Treasury Board, and that was another reason the President of

Treasury Board did not get a chance to answer. Anyway we have all kinds of

questions and oodles of comments to make, so I want to get on with it. I just

want to make a follow-up reference to his comments about his casting, I think

were the words, he casted around, he was casting around for a constitutional

adviser, were his terms or his words, casting around.

PREMIER WELLS: Why I said that I do not remember whether

he (inaudible), Deborah Coyne or after, my recollection is that that came after.

MR. SIMMS: Well it would be appropriate to put the ad in

the paper before you hired -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) -

MR. SIMMS: I had a premonition of it, yes. I wonder, when

he was casting around, did he mean that he was casting around literally like

flicking out his line to some good friends of his for some advice, for example.

Did he call Pierre and ask Pierre what his advice was or did he have any

suggestions, or did he call Jean Chrtien and ask Jean? Did he -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: This is current now, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he call Brian.

MR. SIMMS: You know, did he call anybody like that and

ask them if they knew of any good constitutional advisors? When he said he was

casting around, did he just simply mean they put an ad in the paper? There are

those who suspect - and I say this frankly to the Premier - there are those who

suspect that the Premier simply was looking for somebody who happened to agree

with his stated public position, which Miss Coyne did, as I understand it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, sure. I mean I would just like to clarify

it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: As a matter of fact I chose Miss Coyne

because I read some of her writings, and the clearness with which she expressed

the issue, the thoroughness and the reason and logic in her position greatly

impressed me. So I called her and told her that we were looking for a

constitutional advisor and I felt that there would be a major amount of work and

it would be of great significance to the Province and to the country, for that

matter, in the future, and she turned me down. She had just a short time before

that taken on a position, only a matter of months before, taken on a position

with a foundation in Toronto. She used to teach law at Osgoode Hall Law School.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Osgoode Hall, I believe, yes. She taught

law at Osgoode Hall Law School for a period, but at the time she was not

teaching she had taken another position, so that when I asked her if she was

interested in the position in Newfoundland, she was interested, but she had just

so recently gone to this other position that she did not feel she could change

readily.

Anyway, after a month or six weeks or so, as constitutional

things changed, I got another call from her, or she sent down some more

information and I sent back a response to it acknowledging it and thanking her

for it, and she called to say if the position was still open she was interested,

and that is how it came about. I guess casting around is a broad enough phrase

to include that process.

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

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible), now that he has confirmed that he

actually sought Deborah Coyne after reading some of her work, which everybody

but everybody knows, I guess, was very close to the opinion and views of the

Premier on the Meech Lake issue -

PREMIER WELLS: The soundness of her (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, the soundness of her judgement that

impressed him the most, no doubt, and it was simply a coincidence that she

happened to agree with the Premier on the issue, I suppose, is what he is

saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is what I thought he was saying. So he

has now confirmed that he really got Deborah Coyne as his constitutional advisor

because she happened to agree with his position, so that is pretty clear. That

is the first time that the Premier has admitted that publicly, and I am pleased

that he did today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: So we should perhaps call her before the bar

of the House then and ask her for her differences on the constitution? I have

not had the privilege of meeting Miss Coyne, so I know nothing about her other

than what I have read, and what I have heard the Premier say, and all the rest

of it.

PREMIER WELLS: Would the hon. Member give me permission

to go and do a scrum for a few minutes.

MR. SIMMS: Well I am not sure. Will I be going after I

wonder, Mr. Chairman.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know.

MR. SIMMS: Does it say for you and I to go out, or just

for the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I am not sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course. The Premier does

not need permission. His left hand man will take notes of all the penetrating

questions we will be putting forth. Actually, there is one before the Premier

goes. I would like to bring this to his attention, I really would because it

bothers me somewhat because I know how frustrated the Premier gets at seeing

inefficiency around him, and I mean from his Ministers as well as from time to

time, no doubt, from staff or whatever. I know he gets frustrated about those

things, and I respect an individual with that kind of determination. When

somebody asks questions, for example, I know he must have told his Ministers

time and time again, 'please provide the answers. Do not dilly dally and do not

take a long unnecessary period of time.'

Well, I would like to bring to attention this, on April 4,

over a month now, there is no need for it as far as I am concerned, I asked in

the Orders or in this - what is this thing called, the orders of the day, the

daily book, the paper that we get?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Order Paper.

MR. SIMMS: Order Paper, that is the word. I asked

questions on April 4, several questions. I asked a question of every Minister to

outline for me the number of trips they took during the last fiscal year. The

Premier will recall he answered, and he answered weeks ago. Other Ministers have

answered weeks ago but there are still six Ministers who have not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them!

MR. SIMMS: I am naming them now. Municipal Affairs,

Development, Forestry, Fisheries, Health and Justice. Those six Ministers still

have not responded to a simple question - I did not even ask them the cost of

the trips. I asked them to outline for us the destination, dates of trips - I

mean, even the Minister of Social Services provided it within a week, ten days.

They are probably gone on a trip! In fact I know the Minister of Development is

in Houston, or on his way to Houston, as I understand it. So that is one point.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got mine.

MR. SIMMS: Well, if it is done I suggest -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, okay. That was very quick of the

Premier. To get a response like that just like that. I have a suspicion that the

other five are done too. But they are waiting to spread it out. I mean, I know

the little games they play. But I really would like to get the information.

Secondly, on that same order paper I asked a question of the

Minister of Development, to provide the House a breakdown of advertising costs

expected, planned or contracted for the present and for the future by both the

Economic Recovery Commission and Enterprise Newfoundland. I will explain to the

Premier what he did - I asked for a breakdown by individual media in the

Province as well as media outside the Province.

So my colleague, the Member for Harbour Main, then asked a

question a day or two later I think in the daily Question Period. And the

Minister of Development tabled an answer - here it is - on April 15 and gave a

bit of a breakdown on the ERC advertising expenditures. But he also said in

tabling, on page 1036 of Hansard, the last paragraph where the Minister of

Development answered: "I have gotten the Economic Recovery Commission answers

for all of you and I fully intend to table tomorrow the answers for the

Enterprise Newfoundland." Now, that was April 15, this is May 6. We still have

not received the answer to that question.

And finally, one other question I asked the Minister of

Development was to lay upon the Table of the House itemized expenses paid on

behalf of the chairman and the other commissioners of the ERC, as well as the

president and vice-presidents of Enterprise Newfoundland, since both

organizations came into existence. Itemized expenses: travel, meals and the

whole bit. And it is well over a month and we still have not received the

answer.

