June 8,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 52

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Government

has known now for about two years, since the release of the Harris Report, that

we face the possibility of a complete shutdown of our northern codfishery. It

seems from the news of this past couple of days that we are very close to D day.

I guess we are soon going to get an official announcement on a moratorium. As a

matter of fact we could have an announcement in four, five or six weeks. I am

just wondering if the Minister of Fisheries could tell the House what impact

such a moratorium would have on the economy of the Province? Has the provincial

government studied that impact, and if such a study has been done would they

consider tabling the findings of a study?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the Province has supported the

findings of the Harris Panel Report since it was first tabled by that committee.

We have been in contact with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans

suggesting to them that the recommendations in the Harris Panel Report be

followed. Unfortunately the minister and his officials did not see fit to accept

the recommendations of the Province and the recommendations of the Harris Panel

Report so consequently we now find ourselves in the very unfortunate position of

maybe having to impose a moratorium on the catch of northern cod.

When this problem started to appear back just after the

Harris Panel Report was submitted the Province initiated, along with the federal

government, a plan of action. The federal government at the time appointed a

cabinet committee headed by the Right Honourable Joe Clark and it included

several key members of the federal cabinet. The Premier and I met with that

committee, Mr. Speaker, on August 12, I believe it was 1990, and outlined our

plans. At that meeting we undertook to cost-share to the tune of 20 per cent

what it would take to put a response program in place.

The Stein Committee was then organized and my officials

worked along with the Stein Panel putting together a response program trying to

identify areas where, hopefully, diversification could take place. We did offer

to put up 20 per cent which would have amounted to in excess of $100 million. At

the last minute the committee saw fit to walk away from the table and then to

announce on its own that they were going to put together a program that,

according to them, would have cost $584 million. Mr. Speaker, that was not an

accurate amount because we found out later that they were including in that

response program a great many other existing programs and therefore it was an

inflated figure, and certainly the program itself did not, in our view, meet the

requirements of the day and consequently -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: - we have not seen too much come out it. So,

Mr. Speaker, we have worked with the federal government - Mr. Speaker, if the

Member for Burin - Placentia West, could only stay quiet for a moment, maybe the

information that the hon. gentleman wants will become available.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is to decide on questions and on answers and the

Chair does not need any prompting from anybody on any side. I will indicate that

the minister was getting rather lengthy, but I would want to as well, remind

hon. members that sometimes questions relating to this kind of thing, of policy,

can invite lengthy answers, this from Beauchesne. The Chair does not want to

take too much of the Question Period to do this, but just to remind hon. members

that questions may be ruled out of order.

The Chair is very lenient on that, but just to remind hon.

members, questions which may be ruled out of order, and I just quote from

Beauchesne,

section 409(11) which says: " A question which seeks an opinion

and not information"- and the reason for that is because a minister can get into

a lengthy answer and we do not want that. I would now come back to the

Opposition House Leader for further questioning.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

A further question for the minister. Is the minister saying

that there have been no further discussions with the federal government since

the Stein Task Force sort of broke off discussions and left the table as the

minister has indicated? Has there not been any further discussions with the

federal government on the amount and kind of assistance that should be put in

place for fishermen and fish plant workers, as a result of a moratorium on the

northern cod fishery, has there not been anything said back and forth between

government since that time?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that. What I am

telling the hon. gentleman and the House, is that the Province put considerable

effort into working with the federal government and the Stein Task Force putting

together an adequate response program. In the course of putting together that

program, the Province undertook to put in 20 per cent, which would have come to

over $100 million.

We have had many discussions, Mr. Speaker, with the federal

government since that time, since they refused our offer, trying to find ways

and means of alleviating the problem. But I should remind hon. gentlemen

opposite, Mr. Speaker, that the problem that we are now encountering, and if and

when a moratorium is found to be necessary, that problem is a direct

responsibility of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans - a direct

responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, while the federal government is not at all

backward in pouring money into the hands of western farmers, as they have done

almost every year, for example in the year 1989 in a speech from the then

Minister of Agriculture, Don Mazankowski, he indicated that over $4 billion was

being pumped into the agricultural industry. In 1991, Mr. Speaker, the federal

government didn't have any compunction whatever in putting $1.2 billion into the

farm industry. Now surely Newfoundland should be able to expect our federal

government to come through with an adequate program to compensate the fishermen,

and to help them over a period caused by their own mismanagement.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlemen opposite want to do a service

to the people of this Province they would use their influence on their friends

in Ottawa to make sure that they live up to their responsibility, and working

with the Province come up with a program to assist the fishermen.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister should

also be very much aware that the western provinces were not reluctant to get

involved in the farmers aid program either. It was not just a federal government

program. The western provinces, Mr. Speaker, took some responsibility to help

those people in trouble the same as this government should help our fishermen

and fish plant workers.

I have a supplementary for the minister. Has the minister any

indication of what a moratorium, what impact that would have on the flounder

fishery, which Fishery Products International is now pursuing? With a by-catch

of cod that the minister has provided to allow them to pursue flounder what

implications would the moratorium have for the flounder fishery? Would that be

allowed to continue, or would we see it all stop, is the question.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, let me say this before I get

into the answer to his question. Yes, the western provinces did, in fact, offer

to cost-share the program that was necessary to tide the farmers over, and the

amount that they offered is an amount equal to that which the Province of

Newfoundland offered. So we offered an amount in relative terms equal to the

same amount offered by the Western Prairie Provinces with respect to a program

that was then being put in place by the federal minister.

With respect to the question that he asked, this announcement

came on Friday. I should point out that the Province was not even given an

advance notice of this press release. I had to learn of the contents of the

press statement through the news media. We were not even given the benefit of a

copy of that statement.

I had the biologist with my department go to Halifax last

week to attend a meeting of NAFO, at which time this matter was discussed. He

was literally physically removed from that meeting and told that he wasn't

allowed to be there.

Mr. Speaker, just think about it for a moment - the Province

of Newfoundland, dependent as we are on the fishery, where an official and a

representative, a scientist from my department, was not allowed to sit in on

that meeting. In fact, he was told that if they allowed him in, they would then

have to allow in a representative from The Animal Rights Association, who was

outside waiting to get in, as well. Can you imagine treating the Province like

that?

I didn't know a thing about this until the news broke around

eleven o'clock on Friday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question.

MR. CARTER: The question with respect to flatfish? The

scientists are telling the federal minister that he should stick to the FO.1,

the lower limit of which would be about 50,000 metric tons and the upper limit

would be 91,000 metric tons.

I would expect the minister to accept the lower figure. I

can't see how he can possibly ignore that recommendation. If that is the case -

let us assume that he takes the 50,000 ton recommendation, which is the low side

of the FO.1; we have already harvested 25,000 metric tons, 8,000 by the

offshore, the balance from the Canadian offshore; so that leaves a balance of

25,000 metric tons for all sectors.

I expect the minister will have to make a very tough decision

whether he is going to close the fishery altogether, whether he is going to

allow the inshore to catch the remainder of the 25,000, or whether he is going

to take a major part of that 25,000 and allocate to the large companies,

principally FPI, to enable them to access the flatfish.

I cannot answer that question. I am not privy to that

information.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind hon. ministers and everybody that in

addition to the questions being brief, the answers ought to be brief. As I said,

I appreciate when we get into policy and this kind of thing that we can be

lengthy, but I ask ministers to remember that their answers should be brief.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

My colleague wants me to remind the minister that he is the

only one who sought a seat for the Mulroney Conservatives. He is the only one in

the House, actually. No one else did it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister - there is not

going to be a lot left of the Newfoundland fishery if this moratorium comes into

effect - does the minister have any plan, then, to diversify what little will

remain of the Newfoundland fishery? Does he, indeed, have a plan to generate

employment as an alternative to the fishery? Let me ask the minister that.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman seems

determined to try to pass the buck and to make the Province fully responsible

for this crisis, or at least for finding a solution to this problem. Now, I

don't know who he is working for. He must be under direct orders from the

federal politicians. He must be, because he is certainly not acting in the best

interest of Newfoundland or the people he represents.

When we talk about putting a moratorium on Northern Cod, it

doesn't mean that you are going to be closing down the fishery entirely. We will

still have a pelagic fishery. We will, hopefully, have a caplin fishery. FPI has

told me that 30 per cent of their production is of Northern Cod. I am told that

about 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the total groundfish production in the

Province is Northern Cod. So there will, hopefully, still be a much reduced

fishery and that is what we have to work on.

