November

28, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 70

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I want to rise on a point of privilege regarding a

question the Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier on November 25,

concerning a private lawyer hired by the Department of Justice to represent me,

rather than a lawyer from the department.

Now, the Premier stated at that time that he didn't have all

the details, and in this I am sure he is correct, he gave the technical answer.

But I would like to point out specifically what caused me to request a lawyer,

and I feel that by raising this question in the House, my privileges have been

infringed upon and I think I should explain what happened to cause this question

to be asked, as to why I had a private lawyer. I will briefly give you the

details, Sir, as to why I think my privileges were infringed upon.

On September 27, a lawyer from the Department of Justice

phoned my secretary and pointed out that I would be summoned to appear at a

Discovery where Health Care Developers and another company were suing the

government - and I was minister during the time this action had taken place. He

told my secretary that he would get back to me at some time and that is all I

heard about it. The next thing I heard was on October 7 when the bailiff

appeared with a summons at my house. I was out of town but my wife was there,

she accepted the summons and was told by the lawyers for the plaintiffs that the

fact that I was out of town and was not due back until October 14 didn't matter,

I had to be back to be in court on October 13 to appear as a witness at this

Discovery.

I arrived back in town on October 11 and on October 12 I came

in and asked my secretary to contact the lawyer, Mr. Pillar, who had phoned and

advised that I was going to be summoned as a witness in this case. I called Mr.

Pillar in the morning and left a message. He phoned me at 3 o'clock in the

afternoon and I pointed out to him that I hadn't had any knowledge of this thing

for over three years. I asked him was he was going to brief me, and he said he

didn't see any point in it, but he did say, because Ms. Marshall had released

some private papers, they were prepared to give me the papers to look at over

the night of the 12th and I had to be in Discovery the next day, on Thursday

morning at nine o'clock, so he gave me the papers and I looked at them.

Now, after I saw the documents and then appeared at the

Discovery and saw the documents that had been released, I did have some

concerns, because they had released Cabinet papers that were signed by me; I

wasn't given any indication that they were going to be released; I feel that at

least I should have been given that much of a warning, that if they were going

to release Cabinet papers that I signed, I should have been notified by

somebody, I was not. After that, I contacted the Premier - it was Sunday, the

16th, before I was able to contact him - and I expressed some of my concerns. He

said that he would have the Minister of Justice phone me and discuss it, but the

Minister of Justice was out of town so we convened a meeting then in his office

for the next morning.

At that time, I expressed my concerns about the fact that

papers that I had signed were released without my knowledge. I expressed my

concern about the fact that I had not been briefed or counselled by the

Department of Justice before this happened and at the time, the Justice Minister

said that right now, with the Freedom of Information Act, everything had to be

released anyhow, so there was nothing sacred anymore. I accepted that. He said

that the Justice Department was not calling me as a witness, they were not

calling any witnesses. He felt that the plaintiffs were calling me and the other

witnesses, so there was no need of consultation or briefing before the hearing.

I accepted that as it was. The Justice Minister also said the reason they

weren't calling was they could get any information they wanted in

cross-examination.

Now, shortly after that meeting with the Premier and the

Minister of Justice, I began to hear rumours that this was not quite so, that

some of the witnesses who were called by the plaintiffs, mainly the former

Deputy Minister, Ms. Marshall and the assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Greenland

had indeed been counselled and briefed by Mr. Pillar before they appeared at the

Discovery.

After that, I tried to contact the Premier again but he was

out of the office, then he was off sick, and then he was getting ready to go out

of the Province for about two weeks on the trip to China, so I passed the

message along to his secretary that I was indeed concerned about this now, and

because of that, I felt that I should have a lawyer from the outside to

represent me, in view of the fact that the Justice Department seemed to have two

standards: one for the officials who were working in the department and one for

me.

I didn't get that to the Premier, I got it to his secretary.

A day or so later, the Minister of Justice phoned and offered me a lawyer from

the Department of Justice. By this time, from what had happened so far, I didn't

feel comfortable having a lawyer from the Department of Justice brief me at this

time and as the Premier referred to in his statement, it was maybe because I am

facing criminal charges, but I assume that facing them doesn't mean that I am

guilty. I understand we live in a system where I will have a right to defend

myself on that. So I am innocent until proven guilty, and I maintain I am

innocent. But I use that as one of the reasons why maybe the Justice Department

were treating me in a different way from the way they were treating the

officials; but I don't think it is right.

Why I stand here today, is because it can happen to any of

us, as members of this House. At the time, I was a member of government, I was a

minister, and if there is a court case, I feel that I should have been entitled

to the same treatment as the officials in the department and not considered any

differently. This is one of the main reasons why I stand. The one thing I can

say that has been proven here in the House now since October 18 and again on

October 25, the one thing that was pointed out, was that indeed this was not a

David Gilbert stand-alone paper. This paper was made up in consultation with a

committee of Cabinet. They were informed and advised every step of the way on

this until the final meeting when the committee approved this paper before it

was sent to Cabinet.

Now, I feel, Sir, that my privileges as a member have been

infringed upon by the way this was handled by the Department of Justice. I would

ask you to look into it - not for me, because this that I have related here

today can happen to any member in this House. I feel it should be looked into

and I hope you will give me ruling on it, Sir. Thank you.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I raised the question, legitimately so, in the House on

Friday, because I think it is important, first of all, to understand or know why

the government, which has Crown solicitors available to defend or act upon any

minister or foreign minister who is carrying out his legitimate responsibilities

as a minister of the Crown, but, in this case, a former minister involved as a

witness, by the way, in a civil case, not a criminal case, has a private lawyer

made available by the taxpayer and I think that was a very legitimate question.

The answer that the Premier gave was not one that satisfied me, but we may

pursue that on another day.

I want to make this particular point, Mr. Speaker, and

nothing more, because I am not quite sure what the member is up to here today.

It almost appears as if the member himself believes, or is feeling, that the

government somehow is leaving him out to dry, and he wants to make sure that his

point is made and his case is heard as best as he possibly can. I suspect that

is what is going on here, but I don't know and I won't impute motives to the

hon. member, but I will say this to him - he talks about facing criminal charges

- at the moment the case that is before the courts is a civil case. It is not a

criminal case, and therefore the government which the Premier leads is the

defendant in the civil case. It is not the former Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation.

Now, that is one issue that is outside the House and

something we should not interfere with, and we are trying our best not to do

that; however, there is another issue which I believe is even more serious, and

that is the evidence that is available to all of us now in the House, and has

been for quite some number of weeks, of the political interference and tampering

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - that is going on and has gone on by this

government over the past number of months.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: And that is the issue which we will

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to bear with me

for a minute.

The Speaker doesn't make any observations on what members say

except that when a member raises a point of privilege I think the hon. member

should direct himself to the point of privilege as raised by the member, and not

use it as an opportunity to make other comments. So, if the member has something

to say about a particular point of privilege that the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir raised, I will certainly hear it and rule later. If not, perhaps any

other types of comments could be saved for another occasion.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I think I made a very valuable

point with respect to the point made by the hon. member. That is all I was

trying to do. I have made my point at the moment.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of privilege, the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir raises an interesting aspect of personal privilege - the privilege, of

course, having to do with the member's ability to carry out his function as a

member of this House, and I presume that includes the ability to carry out his

function as a member of Cabinet as well, knowing that if as a member of this

House and a member of Cabinet he is involved in certain decisions that become

the subject of legal action, knowing that he will have the advice and assistance

of competent counsel to represent not only the interests of the government,

presumably, but the interests of him as a participant in that government.

It seems to me that the member is, by the information that he

has disclosed to the House - I think without further facts it is hard to make a

decision on it, but it seems that up until the eleventh hour of the eleventh day

or the eleventh minute the member was left without proper advice or briefing on

a matter that could affect his involvement in a very serious matter. It seems to

me, Mr. Speaker, that not only is perhaps he being hung out to dry, as the

Leader of the Opposition has said, that perhaps his attempts to reach the

Premier - the Premier seems to be playing Pontius Pilate about this whole issue

in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps it is another example of it here. I

think that the member has raised a valid point as to his ability to carry on as

a member without the kind of support that would be given to other officials of

the government.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have courts, competent,

highly regarded, respected judges. This matter is a civil action before the

court. The hon. member refers to a criminal action that is before the court. I

think he made a valid point, in feeling that he ought to be represented by

independent counsel in his present circumstances, and the government has agreed

to that. Let the courts and the process take its place.

All the Opposition is doing and my learned friend sitting

down in the corner there is doing are trying to make political hay out of this

because it suits their particular purpose. I don't see that there is an

especially significant point of privilege raised by the hon. member. If it is,

what he is talking about is his privileges as a member of this House being

abused by the members opposite in their abuse of him and the process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Let -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: By you, he said! By the Department of Justice,

is what he said!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: We've competent courts, independent

judges, judges of integrity, courts in respect of whom I have nothing but the

highest confidence, Mr. Speaker.

I don't see that there is any further action necessary by

this House, other than to let the courts and the actions before the courts take

their course. If members opposite had any sense of propriety that is exactly

what they would do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Don't lecture us. You are the last person in

the world to lecture us on propriety, let me tell you that.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm going to find it hard today to override members who

persist in speaking. If the House could indulge me a little bit I'm recovering

from some laryngitis. So if I ask for order I would ask that you listen.

I will consider the matter the member has raised and rule on

it later.

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As this

hon. House is aware, the Premier announced on March 31 1994 that an agreement in

principle with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited for the purchase of some of

its land assets in the Province had been reached. The Premier stated at that

time that after the finalization of the land transaction, full details would be

submitted to the Legislature for final approval.

I would like to advise this House today that the negotiations

for this transaction have now been completed and government has executed an

agreement with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited finalizing the transaction. I

signed the principle agreement on this this morning. Government will also

execute an agreement with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited and their secured

lenders assigning the proceeds of the transaction to the lenders. The terms of a

conveyance deed have been agreed and will be executed and registered following

passage of ratifying legislation. Today I am tabling these documents and the

associated maps in this House in preparation for second reading of Bill No. 42

respecting government-Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited agreement act, 1994.