Now I say to the Premier that all that does is prompt

speculation on - may be unnecessary. Because if it takes over a month - I mean,

under the Freedom of Information the Minister must provide the information

within thirty days, I believe, where they are allowed to. This is over a month,

and it really leads to speculation and maybe a lot of times unnecessary rumour,

that they are reluctant to make it public or do not want to show it because this

is there or that is there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) evil mind.

MR. SIMMS: Well, I am just - maybe my evil mind. But I

have a suspicion that there are an awful lot of Newfoundlanders with evil minds

too because -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Exactly.

PREMIER WELLS: It does not matter what you motivation is

(Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Exactly. Right. So I wanted to bring it to the

Premier's attention while he is here because I know that if I had brought it to

the attention of his left-hand man, the President of Treasury Board, I would

never get an answer. I doubt very much if he would even bother to reply. But I

know that the Premier wields a big stick and if he says "do it" it will be done.

So, we now excuse the Premier to go out and do his scrum. I want to ask a couple

of other questions -

PREMIER WELLS: I expect you two would get along better if

you both took up smoking again.

MR. SIMMS: I have no intention of taking up smoking

again. I have my suspicions about the President of Treasury Board. Cannot afford

to with the taxes you have just brought in recently in your Budget.

Can I move to another area? I do not know how much time we

have left, or I have left? Do I have a couple of minutes yet? Just a couple of

other topics I want to introduce, and the Minister of Finance who just shouted

out -

DR. KITCHEN: A good Budget.

MR. SIMMS: A good Budget. Now, surely the Minister of

Finance is not believing those words, that it was a good Budget. Surely, he has

been out around the Province. I know he was out in my constituency where he was

greeted warmly, enthusiastically, by some of my constituents who happened to be

union members. I did not quite hear everything they said, but I do not believe I

heard any of them say it was a good Budget, Herb. I do not believe I heard one

person say that. There were even people at the Chamber of Commerce meeting who

told me the next day that the Budget was not that good. In fact they were not

impressed with the Minister's speech either, by the way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: I get invited into a lot of places for a cup

of tea, Mr. Chairman, but unfortunately it has not happened frequently enough

where you get invited in for a cup of tea in Newfoundland and the spirit shows

up. I mean that literally and figuratively, if he knows what I mean.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance this question. These

are a couple of new items I want to toss out seeing I have a couple of minutes

left, new topics for discussion. Maybe to the President of Treasury Board, or

anybody. In the latest edition of this APEC news letter that they send out now

to MHAs, MPs, all around Canada, I understand in a communication I had with

Peter O'Brien, I wrote and asked him for a bit of information on how far this

circulates, who they are sent to, and all the rest of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, that is what I am talking about, but

what is the organization? Is it Canadian Independent Business? Okay, that is

what I am taking about, but what is the organization? Is it Canadian Independent

Business? Okay. They do this survey, the Minister would know what I am talking

about, they do it by regions and in the Atlantic Canada region, I believe he

told me, and I thought I had the letter with me, but the survey went out to

about 2000 to 2500 hundred of their members in Atlantic Canada, businesses. I

just started paying attention to it, quite frankly, the last one that came out

we all received copies of it, I guess, and I do not know how many sent their

answers or ballots back, but I sent mine back. They also had in the last report

some responses from the previous survey they had sent out. I do not know how

many Members took the time to look at it but there were some really interesting

responses there. There were four questions and the first one, of course, dealt

with, should the four Atlantic Provinces develop regional co-operation and

co-ordination through the elimination of interprovincial trade and other

barriers? Now, it is a pretty straightforward question but not all the details

that should be provided to an individual in providing the answer were there,

unfortunately, but surprisingly in Newfoundland of the business people,

naturally, not surprising, 74 per cent of the business people that responded to

that survey in Newfoundland said: yes, the interprovincial trade barriers should

be eliminated. Now, we all know there are other provinces associated with the

elimination of trade barriers, particularly with respect to the brewing industry

which the Minister of Finance himself has some concerns, because if I am not

mistaken, I guess, one of the breweries is in his constituency, probably, or

close to it anyway. It is surprising. I felt there was a degree of support for

eliminating barriers per se, it is an easy thing to say, yes, to, until you look

at some of the background. The other interesting couple of questions: should

governments establish a minimum corporate tax? Now, would you not expect most

people to say, yes, sock it to the corporations? That is what I would have

expected, until I read this. Now, mind you the answers are coming from business

people but they are small business people, so a small business person is not

going to be too affected by corporation taxes, I do not think, major corporation

taxes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: If I could perhaps have a couple of minutes to

keep my train of thought.

I image the Member for Pleasantville probably read this

survey so he saw the answers to the survey. It was basically a divided opinion

as to whether or not governments should establish a minimum corporate income

tax. Now, I believe that is a policy long advocated by the NDP, if I remember,

and supported by just about everybody else, if it were as simple as increasing

the corporate income taxes. It is not as simple as that but to ask that question

without all the background information is like asking the first question about

interprovincial trade barriers. It is not as straightforward and simple as that.

I would like to hear the Minister of Finance comment on it and any other Member

who might wish to comment?

AN HON. MEMBER: The question is not (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Well, the Member for Pleasantville said that,

just for the record I want Hansard to know.

MR. NOEL: I never said it.

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry, it was the Member for Placentia

and not the Member for Pleasantville. So, corporate income tax, a divided

opinion, forty-eight Newfoundlanders said, yes, forty-four said, no, and the

rest were undecided, 8 per cent. You might as well say independent. But there is

one other question on that survey that I found interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you write the Minister of

Finance?

MR. SIMMS: No, I am afraid that was not on the survey.

And I have a funny feeling it will never be on a survey. But I do have a feeling

that the answer will be provided in a couple of years time in the next general

election. But here is a question that we should all spend some time debating,

and I say this seriously now, for every Member of the Legislature. Here is a

question that we should all spend some time debating. And the question that was

put to the independent business people in Newfoundland, and 2,000 of them in

Atlantic Canada, was this: should there be a limit on the number of times a

politician may be re-elected? That was one of the questions put forth by the

Canadian independent businessmen all across Canada.

And the answer in Newfoundland by the business people who

responded, surprisingly - I say "surprisingly" because I would have expected a

different result or a much more clearly enunciated result - it said, in

Newfoundland 53 per cent said "yes," that there should be a limit on the number

of times a politician can be re-elected, 53 per cent said "yes" in Newfoundland.