Now, mind you, that being the case, there is going to be a

lot of people displaced, and there is going to have to be a lot of response

programs put in place to tide the people over. To that end, I have today written

the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and requested a meeting with him at the

earliest date possible, so that we can sit down man to man and talk about the

situation, what he intends to do, and then, hopefully, find out what their plans

are. I will be happy to tell him then what the Province is willing to do.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question was to

be addressed to the minister responsible for development. I guess I will address

my question to the hon. the President of Treasury Board. Has the government

offered any assistance to the Lundrigan group of companies to help it avoid

bankruptcy?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we have obviously had discussions

with Lundrigan's over some period of time with regard to their particular

situation. At the present time, there is a position that we have put to

Lundrigan's to provide help for segments of their operation that are not

directly in competition. For instance, we wouldn't include City Motors in this

or Avis Rent A Car or these others types of agencies that are direct

competitors. Mr. Speaker, there is a position that, I guess, Lundrigans and the

banks are considering at this particular time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek, a

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. minister

could tell us: With regard to the proposal that has been made by government, if

this is rejected by the banks and by the Lundrigan group of companies, will

financial assistance be made available to individuals who would like to purchase

other segments of the particular operation? He referred to them as other

segments of the Lundrigan group of companies. Will financial assistance be

offered by this administration to assist these people to purchase?

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

MR. BAKER: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that most

of the units or the segments of the Lundrigan group of companies are profitable

operations on their own, and we don't envision, for most of these operations,

that assistance would ever be needed in terms of the divestiture. However, Mr.

Speaker, if, in fact, the conditions set forth by government are not acceptable

to Lundrigans and the bank and the further divestiture has to happen, anybody

who would consider operating these ventures could obviously come to government

to try to avail of any programs that are normally available to all businesses in

the Province, but only in that regard, that the assistance is the same that is

available to all other competitive businesses in the Province.

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

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

Minister of Health, whoever that may be. Is the acting Minister of Health aware

that the earliest possible appointment that an individual can get for a

mammography test is September of 1992, three or four months from now, and that

there is a waiting list at St. Clare's Hospital of 1200 women who are waiting

for mammograms and a further waiting list of over 1000 women who are waiting for

mammograms at The Grace?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware there is a

waiting list, but I will have to take notice of that question and get back to

the member with the answer. I do not have these details, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that. I

hope the minister will make himself and the government aware of the seriousness

of that problem. They should be aware that ten out of every 100 patients who

receive mammograms show early signs of cancer, and that it is very important

that early detection be had, because early detection is of great importance.

Is the government aware of the mental anguish and the torment

that women must experience who have to wait, who have to sit around for a three

- or a four-month period, not knowing if they are among the one in ten who will

be diagnosed as positive?

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

DR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, certainly we are aware of

that. But again I want to check the actual details. Certainly we are sensitive

to the problems experienced, emotional and otherwise, of people who are waiting

for all kinds of services in this Province, including the service to which the

member asked the question about.

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

MR. DOYLE: Supplementary, for the President of Treasury

Board, given the fact that he is the man who controls the money. Given the fact

that the incidence of breast cancer in Newfoundland is higher than the national

average - one in ten, as I said, diagnosed as positive - will the government

immediately make the investment that will not only reduce that type of mental

anguish that women are having to go through, but save lives and reduce the cost

to the health care system as well?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we will, in consultation with the

medical profession, the hospitals, the hospital administrators and with the

professionals in the field, provide the best service that we possibly can under

existing circumstances.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Labour. On Friday the minister received the latest Stats Canada

statistics with respect to the UI rate, and shows that the Newfoundland rate has

increased a full percentage to 20.1 per cent. That is bad enough. The real

tragedy is that 11,000 people have left the work force since May of last year.

We have had a net loss of 10,000 jobs over the past twelve months, 5,000 jobs

since April of this year. We have a crisis on our hands. What, and when, is the

minister going to do something?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a situation,

as I have indicated in the House of Assembly all through this session, that we

have been monitoring on an ongoing basis. It is clear that some of the numbers

that the hon. member opposite quotes are accurate. Others are open for

interpretation. It depends on what you want to compare.

But in fact we recognise that right across the country

similar sets of circumstances prevail. It only does reflect in one of several

statistical indicators that there is indeed still a recession in place in the

whole country and in this Province. We have not yet made any definitive plans in

terms of whether or not the Province will try to intervene in any way, shape or

form. Because I believe the hon. member opposite, and all others, would

recognise that any intervention done by this government to try to take care of a

short-term problem in Newfoundland, will be kind of meaningless if it is not

also accompanied by a similar effort nationally and across the country.

We have been looking at thing that we could do jointly with

the federal government. They have been looking at trying to shift the emphasis

from job creation in the short-term - which has been the normal

government-initiated response to this type of difficulty - to training, the

difficulty now being that they have expended their training dollars that are

budgeted largely this year. They are looking for more. We, in concert with the

federal government, are continuing to look at the situation. At a point in time,

if it is considered appropriate for the government to intervene in some fashion

that we believe will be meaningful and have a real impact, then we will do that.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While I appreciate

and understand that the federal government is doing something, I am asking the

minister what specifically is he going to do? The minister has now been saying

for weeks that he has been working on a job creation program that he is soon

going to announce. We know that Cabinet ministers and senior officials within

their departments have been discussing job strategies similar to the ones of

last fall. When is the Minister going to announce this program because he has

worked on it for a number of months? What is he waiting for? Is he waiting for

the House to close to announce those programs? What is the problem with the

minister's program?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly it is clear that any program that we would announce

at any time - the last consideration would be whether or not the House of

Assembly is open. I think the member opposite will recognize that a large number

of people in Newfoundland and Labrador do not know we are in here today, so from

the point of view of the people who need the assistance they certainly are not

considering that anybody would actually make a decision on the basis of whether

or not the House of Assembly was open. I am sure that the hon. member opposite

did not mean to even suggest that would be part of the consideration. The

consideration is totally motivated by the fact that we recognize there is a

need. We have recognized that there is a limited role at any point in time that

government itself can play by intervening by the use of taxpayer's dollars to

try and put people to work for other than the provision of services that are

outlined and should be ongoing on a regular basis.

We did it last year out of pure necessity and because we

deemed there was an emergency at the time that could not be addressed in any

other way. It was also addressed in a parallel fashion by the federal government

who participated in a Fisheries Response Program and ours complemented that for

all other sectors except the fishery. This year the information we are getting

sofar from the federal officials and from the federal ministers is that they do

not really intend to participate in job creation programs related to the fishery

and therefore if we are going to have that whole sector of our economy not

addressed in a meaningful way any effort we might put in for the other sectors

would in fact not have any meaningful impact, and unless we can come to some

agreement as to what we are going to do jointly and together then we will

continue on with the discussions and hope to find a solution that will be

beneficial to all Newfoundlanders in all sectors at an appropriate time.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the minister.

The minister has had some criticism of his Employment

Generation Program, that it does not reflect the seasonality of much of the

employment we could have in this Province. It does not apply to Tourism and so

on. In the Estimates some time ago we suggested to the minister that if he would

change the scope of the program it would allow people engaged in seasonal

activities to apply and get funding. Has the minister decided if he is going to

adopt the strategies similar for seasonal employment as he has for the 20/20/20?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question being asked as it gives us an

opportunity to address that issue just briefly. As was indicated in the

estimates when that point was raised, it was something that we had considered

briefly and we committed we would go back and review in detail as a result of

the issue being raised again during the discussions of the estimates for the

department. We have indeed recognized that there probably is considerable merit

in a seasonal type of program that has a similar component or runs in a similar

fashion to our Employment Generation Program. The difficulty with it is that it

is not budgeted for.

If we are going to introduce that program, as with any other

emergency employment response program, it will require additional funds and in

all of our considerations where we are now looking at the final stages of debate

in a Budget that is already forecasting around $30 million or so in deficit, it

is a major decision for this government to make at any point in time to what

degree can we increase the deficit position of the Province to introduce some

version of a seasonal program or any other program that is related to the range

of employment type of programs and needs that are evident in the Province. We

are looking at how we can address them and to what limit we might be able to

stretch the borrowing capacity of the Province to do it.

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

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

The latest Stats Canada information shows that for youth,

aged between fifteen and twenty-four, the UI rate is at about 36 per cent. The

minister last week announced some 553 jobs for students in the Student

Employment Program but this does not come close to addressing the situation as

reflected in these stats. Would the minister review this situation and seek

additional funding to increase the number of jobs in the Student Employment

Program since the Challenge 92 now, which is already out, and that is not going

to come close to addressing the needs. Would the Minister have a look at that

program as well?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are monitoring the

impact of the Student Employment Program, both the federal initiative and our

own provincial initiative, it should be pointed out again for the record, to

make sure that everybody understands the context in which these numbers are

quoted. Even though the numbers are high again they are not as high as they were

at an equivalent point in time last year; close but not as high. So it is not

like it is a strange, odd or different type of circumstance.