The transaction includes the transfer of the ownership of

surface and timber rights to the Crown for approximately 272,000 hectares of

freehold land, which is slightly less than half of the free held land of the

company in this Province. On the remaining 376,000 hectares, ownership of the

surface rights has been transferred to the Crown immediately, and the ownership

of the timber rights on this second half of freehold lands will revert to the

Crown on December 31 2037, which is the date at which their other timber

licences expire. Two timber licences with timber rights for an area of about

100,000 hectares in Central Newfoundland, particularly the Bonavista North

region, have also been surrendered to the Crown.

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited has also extended the

current agreement between the company and the Crown on transfer of its licensed

lands in the Roddickton area for a further period of twenty years, in order to

facilitate the wood supply for the sawmilling industry in that area. In return,

the Crown has agreed to grant the company a right of first refusal on purchase

of pulpwood from these and some other areas on the Northern Peninsula. This has

been done to ensure a long-term supply of wood for the company's operations in

Corner Brook.

Government has agreed to pay $15 million for this transaction

in two payments of $7.5 million each over a two-year period. As the Premier

previously stated last March, the company has retained sufficient timber rights

until 2037 for its mill requirements, at which time a new arrangement for a

future wood supply will have to be concluded. The right of first refusal

mentioned earlier will further safeguard the wood requirements of the company.

These freehold lands which are being purchased by the Crown were in the main

acquired by Bowater and its predecessor companies when they acquired "Reid

Lots," grants which were made to the Reid Newfoundland Limited as part payment

for the construction of the Newfoundland Railway. Other land grants which were

made to those companies are also being revested in the Crown at this time.

I want to emphasize that I have used approximate figures for

the area of the land holdings because the transaction is not based on any unit

per hectare price. It is a lump sum transaction involving a number of aspects of

rights and ownership. Since it will take some time to incorporate the newly

acquired land to the Crown land records and assess its suitability for various

other uses, a freeze is being placed on its disposition for a period of at least

six months to allow my staff to take care of the paperwork.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement benefits both parties, both

government and the company. The company receives the much needed funds for

reducing its debt while maintaining an adequate supply of wood for its mill.

Government, through this transaction and the previous purchase of Reid Lots by

the Moores government in 1974 - twenty years ago - brings back to the Crown the

ownership of most of the Reid Lots alienated at the time of the building of the

Newfoundland railway.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am trying to recollect the deal. I believe this was the

deal that was announced during the height of the Hydro debate, when there were

some allegations made at that time about involvement, if that is the same deal,

and I believe it is, and my colleague from Humber East says it is.

Mr. Speaker, first of all the government is attempting to do

something here that will ensure long-term wood supply and that is, in principle,

something that we obviously would support, and also the long-term viability and

credibility, from a fiscal perspective, of the operation - the mill and the

woods operation on the West Coast - and that, too, is something that we want to

see done in a successful manner.

About all we can say at this stage, having had all of this

documentation heaped upon us in the last little while, is that we will reserve

more comment on it until we have had a chance to go through some of the

documentation and, of course, the matter will come up for debate eventually, I

guess, anyway under Bill 42 sometime presumably before the House adjourns

Christmas Eve, or whenever it might be. So we will look forward to the debate

occurring at that time, after we have had a chance to look more thoroughly at

the documentation and what we think of some of the details of the deal.

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

have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions

for the Premier.

Over the last year or so the government appointed an

independent commission to hold public hearings and make recommendations to the

House on electoral boundaries. First of all the government directed the

commission to plan for a forty seat assembly. Then later the government changed

the law and told them to plan for a forty-four to forty-six seat assembly. Now,

that was the second time. This commission travelled all over the Province

holding hearings everywhere, not only once but on two occasions.

The question which has come up before, by the way, but I

would have expected the Premier would have inquired to get the answer, is this;

the first question I have for him is this: How much did this exercise, and

duplication in the minds of most people, by the commission cost the taxpayers of

this Province? Can the Premier give us that answer?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me correct some of the misstatements

of the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.

The original instructions - I am reading from the legislation

passed by this House. I am not sure members can question -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Forty to forty-six (inaudible). That is

what was proposed, not forty as the hon. member suggested. It was forty to

forty-six, from the beginning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) irrelevant.

PREMIER WELLS: No, no, it is always relevant to set the

record straight.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this report that was tabled

about a week or so ago, I think it was released publicly about three or four

weeks ago, five or six -

AN HON. MEMBER: July.

PREMIER WELLS: July, okay - three or four months ago.

That report that was released contained, with great respect

to the commission, an impossible situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: If the hon. members want to laugh and

waste the time of the House, that is up to them, but if they want the answer as

to why, I am quite prepared to give it to them.

The explanation was quite simple. The commission made a

recommendation that would see two seats in Labrador, with some 15,000 people in

them - two of the largest seats in the Province, instead of some of the smaller

seats - and then went on to recommend that there be a fourth seat in Labrador.

Well, it was impossible to maintain the principles that the legislation required

without having them go back again. That is why the government took the course

that it did, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the hon. member had a specific question.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I ask the Premier, and I will try to make it

simple so that even he will understand it, how much did this exercise cost? That

was the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It was the messy

preamble that I was

dealing with, Mr. Speaker. With a bit of time I would have dealt with that. I

simply say to the House off the top of my head at the moment I do not know but I

will get the information and table it.

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

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: More and more every day, he does not know

about Marystown Shipyard, he does not know about Hydro, he does not know about

anything. As a matter of fact I am told it is included in the tabling of a

special warrant by the Minster of Finance just a few days ago. The only thing is

it is in an overall head that totals $882,000 and I am sure it did not cost

that.

MR. WINDSOR: Is that what the minister told you?

MR. SIMMS: No, it was not all for the commission's

operation. Anyway the Premier said he would check and get the information. It

should not take long because we hear it is anywhere between $300,000 and

$400,000, that was the expenditure.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, it is true though that the

commission recommended in their first public report, even though it was not a

printed report, forty seats. Then we had a second report, forty-four seats with

a possibility of a forty-fifth. Imagine our surprise when a few days ago a new

plan was foisted upon us in this House of Assembly but this one did not come

from the independent commission, this one came from the Premier as a result of

his deal to keep his caucus members quiet. That is what happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now, let me ask the Premier this, why is he

and the government - I will give them the evidence afterwards and then members

will laugh on the other side of their mouths. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the

Premier why is he interfering and tampering with the electoral commission's

independent report and their recommendations? Can he answer that question?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is very simple, it was done on the

recommendation of the commission. The government was responding -

MR. WINDSOR: Not true.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to answer

questions but I am not going to stand and listen to the garbage from the

opposite side, 'not true.' Now, if they want questions I will give the answers

but that is improper action, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl is not entitled to accuse

another member that a statement made in the House was not true and I think he

knows the difference, so I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, if that is an unparliamentary

statement I certainly withdraw it. To use the term liar or anything of that

nature but to say 'not true', if that is unparliamentary then there are

thousands of occasions in this House daily that are unparliamentary, but I will

withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: I say to the hon. member that it is clear on

the parliamentary precedence that neither member of this House can accuse

another of uttering an untruth or misleading the House, and I say to the hon.

member in the context in which he made it it was unparliamentary and I ask him

to withdraw it.

Does the member withdraw it.

MR. WINDSOR: I have done that, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The government took the action on the

basis of responding to the specific recommendations of the commission. Those

recommendations were that because of the size of the seats, two of the seats in

Labrador, both of them would be over 15,000 in Labrador, that the government

should provide for a fourth seat in Labrador. Because of the size of the seat in

Humber Valley, which I believe would have been close to 17,000 if you put in

Reidville and Cormack, which the commission had recommended be done, it would

produce a seat of 17,000. Grand Falls - Windsor had a number of over 16,000 so

there were problems.

Now, the only way the government could possibly deal with the

Labrador situation was include the southern Labrador area into the Strait of

Belle Isle seat, which everybody opposed. We could not possibly leave a

circumstance where there were two seats in Labrador. Two of the largest seats in

the Province were in Labrador and that was an unacceptable circumstance, so we

asked the counsel who worked for the commission, who did the work during the

course of the commission's work, we asked the counsel to look at how it might be

done, what changes might be made to respond to the commission's recommendations.

That gentleman, Mr. Speaker, developed three possible

proposals. He looked at what the situation would be with forty-six seats, what

it would be with forty-seven seats and what it would be with forty-eight seats.

Anybody who looks at it will see very clearly, Mr. Speaker, what the right

course was to follow in light of the commissions recommendations. There was a

provision made, Mr. Speaker, for presentation of it one day to the Liberal Party

Caucus and we provided for it the next day, or I think it may have been a day or

two later that it actually occurred, but it was available to the Opposition

Party Caucus the next day, Mr. Speaker. It was responding to the commission's

recommendations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: But, Mr. Speaker, it is not correct nor is it

accurate for the Premier to give the impression to the people of this Province

that this commission recommended a forty-eight seat plan. That is what he is

trying to do and that is inaccurate. What it does, Mr. Speaker, is make it even

more obvious that this whole thing has been manipulated by the Premier and his

Liberal Caucus. That is what is happening because not only does it deal with the

issues that he just talked about but magically it reintroduces his own Bay of

Island seat, magically, and suddenly, Mr. Speaker, it sets up a brand new seat

down in Burgeo of 4,400 people. There was no recommendation like that, Mr.

Speaker, in the report.

Now, let me ask him this question, he just now alluded to,

there was also a forty-six seat proposal and a forty-seven seat proposal, why

didn't we see those presentations? We did not know anything about that, we did

not see anything of that nature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It so happened, Mr. Speaker, that the

commission asked the government to address those issues, the government did and

it put forward a proposal. The commission did not ask the Opposition to do it.

He may have forgotten, the government is on this side of the House so it is

normal for the government to initiate that kind of response and the government

did, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WINDSOR: It was only a sham.

PREMIER WELLS: The government did. Now, Mr. Speaker, let

me correct again, the misrepresentation that is inherent in what the hon.