But only 43 per cent said "yes" in Canada. And "no" in Newfoundland was 41 per

cent. So it is fairly - 53 to 41 - and in Canada 50 per cent said "no." So once

again Newfoundland is bucking the trend. The national trend was 50 per cent

"no," 43 per cent "yes," and we were virtually the opposite.

So it would be interesting. But what one does not have are

the arguments pro and con. Now I believe in the newsletters they sent out - the

Minister of Finance would be familiar with it, I guess, for sure - in this

survey that they send out now on a regular basis they generally include

arguments for and against. I believe they show the pro and con. Particularly as

it applies to some financial questions. And the one that I have trouble

personally with understanding clearly - because I am not financially

knowledgeable of all the matters that the Minister of Finance would be as the

Minister of Finance - but the other question that they asked: should governments

be required to report dollars spent through tax credits, deductions, loopholes,

and other tax breaks? Should governments be required to report dollars spent in

all of these other areas - as dollars spent, I suppose - which now do not show

up as dollars spent? I guess that is the point they are trying to make.

And if for example Newfoundland were to report dollars spent

by including tax credits, tax breaks, deductions, other loopholes, or whatever,

what would that mean? What would be the real picture in Newfoundland's

situation? Maybe the Minister could tell me when he stands to say a few words in

debate. Maybe he could tell me, what exactly would that mean? Would that improve

the picture any or -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: It would improve the picture. Perhaps he could

- I would like to hear him elaborate on it a bit because it seems like an

interesting question, particularly when you find that nearly 80 per cent of the

businesses, both in Canada and Newfoundland, responded by saying: yes, they

should show - when you give your financial picture - they should show all of the

information. And that would make Newfoundland's position look a little better,

according to the Minister of Finance.

So maybe he would like to stand. I do not know if he does it

now or whenever but my time is up. But see if he could comment on a few of those

areas that I have thrown out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to

respond to some of the things that have been mentioned in the last two days and

so far today. I wanted to go through and highlight some areas that have been

questioned. There have been some questions on the Premier's office and the

Premier has answered some of them. A question was asked in terms of salaries in

the Premier's office and why the changes and so on.

I believe there was a reference made to the chief of staff

and his position. I would like to report to the House that the chief of staff in

the Premier's office got exactly the same increases during the last fiscal year

that executive and management people got, that the union workers by and large

got. There are some unionized workers who got a much higher percentage increase,

but he was dealt with in the terms of the 6 per cent during the last year, the 3

and 3, that percentage. I believe he got it in the sense of 4 and 2 at different

times during the year. But the increase was exactly the same as the way that all

public servants were treated.

He was put into his job as the Premier indicates. He was put

into a job classification and job description that had been left by the former

premier and slotted into that position. I forget the name of the individual now

who was in it for a short time. And he was given the job of, I believe, two or

three jobs put together. But that is the salary he was slotted into. And

whatever would have happened to the individual who was there before happened to

Mr. Bonnell exactly the same as if there had been no change. So the amount and

the scale are exactly the same as were in existence before Mr. Bonnell took

over, except that he now had two other jobs to do, besides the job that his

salary - he fitted into. The House will be pleased to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Yes, and his salary now is frozen like

everybody else's, exactly the same because we are in a difficult financial time.

Last year he was treated exactly the same as every other public servant in the

Province, yes. Exactly, exactly the same as every other public servant in the

Province.

Now, then -

MR. SIMMS: 7 per cent or 8 per cent to somebody making

$85,000 versus 7 per cent or 8 per cent for somebody making $25,000, there is a

big difference.

MR. BAKER: Yes, well, it is a bit hypocritical for

Members Opposite to -

MR. SIMMS: Not really.

MR. BAKER: - especially the Opposition House Leader to

talk about that, when that was exactly the way they proceeded when they were in

Government -

AN HON. MEMBER: We did not, (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: - and - no, you had more than that one year, a

projected deficit of more than $180 I believe, projected one year and you ended

up with eighty I think because you were way off, as usual, you were $100 million

off on your estimates, so I believe, that is what happened, you were bailed out

by your buddies in Ottawa, I believe, bailed out by your buddies in Ottawa; so,

we have done exactly the same with the executives and the political staff as we

did with the whole of the public service, there is no difference, none

whatsoever, in spite of the impression Members Opposite would like to create.

I am sure they are glad to notice that in terms of the net

expenditure in the Premier's office, the Budget for last year was $782,000, this

year it is about $730,000 so there is a drop of $50 odd thousand; I am sure that

everybody in the Province would be glad to notice that as opposed to some well

over $1 million three years ago, which is quite a saving.

There was a question asked about -

MR. SIMMS: Salaries this year, you said is down $50,000

(inaudible).

MR. BAKER: No, the hon. Member should listen, he might

learn something. I said that you would be pleased to note, the net expenditure

in the Premier's Office which was about $782,000 last year will be down to

$729,000 this year, a savings over the budgeted amount last year, of about

$50,000 and I am sure that everybody is very pleased with the savings which we

have initiated in the Premier's Office.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well, I am dealing with the Estimates.

MR. SIMMS: $769,000 spent last year (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I will repeat again, in case the Member did

not hear. I indicated that last year the net expenditure, the original Budget,

the Budget figure for last year was $782,000 and this year the Budget amount is

$729,700, which is a saving of about $50,000 over the budgeted amount last year

and I think that everybody will be very pleased with the frugality, especially

seeing that the last year Members Opposite were there, the expense was well over

$1 million, so there is a tremendous saving involved here.

I would like to point out also, there was a question asked

about some of the policy committees and I am also pleased to note that the

Budget last year, from terms of the Social Policy Committee of Cabinet, Resource

and Social Policy Committee of Cabinet, Secretariat, the expense is reduced from

$45,000 to $17,000 and I am sure everybody is very pleased with that.

There was a question asked about professional services.

Professional Services, Cabinet, Secretariat, Executive Support, Department of

Executive Council and there is (inaudible) that the budgeted figure last year

was $131,000 and this year it has gone up to $210,000, a tremendous increase.

The explanation of course is that these professional services - the reason it is

up is we want to continue with the development of a document managing system,

with costs to include hardware and software purchase, implementation of system,

and conversion of existing documents to data base systems. So it is going back

and putting all of the other documents back into the system. So that is the

reason for the increase in that particular professional services expenditure in

this coming year.