The unemployment rate in that category was higher last year

at this point in time. The impact of both the provincial Student Employment

Program and the federal Student Employment Program has not yet shown up in these

statistics because they were taken a while ago. The jobs that we created and the

federal government created in that age bracket have not yet impacted on these

statistics. It is only when that happens in another month that someone will be

able to decide in a definitive fashion whether or not we have met any part of

the need. We can monitor it before that. We will, and again if there is some way

and something appropriate that should be done, we will certainly try and find a

way to do it, but I can't stand in this House today - and it would be

irresponsible for me to do so - to answer a definitive yes or no to any of the

proposals that the hon. member puts forward.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Media reports have

indicated that thirty or so people have been laid off at Come-By-Chance. Now the

Minister of Energy will recall that the revival of this project was a very

special piece of pride of our particular party. I am wondering if the minister

could indicate if all is well at Come-By-Chance at this particular time.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have been briefed on the

layoffs as late as, I guess, within the last hour I received a briefing on the

layoffs at Come-By-Chance, and I really don't want to go into any details on

that. It is up to the company to really talk about it. Approximately thirty

people have been given their notice. Half of them were temporary jobs, and the

other half were in permanent jobs throughout the organization.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the

previous PC administration did revive this defunct project, which was the

largest bankruptcy in Canadian history, I am wondering, can the minister assure

me, assure this House, assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that this

particular Liberal administration is doing and will do all in its power to

salvage that particular operation if indeed it is in trouble?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we want to see Come-By-Chance

prosper as well as any Newfoundlander, I believe, would want to see

Come-By-Chance prosper. We hope that will happen, but I can't get into any

details on what may or may not be happening inside the company.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

Provincial Affairs.

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

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

Municipalities Act."

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that isn't properly addressed

to the House of Assembly. It was delivered to me over the weekend when I went

back home to my district, and it concerns the proposed cuts announced by

Department of Education officials with regard to student assistants in Western

Labrador. I would ask that I be given leave to present this petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have permission?

AN HON. MEMBER: It has been agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER: It has not been agreed to, I remind hon.

members.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Clerk saw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the Clerk looked at it but I don't

know whether the Clerk gave approval.

The hon. member has leave.

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

I am pleased to support the 134 people, I believe it is, who

have signed this petition and asked me to present it on their behalf and on

behalf of the thousands of people in Western Labrador who have supported the

concept of integration of these mentally handicapped students in our educational

system in Western Labrador, Mr. Speaker, an educational system that was the envy

of the whole country, an educational system that was initiated, fostered and

developed by two educators in Western Labrador by the names of Emerson and Donna

Coish who have been recognized nationally. They have won national awards, such

as the Vanier Award. They have won national teachers' awards, Mr. Speaker. No

other teachers in this Province, or, indeed, the whole country, have been

recognized for their work as they have, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the idea of integrating mentally handicapped people into

the classroom has swept this country. These two educators have been asked to go

to other parts of this country so that other areas of Canada can copy, can

imitate, can institute a method of integration into their educational systems

that would be comparable to what we did have and should have in Western

Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Western Labrador were proud of this system.

They, led by the cautious - the people of Western Labrador funded this system

themselves. That is how it was initiated. That is how this system got started in

this Province, Mr. Speaker. Now, the people of Western Labrador supported it

wholeheartedly. They have supported it financially and they know that they will

support it again financially, because they pay more school taxes than any other

residents of this Province, and they realize it, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to quote, Mr. Speaker, from a letter written to

the hon. the Minister of Education. It is signed by member of my district, a

resident of my district who was one of the most respected people in the

community of Labrador City, a former war veteran, a legionnaire, a community

leader, Mr. Speaker, who wrote this letter, and I want this recorded. It is

addressed to the minister. He says:

"My six-year-old grandson is one of the differently abled

children who, due to your lack of compassion and intelligence, will lose the

only chance he had in our Province to obtain an education. Your stated intention

to dismantle a twelve-year-old, successful integration program that has been

copied by leading educators across Canada, which earned the Vanier Award for the

couple who initiated it, and has been the envy of parents of differently abled

people everywhere, would suggest that our legislators would benefit from

enrolment in a similar program."

"Your plan to stop educating and to start warehousing

children in need will rank right up there with the Newfoundland Government's

response in the 1970s to the cries for help from Mount Cashel."

Mr. Speaker, that letter, addressed to the minister, was

signed by Stu Williamson, one of the most respected senior citizens and

community leaders in Western Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to

present this petition and speak in favour of the petition, because I firmly

believe that this integration of our educational system, that we have promoted

in Western Labrador for the past twelve years, should continue. The government

should not institute the proposed cutbacks that they have, the 75 per cent

cutback in funding to the Integrated School Board and the approximately 50 per

cent cutback to the proposed funding to the Roman Catholic School Board. Mr.

Speaker, this is an integration system that works. We have proven that it does

work.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. A. SNOW: These people deserve an opportunity, Mr.

Speaker, and we should not allow it to be cut back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 1.

It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole on Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, please say -

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

MR. SPEAKER: I am not sure that the hon. member is

permitted to get up on a point of order while the Chair is putting a motion to

the floor. He is not permitted to do that. The Chair has to carry on, I am

sorry.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of

the Whole on Supply. Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

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

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by residents

of my constituency to deliver a letter and a video of a graduation exercise that

was held in Western Labrador. I was asked to deliver it to the Minister of

Education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: May I have leave of the House to present

this to the Minister of Education?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. member on a point of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. member asking leave?

MR. A. SNOW: Yes.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the house ready for the question?

MR. WINDSOR: No, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, I was curious on Friday that

the Minister of Development failed to respond to any of the questions that were

put to him. I have spoken on several occasions on the issue relating to funding

by Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. On Thursday, and again on Friday, I

went through in some detail, some of the funds that have been distributed by the

corporation to various companies across the Province, and I asked a large number

of questions relating to the individual loans and equity funds that were made

available to these companies.

Now, the minister, when he stood up on Friday, talked about

everything but - he talked about all kinds of things that had taken place many

years ago. He wanted to talk about Sprung; he talked in generalities about ACOA,

but he has not answered the questions, and I have no intention of taking the

time of the House today to go through all those questions again. Hansards are on

the desks or the Table, if the minister doesn't remember the questions.

What I am looking for today are some answers. Is the minister

going to provide the House with some answers? And to simply say that any

business can come forward, is not good enough. If that is the case, let the

minister say that and let it be clear, that any business and any industry is

eligible for funding and that none are excluded, but let the people in

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador and the people in Finance and Treasury

Board know that, as well; and let companies all across this Province know that

they can now request assistance to buy into retail outlets, to restructure debt,

to reduce the debt service ratio. Now, these are all admirable programs, Mr.

Chairman, if in fact, they are in place and universally applied.

It has always been our understanding that these programs

applied only to companies who were noncompetitive with other similar companies

in the Province, that it applied to resource-based industries, to tourism and

things of that nature; to research and development, to hi-tech, to technology

transfer; something that was unique and different, a service that was required

in the Province that would not otherwise be available, and sometimes some

exceptions into the service sector, particularly in rural areas where commercial

enterprise is not readily available and probably would not be viable on its own,

therefore requiring some assistance, and there is a question as to whether or

not funding for that should come from enterprise development funding, or whether

or not that should be some sort of a social program, the same as the funding of

the stores in Labrador run by Rural Development, a subsidy of that nature.

Very specific questions I want this minister to answer:

Is it now a fact, that retail operations are eligible for

funding? Is it now a fact, that such things as Beauty Salons and Tanning Salons

and Video Stores are eligible for funding? Is it a fact that fast food take outs

and restaurants are eligible for funding? Is it a fact that construction

companies and transport companies are eligible for funding? - very clear,

concise questions. I don't need the minister to talk about ACOA and what ACOA

might be doing or anybody else.

I want a clear statement of policy from this minister on

behalf of government, so that everybody out there in Newfoundland and Labrador

knows whether or not he or she is eligible for funding from Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador - clear and concise, Mr. Chairman. And if the answer

is no, to these questions, then let the minister explain all of the grants,

loans, subsidies, and equity funding that he listed, that he tabled in this

House. Let him explain those ones that are not in accordance with the policy

that I just enunciated, that I believe has been and is now. It would be nice if

everybody could be covered, if only there were enough money available to the

Province to assist every company, but that is not the case, and that is why

there are guidelines.