Opposition Leader has said. At no time did I suggest or imply that the

commission recommended forty-eight seats. At no time did I do that. What I said,

Mr. Speaker, was the commission, has in effect, put us in an impossible position

if we are to put four seats in Labrador. I do not know of any other way to be

fair to the voters of this Province without doing that. Now we can go back to

having three seats in Labrador, that is a possibility, or we can join up one of

the Labrador seats with the tip of the Great Northern Peninsula, that is another

possibility but everybody has opposed it. It is easy to see the commissioners

recommendations. They are there and they are clearly set out and that is the

basis on which the government asked the counsel that acted for the electoral

boundaries commission to prepare a response to those commissioned.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) civil servants.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Premier to draw his comments to a close

as well and I would like to hear him while he does it.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that was the sole basis on

which the government acted and we are prepared to bring the proposal before the

House and defend it.

MR. WINDSOR: Who do you think is going to believe that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: The Premier is right about one thing, there is

no doubt about it, that the government's fingerprints, his and the Government

House Leader's fingerprints, are all over this latest little bit of (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now before the House opened, Mr. Speaker, just

a few days before, many in the media were reporting, as a matter of fact, that

the Premier expected the electoral changes would be dealt with during this

sitting of the House of Assembly. Now this latest tampering, which can be seen

only as the mother of all jerrymandering, I would suggest to the hon. House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: - is something that should be dealt with very,

very soon. So I want to ask the Premier this: why doesn't he accept the

independent recommendations, without tampering with them and get on with it so

that people can plan their futures? There really are only two options here and

it does not include tampering, it is either to accept the commissions last

recommendations independently or to forget about it. Why doesn't he do one or

the other?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Here are the commissions recommendations

that were accepted; as can be seen from the proposed Naskaupi District - the

proposed Naskaupi District varies from the quotient by 23.6 per cent while the

proposed Eagle River District varies by 61 per cent. Given Labrador's

considerable geography and sparsity of population, we believe that these four

seats are necessary if the interests of the people of Labrador are to be

adequately represented in the House of Assembly. So you have to have four seats,

that is their recommendation. Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like to hear the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: - because the commission only provided for

forty-four and to have the fourth seat in Labrador would require increasing it

to forty-five, that is what it has to do with it.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) with Burin - Placentia West, for

example.

MR. SULLIVAN: Or Bay of Islands.

PREMIER WELLS: Just a moment: In addition, Mr. Speaker,

to the foregoing, we further recommend that the Legislature consider amending

the Electoral Boundaries Act to permit the inclusion of Reidville, Cormac and

Howley in the proposed Humber district.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that would have created a Humber district

of just about 17,000 people, a Humber Valley, that was the commission's

recommendation; that notwithstanding the population of the resulting districts,

that the Legislature consider amending the act to permit all of the Town of

Grand Falls - Windsor to be placed in a single district. The Town of Peterview

to be placed in Exploits district, the proposed Lewisporte district, less the

Town of Peterview to remain as a district.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible), Bay of Islands.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the provisions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Members Opposite should not act on the

assumption that volume of noise equals intelligence. It does not, Mr. Speaker.

If they would just sit for a minute, they would be alright.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the act are quite clear;

to give priority to the principle of one person one vote, and what was in that

commission's recommendations, the total, did not do that, and, Mr. Speaker, in

response to the commission's recommendation, we brought in a proposal that did

and we stand by it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: Why did you tie their hands in the first

place?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

Last week, or on November 16, Wednesday, I asked questions of

the Premier dealing with the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

residence in Tors Cove. Since that time, the Premier tabled a response that was

clearly public information anyway. Since the Premier tabled that response, more

evidence has come to light: 1) that the minister lists with Motor Registration

his official residence as Arnold's Loop; 2) that the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations is listed on the federal enumeration list for St. John's East;

and 3), Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated to me that the minister did in fact

vote in St. John's East federally.

Now just in case the Premier is not aware, let me quote the

section of the Highway Traffic Act, which clearly says that an individual who

applies, must apply for a license in writing in their own hand and that it is an

offense according to the act if a person is guilty of an offense and gives a

false or fictitious name or gives a false address.

I say to the Premier, the evidence is mounting and if you,

sir, had any sense of propriety, you would demand the resignation of the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know when the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations acquired that apartment in

Pleasantville.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four years ago.

PREMIER WELLS: Four years ago, and quite frankly, I did

not even know he had it. I always assumed his residence was Tors Cove.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: That's what I had always understood to be

his residence. Now whether it was Tors Cove or somewhere else, he has to answer

for it. I have spoken to the minister about it. I have no reason to doubt the

minister's word on this, none at all, that his primary residence is Tors Cove.

He, like some other members maintain apartments or residences of one kind or

another here in St. John's as well. I mean, there are all kinds of members who

don't live in their districts who live somewhere else and maintain a residence

in St. John's, the Member for Mount Pearl for example. I believe he has

indicated his primary residence is Lewisporte but he maintains an apartment or

some kind of a residential complex here. I understand and accept that. I have no

reason to question it, I don't know what he has said about where he votes or

where he has his mail sent or anything else. But I have accepted the minister's

word and I have no reason to doubt the minister's word, that his primary

residence is Tors Cove. I had always understood it to be that. Now if it is not,

he has to answer for it.

The administration of these funds as you know, has nothing to

do with the government, it is administered through the House. The Internal

Economy Commission administers totally without government intervention, the

funds provided by the House of Assembly for payment, and I suppose the Internal

Economy Commission has a responsibility to make sure that the rules are

followed, and that applies to members on both sides of the House.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you right now that

the people of this Province do not share your evaluation of the matter.

MR. MURPHY: They don't share yours.

MR. E. BYRNE: What you are telling me, sir, and what you

are telling the people of this Province - when you refer to other members such

as the Member for Mount Pearl, he is in fact enumerated in Lewisporte. The

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is enumerated provincially in

Arnold's Loop, municipally in Arnold's Loop, and federally, and that is

acceptable? I say not. Will you conduct a full and thorough investigation

independent of the Premier's Office, through the Speaker's Office, to ensure

that the minister's conduct is becoming of a minister, and not false?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I'm not sure if the member really knows

what he just asked for - asked me to conduct a full investigation independent of

the Premier's office but through the Speaker's office.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) instruct the Speaker.

PREMIER WELLS: I'm not going to instruct the Speaker. The

Speaker acts on his own. The Internal Economy Commission runs the affairs of the

House. If the hon. member wants an investigation into the way these monies are

paid out, then ask the Speaker to do it. If the Speaker is of a mind to do it,

or the Internal Economy Commission, he will, no doubt. But don't ask me to

instruct the Speaker to conduct an inquiry - that is not acceptable.

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

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

a question for the Premier as well. I questioned the Premier on Thursday on a

matter concerning Sual Fisheries of Frenchman's Cove on the West Coast, where

the business plan of that company was made public by the Premier's executive

assistant, Mr. Ed Joyce. I asked the Premier at that time would he try to

determine where Mr. Ed Joyce got the company's business plan. The Premier didn't

answer it on Friday when he gave his answer. I wonder if he could inform the

House now, or has he determined, where Mr. Ed Joyce got a copy of Sual

Fisheries' business plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to table in the

House the statement, the

summary of position that Mr. Joyce - that is, Ed Joyce

- sent in to me as the full explanation of it. That spells out everything. I

don't know if it - I assume it indicates where any information he got came from.

I should also tell the House that as a result of a letter or

a memorandum I received this morning by fax from Mr. David Joyce, I made some

enquiries. I tried to reach Mr. David Joyce but I was unable to do so, by

telephone, so that I could get full information from him. I reached one other

person who was at a meeting that took place on November 9 with Mr. David Joyce

and Mr. Ed Joyce, and that person confirmed for me that Mr. David Joyce did

indeed give Mr. Ed Joyce permission to use whatever information was necessary in

terms of explaining this situation, at a public meeting which he agreed to

attend on November 10.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to table the information.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) unethical and unprofessional and

you know it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: What is unethical and unprofessional is

the constant noise that comes from certain members opposite. I would be happy to

table this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Premier is aware that in Friday's answer, November 25, page 2526, he said to me

that: "... it was the Member for Grand Bank who asked me another question about

the role played by" his executive assistant, Mr. Eddie Joyce. He said: "Mr.

Joyce did indeed release the information but he released it with the full

consent of Mr. David Joyce...." He also went on to say to me: "I am pleased to

advise the House that virtually every allegation made in the course of asking

that question is false, is totally wrong, totally incorrect."

I want to say to the Premier that I have a letter here from

Mr. David Joyce that says there was absolutely no mention of his business plan

at the meeting, and: at no time did I either give him or tell him - that is, Mr.

Ed Joyce - to use that particular information. I have to ask: How could I tell

him to use information I know I didn't give him? That ties into my first

question. How did Eddie Joyce get Sual Fisheries' business plan? It was either

through the licensing division of the provincial Department of Fisheries, Food

and Agriculture or through your office - one of the two, that's where he got it.

He didn't get it from Mr. David Joyce.

In the light of Mr. Joyce's letter, which I will table,

saying that: `At no time did I either give him or tell him to use that

particular information,' will the Premier now - because what the Premier has

tabled is a report from his executive assistant to him. Covering his behind, I

say to the Premier. I think it is totally unethical what has happened here. This

company spent upwards of $20,000 preparing a business plan that is now in the

hands of competitors, Mr. Speaker, so I ask the Premier: Will you have another

look at this? Because I think this action by your executive assistant, who works

for you, the Premier's Office, warrants his immediate dismissal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I believe the item the member quoted from

that statement says that at no time did he give authority to use that particular

document.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is correct.

Now, what Mr. Joyce had indicated very clearly was that this

gentleman gave him authority to use whatever information he had in relation to

the matter, but he told me he didn't want him to provide the names of his

financial backers unless it was essential to do so, and I have no reason to

question for a moment that advice from Mr. Joyce. I have had it confirmed by a

third party who was present at the time.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel whatsoever with the

explanation that has been given by Mr. Joyce, I have no reason to doubt it. I

have done whatever is necessary to check it. I haven't yet spoken to Mr. David

Joyce - I tried to reach him, but was unable to do so.

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

Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we are getting used to the

Premier behaving this way; we saw it on Friday. I want to ask the Premier now:

Will he name the third person?

AN HON. MEMBER: The third party.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The third party. Will he give the House

that information. Because it may be correct, it may not be, but we need to know.

Who was it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can assure the House it was correct. I

spoke to the lady. She called me. She told me she was present at the meeting -

at a meeting with both Mr. Joyces.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was she?