Another question was asked, again about an increase in

professional services, under Cabinet Secretariat administration. The budget last

year was for $32,000, this year it is up to $47,000. And the explanation is that

this year that professional services has to do with lease of computer terminals

for on-line enquiry and the cost of computer time at NLCS for the following: the

purchasing administration system; the budgeting system, that is data entry

introducing reports, $16,000; block funding for all divisions of Cabinet

Secretariat is provided for micro-computer acquisitions, upgrade and maintenance

of $28,000; and micro-computer training, $3,000. So that is an explanation of

that particular expenditure.

The next one that was questioned had to do with

administration of the offshore fund. And Members will be pleased to note that

the net expenditure on this heading, last year in the Budget was $50,000, this

year it has gone down to $25,000, which is a 50 per cent reduction. I am sure

all Members are pleased to see that.

The office of the President of Treasury Board, a question was

asked about that, and I am pleased to respond that the figure spent last year,

$193,100, we will keep under that, we will only be $192,300. So we are $800

below the amount for last year and I think that is a tremendous accomplishment,

especially seeing that when we took over the Government we probably cut the

expenditure of the President of Treasury Board's office in half. So that is on

top of all that. So we are keeping the expenditures rather low.

Another question asked about professional services under

Treasury Board organization and management and again a large increase in

professional services. I believe it was the Member for Grand Falls who asked the

question about this one. Last year in the Budget there was $283,000, and this

year there is $495,000 - a big increase. The explanation is this: the Treasury

Board Secretariat system support, $77,000; Cabinet Secretariat system support,

$58,000; systems consultants, $145,000; systems planning consulting service,

$25,000; block funding for all divisions of Treasury Board Secretariat for

micro-computer acquisitions, upgrades and maintenance, $55,000; micro-computer

training, $10,000; and the big increase in here is that here is where we have

provided the funding for a school bus transportation study, $100,000, that is

geared to hopefully save us an awful lot of money in the years ahead in terms of

the reorganization of the school system; and various Departmental operational

reviews during the current fiscal year, $25,000. So the big increase there is

mainly the result of the study into school bus transportation.

The other question that was asked had to do with pay equity

implementation, how last year we budgeted only $185,000 for that - for

professional services I am talking about now, under pay equity - and we actually

spent $340,000, how come the big increase? Well the big increase is because the

process hopefully is speeded up. The managements consultants who were contracted

to assist in implementing the pay equity, to do the job analysis and the

analysis of the descriptions and assigning levels, that cost $336,000. So that

is where most of the money was spent. Computer runs at NLCS, $10,000. So that is

the planned spending in this current year.

Another area where there were some questions asked, again,

had to do with Transportation and Communication. Members opposite always like to

pick these headings, and I would like to explain to Members in the House why the

Opposition picks these headings to question. The explanation is that while they

were in Government, they used to hide away all kinds of stuff under those

headings, Transportation and Communication. The stuff they used to hide away

under that heading, and they know it, they are quite familiar with what they

used to do with these headings, and they assume that we are doing the same

thing. So logically, if I was sitting opposite I would ask questions about

Transportation and Communication. I used to do it when I was in opposition, and

I would get the standard answer: 'well we need to communicate and we need to

have transportation', and generally that is the only answer that I would get.

Anyway, a question was asked about Transportation and

Communication under IGA. Last year there was a budget of $50,000. Now we did not

spend it all, we only spent $47,000. A budget of $50,000 all of a sudden this

year it shows up at $204,000. Why the big increase? Well, the explanation is

that Transportation and Communications are travel related expenses and telephone

costs are normally in there. Funding has increased substantially due to the

provision of a travel budget in native policy for the six members of the

provincial negotiating team for the Inuit of Labrador. So this is a new

expenditure here related to the provincial negotiating team for the Inuit of

Labrador and relating to the land claims issue. So it is a very important

expenditure, I believe.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Nothing. I am very pleased.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Nothing wrong. No. Because I have noticed

there are a lot of questions on Transportation and Communication. I just want to

explain to some Members on this side who may not know why the questions were

asked, you see, because quite often these headings are used to hide things away,

and Members were suspicious, and they have every right to be suspicious, I

suppose. They are in Opposition and they are supposed to be suspicious, they are

supposed to ask those questions and I am saying that these are good questions,

no doubt about it.

There is another question that has been answered, but I

suspect the reason why it was asked again was just, that hopefully, it would be

embarrassing to Government, and that has to do with Purchase Services under

protocol, and how it was $87,000 in the budget last year and this year there is

$308,000. The reason, obviously, as it has been explained before is that there

is a royal visit this year that is going to cost $130,000, there is a Governor

General's visit that is going to cost $25,000, and there is the Atlantic Charter

50th Anniversary: $25,000, and there is another conference: $120,000. So

$300,000 of that $308,000 has to do with very special occasions, cost of

activities during the 75th Anniversary of Beaumont Hamel and so on. So a lot of

extra money there, and Members opposite have tried to make some political hay at

the fact that we are spending money on a royal visit, and I guess that is why

they asked the question, just to have that stated once again in the House that

we are spending $130,000 on a royal visit. So, the question was asked and I feel

as if I had to answer.

Then there was a question asked about - and I really did not

get to the details - it seems that on Friday the Member for Humber East asked a

lot of questions about women's issues, and I spent most of the morning talking

about the initiatives that we had taken in terms of women's issues in this

Province. One question I did not get around to answering I would like to answer

now. It has to do with why the reduction in the Women's Policy Office? Last year

there was $401,000 and this year it is cut back to $375,000. The comment was

made that because there is so much good work going on there, how come you are

reducing the funding? Well I, at the first instance said that the funding was

reduced, there is a lot of good work going on and a lot of good work will

continue to go on and there was some belt tightening. And in fact, I believe two

of the employees this year are expecting to have to take - and one of them is

now off on maternity leave - and that sort of cut back on what we need spend on

salaries. That allowed us to live within our salary budget, but I would like to

point out that under Professional Services, this year we are hiring consultants

for special research projects and developing policies and programs $10,000; and

we are going to up grade computer printer for $1,500, so we are budgeting

$11,500 for professional service, and that is way down from $28,000 last year.

So actually, $17,000 of the drop comes from professional services and under

Purchased Services: last year the budget amount was $40,000 and this year it is

only $32,000. So the drop in the funding of the Women's Policy Office of about

$25,000 can be accounted for under Professional Services and Purchase Services.