The question now is very simple. What is the policy? Do these

companies qualify? If not, why were these funds made available to these other

companies? Let the minister get on his feet and answer those questions once and

for all.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I cannot let the opportunity go by, I think, without drawing

to the attention of the House something we saw happen here today, the complete

disregard for the youth, the disadvantaged youth, perhaps, of our Province.

We look at the Budget, the amount of dollars being spent, and

we hear the Premier going around using as an excuse for doing nothing - and

absolutely nothing has been done to enhance this Province since the government

took over - the excuse that we have no money. Yet, we look at this year's

Budget, and as we compare it to last year's, and last year's to the year before,

and the year before to the year before that, we see that each year there are

more dollars in the Budget. So how can anybody go out around and tell people, we

have no money, when there is consistently more money in the Budget? At least,

the same work could be done, and in light of the cutbacks by this government,

significantly more work in other areas.

One of the areas that is now being targeted, apparently, is

the money that is spent on teacher aids, or student assistants. There are a

number of titles - teacher assistants throughout the Province.

The minister today saw a petition presented from Labrador

West, an area which has piloted the assistant program in the Province. Before

the main part of the program had been instituted throughout most of the

Province, Labrador was far and away ahead of everybody else in piloting a

project which showed that by bringing the disadvantaged into the classroom, and

by helping them have some extra assistance and assistants, that these children

progressed tremendously. They not only made great improvement themselves, but

the other children in the area accepted these young people for what they were,

and they grew to be part of the community.

The story of Labrador is a tremendous success, a model to

which we should all aspire. In fact, it was the model to which the former

government started to move. It was the former government, I remind the minister,

unlike what he said the other day, who arranged for the assistants to be changed

from the Department of Social Services to the Department of Education.

Legislation was introduced. A program was drawn up by former ministers, and

approved by Cabinet, to have them brought under the Department of Education.

This minister has now put in the process the plan to download

this responsibility on school boards, and in order to be able to wipe his hands,

like all the other members of this Pontius Pilate government, says, 'Well, it is

not my fault. The problem now lies with the school board. We are giving them the

money, so it is up to them how to use that money,' knowing full well that if

there is going to be equal educational opportunities, then we are equalizing

towards the bottom and not towards the top.

The minister, himself, knows that full well. He knows what is

happening, but he just can't get the backing. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the

courage to stand up and fight his colleagues, and the Premier, who is running

the show, of course, to show that they are going in the wrong direction. The

complete ignoring today of a petition presented from Labrador West shows how

much little attention is being paid to the plight of the parents out there who

are saying that: unless we can hold the programs we have and improve upon these

programs, then our disadvantaged children will not have a fair shake in this

society.

The Province of Newfoundland for years has been recognised as

a forerunner in the country in relation to special education. The Province of

Newfoundland is the leading light, long before the present administration took

office. Newfoundland was looked upon as the leading light in the field of

special education. We have had to send our own people all over the country to

show others how we operate; we have had people come from all over the place to

look upon the operation here in Newfoundland. A credit to society, what we have

done with the disadvantaged. Nobody know that better than the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, a former president of the NTA, who was well

advised by his colleagues in the teaching profession of the tremendous work done

by people in the field of special education.

Now apparently it is being used as an area whereby we can

start whittling away at the meagre funds. The minister stands up and his excuse

is: we put more money into that field last year, more dollars went into special

education. He knows full well that the only dollars that went in were because

the workers became unionized. They received better financial benefits. We did

not receive more assistants, no more work was done. The workers themselves were

unionized. Consequently, in order to get a contract with them, the government

had to pay out more money.

They are telling about all this money they put into the area.

They were forced into it. It took, I remind the minister, two strikes in order

to get this government to come across with what they had committed on paper. It

took two strikes to get them to live up to their agreements.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: That is true. It took two strikes last fall.

The minister knows full well, because the President of Treasury Board was right

in the middle of it. It took two strikes in order to get government to come

across with what they had committed, and they did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. HEARN: Well, you'd better talk to Fraser March and

ask them why they went on strike. It was government who bent, it was government

who came across, so consequently it is factual, that government would not live

up to its agreement, and it took two strikes in order to get the money that the

minister says: we put all this money in. You put absolutely nothing in that

enhanced the program, absolutely nothing. Now, unfortunately, if the minister

goes ahead with his plan to turn this responsibility over to school boards, the

minister - maybe nobody else over there, not even the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations, who does not care any more, he is not in the teaching

profession - but maybe nobody else understands how important it is for this

specific program to continue to exist, and be enhanced, not to be downgraded.

The minister knows full well.

So I plead to his colleagues, in the case he does not do it,

that this program cannot be downgraded. Neither can it be passed off to school

boards. Because they will not have the funding to deal with the specifics. It is

not a cut-and-dried program. We cannot look across and say; everybody has to be

treated equally. That is okay when we are all equal. We are talking about people

who in society are not equal, who are disadvantaged. Consequently, we must make

special provision for them. It was done in the past and it has been done up to

the present. But if it is not done in the future, then these disadvantaged

people are going to be more disadvantaged than they have been in the past.

It is a real scare out there for the parents. They know full

well, if these children cannot have somebody one-on-one or, depending upon the

degree of severity of the handicapped, if they do not have somebody to deal with

them, to handle them personally, day in and day out, somebody to assist the

teacher and assist the students, if these people are not in place then the

students cannot continue to function within the school, certainly not within the

classroom.

The success story speaks for itself. The minister might say:

we have to treat everybody alike. Certain schools, certain school boards

perhaps, because of their own initiative and because of the interest of specific

teachers or parent groups or whatever have enhanced their programs, this is what

we should be aiming towards. If there is inequality in the system out there,

then try to pick the best example of what is being done to help these children.

We are not talking about large numbers. We are not talking

about a large amount of money. We are talking about helping people who cannot

help themselves. It is extremely important for the minister to pick the best

system that is out there, the best example that is out there, and to try to make

sure that the other school boards around the Province have the same opportunity

to provide the type of service to these young children that is being done in

places like Labrador West and other parts of the Province.

So, Mr. Chairman, hopefully the minister will stand on his

principles and demand of his colleagues that they listen to him, and that they

deliver to him the amounts necessary to make sure that a good program continues

and that, as I say, the programs which are out there that are not so good,

instead of bringing others down to their level, he enhances the areas that need

enhancement so that all our children are treated equally throughout the

Province.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of brief

comments.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

DR. WARREN: Finally the Member for Menihek got someone to

support his petition, and I would like to make two or three comments in that

respect.

Mr. Chairman, over the weekend I had a chance to review the

report that was done by the consultants - two independent consultants. I would

like to comment very quickly and very briefly on a few of the points.

There is no doubt, as a result of that study, that we needed

to rationalize the allocation and the utilization of student assistants. There

is no doubt that those two consultants from the department, well known

specialized persons, there is no doubt -

MR. TOBIN: Now that is not true! That is not true!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

DR. WARREN: - as a result of their study that we need to

rationalize not only the allocation -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West to retract

that statement.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, if I said something that is

unparliamentary I will certainly retract it, but the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

I asked the hon. member to retract the statements that he

made.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the comments, but he

is a disease on the (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

DR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, we had two consultants from the

department -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Again the Member for Burin - Placentia West is using terms

which are unparliamentary. I ask him to withdraw them without qualification.

MR. TOBIN: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to mislead

anybody, but we had two -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: - two consultants -

MR. TOBIN: Two employees in your department did the

study, not consultants. Tell the truth, now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

DR. WARREN: Two consultants from the Department of

Education -

MR. TOBIN: They were two employees from your department,

not consultants.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair hasn't recognized the hon. Member for Burin -

Placentia West. The Chair has recognized the hon. Minister of Education. I ask

the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West to restrain himself.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two consultants in

the Department of Education who are specialists in the area did the provincial

study of not only the allocation of student assistants, but the utilization of

student assistants.

Mr. Chairman, their findings were that we had about the right

number in the Province as a whole, but some school boards have too few in

accordance with their criteria, and some school boards have more than the

minimum standards dictate. In order to live within the budget - we could leave

the present system in place and not provide help for those special need students

who need it in other parts of the Province, but we felt that we must have a

system based on need. Where need exists then we will provide service. We would

like to have all kinds of money, but I guess we cannot; we are unable to provide

for all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, the kind of service that is in

existence in Labrador.

In J.R. Smallwood Collegiate, I was told this morning, they

have four teachers and fifteen student assistants for fifteen students. They

have eighteen or nineteen full-time employees for fifteen students. We cannot,

in this Province, provide for every student, 1.1 or 1.5 persons. Our minimum

standards would suggest that they need, in J.R. Smallwood Collegiate, about

eight persons to work with the fifteen students. Right now they have eighteen or

nineteen student assistants - eighteen or nineteen teachers or student

assistants - and some of the student assistants are working six and a half hours

a day.