PREMIER WELLS: I know the lady's name. I would prefer not

to release it without her express permission to do so, but I will seek that

permission, and if I have it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I have no quarrel; I would be happy to

release her name. I will seek her permission, and with her permission, I will

release her name.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is

for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

On Friday, November 25, the minister was quoted in The

Evening Telegram , when being asked questions concerning the new Caboto

Centre, that we have not nailed down any definite commitment yet to fund this

legacy building for 1997.

On Thursday, November 24, the minister tabled in the House

the expenses and commitments to December 31 in relation to the design and site

selection of the building, totalling over $500,000.

I ask the minister: How does he justify spending over

half-a-million dollars of taxpayers' money on this process when he doesn't have

an estimated $30 million to $40 million commitment for the construction of the

Caboto Centre?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that I did

release some information and also speak to the media to make the research for

the hon. member a little easier in asking his question.

The question, as it is, that - in fact, I think every member

in this House would be absolutely shocked and appalled, to use some of the

language that members opposite use sometimes, if we weren't properly planning

for what is hoped to be a major contribution to the 500th year celebrations by

leaving behind a legacy building that everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador can

be proud of.

With respect, whether we have the final arrangements for the

funding agreed to or not, I believe if members opposite checked with anybody who

does any planning for a construction project of this size, magnitude and scope,

they would really be shocked and appalled to think that we hadn't spent that

amount or more in the preliminary planning, design and study stages, even before

we secure the money.

At some point in time, this government firmly hopes and

believes that we will be able to deliver this major new complex which will house

the archives which need a new home, the museum which needs a new home, and the

provincial gallery which needs a new home, and whether or not the funding

arrangements are finalized next week, next month, or three months time, this

kind of planning absolutely was essential if there is any hope that the project

can be finalized and brought on stream in 1997.

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

Capes, a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, the problem with research is not on

this side of the House; it is in the minister's department, when they have spent

almost half-a-million dollars of taxpayers' money trying to find a site, and

then go and select another site that wasn't part of the original plan.

Regardless of how historic properties are defined in

legislation, does the minister believe a well-preserved house that survived the

great fire, that housed the first post office, the first weather station, and

the first telegraph office is worth preserving? And does the minister plan to

use expropriation, if necessary, to put the building on this site?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, just so that the hon. member would not have anything

attributed to him in the record of the House, in Hansard, that he wouldn't want,

at no point in time did anybody spend half-a-million dollars looking for a site

and then change his mind. The numbers that were tabled in the House, if he would

read them correctly, show that by the end of this calendar year, December 31,

1994, the government expects to have spent just over $500,000 on the whole

planning exercise, part of which went into going to a site on the waterfront,

that I understood members opposite had agreed was probably the ideal place to

put this centre, and they were cheering so on, as I understood it, hoping that

we would meet with a successful resolution of putting the Caboto Legacy Building

on the waterfront. Because of the fact that we wouldn't impose our will on

people who owned property on the waterfront, we have now gone to, what in our

judgement is the second best location, but the hon. member opposite is now

looking at some way to try to criticize the approach.

In fact, we are now looking at the plans and we expect that

maybe in a weeks time the designers, architects, and planners will have

available for government - the phrase they are using is, a footprint of what

design of a building can actually fit in the best possible way onto the piece of

property that we own, all except for the house on the corner.

Whether any of these claims about the all of a sudden

wonderful historic value and heritage of that property, which never ever came to

the fore prior to this, whether all of those are verified and justified, people

are checking that to see. In fact, up to the point in time and the date in time

that government announced we were looking at Fort Townsend as the preferred

site, there had never been any reference to the site on 1 Bonaventure Avenue as

having any particular historic or heritage significance in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Even though the building is old, and even though it has been

there for 150 years, in that 150 years of existence nobody previously came

forward to say that this particular structure deserves to be preserved. It is

being looked at now only because some claims are being made. We will look at

that, and it will be taken into consideration as to the final structure of the

building.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to table today, the annual report for the Farm

Development Loan Board of Newfoundland, for the fiscal year ending March 31,

Notices of Motion

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds

In St. John's Act.

MS. VERGE: About time, I didn't think you were still the

Minister of Justice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) notices?

MR. ROBERTS: Because I am still a minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: Still the House Leader.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table information

requested by my hon. friend from Marystown, on the sea urchin processing

licenses issued and the dates on which they were first issued.

Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Grand Bank, not Marystown.

DR. HULAN: Grand Bank, I stand to be corrected.

Petitions

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

Extern.

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

Today, I rise in my place to present a petition on behalf of

a number of constituents of St. John's East Extern. The petition reads:

`To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of

Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

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

accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned residents of the district of St. John's

East Extern, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department

of Employment and Labour Relations to immediately implement an emergency

employment program. With the economic conditions which exist, we find ourselves

in a desperate situation; we ask the minister and his government to show

compassion and understanding in this urgent matter. As in duty bound, your

petitioners will ever pray. November 24, 1994.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have this petition here - actually there

are twenty-two signatures on it, from one community in my district, from Pouch

Cove.

Mr. Speaker, what is going on in this Province today is

nothing short of heart-wrenching. There are very many issues out there today

that could be considered to be political issues, but I think the most important

issue in the Province today that is affecting most people is job creation, by

far the most serious and most important, and the problem, Mr. Speaker, with job

creation, is that there is no job creation by this government. The government is

not representing the needs of the people of this Province.

Basically, what I find, Mr. Speaker, is that this government

has no heart; they are lacking what we would consider heart in responding to the

situation out there today. People out there are finding it very difficult to put

bread and butter on the table. Now, I am getting a lot of calls from my

district, as I am sure are members on the opposite side also, and I find it very

disheartening when people phone me on the verge of tears, looking for work,

people who worked for the past twenty-five years and were always able to get

enough stamps to feed their families over the winter months, but it is not

happening this year.

We have had the implementation of the Strategic Economic Plan

and Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador which, from my perspective, have

created very few jobs in this Province.

We are an Island. Newfoundland is an Island - we have

Newfoundland and Labrador but, we have to deal with an Island economy and the

hands-off approach of this government is nothing short of pathetic. The

Emergency Employment Program over the past number of years, has traditionally,

from my information, been a provincial program, funded by provincial monies.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations last week, I

believe, was going to Ottawa looking for monies to fund an emergency employment

program, that is the understanding I had, but, Mr. Speaker, we have heard

nothing yet. Where is the emergency employment program for this year? The people

are asking me, they are asking members on this side of the House, they are

asking members on both sides of the House. The people out there are in

desperate, desperate need.

Mr. Speaker, I had an individual who phoned me the other day,

who has three children, has worked for twenty-five years consistently - and this

is not the first person in this situation - who is now on the verge of going to

Social Services, the first time in his lifetime, and I said: `You do what you

have to do. You have to feed your family, it is there, it is there for you, you

paid your taxes for a number of years, take advantage of it.' But that is not

what the man is looking for, he is looking for, he is looking for work, Mr.

Speaker.

In 1992, I believe, this government spent $11 million on the

emergency employment program, provincial monies. In 1993 they spent $6 million

on the emergency employment program. This year, where is the money? None, zero,

zilch, nothing so far this year, Mr. Speaker, and at a time when it is most

needed, when the people are crying out for it, Mr. Speaker.

Since this government came to power in 1989, the social

services rolls have almost doubled, from the figures that I have been given.

They went from just over 40,000 up to 76,000, I believe, last year, Mr. Speaker,

and we are having calls every day to do something about this, but government is

not responding, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, we had the Member for LaPoile stand in his place

opposite, Mr. Speaker, and basically support patronage, but that is not what the

people are looking for, they want jobs. The Premier campaigned in 1989 on no

patronage appointments, Mr. Speaker, yet again, this is just another example of

broken promises, there is a list now as long as your arm of patronage

appointments - jobs for their buddies, Mr. Speaker, no one else - no one else

out there is getting work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time has elapsed.

MR. J. BYRNE: Already? By leave, I can go on.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise in support of the petition presented by the

Member for St. John's East Extern. I think I know of which he speaks, the calls

that members get from individuals whose situation and circumstances are becoming

worse by the day and more and more common.

I know the people of St. John's East Extern, in fact, I

represented them federally for an all-too-brief period but it is a pretty

desperate situation that people are facing in this Province today, a very

serious circumstance that they find themselves in. It is a result of two things,

Mr. Speaker: the failure of the Canadian economy to be adequately organized to

social programs that we have enjoyed, and that this government here is

supporting that.

Mr. Speaker, two books have been put out by the Federal

Government in the last year-and-a-half. One was the red book that gave all the

promises, and the other was the green book that we are now supposedly

organizing, or looking at, to supposedly improve Canada's social programs. I see

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations over there, who said that he is

not willing to have any employment program until the green book - never mind the

red book - until the green book is going to be implemented. He wants to consult

is going to hire one person in desperate need. That is what he said in the House

last week.

This minister went off to Moncton the other day and did not

come back with a report. I was expecting a Ministerial Statement today on what

great changes have come about in Marine Atlantic as a result of the minister'

visit to Moncton the other day - that he was going to come back and tell us that

everything had been fixed up, that the residents of St. John's South need not

worry about the Dockyard, that other people in this city who are in desperate

need of employment are going to, as a result of the minister's consultations in

Moncton, have a better future ahead; but no, all the minister is concerned about

is petty issues related to his place of residence. He doesn't come to this House

and ignore all this stuff, and get up and say, We have jobs for people, we are

doing our job here. What he does, Mr. Speaker, is he goes off to Moncton and he

comes back with his tail between his legs, and his government, Mr. Speaker, is

ignoring the real needs that exist throughout this Province.

There is an attack on social programs, an attack on

unemployment insurance, an attack on seasonal workers being conducted by the

Federal Government,and his department and his government are not prepared to do

anything about it. So it is no wonder that the people are now left to petition

this House for work.

I haven't been here all that long - I have been here for

three or four years, but this is the first time I have seen, day after day for

the last five or six days, people petitioning this House for work - `Give us

some work' - and I think it is going to get worse. I think it is a sign of the

times that we are not just petitioning for roads - improve your roads, or

improve your schools. People are actually petitioning this government to provide

some work so that they can put food on their tables.