The rest of the headings remain the same, and the Women's Policy Office will

continue to do its excellent work. And the final point - and I believe these

were most of the questions if not all, I will have to check my notes again -

asked about specific details in Executive Council. I would like to point out

that the total expenditure in Executive Council does not vary a great deal from

last year. As a matter of fact it is slightly above the budgeted amount last

year but down from the projected revised amount for last year. So we are down

close to a million dollars, $900,000, from what was spent last year. And the big

variance in this whole big Department, with all the important functions and so

on that this Department carries on, was in one item and it had to do with the

Hibernia project implementation under the heading of Professional Services. That

is the big variation. Last year we budgeted $200,000, we spent $1.8 million. So

that is why the expenditure, the revised, was way up from the original budget,

now it was not up that much because we managed to recover from some other

headings. But it went up $200,000 to $1.8 million, this year we are budgeting

only $200,000 again. So that is all we have under professional services for the

Hibernia project.

A tremendous variance, and it had to do with providing for

the engagement of consultants, advisors, on an as-required basis to assist

Government in monitoring Hibernia-related activity. And it is the kind of thing,

I suppose, where last year there was a great demand. And I think there were a

couple of bills that came in from the year before that were much higher than we

expected as well. And I think it has already been dealt with. I think the

Members opposite know about that.

So I think I have answered most of the details that were

asked yesterday. These were the details in terms of money and Purchased Service

and everything else. There were a lot of questions asked about women's policy

which I have already answered, and I look forward to other questions by Members

opposite and hope I can deal with it as completely and expeditiously as I have

already done.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have

a few comments to make on this in a general nature, not necessarily in questions

to the Minister. But I am sure my fiend for Pleasantville will be fairly

interested in hearing what I have to say and maybe some of the other St. John's

Members will be interested in what I will be saying in the next couple of

minutes.

As all the St. John's Members know, in the last little while

we all received a letter from the City Council, from the Mayor of the City at

least, wondering where we stood on the amalgamation issue. And the letter - I

imagine everyone got it, I know I got one - asked several questions of what the

MHAs think about the amalgamation issue. And there has been some recent

reporting in the media by the deputy Mayor that they are going to put pressure

on the St. John's MHAs to vote to support their stand. And there have been

several comments to that effect. Now we did all meet with the City Council

within the last six months. Liberal MHAs would not allow us to come with them

but we met separately with them and we had -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: - our friend from the NDP to come with

us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I beg your pardon? The Member for St.

John's South says that is a lie?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what he said.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Is that parliamentary?

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw that.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Is that parliamentary? Mr. Chairman, is

that parliamentary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I did not hear him. But if the hon. Member

MR. R. AYLWARD: He just admitted to saying it.

MR. MURPHY: Yes. I do not mind, Mr. Chairman, withdrawing

the fact (Inaudible). But I mean, when somebody makes a statement that is

incorrect then - I should not say a "lie"," I suppose - but the statement is

totally incorrect.

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

withdrew.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

Again we have the Member for St. John's South withdrawing a

remark. And he also should withdraw the context in which he made it because Her

Worship the Mayor of St. John's is the one who told me that. I mean I can only

relay her message, is that she wanted a meeting with all St. John's MHAs. And it

was suggested that the Liberal MHAs will be more forthcoming if the PC Members

were not there. Now I can understand that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: I do not disagree with that actually. But

I disagree with the Member for St. John's South saying it is not true, because

it is true. It is just a simple fact. I might have done it myself when I was

there. I do not know. I know I did not. But I never had the occasion to have a

meeting or the city never had the occasion to request a meeting.

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

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

on a point of order.

MR. MURPHY: So this House and the hon. Member

understands, when the Mayor and the councillors decided to have a meeting with

the caucus of St. John's they were adamant in inviting the partisan people or

the Liberal backbenchers, the Tory backbenchers and Mr. Harris individually. So

what the hon. Member is saying is totally incorrect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Again, Mr. Chairman, the Member for St.

John's South has been put in his place in saying that, and I do not know where

he gets all of this information because the Member for St. John's West is the

one who arranged the meetings. So he has no idea yet. The city was quite willing

to meet with the NDP caucus, and the PC caucus. I do not know why they would not

want to meet with all three of us. The only reason I know this is because Her

Worship, the Mayor of the City of St. John's told it to me.

MR. MURPHY: She said it. She told us about it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I am not hiding it away. I do not think

she would, and when she was told that the Liberal Members, in particular the

Cabinet Ministers, now this sounds like it came right from the mouth of the

Minister of Finance but particularly the Cabinet Ministers would be more

forthcoming if we were not there. Sobeit. But I fault the City of St. John's for

that not the Cabinet Ministers who got away with it and the Liberal

backbenchers. If the City of St. John's wants a meeting with the Members who

represent the City of St. John's they should call one and who comes comes. That

is what I say. If the Liberal backbenchers or the Liberal Cabinet wants a

meeting with the City of St. John's, they should call a meeting, the Liberal

backbenchers and the Cabinet Ministers and ask the City to come in here and have

a meeting with them. That is simple enough. But the City of St. John's should

have more gumption to stand up for what they wanted.

But anyway let us get on to the amalgamation issue. I notice

in the last couple of days there have been reports in the media by, I know the

Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island has stated his views, and I congratulate him

for that. And certainly he is standing up for the rural areas of his District,

particularly Paradise, Conception Bay South parts of his District, and Portugal

Cove. Also the Member for Carbonear had a few words to say on the amalgamation

issue in this Northeast Avalon area, and I congratulate him for doing so. The

Member for Pleasantville has had his name on the record for quite some time, and

I congratulate him for doing so. I do not agree with him, but I congratulate him

for doing so.

MR. NOEL: What do you mean we do not have (inaudible)?

MR. R. AYLWARD: You will find out now in a minute. I have

not heard yet from the Member for St. John's South. I do not think

he has put his thoughts on the record. I have not heard from

the Member for St. John's North or St. John's West or St. John's Centre - or who

else is there?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: I have not heard them put their feelings

on the record about amalgamation and probably they are not going to. As long as

they can keep getting away with it, they are not going to and that is probably

the advice that I should take, that it is probably -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, apart from the reason you would use,

yes. But it would make more sense for me to just sit back and relax because you

have to make the decisions to. But I am not going to do that. I am going to make

my position quite clear before this day is out.