We would like to have the money to provide all kinds of

services, but we cannot provide that level of service throughout the Province.

So there may have to be some adjustments in areas such as Labrador, and we will

provide then additional funding for students who live in other parts of the

Province.

There are fifteen or twenty districts in the Province that

either have the right number, according to our study, or they have too few

student assistants. Our goal is to provide a minimum required level of service

throughout the Province. The kind of service provided should not be dictated by

where that student lives, or for whatever reason. There are four or five boards,

and I do not know the reasons. I think I have some indication of why they have

excessive numbers in accordance with our minimum level of service. I think I

know. There are four or five boards that have a higher number than our minimum

standards would require. I think I know why they do. This is no reflection on

the level of service in Labrador or other districts. They are providing good

service. The government supports mainstreaming. This government supports

mainstreaming, but we cannot provide one-on-one for every special needs student

in the Province.

At J.R. Smallwood Collegiate, the area that the Member for

St. Mary's - The Capes talked about, they have, I gather, eighteen to nineteen

full-time people for fifteen students. They have four teachers, and fourteen or

fifteen or sixteen student assistants, to work with fifteen students.

We cannot, as a Province as a whole, provide that level of

service. We would like to be able to do it. We did put extra money in this year,

but we only have $4.8 million in the Budget, and there are student assistants in

many other parts of the Province who do not have enough help. We are going to

provide a rational program. We are going to distribute student assistants on the

basis of need. We will support the principle of mainstreaming and integration.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I had not planned to get

involved in this debate this evening (inaudible), but when I see the Minister of

Education standing up in this House today, knowingly telling something that was

not true -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You said that you had two independent

consultants who did a study. They are employees of the Department of Education,

and you said it in Hansard!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

DR. WARREN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education said

we had two consultants from the Department of Education who did the survey. Two

employees of the Department of Education did the survey.

MR. HEARN: To the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Chairman, Hansard will clearly show that

when the Minister of Education stood up first he said: We had two independent

consultants do a study - two independent consultants. It was afterwards, after

being shouted down, that he then went on to say: We had two consultants from the

Department of Education.

Hansard will show that the minister said first, and continued

to speak until he was corrected, that we had two independent consultants do the

study. Hansard will show that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

To that point of order, it is a difference of opinion between

hon. members and really not a point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it was brought to my attention -

there was a meeting in Marystown on Thursday night and I happened to send out

Hansard, with my questions, my colleagues questions and the minister's response,

to the association which I understand presented it. Last night there was a

committee of the meetings. They invited me to the meetings and asked me if I

would stand up in the House and ask the Minister of Education to tell the truth.

I was asked if I would ask the Minister of Education to tell the truth based on

what he had said in Hansard of last week, because the Minister of Education said

there were independent consultants. Again, today, he gets up about the

consultants, even when he was brought to task, we had consultants and you had

everyone involved in it, the union was involved in it; it is not true.

You had two of your employees from the Department of

Education with a mandate from you to bring back - I would suspect, knowing you

and how you play with the truth - bring back to this House, what you wanted. And

you wanted to cut the guts out of the program in Labrador West and in the Burin

Peninsula. That was your plot, that was your ploy, that was your commitment and

that was your answer. That is what they got from that Minister of Education, a

man who is committed, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Education for this Province

is committed to the destruction of teacher assistance for special needs children

in this Province. He is committed and then he comes in here and talks about

consultants in the - yes, Mr. Chairman, I got carried away and again I want to

apologize to the Chair, for having to bring me to order three times, but when

you attend the meetings and meet with the families of these special needs

children and see the minister get up in this House and play with the truth, the

way the Minister of Education did today, well, then, Mr. Chairman, maybe it is

time to get named, to be kicked out of the House, because someone has to stand

up against this vicious minister and his government on their attack on special

needs children in this Province.

Yes, you can laugh all you like. I say to the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture, he can laugh all he likes, Mr. Chairman, but if you

had a child that would not be in school next year because this government gutted

the teacher assistance program, refused to fund it, you would not smile, you

would be angry like the parents are. Now, it was brought to my attention last

night by the principal of the elementary school in Marystown that in Marystown,

in the elementary school, there is a student - whose mother called me, as well -

that the student is not in school because they do not have a teacher assistant.

Today, in Marystown, there is a child not in school because of this government;

this handshaking, smiling Minister of Education has children out of school today

and he should be ashamed of himself.

Not only that, Mr. Chairman -

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible) again.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and who is more responsible for cutting

the Budget than you? As a matter of fact -

DR. KITCHEN: I would cut it more if I had a chance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Chairman, now, he will cut more if he

gets the chance. Well, I can tell the Minister of Education -

MR. R. AYLWARD: There will be nobody in school next year.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, this is regrettable. When I

spoke about the budget for student assistants in this Province - and I hope

Hansard will pick it up - the Minister of Finance said, I will cut it more if I

get the chance. Well, I can tell the Minister of Finance, that every association

in this Province will receive a copy of Hansard and your comments, and they

should.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: It doesn't stop there. In the Marystown

Elementary School - and I learned this at the meeting last night - there are

presently six students assistants, six, and they need ten. The Principal said

there is a requirement in the school for ten student assistants come September.

Under what this minister is now proposing, and his two employees of the

department, officials don't talk about consultants or independent consultants

anymore, call them my employees because that is what exactly what they are. Be

truthful for a change.

In Marystown, where there is a requirement for ten, do you

know how many are proposed this year? - two. And I can tell the Minister of

Education, and I serve notice to this government now, that come September, if

you try to put only two student assistants in the Marystown Elementary School,

you will not get away with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many students are there?

MR. TOBIN: How many students in the school? There are 600

or 700 students.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I am really not sure of the number, but I

attended a meeting last night and I can tell you the people of Marystown are not

very happy with this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: The teachers in Marystown?

MR. TOBIN: No, it is not the teachers at Marystown, it is

the parents -

MR. R. AYLWARD: You would be there if you had a child in

that position, too.

MR. TOBIN: - At the Sacred Heart Elementary School in

Marystown. The President of Treasury Board has some information there. What is

the information he has? He has the numbers there.

AN HON. MEMBER: The principal, you said a minute ago.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, the principal told me, and he is not very

excited to know that there may be children in his school system who will be

deprived of an education. The principal of that school today is not very happy

to know that there is a child in Marystown who is not in school because of the

Minister of Education. There is nobody very happy, Mr. Chairman, about what is

taking place.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why is the child not in school today?

MR. TOBIN: Because you will not provide funding for

student assistants. You get up here in this House and you play with the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member would take his seat for just one

minute?

There are two points I want to bring to the attention of hon.

members. One is that when we refer to members of this House, we either refer to

them as hon. members, or if we are talking about ministers it would be hon.

ministers. We don't refer to them as 'you', 'that crowd', or any other

expression other than hon. members or hon. ministers.

The second point is that whenever a member speaks in this

House, it is assumed that all members are telling the truth and to suggest that

an hon. member is not telling the truth, directly or by other means, is

certainly unparliamentary. I bring that to all hon. members' attention. To

suggest that a member is playing with the truth or not telling the truth is

certainly unparliamentary and I ask all hon. members to refrain from doing that.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Chairperson, when I referred to 'you' I was

referring to the government collectively. Whenever I have referred to an hon.

member I have always referred to him as an hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I hope no one gets you mixed up as an hon.

member, in the meantime.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Question?

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the

Minister of Development, Is he going to respond to my questions? Is he going to

give us any answers at all? Is he going to sit there quietly and hope that this

goes away, or is he going to give the answers that this House has asked for?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the hon. member.

I was in discussion with the Minister of Finance when he was up getting on with

his nonsensical diatribe. I caught the last part of it and it was the same old

foolishness from Friday.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member talked about helping companies.

Let us look at some of the companies they helped: an aggregate company which

lost $50,000 we had to write off under NLDC, back when he was minister; A

printing company, $17,000 we wrote off.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that competitive, or what?

MR. FUREY: A fishing company on Bell Island, $300,000, we

wrote off. He was minister, as I understand it. A dry cleaning company $75,000,

a marble company, a mechanical outfitting company, a tape-producing company, a

consulting company, a bag company - it makes bags - another fishing company.

AN HON. MEMBER: Neither restaurant there, for sure.

MR. FUREY: Here's a beaut - a million dollars written off

by that government. The loan was given in 1986 and written off in 1988. Here is

another fishing company they wrote off, $1.7 million.