I see the Member for St. John's Centre - I know he is very

concerned about these issues, because I know he is getting the very same calls,

and I am sure other hon. members on the opposite side are getting them as well

as this side of the House. The difference is that we over here on this side of

the House, all we can do is talk about it. It is the people on that side of the

House who have the power to do something about it. So I ask, in support of the

Member for St. John's East Extern, that this government - the minister looks as

if he is about to rise, and maybe he will respond to this and tell us that he

has changed his mind, that he is prepared to do a stand-alone employment program

to provide some much needed relief for the people in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, let me try to respond to the hon. the Member for St.

John's East Extern. I concur with him that there is a tremendous number of

people, I think I had something like fifteen calls yesterday - at Tors Cove, I

say to the Member for Kilbride, and I might add, while I was counting 184

cheques paid to Foodland in Bay Bulls.

Now, if the Member for Kilbride thinks that my wife and I

leave Arnold's Loop and buy our groceries in Bay Bulls, he is a little bit out

of whack.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, because it is an opportunity - sure, you

can get up on a point of order.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this minister is being well paid

to respond to concerns raised by the Member for St. John's East Extern

concerning job creation, the inability of the government to take initiatives to

try to get programs in place to look after those people who are badly bruised by

the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not worrying about where you

are living.

MR. SIMMS: The Standing Orders are very clear about

members speaking to the petition. They must contain their remarks to the prayer

of the petition, which dealt with job creation for the unemployed. It had

nothing to do with whether the member lives in Tors Cove or not, so you need not

try to flick that out. Please stick to the petition. He only has a minute or so

left.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think we give considerable latitude to members in

addressing finally the petition.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Not to that point of order again, Mr.

Speaker. Let me say to the hon. member, I understand where he is coming from and

just to remind him that this government has five different job creation programs

that are cost-shared between the Province and the Federal Government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are the jobs?

MR. MURPHY: They are out there every day, I say to the

hon. member. As a matter of fact, I just signed off two this morning for the

hon. member's district.

MR. EFFORD: You never? What!

MR. MURPHY: Oh, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's two jobs?

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. the Opposition Leader, two

jobs are better than one job.

MR. SIMMS: It was two jobs?

MR. MURPHY: It was two, I think, for the hon. member's

district, one for St. John's East, I know, for sure.

However, I was in Ottawa on Friday. I had some very good

discussions. It was really a pleasant task to go up there and talk to a federal

minister with some understanding and some compassion, and we are working very

hard to try to bring this together. Like any set of negotiations, I say to the

hon. member, within the next week-and-a-half at the latest, I am hopeful that we

will have an answer, and I am also hopeful that we will have some funding to

provide to the people in the Province. So, if the member and all other hon.

members will bear with me, again, I hope I can rise with positive news. If I

can't, then that is the way it will be.

The Member for St. John's East also spoke. I had a meeting

with Marine Atlantic.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I didn't interrupt the member when he was up.

I had a meeting. We discussed the $200 million situation,

which wasn't a good deal, everybody knows that; it was only a line of credit. I

asked the new CEO, or the new President of Marine Atlantic, to be much more

aggressive in trying to obtain any business that the Yard can do that it has

done in a 110 year history. I remind the hon. member that this year, that Yard

did more total dollars worth of business than in its entire history.

I spoke to them about my concerns with the Yard. I asked him

if it was for sale. He said: Everything is for sale. I said: That isn't

adequate, I need a more direct answer. We need to go after more work. He assured

me he was going after more offshore oil work, more -

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, he (inaudible). Yes, but I say to the

Member for St. John's East, historically the Yard in St. John's wasn't a

boat-building yard. It was a repair-refit yard.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, and we are going after it. This is what

he tells me. I have no reason to tell the man that he was telling me something

that wasn't true. I say to the Member for St. John's East, let's be hopeful now

that the St. John's Yard gets more contracts. I'm sure with the hon. member

talking about how good the Yard is, how good the workforce is, talking it up

like all hon. members in St. John's, that we may just well see the Yard continue

to grow. Don't criticize this hon. member for not rushing back after an

hour-and-a-half meeting with the new president.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: The new president's job is to try to promote

the Yard. The indicator is - and we will be talking to the collective people and

the bargaining unit down there. They have some problems, too, as the member

knows. You have a union down there and you have another union trying to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MURPHY: I thank the hon. members for the leave just

to explain the situation. The new contract needs to be in place by December 31,

that is when the old contract runs out. The president also informed me - and

this is kind of a new twist, and I say, maybe an indicator of things to come in

labour relations. The president told me that they had invited two members of the

union to sit on their board and actually have a look at the inventory, the

voucher, the money, the contracts, the whole nine yards, everything that a board

would do. This is a new approach and I couldn't disagree with it. I thought it

was an excellent idea, that two members from the collective bargaining unit

would be able to sit on the board. So that is the Dockyard situation.

I say to all hon. members in the House, and to all the people

in the Province, we are doing our best to try to negotiate some money to bring

forward a meaningful work program, not only for those who were on it last year

and the year before, but for some people who may fall off in January on the

fisheries program. If hon. members will bear with me, I will be more than happy

to stand in this House when the time comes and announce a meaningful program.

Thank you.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, stand and

present a petition today on behalf of fifty residents of the community of

Branch.

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

Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

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

House of Assembly to accept the following prayer: We, the undersigned, do hereby

request the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to immediately provide

emergency funding to generate desperately needed employment in our communities.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.'

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased today to hear the minister

letting the House know that there are negotiations ongoing concerning some type

of employment generation program and that his trip to Ottawa was somewhat of a

success, even though he can't report anything to the House today. I look forward

in the next few days to his reporting something positive, so that not only the

people in Branch but indeed people throughout the whole Province can partake in

some type of employment generation program.

I was worried this morning, to say the least, and maybe the

minister will have an opportunity later to - I'm not sure if he can expand on

his discussions - but the news media reported this morning that...I will leave

that alone for a minute until the minister is ready to listen.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Branch have put forward this

petition because of the fact that through no fault of their own, many of these

people have been falling through the cracks in relation to the NCARP and TAGS

program. A number of the people in this community have been successful in having

a

part in these programs. But, through no fault of their own, people who were

indirectly involved in the fishing industry, with spin-off jobs, who hadn't the

opportunity to partake in TAGS or NCARP, now, due to the fish plant closures and

the fishery collapse have really no where to turn. These people, Mr. Speaker, in

a lot of cases have built their homes and made their homes in the community of

Branch so I do not see any reason why they have to leave. It is sad to even

think that in order for somebody to get a job they have to pack up and leave the

Island. These people have been trying their best over the past couple of years

to try and find some type of alternate employment but they have not been

successful in a lot of cases.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to some people in the district

over the past couple of weeks who have forwarded hundreds of names on petitions

to me which I hope to have the opportunity to present in the House. People for

the first time, as the hon. Member for St. John's East alluded to, have to turn

to social assistance. There is an element of dignity and pride here that we have

to look at. Whether the job is a $5 an hour job or a $10 an hour job there is

something about getting up in the morning and going to work that all

Newfoundlanders should have the opportunity to enjoy.

Those people do not ask for much, Mr. Speaker. They ask only

for the opportunity to work and to provide for their families and not to be

depending on social assistance. I hope the negativity toward those programs will

not stop the minister in his efforts to try to find some funding. Whether he

finds funding that is cost shared by the federal and provincial governments to

provide employment is not the question. If that falls through, as he has touched

on, that he cannot report anything positive today, then hopefully something will

come forward in the next couple of weeks, and if the federal government does not

come up with funding then perhaps the provincial government will come up with

something themselves to help out these people.

I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on

his trip to Ottawa, that it is efforts like these that hopefully will bring some

tangible results, not only to the people of Branch but indeed to people

throughout the Province. We talk about the minister's trip to Ottawa so I ask

the minister, if he could: on the news media this morning it was reported that

the possibility of coming up with funding, supplying funding for those people

who are unfortunate enough to be receiving their letters in the mail and are

going to be dropped from the TAGS program, I ask the minister if he does get the

opportunity to answer a few questions if he could enlighten us on this.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people, who I touched on

before, who are not part of the TAGS program and they have been left out in the

cold. It is those people these petitions are coming from, and those people who

are looking for work. I hope that government does not come out with something

just for the TAGS persons alone, but indeed for anybody who has the opportunity

to apply. Maybe the minister will get the opportunity to respond, if not today,

then some day shortly.

My understanding is that the minister is off to Ottawa again

this week. I applaud him in his efforts in trying to find funding for the people

of the Province and hopefully his visit to Ottawa will bring forward some

fruitful results.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me pleasure to rise here today and support the

petition raised by my colleague the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, a

petition signed by a number of residents of Branch I read into Hansard.

Now, Branch has continuous settlement since 1790 in

documented history, but what other members might not know here is that during

the First World War the small community of Branch in St. Mary's Bay had the

largest number of volunteers per capita of anywhere else in the British Empire,

these people from Branch who stood up, and now their offspring are requesting

work, no more than they should do.

Branch, St. Mary's - The Capes, anybody's district, is alike

in what is happening to this Province. The District of Placentia is no different

than St. Mary's - The Capes. I said last week that unemployment in the Placentia

area is hovering at 73 per cent. Long Harbour and Mount Arlington Heights are

just as bad. The people in Fair Haven, Southern Harbour, and Little Harbour are

not faring much better. St. Mary's - The Capes, Placentia, most of our

provincial districts are all rural. We have some urban districts but compared to

other parts of this nation, other cities of this nation, St. John's is a rural

town.

The people of this Province are hurting, and they are hurting

for work. We all know that not only is work good for a person's pocket book, it

is also good for their head. It is very important to people, work. The Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations is scheduled to see the minister in Ottawa,

Mr. Axworthy. The `Ax' has everything on the table, we are told. Every social

safety net in Canada is on the table. The axe is being wielded by a person no

better than Lizzie Borden, who could wield an axe.

We joined a country in 1949 that was supposed to be better

for our people. It is too bad nearly fifty years later that the words of Mr.

Peter Cashin are coming true. It is a sad state when we all - and I know members

opposite and here, people have been talking about the calls they are getting

about people looking for work. There is no hope. Men, women, looking for work,

grandparents who are helping their children raise their grandchildren. Is this

fairness and balance? No. It seems more like there is a more subtle resettlement

on the go than the one that places in Placentia Bay witnessed in the late 1960s.