Mr. Chairman, the amalgamation issue certainly has festered

over the last two years and the Minister is still doing nothing about it and

there will be nothing done about it until next fall because he is going to have

to come before this House of Assembly according to the Premier, and that will

not come to the House of Assembly before next fall because this House will be

closed in the next couple of weeks, I would say three weeks maybe, and there

will not be time to bring any amalgamation issue to the floor of this House, and

I would expect that if it did come to this House, the House will not be closed

quite so quickly as the next two or three weeks or certainly by the end of May

it would not be closed.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I am going to make it nice and clear

and simple now: I do not agree with the report that was brought in by the

Minister's feasibility study, so I do not agree with the Government's position

as presented through their feasibility study on amalgamation. I do not agree

with the city of St. John's proposal for a super city, so it cannot be any

clearer than that, I do not agree with either one of you.

I have other suggestions but I really do not know why the

city is making these proposals; I could agree if the logical conclusion of the

urban centre was started off as an amalgamation; I could agree with St. John's,

Mount Pearl and Wedgewood Park, that I could because it seems to be the logical

urban centre because they are all pretty well up to the same standards, they all

have the same services and they all could be paying the same tax base as they

all have pretty well the same middle class social group; St. John's probably

have less, but certainly Wedgewood Park could afford to be paying the same taxes

and Mount Pearl generally has a fairly affluent society.

Now when you start talking about the Goulds, the Goulds has a

different income level, a different - I cannot say a different class of people,

but a different income level. The reason people move to the Goulds is because

land and housing were cheaper and they are buying what they can in the $70,000

range rather than in the $100,000 range and others; they are at the limit of

what they can afford, if they get the water and sewer hooked up they can scrape

up enough money, so when you start talking about the Goulds and you start

talking about Petty Harbour - Maddox Cove and you start talking about the

Paradises of the world, you are talking about a different group financially and

a different group of people who can afford this amalgamation, so, Mr. Chairman,

I suggest that some of these people might not be able to afford the increase.

Now, I know this is a very sore point with the city of St.

John's, that people from other areas are coming in and using our services free,

that is the argument that the city is using; but I have asked them for years,

not only recently when this started but for years, you tell me that your

services are being used and not being charged to other people, so identify the

services and put a cost on it, that is all I want to see, I want to see what

they are.

If people tell me that something is happening, they should be

able to logically show me why it is happening and what the cost is and, it will

have to be estimated no doubt. Snow clearing on the Parkway, that is not an

estimate, that is a fact of life what that costs and they say that, that is one

of the services that thousands of people outside the city use to come in here

and the city gets no tax dollars from it.

Now there is a way to solve that problem too, because it is

mostly this Parkway, Pippy Park region that is used for the people coming in to

go to work; a lot of the people who work from outside the city come in to

Confederation Building or The University or The Health Sciences Complex, so one

of the big costs or the big unfairness is this Pippy Park area, that the city is

snow clearing and fixing up the roads and paving and what not and they say that

is - now whatever the costs are there, the city could identify, and that could

be done by the Department of Highways, immediately, and that in itself would

equalize the unfairness if there is an unfairness, that is one step that you do

not need amalgamation-

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

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. R. AYLWARD: By leave anyone else (inaudible), a

couple of minutes more?

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to pick up on some of the points raised by my

hon. colleague for Kilbride. I think we have reached a time where the

amalgamation issue has got itself into a situation of becoming an irritant. I

suppose when you think about the fact that we are in such a period of restraint,

where dollars are hard to find for snow clearing, garbage collection, asphalt,

or whatever the case, and we see the City of St. John's able to reach down and

find $30,000 to put into a budget, and we see our friends in Mount Pearl finding

money in their budget to fight, I suppose, or explain their position, fight

might be a strong word, but finding these kind of dollars in a restraint period,

when we are dealing with an issue that has to be addressed. If we look back over

the development of some of the satellite towns, and/or cities, as far as I am

concerned, that have developed over the years, then one has to ask oneself if

the amount of monies that are being paid by residents of St. John's, of

Wedgewood Park, and Mount Pearl should, or should not, be the same, everybody

should be paying their fair share of the burden for the same amount of services.

It brings up some points that I would like to address, Mr. Chairman. As long as

I can remember Kilbride was Kilbride and the Goulds was the Goulds and I suppose

there is a point to be made for the expansion of the capital city of St. John's

because St. John's was obviously going to grow, and as St. John's started to

grow then people would expect the same garbage collection, the same snow

clearing, and the same recreational services be provided throughout, and the

natural place for St. John's to go, of course, was West, or Southwest, and it

found itself spreading out all over. Then all of a sudden we found that, for

whatever reason people wanted to use, and that is fine with me if somebody

wanted not to live on Pleasant Street, Patrick Street, or Alexander Street, and

wanted to move out to somebody's path, or whatever the case might be, build a

new home and put up that home without services, then turn around and ask the

Government of the day to give a grant to a new town or new city, or what have

you, then what we have done for ourselves is made a rock for our own back. We

find today that we have a situation, or a yoke around our neck where we have all

kinds of residences in and around the City of St. John's - the new City of Mount

Pearl - when I grew up it was Steady Waters. When I was a young fellow Mount

Pearl was an area for summer residences. There was no such place as Mount Pearl.

Then it was Mount Pearl - Glendale. Kilbride was in place, the Goulds was in

place. The hon. Member for Kilbride knows many St. John's residents who had

summer homes in Kilbride, summer homes in Mount Pearl. Now, hindsight is 20/20

vision. It is easy to look over your shoulder and say, well, it should not have

happened, and obviously it should not have happened. Today we should have a city

that expanded under the name of St. John's. It was quite obvious, when you look

at the fact that St. John's is about to celebrate, well it is the oldest city in

North America. There are other cities that lay claim to that but in reality St.

John's has paid for many, many, services that the Wedgewood Parks and everybody

else has picked up on. Now, if somebody can express to me the logic of paying

4.5 mils on one side of the street and 11.5 mils on the other side of the

street, if that is fairness, if that is the way we pay our municipal taxes, then

I am afraid the whole thing needs to be re-explained to me. Now, if everybody in

and around were privy to the same services, totally the same services, and we

were all paying ten mils, then I could understand amalgamation not being an

issue of an name going over, and what, I suppose, people want to stand with. It

comes down to paying your fair share of the services that are provided to you,

and it is time for us to stop standing up and taking up the sword for a

situation that there is no sword needed to be taken for. I mean if anybody has

any kind of decency in them they will understand that the Wedgewood Park

situation as it relates to St. John's is totally, totally wrong. I mean I do not

know if anybody can stand up and agree with that. Now there might be something

said for it, a colleague of my got up the other day and said all of the things

that Mount Pearl did. Well Mount Pearl in my mind was a city which was

politically developed, and the natural way for St. John's to go was where Mount

Pearl is. There should have been in my mind, no Mount Pearl, and the Government

of the day should have made sure that it was St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: There should be no Wedgewood Park is that

what you are saying?