MR. WINDSOR: What does that have to do with the

questions? Why don't you answer the questions?

MR. FUREY: No, but you asked -

MR. WINDSOR: Answer the questions!

MR. FUREY: - what do we fund? He attacked us for funding

retail and fishing companies and aggregate companies.

MR. WINDSOR: I didn't attack you for funding a fishing

company!

MR. FUREY: A provincial blind company -

MR. WINDSOR: Come on, be honest, boy!

MR. FUREY: - a glasses company -

MR. WINDSOR: Stick to the questions!

MR. FUREY: - a tourist operation; a transport company.

Now, didn't I hear him attacking us for a transport company?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, you did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: Answer the questions!

MR. FUREY: A transport trucking company, $40,000 -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: - a music store. Now, he attacked me for bars

and restaurants - a bar and a restaurant, $56,000 written off by that minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a hypocrite!

MR. FUREY: I mean, you can't have it both ways. I can go

on and on. But it is not my duty, Mr. Chairman, to embarrass the hon. member as

the former minister. We laid the case on the table. There are 400 companies. As

explained last week, you can turn into the vulture, hover down over the 400,

pick up thirty, and beat them around and pound on the companies and play games

with the companies. Or you can look t it and say: this is high-risk money.

Everybody has the opportunity to come in here and participate in the money.

There is only $24 million. It flows $2 million a month. We have decentralized

decision-making, up to $100,000 and less. It is more efficient. Thirteen hundred

new jobs have been created, 3,000 were protected. It triggered out a mirrored

amount of $26 million from ACOA and other agencies. Not a bad track record for

one year of service.

But for everything that this hon. member criticized us for,

there is an example of where they put money in and lost it badly, Mr. Chairman.

End of issue.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, the minister is not answering

the question. He cannot get out of this by evading the question. Neither did I

ever criticise him for funding fish plant companies, or any company that is

manufacturing plastic bags or anything else. That is precisely what these funds

should be used for. I want him to explain to this House why he is putting equity

into fast-food restaurants? Why is he funding lounges? I asked him specific

questions. What is the policy? Has the policy been changed?

AN HON. MEMBER: What was your policy?

MR. WINDSOR: My policy is very clear. I want to know what

the minister's policy is. We are talking about this minister's Estimates, we are

talking about this government's Estimates. If you want to go back and talk about

what happened prior to 1971, we can ask what the policies were, too!

MR. FUREY: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Chairman, this is not a point of

order. The hon. member is simply interrupting. It is not going to save him

either!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Development, on a point of order.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member can't have it

both ways. He has to address and account for what he himself as minister put up.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, that's not a point of order.

MR. FUREY: Now there is a bar and a restaurant here, and

the funding was equity participation -

MR. WINDSOR: This is no point of order, Mr. Chairman!

MR. FUREY: - it was $60,000, and it is now out in the

Harbour. The hon. member can't have it both ways. He can't criticise this

government for doing what it believes was right when he himself as minister did

what he thought was right and lost all the money on bars and restaurants.

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

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Chairman, the minister can spend

all day going back and looking up what happened when NLDC was a

federal-provincial corporation, answered to by both ministers.

MR. FUREY: Governed by the Province.

MR. WINDSOR: We will answer for - and we have answered in

this House in past years for any funding that was made available to other

corporations, and which funds may have been lost. We are quite happy to answer

for it.

But it is this minister's turn to answer, Mr. Chairman. Now,

today, is what we are talking about, not history! What is the policy today?

Answer the questions that have been asked. That is all we want from the

minister, not to go back with a bunch of rhetoric about what happened ten years

ago. If he wants to do that, I am prepared to do it. Let him table the

information, all of it, so that we can all look at the circumstances surrounding

them. I have already looked at a lot of his projects and said on the surface

they may not look viable, they may not look valid, but some of them may well be.

There may be circumstances surrounding them. Let him table the information. We

will look at all of the circumstances surrounding them. Let him table the

information.

But let him answer the questions that we are asking him today

about the Estimates we are debating today, Mr. Chairman. That is what we looking

for, not to avoid the question. Be honest with the people. Be honest with the

House and answer the questions.

Let the record show that the minister refuses to answer the

questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: I would like to ask the Minister of

Development if they would put money into any business outlet in this Province

that sells cigarettes, Coke or Pepsi, soft drinks - if Enterprise Newfoundland

have funded anyone who does that type of business?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Let me ask the minister if he would confirm

that there have been businesses in this Province that have received money, who

sell cigarettes and soft drinks.

Mr. Chairman, if the minister is ashamed to -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: You are getting more like the Premier

every day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I sense from the minister's

comments that he lacks the courage to stand in this Legislature and tell us if

he has used taxpayers' money to put businesses in this Province that sell soft

drinks, cigarettes, tobacco and other items, if he has caused them to go into

competition with people who have no government money whatsoever. That is the

question I want the minister to answer, Mr. Chairman, if he will confirm that

there are businesses in this Province that have received money, that sell candy

bars, cigarettes and pop, items such as that. Has the minister put taxpayers,

money into that type of operation?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, for the record, every single

company that the Government of Newfoundland, through its arms-length corporation

called Enterprise Newfoundland -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Now I know that is foreign to the hon. the

member for Green Bay, the former parliamentary assistant or special assistant,

or whatever he was to Premier Peckford. I know that is foreign to him because

Premier Peckford had a direct line into NLDC and that made certain ministers

angry, like my friend for Mount Pearl. But that is the way the money was dished

out in the past. I tell you, we have changed that philosophy and yes, sir, it is

arms length.

MR. WINDSOR: You would like it to be. It is not going to

go away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Burin -

Placentia West asked a serious question. Now, you know, I can go through every

single company, I suppose, and read it into the record for him and we can stop

and debate each one, or he can have a look at the list that my hon. friend from

Mount Pearl has. I am sure there are situations where small stores and shops in

rural areas have been helped by way of small interest loans. Many of them are

small loans. Yes, I suppose. I can't confirm that, but if I were a betting man I

would say yes, there are probably some of those there. Does the hon. member have

a problem with protecting a store in Eagle River where there are no other

stores? Does he have a problem with that? Does he have a problem with helping

the little storekeeper in Lourdes in the Member for Port au Port's District who

has a little restaurant? - and I believe he does have a little bit of a

grocery-type thing attached to the restaurant. I mean, I can only tell you that

we asked the boards in every region to deal fairly, squarely, and honestly with

people.

Four hundred companies, or a little more, received help.

Thousands of companies asked, make no mistake about that, but each one has to be

dealt with on its own merit. We get some pretty off-the-wall stuff coming in

through our doors. We get some pretty good stuff. We get some high-risk stuff.

We get some stuff that is really high-risk and you really can't take a chance,

but we try our best in the pool of capital available to us in the

decision-making in the regions to judge each one on their merits and to deal

with them honourably and honestly. We have had a pretty good track record the

first year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Yes. And the other thing we try to do is to

have business plans and market analysis and that kind of thing in conjunction,

by the way, with ACOA. We try to share and face off against each other on that

to help with marketing study and share intelligence about companies and that

kind of thing. ACOA aren't saints, Enterprise aren't saints. ACOA isn't perfect,

we are not perfect. Previous NLDC wasn't perfect, current ENL isn't perfect. But

I tell you, we are making good strides and we are delivering out there. Don't

forget, 90 per cent of the people who come in through our doors are seeking

advice in one form or another. But we are not perfect and I never, ever said we

were.

MR. TOBIN: Didn't you give money for (inaudible) or

something?

MR. FUREY: I think we have helped, in some cases, lounges

around the Province, yes.

MR. TOBIN: What about the codes you mentioned?

MR. FUREY: I should tell my hon. friend - I don't know if

he was in Cabinet, because he was only there for - what? - thirty or sixty days

or something like that. I don't know if you were there when NLDC gave money to

the bars and restaurants that I have listed here from your previous portfolio.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: But it happened, and you did it.

MR. TOBIN: What about the codes? You mentioned codes.

MR. FUREY: Codes? Well, I mean the only codes here are:

How did we help them? Was it established? E-s-t-a-d means established. E-x-p

means expansion. M-o-d means modernization. Buy out is a buy out. And S-t-a-b

means stabilization. Those codes that go along here, what you have here is the

type of loan.

The company, first of all, let's take the first one here in

St. John's, Anita Best and Pamela Morgan. They came to us, and I don't know if

you know these two musicians but they are pretty brilliant. They were stuck,

they had a shortfall of, I think, about $6,000 listed here, to do the $30,000

compact disc. I heard their music on The Journal one night. Just that little

story which was triggered from the compact disc in advertising dollars, my

friend from Mount Pearl will tell you, would have cost a fortune to get.