A family reunion in this Province, sad to say, is a wake or a funeral, when our

crowd comes home and one of their family members or friends are silent at that

reunion.

This government has a prime responsibility for its people.

date, would be gravy. What we are asking the Province is a step forward now.

People on TAGS, yes, will be dropped off starting in December. There are other

people in this Province who are hurting for ages. People for their first time

having to go to Social Services. People on social services not getting enough to

keep their households going. Their children are losing hope. We are getting to a

pre-Smallwood way of Confederation where only certain classes of people could

get their children educated.

This can't go on. Someone said if you keep on spending our

grandchildren will pay for it. If we don't have work or have hope there won't be

many grandchildren around. It gives me pleasure, like I said earlier, to support

my colleague and kinsman for St. Mary's - The Capes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, kinsman, we are related.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are related.

MR. CAREEN: We are related. We have to give an element of

hope to people. People have to be able to dig in with their fingernails and hold

on, and we've been holding on to this rock long before we were allowed to settle

here. Long before there had been people who had set up illegal settlements here.

Must we go through that again?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

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

Labour Relations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I just want to say to the hon. member that I

understand where he is coming from. As I told other hon. members, we are working

diligently, hard and long to try and correct the problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: Diligently means hard and long.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, is Your Honour about to call

Orders of the Day?

MR. SPEAKER: There was no one else standing on petitions,

so....

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Your Honour, could we call

Motions 3 through 9, please?

Motion, the Premier to introduce a bill, "An Act To Provide

For Economic Diversification And Growth Enterprises In The Province," carried.

(Bill No. 51)

On motion, Bill No. 51 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act

(No. 2)," carried. (Bill No. 48)

On motion, Bill No. 48 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Livestock Insurance Act," carried. (Bill

No. 49)

On motion, Bill No. 49 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce the

following bills:

"An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act" (Bill No. 47);

"An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act" (Bill No. 46); and,

"An Act To Amend The Mineral And Mining Rights Tax Act" (Bill

No. 36), carried.

On motion, Bill Nos. 47, 46 and 36 read a first time, ordered

read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological

Reserves Act," carried. (Bill No. 50)

On motion, Bill No. 50 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we begin with Order No.

13, which is Bill No. 17, the adjourned debate on the amendment to the Municipal

Grants Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 17, Order No. 13, "An Act To Amend

The Municipal Grants Act".

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, if

he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, I adjourned the debate on

Friday so I am assuming I can just make a few comments and then -

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, the hon. minister is introducing the

second reading, okay.

MR. REID: I think we would be remiss in not allowing my

hon. critic to make a few comments on this particular -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one final

comment on this particular legislation. It will provide, hopefully, more monies

to smaller municipalities around the Province. By reducing the local revenue

incentive grant it will definitely have an affect on the larger centres who are

collecting revenues, large amounts of revenues but in doing that it won't affect

so severely the smaller communities. If you remember last year, Mr. Speaker, the

change to the municipal operating grant - and I was quoted on a number of

occasions as saying: well we have to try to do something for the poorer

communities in the Province if they are going to survive, at that particular

point in time. That is basically what we had planned at that time and now

finally, we are going to be able to introduce it.

I will also say to my hon. colleagues from across the way

that these monies, the $500 per kilometre, of course has been already expended.

We have sent out this $500 per kilometre to the municipalities because they

needed it. They needed it up front and I am hoping today that my hon. critic and

others who will speak on the bill will understand the situation that I find

myself in, in regards to the CAP, and also take some consideration and have some

consideration for some of the smaller rural communities in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

have the opportunity to make a few comments, Mr. Speaker, as it pertains to this

bill, Bill 17.

Mr. Speaker, last year when the minister again changed the

section of the municipal operating grants, especially with reference to the road

component, from thirty-nine dollars back up to $500. Going back to 1989, Mr.

Speaker, when the minister at that time, Mr. Gullage, changed the municipal

operating grant - in fact, it was in the late fall, just before Christmas Eve, I

think it was, in 1989 that the municipal operating grants were changed. Now the

road component at that time, Mr. Speaker, went from some $2,000 a kilometre down

to $1,949 or something like that. I think they lost around forty-eight to

forty-nine dollars. The next year, Mr. Speaker, it went from that down to

approximately $1,250. The next year, it went from that down to $800 and some odd

and then it went from that down to I think, it was $300 and some odd or $400 and

some odd then down to $39 a kilometre, from $2,000 a kilometre in 1989 to $39 a

kilometre in I think it was 1992.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was only one part of the component

that makes up for the budgets of municipalities, one small part of the new

municipal operating grants because they had four different sections: the

equalization component, the local road component, the household component and

the road component and then the other one was the capital projects and the

capital works component. All those were changed but the one that really, really

hit municipalities in this Province, Mr. Speaker, was the road component.

That $2,000 a kilometre was for winter and summer

maintenance, it was not just for winter like for snow clearing or for summer

maintenance, it was for year-round maintenance and it had an effect on every

municipality in this Province. It made up the nucleus especially in

municipalities that had a fair amount of roads to maintain, it made up the

nucleus of their total revenues and their total budget.

When that went to thirty-nine, in 1992 I think it was, the

very last spring, I think it was last spring's budget, the minister put it back

up to $500, the present Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs brought it

up to $500. and it was, he said at that time that it would help a lot of the

smaller municipalities in the Province and it did, there is no question, it

helped a lot of the smaller municipalities in the Province, especially those

that had a fairly high mileage when it comes to road work and funds to be

obtained under the road component, but, Mr. Speaker, in doing that, in bringing

the $39 back up to $500 the minister, today, in this bill, that is exactly what

he is trying to do, bring it back up to the $500 but at the same time, Mr.

Speaker, in the last part of that bill, it says: and reducing or increasing the

local revenue incentive component of each municipality on the basis of that

percentage.

Now last year, when the minister released the information,

when he put it back up to $500, the percentage I think was 13.52 if I am not

mistaken. Yes, it amounted to municipal operating grants of some councils being

reduced 13.52 per cent of the local revenue incentive component, so the minister

stated Friday, that in doing this today, that he would be robbing Peter to pay

Paul and it is true. The minister has a cap to play with; there was a cap of

$41.5 million in the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs for the

municipal operating grants.

Now for the minister to put it from $39 back up to $500, he

had to get the money somewhere within that $41.5 million and in order to do

that, they took it out of the local revenue component and, Mr. Speaker, there

were a number of municipalities at that time, especially in most of the larger

centres that lost some sizeable chunks of money but right now, the question -

and the minister could answer it when he closes debate and I suppose to a

certain extent he could go fairly close to it I would say - is what percentage

of a loss would it be this year on the local revenue component in municipalities

in the Province?

Would it work out to approximately be the same, would it be

any less or would it be any more because, depending on what happens under the

local revenue component in some municipalities, especially when you look at the

formula for the local revenue incentive component, where - well the minister

knows what I am talking about, it goes from zero to 250, you don't get anything

per household and then from 251 to 500 there is 15 per cent, then it goes on to

25 per cent, 40 per cent and up to a maximum of $200. What difference would that

make, I am wondering, this year?

The reason I ask that, and maybe he can't answer it yet -

maybe he can't answer that yet - is that municipalities are in the process now

of doing up their budgets. By law, under the Municipalities Act, councils in the

Province are supposed to have their budgets submitted by the end of December.

Certainly it wouldn't be any different than the past six years, this year

wouldn't be any different if the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

changed it in midstream, because for the last six years, even after councils had

made up their budgets, the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs made

some changes and adjustments during the year, which made it very difficult for

municipalities to try to govern and try to run their affairs, because they would

budget for something in December, and everybody knows - anybody running a

business, or anybody just trying to keep a household afloat - that if they made

some plans and projections at the beginning of the year, if something happens to

creep in that is unforseen, it makes it very difficult to try to run even a

household, let alone a business, so those people are all volunteers, trying to

run a community, working all day, coming in the night time having meetings,

trying to keep the affairs of municipalities right in the Province, and all of a

sudden after two or three months, or four or five months, their budgets are sort

of shot.

I know that the minister, and I would suspect, I suppose,

some of his colleagues... I know there are members opposite who get complaints

from their councils all the time with regard to what is happening under the

municipal operating grants. We won't even talk about the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: They used to be afraid to speak up, but now

they are not. They are speaking up now, but then again I suppose looking at what

has happened in the last couple of weeks with regard to that... The Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation is a good one to talk about Liberals not

saying anything. Look at the gentleman from Stephenville working in his

department, just suspended for two weeks for opening his mouth. It is shocking.

Mr. Speaker, we just freed the people down in Haiti from a

dictatorial regime. They have one over in Cuba, another dictatorial regime, and

now they are becoming what I would say, benevolent dictators, when individuals

and civil servants around this Province can't speak up.

I remember a time back in this Province when the same thing

happened, when you couldn't open your mouth, you couldn't say anything, there

was a gentleman referred to in the past, and then you knew what happened. They

were labelled forever and a day. Now the same thing is happening.

The minister is talking about from 1985-'89, and talking

about councils around the Province, one of the best times they have had it, from

1985-'89.

MR. EFFORD: Who did?

MR. WOODFORD: The councils in the Province.

MR. EFFORD: Port de Grave District didn't get a cent from

1985-'89.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but the Port de Grave people can't be

blamed for that, when they had the member - look who they had representing them.

AN HON. MEMBER: They had a nuisance for a member.

MR. WOODFORD: They had a nuisance for a member. That is

what they told him.

Now the Member for Carbonear, the present Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I can remember back and I know he can - back

when Minister Newhook was Minister of Municipal Affairs, when the municipalities

in the Province used to get fifty cents on the dollar.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WOODFORD: Fifty cents on every dollar they collected,

we will say, of property tax and local revenue in the community, they used to

get fifty cents on the dollars.

Mr. Speaker, the member then for Carbonear was in Gander on

the Federation of Municipalities, and what a racket. She knocked five cents off

that time on municipalities, and I am telling you, what a commotion we had in

Gander on the reduction of five cents on the dollar.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: From fifty cents down to forty-five cents

on the dollar, I am telling you, every municipality in the Province was in an

uproar.

There is a bit of irony in it, Mr. Speaker, because the

minister of the day now was one of the ringleaders in Gander that time, and

going after Hazel Newhook, at that time the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to

try to get that five cents back.