MR. MURPHY: No, there should be no Wedgewood Park as we

know Wedgewood Park. I mean you got little stamps all over the place and it is

not right and it never will be right that somebody in Wedgewood Park who is

provided with the same services using the City of St. John's water, using Robin

Hood Bay, using all of the other things. I suppose it could be said if the City

of St. John's did not plough around Wedgewood Park they would stay in there.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are paying for it.

MR. MURPHY: Four point five mils is not a fair share of

the record.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Wedgewood Park.

MR. MURPHY: So, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Members opposite

can hoot and holler and get on all they like, the people of St. John's are

getting the shaft municipally, and they continue to get it. Now it can be argued

for lots of reasons that there is inefficiency in the city and there is more

inefficiency somewhere else and all of these kinds of great things, and the fire

protection and all of that, and when you want to find something to make issue

you will find something to make issue. But the real answer is that amalgamation

is necessary if the people in St. John's and the adjacent communities are to all

collectively pay their fair share of the services that are provided.

AN HON. MEMBER: What services are Wedgewood Park getting

that they are not paying for? Tell us.

MR. MURPHY: Well I do not know how you can attribute

getting water to Wedgewood Park. If Wedgewood Park was on its own how would it

get water and sewer to itself? How would they be able to afford the capital

dollars? They tapped into the City of St. John's, and they were able to pay next

to nothing. They pay a service now. So let us be realistic that it is totally

incorrect, is a free ride on the backs of the residents of the City of St.

John's. And there is nothing else that can be said for it. It is simply that,

all right. And our friends in Mount Pearl, I have a lot of friends and a lot of

admiration for the people of Mount Pearl. They have a nice town in Mount Pearl.

They do not have -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Great In.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, you can call me the Great In if you

want. The hon. the Member for Grand Falls who lives in Mount Pearl obviously has

a biased position to take when he talks about do not be so degrading. I am not

being degrading. I would be degrading if I did not stand up here and protect the

citizens of St. John's who -

MR. SIMMS: All you are doing is showing your ignorance.

That is all you are doing is showing your ignorance. It is a city.

MR. MURPHY: It is a city by the hon. Member's standards,

but it is not a city by my standards, okay.

MR. SIMMS: It is a city by law.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, it is a city by law. Yes, by whose law?

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, fine. But that still does not change my

mind, okay. The hon. Member can read his paper. He will probably be less

informed, but he can read it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: So, Mr. Chairman, there is no time like the

present time to solve this problem, to take the courage, to solve the problem

and to deliver the fairness that needs to be delivered to amalgamate the City of

St. John's and adjacent small towns, not for the City of St. John's sake, but

for their sake, and for the sense of everybody paying their fair share.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. Member's time has

elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! By leave!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just

want to continue with the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I am after getting them all stirred up.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) bit of sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Member for Carbonear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. Member for Kilbride. If other

people wish to speak in the debate, I will recognize them after.

Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will continue

where I left off on how if there are services inside the city that people from

outside the city are using that could be identified, and one of them that we

seem to recognize quite often is the snow clearing and maintenance on the

parkway and areas within Pippy Park. Mr. Chairman, one solution that the

Government could do quite quickly if they wanted to is that the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Provincial Government if they wanted

to, quite quickly, if they identify that the parkway and areas within, the

University, the Confederation Building, the Health Sciences, it is one of those

areas that other people use and the city gets no tax dollars for these areas in

the city, and they are an expense to the city is that the Department of

Transportation could immediately take over those expenses and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: They could immediately take over the

expenses for that area, Mr. Chairman, and spread the money out. Now that area

can also be taken over by a regional government and the one we have now is

called the metro board. The one we have now is called the metro board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: If you do not know how to act in the

Legislature, go outside somewhere.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. Member for Kilbride and he is

having great difficulty in continuing his debate. If the hon. Member for St.

John's South and the hon. Member for Grand Falls want to carry on a

conversation, I suggest they go outside the Chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good ruling, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just said that the hon. Member for St.

John's South and the hon. Member for Grand Falls, if they want to pursue a

private conversation should go outside the Chamber. The hon. Member for

Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: And that also applies to the hon. Member

for Carbonear.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I cannot hear what I am saying. There is

just too much noise here.

Mr. Chairman, if the Government was serious about it

initially and the St. John's Members in particular were interested in helping

out the City of St. John's to cover some of the costs that they appear to have

that other people are using, they could immediately dedicate the Pippy Park area

of this Province, which contains the Confederation Building, the University, the

Health Sciences Complex, the Marine Institute and the roads that are inside that

area, and the Department of Transportation can immediately take over the

maintenance, control and snow clearing of these roads. That, in itself, would be

a great saving to the City of St. John's so that they would not have this great

expense of looking after these roads. These are the roads that the city cannot

collect tax dollars on because the Provincial Government does not pay any

property taxes. The other option, I suppose, would be is that the Government

themselves will pay the property taxes on all the buildings they have. But, I

mean, that is not going to come. We know that is not going to come, so a simple

solution would be to have the provincial government look after the roads in this

area. That would be one solution. But what the City of St. John's is not

remembering in what is happening now and what they are proposing now is that

they are forgetting so quickly what happened with the Kilbride, Shea Heights and

the Airport Heights when they were annexed into the City. They were never

amalgamated, they were annexed into the City. Now what happened in those areas,

the plan was for a five-year phase-in and for those areas to be up-graded to

city standards and then the city take them over. That was a pretty good plan. I

remember - I will never forget it - in 1985, it started. On January 1st or 2nd,

1985, there was a snowstorm and the first time I looked out my window, the City

of St. John's snowplows were in there. Immediately, I phoned them and asked,

`What are you doing in here?' The bureaucrats got together and said it would be

much more efficient if we went in there and did all this work, rather than just

do the subdivisions, as was planned. Now, the roads were not up-graded to city

standards, so the Department of Highways was gone. Now, you have some job to get

the rest of them to come back in there and spend the money to upgrade those

highways to city standards; so, if the City had stayed out of the area and

phased in over the five years, as was planned -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Get out from St. John's - me? I never

came to St. John's on a horse and sled. I do not know what you are talking

about. I drove to St. John's all my life. I never went there until I was twelve

years old, I don't think, I was in Kilbride all that time.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, if that plan had worked - now, the City

is going to do the same thing again, in the Goulds, Paradise and the outskirt

areas they are talking about taking on in this new supercity. They are going to

go in there and take it over, and it will not be an equalization of payments of

taxes for the City of St. John's taxpayers now, it is going to increase the City

of St. John's taxpayers' taxes, taking over these areas and trying to upgrade

them.