MR. TOBIN: What about the codes.

MR. FUREY: Okay, we go along then: The type of loan,

small enterprise. That means it was a loan that could have potentially been

delivered to them at three points below prime, under that category. Then you go

along to the amount, $6,000, the date it was approved, 91-10-07, it tells you

exactly when it was approved. The amount approved is again repeated because it

shows whether or not it was taken up or how much of it was taken up. In this

case the $6,000 was taken up. The branch office: Well, it was head office.

Then it goes right along to talk about the - I think this is

what you are referring to, these codes. One is permanent full-time, the next

code is permanent seasonal because we do have seasonal jobs that reoccur. The

next one is permanent part-time. In other words, the job will always be there

for a certain time, but it could be any season. Then the last one is seasonal

part-time.

MR. TOBIN: What about -

MR. FUREY: Those are the only codes. There is nothing

magic about this.

MR. TOBIN: So what are loans and what are grants?

MR. FUREY: It is all right here. We don't give grants at

Enterprise Newfoundland. The closest thing we give to a grant is by way of

equity.

MR. TOBIN: Buy downs! Buy downs!

MR. FUREY: We don't give buy downs, except on a small

enterprise loan of 3 points below prime.

There are four categories:

The conventional loan, which is at the current rates which,

if the rates go way off the wall, we sometimes call all the loans back in and

refinance them at lower rates, and we did that just about a year ago.

Then there is the small enterprise loan and that is 3 points

below prime for anything under $100,000. It used to be $50,000 under the old

ARDA.

Then there is the venture capital and that is mirrored money

against a venture capital company for seven years interest free, matched dollar

for dollar.

Then there is equity participation where the government comes

in and takes a chunk of the company with a clear understanding that it will pull

out incrementally and leave it to the private sector.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: And the conventional term loan, that is right.

So those are the codes. There is nothing magical about it or

anything. Those are the programs. We stated right off the bat, when we released

our information, that it is open to every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, as it

should be. I think it should be anyway.

You know, the fellow who shaves hooves in Cormack, his little

company wouldn't have been eligible if we had closed our eyes to the fellow. The

Member from Humber Valley tells me it is one of the best things that ever

happened out in that area, because before that they used to have to fly a fellow

in from Antigonish. From Antigonish, I think the fellow used to come in from, to

trim the cows hooves. My friend from Humber Valley told me that if that trimming

wasn't done the nails would spread in the cows' feet and, therefore, it caused

the milk production to go down by about 15 per cent.

MR. TOBIN: How many jobs did that create?

MR. FUREY: Well, it created one job. It cost us $4,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) cow?

MR. FUREY: I thought I was giving a serious lecture here.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) cows?

MR. FUREY: I only know about cows what my hon. friend

from Humber Valley told me, and that is a lot.

So that is where we are and that is what those codes mean.

By the way, if you look over to the branch it tells you

exactly which branch, it tells you where in the branch. I would challenge

members on the other side - and they know what I am talking about -to stand up

and talk about some of the good loans that happened in their own districts. The

Member for Green Bay, who shot that verbal spear into my back, should jump up

and tell us about what a wonderful job we did helping Superior Logging and the

other little companies in his district.

By the way, let me ask some of the hon. members over there -

let us see. What seats are left over there in the Tory camp? Burin - Placentia

West ought to know that in the last three months three loans were approved down

there - three; one in Boat Harbour for $12,000. He has the list. He should have

a look at it. One in Marystown for $75,000 and another one in Marystown for

$26,000; that is $115,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: He has the list. I do not have them here. I

would have to look them up. Do you want me to look them up for you? Kevin, maybe

can look them up while I am finishing my speech here.

Look at Conception Bay South. My friend from Avondale, is

that his seat, Conception Bay South?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Pat Cowan.

MR. FUREY: But part of it runs into his, does it not?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Eagle River. What a load of money went up to

Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Every bit of it deserved, and very

appreciated.

MR. FUREY: Fogo. Where is my man from Fogo? There he is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No. They are only small loans, but the point

is, they came in and got them.

Carmanville, $2,930; Clarke's Head, $5,000; Fogo itself,

$5,400; Fogo again, $14,000; Man of War Cove, $13,000; Musgrave Harbour, $2,500;

and on and on it goes. Grand Falls, $60,000 for three little companies; Green

Bay, $231,000; Little Bay Islands, $28,000; Harbour Main, $309,000. Harbour Main

got a lot of dough there. Humber East, $200,000; Humber Valley, $917,782 to help

twenty-two companies.

Stand up and tell us about this good help to these companies.

Criticize us, but tell us when we are doing something right, too. A lot of these

companies got a lot of help.

Menihek, $620,000 for ten companies up in Labrador West,

(inaudible) the best Minister of Education this Province has ever seen, I will

tell you that - the best Minister of Education this Province has every seen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: I must say, his predecessor was not half bad.

He tried hard; but his predecessor's predecessor was useless. Hopeless. Nobody

knew who the Minister of Education was.

My friend from Mount Pearl, I will repeat for him again,

$2,010,279 to help fourteen companies in Mount Pearl - good companies too,

decent companies that are running into little bits of trouble and need some

help. So you cannot criticize that $2 million in Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes I did. It does not make it right because

it is in Mount Pearl.

MR. FUREY: Would you like it all taken back from those

companies in Mount Pearl?

MR. WINDSOR: I want you to treat everybody equally.

MR. FUREY: We are treating them equally. So we should not

put so much in Mount Pearl?

MR. WINDSOR: Do not discriminate against companies.

MR. FUREY: Take half of it back from Mount Pearl?

MR. WINDSOR: Treat them equally. Do not turn down some

(inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Mount Scio - Bell Island -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: By the way, the lists you have, I should tell

you, are only the lists that my friend the Member for Mount Pearl asked for in

estimates. I have a huge book of them that I brought the other day and I meant

to table. I did not table it, and I apologize.

I will tell you what I will do -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) three projects are not in

this one (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Yes, I know. Those are the ones that the

Member for Mount Pearl specifically... I think there are about seventy companies

there that he marked one night in yellow during estimates. He asked for them, so

I sent them to look for those right away while they were compiling the regional

background notes and stuff.

I will tell you what I will do, if you want, for the hon.

House Leader, I will send the whole book of approvals to you. Rather than me get

them to xerox it all, you can have it for reference for your members, okay? I

will send that across to you.

Menihek did very well. Mount Scio - Bell Island was pretty

good too. By the way, there were some great projects in Mount Scio - Bell

Island. I repeat it again. Perhaps you can get up and talk specifically about

some of those, but the mural project for example, what a brilliant project that

was. The conversion of the old convent - the Sisters of Mercy Convent. Our

injection of equity went in there to convert that to a bed and breakfast. That

is going to draw tourists to your Island. Those tourists are going to leave

money. They are going to need gas. They are going to eat.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jobs.

MR. FUREY: Jobs. The bakery, through our co-operative

program, we helped on Bell Island. My God, this government has done a lot of

good work through Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, on Bell Island.

My friend from Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir can get up and list off

projects that we have helped through Enterprise Newfoundland. My friend from

Lewisporte, although he might have an argument on one or two -

MR. TOBIN: How about (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Oh, you were going to ask me about Marystown.

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is not here, there is only one there

for Marystown, the other two must not be here, it must be somewhere else.

MR. FUREY: Where is it?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Right here, that is Eastern right here

you see, Eastern (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Where is Marystown?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Here is the one for Marystown. There is

one there, outlined, underlined.

MR. FUREY: Marystown, the one that I have here is Shea -

Elizabeth, and Lane - Wanda. That is the one that my friend from Mount Pearl is

attacking, that we helped, that was an established business and I -do we have

the amount there?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, $26,000.

MR. FUREY: - $26,000 and it was a conventional loan at

current rates; that is Marystown.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) $75,000.

MR. FUREY: No, that is on a separate list. This one is

the calendar year; the one I quoted you from was the fiscal year which would

carry an extra three months, do you follow what I am saying?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. FUREY: I gave you January 1 to December 31, here.

What I was quoting from was the extra three months in the fiscal year, January

1, 1992 to March 31, and in there, there are three more loans. I will get them

for you.

MR. TOBIN: Would you (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I will try, but you know, I tell the hon.

member, just pick up the phone and call the - I would just mention this to the

hon. member, pick up the phone and call the vice-president at Clarenville, the

head office, they will give it to you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, they will. I have told them - anyway, the

bottom line is that we have laid all this information on the table. I hope my

good friend from Harbour Main will stand up and defend me now and talk about the

$500,000 that went to eight little companies in his district to help stabilize

them or buy outs or expansion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I just have to make sure. Furey, Furey -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Who are these Fureys, anyway?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that masked man?