Looking at what is after happening since 1989, there is

absolutely no conscience whatsoever when it comes to municipalities in the

Province. I was wondering how Cabinet was making its decisions when it comes to

municipal affairs. Looking at what happened in the last few weeks, the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation, I can see why. I will tell you, what he

is after doing to roads - now he has every council out there - I would submit to

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs that by this time next year -

he was talking the other day about ninety-five to 100 municipalities in trouble

with regards to repayment on capital debt. I would say that you are going to

have that many that probably won't even have a council.

I met with three councils on the weekend. The minister was

present at one the other night.

MR. EFFORD: I will tell you one thing, (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you supporting this bill?

MR. WOODFORD: There you go. I never heard the Member for

Gander, Mr. Speaker, and what he said, but I think he was saying something in

reference to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I think he is

right.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is the Municipal and Provincial

Affairs bill. Do you support it?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He asked if you are supporting the bill.

MR. WOODFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not supporting the

bill, if that is what the member is getting at. I'm trying to make reference to

what happened since 1989. What was before 1989 and what happened since 1989 with

regards to the funding to municipalities.

I was in the community of Hampden Saturday evening to a

meeting. They haven't had a meeting yet to do up their budgets for 1994. They

have to try to meet now the next couple of weeks. They were saying then that

once they meet they are pretty well sure now, and they haven't even had their

elections yet, that they are not even going to get a council. They won't get one

member to run for council. I just experienced right in my own community - we

always had, right back to when I was involved in it, back in 1974, always had

thirteen, fourteen people running for council. Always, every year. They called

for nominations, I think it was on November 4, they had two people. Two people

submitted to the -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No, the Cormack council. Two people to run.

They asked the minister to name another nomination date. He named a nomination

date for last Thursday. They got another four people to run. They almost have to

beg now to get someone to run for council.

Make no wonder. There is no way in the world, every way they

turn, and they are taking the heat. They are the people who are on the battle

lines, they are the people that the constituents can get at. They are living in

the community. Although they are volunteers they are living in the community and

the people can get at them. If they put the mil rate up from eight to nine or

eight to twelve, if they put the commercial rate up, if they put the poll tax

up, if they take out street lights - look at the gentleman the other day out in

Bonavista somewhere. Look at the heat that he took. Elliston, is it? For what?

If you go right back and you see where the cuts were made

back since 1989, Mr. Speaker, I just don't know how municipalities in this

Province are making it today. Because they are hit every way possible. There is

no way for them to run their affairs. Most of them have no professional people

to help run the clerks who are in the office in the day time. They come in after

working all day, four or five people, or six or seven people, sit down, try to

make decisions. Every time they come in they sit down with something new, the

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs saying that there is something

else cut, some other part of a cut.

This piece of legislation, although it will protect the $500

that was there last year, and a loss of 13.52 per cent, what loss will there be

this year? The councils will not know that until they do up their budgets for

this year. They won't know. Because in last year's statement the minister in

note 2 said: The above grants are estimates only and will be revised in the

spring of 1994. Adjustments determined at that time will be paid or deducted on

a quarterly basis during the calendar year.

Now how do you do up a budget? They have to have it submitted

and the councils, under the Municipalities Act, their budgets are supposed to be

balanced. So how can the minister on one hand say under the Municipalities Act

to municipalities in the Province: your budgets have to be balanced or do not

send them in but at the same time, three or four months or five or six months

into the year, the minister or the Government of the day, can change that

budget? It is not fair. It is certainly not fair if the council out there, who

are volunteers, have to keep and abide by the rules of The Municipalities Act.

It should be a two way street. There should be some accommodation made to try to

at least adhere to the budgets submitted by councils at the end of December,

December 31 of every year. There should be some accommodation made. If there are

going to be adjustments made, make it for the next year.

That is like the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, who came out with this grandiose scheme of collecting $3,000 or

$3,500 per kilometre. Now the minister knows full well - how can municipalities

start paying that in mid-year, mid-season after bringing up a budget twelve

months ago? They cannot do it anyway and with the downloading on municipalities

since 1989, there is no way, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Fortune - Hermitage, who is an advisor now

under this new Caucus structure that they have over there, he is an advisor to

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. SULLIVAN: What is he advising him on?

MR. WOODFORD: The Member for Fortune - Hermitage. Now

this is another member that was associated with the Federation of Municipalities

for years. Now if anybody should know how and what is happening to councils in

the Province, it is that member.

The Member for Gander is another one and his family, his

father was associated with council for years. He knows full well of every

respected member of the Gander Council, Mr. Speaker, and it is not like those

members never had an interest in councils affairs, Mr. Speaker, because they

did.

Getting back to the Member for Fortune - Hermitage, in his

role now as Caucus advisor to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs,

there is at least two there that could use a common sense approach and try to

wrestle down the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Now he is on a

roll this week, he was gone one day now and has not announced any changes, so he

is on a roll. He is on a roll, Mr. Speaker, so they can keep him down now and

try to cut the amounts that he is looking for now from councils over the next

six or seven months, cut that out for this year, that will help the councils,

Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in note three of the ministers announcement

last year, he said: the final adjustment to the 1993 Municipal Operating Grants,

of which council has already been informed, is not reflected in the above

figures for 1994 but should be provided for councils in the 1994 Budget.

Appropriate payments or deductions for the 1993 adjustment will therefore be

made quarterly during the calender year 1994, in conjunction with payment of the

regular quarterly grants.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister did not say but I would

imagine that that is what is going to happen this year. There is going to

definitely be, because of this $500 being put in again for this year, there are

going to be councils around the Province who are going to be down under their

local revenue component. They have to be. Last year there was 13.52 per cent

that came out of the total figure of 41.5 per cent. Most all of it came out of

the local revenue component and if that is down, even if it is down to 8 per

cent this year, Mr. Speaker, it is going to make a drastic difference to

councils around the Province. Now this is almost the end of November, there is

no way for them to know it before they do up their budgets for the end of

December and they are going to be hit in mid-season again, mid-year again.

Mr. Speaker, the only way this is going to be fixed to make

it a little easier for councils in the Province, and in order to get people

interested in running for council again, is for the minister and his colleagues,

especially his colleagues in Cabinet, and the backbenchers - because it is

obvious, Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of months what the backbenchers can do.

They don't realize how much power they have, they are just not using it. There

may be fifteen Cabinet ministers there but, Mr. Speaker, if the backbenchers

held together and lobbied some of the ministers, they can bring forward changes.

And that cap of $41.5 million has to be raised, or I can assure you that you

will have, within the next twelve to eighteen months, at leased 100

municipalities in this Province that will not have a council, will not have a

council. They would be fools to run for council. Why should they take all the

heat? Why should they stand in their community halls and in their communities

and be vilified, and every day of the week walk into a store, a post-office and

get nailed for carrying out the duties that someone else dictated? Under the

Municipalities Act the minister tells them what to do, what to collect and then

they take the heat. They can't do it.

The other Cabinet ministers will soon find out; and I am sure

I am not the only one getting it from municipalities, members on my side,

members on the other side of the House have to be getting calls from their

councils with very, very grave concerns. And Cabinet members - I am not just

talking about backbenchers - I say Cabinet ministers are getting it as well. And

if they raise the cap - for an example, Mr. Speaker, a small example of what can

be done to help. Last year, the exact dollar value that was offered at 13.52 per

cent, I never stopped to calculate it, but if that 13.52 per cent were put back

on top of the cap that is there, the $41.5 million, I would venture to bet - and

that was done every year, corresponding to the other way up, then some

municipalities around the Province may be able to swing it.

The other thing that municipalities have today, Mr. Speaker,

they have been hit so hard the last five or six years and on top of that, there

is the downturn in the economy. We have the fishery, practically gone; all the

monies coming in to municipalities through the fishery and people working in

fish plants and the fishers and so on, that is not coming anymore. People are on

different programs and they are doing what comes first, that is, putting bread

and butter on the table, everything else is secondary. Bills, council bills,

council fees, poll tax, property tax come last. A lot of those municipalities

have no other infrastructure, they have absolutely no infrastructure that they

can claim with regard to commercial rates, to raise property taxes, they can't

do it.

I remember the Premier standing in the Legion in Deer Lake, I

think it was in 1990-1991 and he said then that: every municipality in this

Province should at least have a mil rate of thirteen to fourteen; great, easy to

say, but when you make a general statement like that, Mr. Speaker - I mean,

thirteen to fourteen mils in St. John's, thirteen to fourteen mils in a little

community out around rural Newfoundland, it depends on the infrastructure, it

depends on the income, it depends on the value of the property and this is why

we have the equalization component, to make up for properties; for instance, if

there is a value of $30,000 on a house in Jackson's Arm versus the same house in

St. John's worth $100,000, the difference, it is the difference that is paid to

that municipality.

Now, they can put up the property tax, you can put up your

mil rate from six to twenty-six in Jackson's Arm, what are you going to get? The

top three or four houses in that community, their taxes will raise, the rest pay

no more. So, Mr. Speaker, it is a dilemma for the small municipalities in the

Province - not only the small municipalities but larger municipalities as well.

Now, I notice that under this $500 per kilometre and the

13.52 per cent that was taken away from local revenue component, that a lot of

the larger municipalities lost off that and the smaller ones gained from the

amount that was put from $39 up to $500, no question. But when you look at the

other components and the change to the capital works - another one that really

hit is the new formula for the repayment on capital debt. That one hit

municipalities hard. They are starting to adjust somewhat now but when that

first came in - it was put in over a two-or-three-year period, that one hit

municipalities hard, especially where we had the downturn in the economy and so

on.

Now, in the last year or so with this new infrastructure

program that took into consideration recreation centres, water and sewer and so

on, around the Province, a lot of municipalities didn't partake of that because

they couldn't - some did, but they now find out they can't make the payments.

Although it was only one third any municipalities that were up to their maximum

of $300 per household, plus the CPI for the year, were safe enough, because

whatever the government was paying through the Newfoundland Municipal Financing

Corporation didn't change. That didn't change, they just made the payments the

same as if they had never received any dollars. But any municipalities that

weren't up to that $300 per household, plus the CPI for the year, could not take

advantage, and most of those who did are in trouble today.