Now, the Member for St. John's South does not understand

that, and he should, because he represents an area that was annexed before and

that needs lots of money put into it to upgrade it to City standards. And that

is started now, but the City taxpayers are paying it, not the Province. The

Province is paying nothing, not a jingle. The Province is not paying one cent.

They are not paying any in St. John's. They are paying some in Airport Heights.

MR. SIMMS: He did not even know that.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Standard, done for - all municipalities -

nothing special for the annexation for St. John's South. Now, Mr. Chairman, that

gentleman, who touts himself to be a great member in this House of Assembly,

should have known that. He should have known that Shea Heights is not being

up-graded as fast as they should, and most of the money spent in Shea Heights

has been spent by the City taxpayers. And you are going to take on the same

expenses when you take on the Goulds, the same expenses when you take on the

Paradise area; and one other thing, Mr. Chairman, the biggest obstruction to any

kind of amalgamation in this area, is that the new grant system that this

Province brought in this year will cause the City taxpayers to pay more taxes

and they will get less grants, the bigger they grow. So, why would the City

taxpayers want to take on the Goulds and Paradise, and get less tax money than

they are getting presently. The Provincial Government's own new grant system is

a deterrent to amalgamation, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, if the Provincial Government wanted annexation

or amalgamation to continue across the Province, when they brought in their tax

system, they should have put in an incentive programme. They should have put an

incentive there to encourage amalgamation. Right now, with the programme that is

there, it is a discouragement. If the Goulds stayed on their own, they would get

more grant money. Now, that is the same one - not the same one, but it was a

similar one we had. We encouraged it. We did the same thing, but we never

planned all these amalgamations. We were not looking to get everyone

amalgamated. I was quite happy to see these towns like the Goulds, Petty Harbour

and Maddox Cove handle their own affairs, because they were building their

communities at a pace they could afford, not a pace the City of St. John's

wants.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I did not hear, I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the last

couple of speakers to get up and have a few words to say on the issue of

amalgamation, because I am glad to see that the Member for St. John's South has

come forth with his position. I hope the rest of the members for St. John's,

excepting the Cabinet, who have been keeping their mouths shut on this issue,

will come forth very shortly and state their positions.

Of course, amalgamation is obviously an emotional issue and

something that people from the communities who have benefitted from their

separateness, like Wedgewood Park, no doubt are not going to be very happy with

the idea of amalgamation; but I think the people of Wedgewood Park realize that

their days are numbered as a separate community. They did a very good job in

protecting their self-interest and I do not blame them for wanting to keep it,

but I think you will find that those who are the more thinking people of

Wedgewood Park will realize that you cannot exist as an enclave in the middle of

the city and have less taxes, and yet, get the same benefits as everybody all

around you.

It would be like the Member for Port de Grave; if the Member

for Port de Grave lived in the middle of St. John's and had enough money to put

a wall around his place and if his own water and sewer is there and say: I am

here, I do not need your water, I do not need your water, I do not need your

sewer, I can provide it cheaper myself, I do not want to pay your taxes, that

would not be fair; that would not be fair and the Member for Port de Grave would

not try to suggest that he should not pay taxes because he happened to have his

own water and sewerage in the middle of a city, and besides, he can afford to

pay taxes. But I say, Mr. Chairman, that this whole idea of separateness in the

middle of a city is not really something that even the people who are there

understand.

The last Municipal elections in St. John's - somebody is

making a noise over there, Mr. Chairman, I do not know who it is, it is a bit

incomprehensible. But they -

MR. SIMMS: It is the yahoo over there, he never seems

(inaudible), that was meant for them, (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: They were not yahoos, they were omadhauns.

MR. SIMMS: Did you see the papers this weekend.

MR. HARRIS: That was meant for them, not you guys.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, that is right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I had an interesting experience. I know the

Member for Pleasantville would be very interested in this and the Member for St.

John's South; the rest of them do not seem to be too interested but, the last

Municipal election, I was at one of the polling booths at St. Paul's School and

at that school there were a number of people who came in to vote around seven

thirty, a quarter to eight and they were coming in to vote and they were

disappointed to find they could not vote in the election, they could not vote in

this election; they wanted to vote for mayor and they wanted to vote for their

favourite candidates; they could not vote because they were told: no, you do not

live in the city of St. John's. What do you mean, you do not live in the city of

St. John's?

Well, we took out the maps and looked at where their houses

were and sure enough, they lived on a street that was in the city of St. John's,

but, because the house was turned in a different direction, they actually lived

in Wedgewood Park and they did not even know it so they could not vote, so that

is how much of an identity there is amongst people who live in the middle of a

city after all and they may, for tax reasons, identify themselves as residents

of Wedgewood Park, but they are really a part of the city of St. John's.

So, I think the argument about a lot of good supporters,

there are a lot of good New Democrats in Wedgewood Park and I think that all New

Democrats believe in the principles of fairness and equity and justice and they

really mean it, it is not just a slogan to them like this crowd over here; they

will talk about fairness, but let us see them impose fairness in this case when

we are talking about amalgamation between the city of St. John's, Wedgewood Park

and Mount Pearl; if they have the courage of their convictions about fairness

they will also include Mount Pearl.

The Member for Kilbride has talked about the services issue

and that they could have services cheaper etcetera, etcetera. Well, part of it

is a servicing issue, but the real issue is equality and fairness. Fairness of

the level of services and fairness of access to all the other services around

and if that can happen in this city where cities or the municipalities are cheek

to jowl; cheek to jowl enjoying the same services, enjoying the same services in

the same area, working in the same locations, travelling back and forth on the

same roads and just by some accident of geography, happen to live on one side of

the street or other, and therefore enjoy the benefit of the historical accidents

of the development of their particular parcel of land on which they happen to

live, that is unfair.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you saying?

MR. HARRIS: It is unfair because much of the value or the

ability of Mount Pearl to have cheaper taxes is the result of Government's

actions. Government's action in terms of land development through Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing Corporation, Government's actions