Members opposite should take an interest in making sure,

aided by the minister, that that cap is raised. That cap should be raised for

next year, if there is anything going to be done, and it will help all

municipalities in the Province. They are the third level of government. They are

the level of government who is taking the heat up front in their municipalities

and they should be given a little break.

Now, the Federation of Municipalities should be speaking up

for all municipalities in the Province. I don't hear much these days when it

comes to lobbying. There used to be a very, very strong lobbying group for

municipalities in the Province. I know it is still there, but how strong it is,

I don't know. They are going to have to speak up and start lobbying, along with

members opposite and members on this side of the House if there are going to be

any changes to that cap as it pertains to municipal operating grants.

Mr. Speaker, this is only one bill having to do with

municipalities. There are others coming up, especially with respect to the

Assessment Act, and others as well, that are going to have a profound effect, I

might add, on municipalities in the Province, not only this one, but there will

be others that are coming up that the minister will try to get through the House

in this session. Members opposite should note, and members on this side of the

House will be speaking as well, in explaining how that is going to affect the

municipalities in this Province. I think the time has come, after six years of

cuts, that municipalities in this Province should be given a break, especially

now with the downturn in the economy.

Mr. Speaker, my time is up. Other members would like to have

a few words, and I will be speaking on some of the other bills in any case.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill 17 and

go back to some of the comments made earlier by the hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

In the closing comments of his opening remarks, he said that

he hoped, as we spoke, we would have consideration for smaller rural communities

in the Province. I echo the comments of the minister on that, but I find it hard

to understand, in several instances in my district, how this government over the

past couple of years defines the word `consideration' as it relates to some of

the smaller rural communities.

Another comment of the minister awhile back, last year I

believe, was that somewhere between 95 and 100 towns will be in trouble in this

Province with payment on their capital debt, and I believe a couple of those

communities could be within my district of St. Mary's - The Capes.

I have met with most of the councils over the past year or

so, in my first year in politics, and discussed some of the problems they are

having in their communities, and a fair number of them come from changes in

regulations and changes in the Municipalities Act that really go right to the

heart of the communities in relation to the services they provide for their

residents.

Mr. Speaker, these communities, over the past number of

years, have been hard hit by the collapse in our fishery, especially in my

district where 100 per cent of the communities have been dependent upon the

fishery over the years, and because of the collapse in the fishery, it has been

very difficult to collect taxes.

I know, myself, from the experience of spending a couple of

terms on the community council of St. Bride's back in the 1980s, that the

opportunity to collect taxes was excellent in relation to the operation of the

fish plant in our community. We used to collect somewhere around 60 per cent of

our overall taxes from people who were involved in the fish plant, or the

fishermen themselves, and since the collapse of the fishery, it has become all

the more difficult, because it has become impossible to garnishee people's wages

at their place of work, since many of them have been forced on to what was known

as NCARP and is now known as TAGS program. This is the case, not only in the

community of St. Bride's, but throughout the thirty-odd communities in the

district of St. Mary's - The Capes.

Mr. Speaker, all attempts have been made by councils over the

years, and I know in my own experience that several attempts have been made

through the court, through collection agencies and the like, trying to collect

some part of the taxes that are owing. And it has become all the more difficult

because, as I said, of the economic collapse of the communities in relation to

the fishery.

Over the past number of years, some of the major problems

that we had in our district were in relation to the road component of the

municipal operating grant, and definitely, last year, when the minister

announced that he was increasing the road component from $39 up to the $500 it

was welcome news for a fair number of the communities in that regard, that they

would receive some extra money last year. But it should be noted that since

1989, when this government took power, the municipal road component of the

municipal operating grant has been decreased from $2,000 down to what was $39

and then back up to $500.

Mr. Speaker, this road component that was used was for

several reasons over the term of twelve months in that it provided, at that

time, when there were a fair number of gravel roads in our communities, some

upkeep during the summertime and snow clearing in the wintertime. The fact that

it has dropped now to $500 has hurt the municipalities in trying to provide this

service to people who don't live on the main road that is paved, but in relation

to people living on side roads that are still gravel roads.

Mr. Speaker, over the past year or so, the announcement by

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation in relation to snow clearing,

and the fact that it has gone from $3,500 that they were going to force

municipalities to pay out of their municipal operating grant - $3,500 for each

kilometre of road that was snow cleared, or somewhere thereabout - was indeed a

blow to a fair number of communities, and because of the reaction of those

communities across the Province, the minister was supposed to drop that back to

$2,000 a kilometre this year, and he still plans on bringing it up to $3,500 as

of next year. Mr. Speaker, at this present time, those communities now will find

it difficult to operate if the municipal operating grants keep coming down year

after year.

Those communities budget those dollars in December. As the

hon. member mentioned earlier, those municipalities have to budget their dollars

by the last of December for the following year. Then, when the government comes

in and changes the rules halfway through the game, it is very difficult for

those communities to keep up with those changes. I think that, as the Member for

Humber Valley touched on, the budget is supposed to be a balanced budget under

the municipalities act. Indeed, the councils are brought to task if they do not

have a balanced budget. I say that the department definitely should be working

in conjunction with the municipalities in hopes that their budget will stay

balanced throughout the year and not be changing the rules, which indeed changes

the amount of money that the Town has to spend out over the balance of the

twelve months.

Mr. Speaker, what we have to remember in a lot of cases with

these municipalities is that the council members are volunteers, people who are

struggling to make a living otherwise and usually spend an hour or two a week

trying to run the affairs of their community, based 100 per cent upon a

volunteer basis. As a matter of fact, I know several of the communities in my

district that have town clerks, we will call them, and for some reason or other,

because of the number of dollars that the community takes in, can only afford to

have the town clerks in their offices for four to eight hours a week. The town

clerks are forced into spending considerable volunteer time trying to keep the

affairs of their community together.

On behalf of these people who have given their time and

effort and commitment to their communities, and, indeed, to the Province as a

whole, burdened with changing rules in the municipalities act, burdened with

trying to collect the taxes, burdened with trying to operate their communities

with very few dollars, I say that the government should step in and try to help,

now I guess more than ever during this time. I understand that the government,

too, is under restraint in trying to operate the Province, but these

municipalities really should be lent a helping hand wherever possible. I hope

the minister can bring forward some type of operation in his department whereby

a budget laid out by a municipality is operated for the twelve months by the

council and by the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, in which

case, I think it would be much easier for the community to operate.

At this time, as I said, with the collapse in the fishery and

the economic collapse that we are experiencing in our communities, I think the

onus is on government to try as much as possible to keep these communities

alive, and to provide funding, and not be forcing councils to cut services.

Because really, it is the members of these councils who have to stand up in

their own municipalities and tell people: We are going to take the lights off

the poles or we have to shut down one of the dams, or whatever the case may be.

That we aren't going to clear A road this year, we can only afford to clear the

snow off B road. I think we expect much more than we should from these

volunteers who make up the councils in our districts.

If I may touch on, for a moment, the infrastructure program

that was announced last year. It was certainly welcome news to a great number of

the communities, but the fact that, in many cases, the communities had to come

up with a third of their funding themselves really posed a problem to a great

many communities in my district. Hopefully, the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs will be able to come up with some type of program where we

can improve our water and sewer and improve our roads, through grants of some

kind from government, and not be depending upon the municipalities to come up

with a sizeable chunk of money.

In the case of a small community in my district, numbering

around 200 residents, they want to do $100,000 worth of work with the water line

there, and have to come up with over $30,000 themselves. It is very difficult at

this time when they are trying to keep the lights on the poles, the garbage

collected and the roads cleared of snow. I realize that these communities have

to operate within their means, but when they are asked to operate well below

what they were used to operating under, it creates hardship, not only for the

councils, but indeed for the residents of the communities.

I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation announce a few weeks ago that they weren't going to take

$3,500 a kilometre off the municipalities this winter, they were going to demand

$2,000 from their MOGs this winter for snow clearing per kilometre, and next

year they will go to $3,500. It was welcome news to an extent - it would have

been more welcome if they were to come back and tell the municipalities that

they were going to go back to what they had before. Because even at $2,000 a

kilometre it gets quite expensive in some communities that have many side roads.

The council now is being forced to have these roads cleared by a local

contractor instead of being cleared by the department themselves. I certainly

understand, Mr. Speaker, what the minister was saying in relation to not having

the Department of Works, Services and Transportation clear those roads first.

Sure, the main road has to be given priority but in the off-time or on days that

are not so busy I am sure the department could take their turn and do some work

on the side roads in our communities.

Mr. Speaker, over the past years councils - because of

certain regulations and parts of the act - have been forced to take drastic

measures within their communities. I will bring to light, just last week when

the Council of Gaskiers needed some work for what we would call or deem a local

road in our community - and this council was for the past year-and-a-half trying

to partake in the infrastructure program, trying to find some type of job

development program or whatever, to bring forward some dollars so that they

could improve this road which was a major safety concern to the people of

Gaskiers, indeed to the Council of Gaskiers but they had to take the drastic

step of putting it into the media light in order to get some work done by their

government really, in being forced to provide some dollars, much needed dollars

to this council. I have to say thank you to the minister on that because he did

come up with the dollars that were necessary to do this road and hopefully these

people, the students who travel on that bus will have a safe winter, Mr.

Speaker.

Another topic that has come up, Mr. Speaker, over the past

couple of months is the fact of regional councils. A fair amount of my District

of St. Mary's - The Capes is being asked to be involved in this new concept of a

regional council. There are some concerns and I hope that the department will

hold consultations with the communities involved before they are forced into

being part of this regional council. Really, many municipalities are concerned

in fact that if they have their books in the black that they will be somehow

brought in line to take care of communities who have - for no reason, no fault

of their own - have their books in the red, Mr. Speaker. It is a big concern for

them.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation I say, Mr.

Speaker, finds nobody to speak to on the weekend when he is home because when he

comes in Monday he cannot stop talking. So he must be really having lonely

weekends.

MR. CAREEN: Try seat belts (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned about the regional

councils and I met with a couple of councils in my district who are concerned

about the regional council concept and how much it really is going to cost them

to be a part of this. As I said before, I hope that the Department of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs - why doesn't the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation go out now and cancel the seat belt legislation?

MR. CAREEN: Why don't he get his head inspected? Get your

head inspected, that should be mandatory.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I say that the minist