MR. FUREY: That is right. The Fureys were they - wasn't

that Greek mythology where the fureys would have to come in as justices to fix

the imbalances that were created? That is right, Greek mythology. Harbour Main,

anyway, sorry I said $500,000, it is $309,000 and nine little companies helped,

and I can read them out for you, who they are and stuff, would you like me to do

that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Yes, because I am going to send the whole

catalogue of companies, so I thank hon. members for their patience and if there

are any further questions I would be happy to answer them.

On motion, Executive Council, total heads, carried.

MR. BAKER: We also do the Consolidated Fund Services,

Public Service Commission and the Legislature.

On motion, Consolidated Fund Services, total heads, carried.

On motion, Legislature, total heads, carried.

On motion, Public Service Commission, total heads, carried.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move to Order 2,

Committee of the Whole on a Bill, "An Act Respecting Elections, Controverted

Elections And Election Financing." Bill No. 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, 2, Bill No. 1.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the Committee

stage of the new Elections Act. In the process we had the Committee on

Privileges and Elections that looked at the new act and suggested a number of

changes. We have already completed second reading, which is agreement in

principle, and received the assent of the House in terms of agreement in

principle. However, in terms of the detail, I have already given the Opposition

a copy of the amendments that we are now proposing to the Elections Act in this

Committee stage. If Your Honour does not have a copy I could provide him with

one or provide the Table with a couple of copies of the proposed amendments to

the Elections Act.

Essentially what we did was accepted the recommendations of

the Committee with some notable exceptions - with one notable exception. You

will find that some of the Committee's suggestions were accepted but were not

included as amendments because the changes had already been made in the Bill and

the Bill already reflected the will of the Committee. However, we did

recommend... let's see.... Thirteen changes as recommended by the Committee, and

we have added one new change which I will get to in a moment.

The key issue dealt with by the Committee is not dealt with

in these amendments. That key issue has to do with the concept of proxy vote, as

compared with the concept of a special ballot. As Your Honour knows the Bill

itself makes allowances for a proxy vote. Where an individual, for some reason

or another, cannot make it to the polls to vote - either through absence from

the district or whatever other cause - that that individual can apply and

receive authorization to have somebody else vote in that person's place in the

poll on election day. That process is known as proxy voting and is the one that

is being suggested by the Bill.

The Committee looked at this and it seems to me, for the

reason that a proxy vote.... In a proxy vote the confidentiality and secrecy of

the ballot is not maintained. I think this is the main problem that the

Committee had with the idea of proxy voting. That the secrecy and the

confidentiality is not maintained, because somebody else is voting for an

individual. They tried to find a way around it. They suggested the special

ballot.

Now, it is government's position that the special ballot has

merit. It is not included here simply because we believe that more time is

needed to examine the implications of the special ballot; to see whether it is

possible to do; to see whether you should have a combination of special ballot

and proxy; to see whether there are instances where special ballots do not work

and you need to have a proxy vote, and so on. So we feel that there is more

study needed in this issue, and we are quite willing to, for instance, say to

the Committee: go back and have a more in-depth look at it, and come back in the

fall with a recommendation with regards to the special ballot versus proxy -

whether one or the other, or a combination of both.

So what we as government would suggest is that we would say

to the Committee: go and have a more detailed look at this special ballot. I

understand they are going through the process in Ottawa now, considering the

special ballot. I think they have run into some difficulties with it, and there

are some concerns. I think members should realise that it is not really as

simple as it looks on the surface, or that's my understanding, so I prefer to

see some further study done on the special ballot concept before we actually

make it part of the bill.

If it is looked into in detail, then I would not be opposed

to having a further amendment done in the Fall to take into account the proxy

vote, the special ballot, or whatever, so that concept is not included in here.

There are also a couple of other recommendations of the committee where they

recommended that we look into certain issues. I agree that these are issues that

we should perhaps have a further look at. One of the things had to do with

handicapped access and I agree that perhaps a little further work has to be done

on that. The other issue generally had to do with nomination meetings, party

leaderships and so on, as to whether that should be included in the Elections

Act. Mr. Chairman, it is my personal opinion that some of these things are

solely party matters and should be dealt with by the party rather than the

government but I am willing to listen to the counterarguments to see what if any

of these things that have been identified by the committee should in fact be

included in the Elections Act.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure there will be farther comment in the

next while on the amendments. I would suggest that the amendments as tabled, and

as the Opposition has a copy of, perhaps could be dealt with as a whole. The

committee recommended these, we agree with them and they could easily be done,

that they be dealt with as a whole. The one exception is Number 10, at the

bottom of the page of amendments in Committee of the Whole House, Bill 1 is

further amended by adding immediately after Clause 217 the following. Now, there

is a full page here that deals with referenda or plebiscites on a question

relating to the Constitution of Canada or relating to or arising out of possible

change to the Constitution of Canada, so there is a change or an addition that

we are recommending to the Elections Act to handle this concept of a plebiscite

and to make it part of the Elections Act and to put the expenses under the

control of the Elections Act and so on. Mr. Chairman, this is the one addition

we are suggesting that was not dealt with by the committee.

That is all I have to say on it now. I am sure some members

of the committee will want to deal with it in a little more detail

and I could respond at any point in time.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.

At the outset I do want to say that we on this side of the

House, at least this side of this side of the House, agree with this Bill and we

agree with most of the amendments. A lot of them are pretty well just detail or

rewording so we agree with most of that. We think the legislation is needed and

it is good legislation theoretically. What we found in our committee hearings,

in particular on the points that the President of Treasury Board mentioned, in

our committee hearings we found absolutely no support for proxy voting,

absolutely no support. It just was not acceptable to anyone who came before us

who mentioned it, who gave it some thought. The main reason, I guess, would be

privacy. That was certainly the main concern but there were groups who came

before us such as the Federation of Students, and it was suggested to them that

the proxy vote might be used for students who are here at the university and

wanted to vote back in their district. That was completely unacceptable to them.

They did not want anything to do with that. They were quite satisfied with the

special polls and I did make a commitment to them. The committee did not make

the commitment but I certainly did make a commitment to them that if the special

polls are not left in place that I would - at the time I suggested that I would

write a minority report to our committee. But while we were meeting, and we did

make every effort in our committee to come up with a unanimous report, there was

no confrontation on the committee, not very much, just some political wrangling

every now and then, but we did make a conscious effort to come up with a

unanimous report. We worked hard at it. The difference being that some people

said the proxy vote was okay and some - me in particular - did not agree with

the proxy vote, especially how it affected the students. Large construction

sites would be another area that a special poll could be used in.

So I did suggest that I do a minority report, but during our

considerations the Member for Pleasantville I believe was probably the first to

mention it. We thought about this special ballot. That in itself could have

accommodated students. It could accommodate the large construction sites if

necessary. Both, say, Bull Arm and Hibernia, out on the rigs, if they are

pumping oil at the time of an election. I figured that this was a reasonable

compromise. This would have alleviated the students' concerns somewhat. Not

perfect. They seemed to be fairly satisfied with the special poll arrangement.

They also had a concern about whether you could vote in the place where you

lived, in that poll where you lived, or you had to vote back home. But I think

that concern is no longer legitimate, because they can vote in the place where

they live if they want to. If they have been going to University for four or

five years and they have lived on Pleasant Street, St. John's South or Centre,

or whatever that is in, they could vote there. It might be more realistic

because they would be more in tune with the issues of that area of Newfoundland,

sometimes, rather than their own home.

Mr. Chairman, I am still concerned about the government's

intention not to put in the special ballot in our new Elections Act. I know you

are suggesting that we do some more study on it. I cannot disagree with more

study on anything, although it could be interpreted as a put off. 'We'll put

that off for now and sometime in the future maybe,' and we will never hear tell

of it again. To do that it will be my intention, as we are going through this

Act, if government does not change its mind on this special ballot, to move a

further amendment to the Act to bring back the special poll that might or might

not be in place. I will make that motion to just leave it in place until the

special ballot is put there.

I know the reasons why, and we had a brief from the former

chief electoral officer, that the special polls were very inconvenient for the

returning officers. Now the returning officers, as good as they are, are not the

ones we are trying to accommodate in my mind in the new Elections Act. The

voters are the ones who we should be accommodating. It has always been my

philosophy that the easier it can be for a person to vote, that is the way we

should do it. The more convenient it is to vote, that is the way it should be.

There are many circumstances, apart from the average voter who can walk into a

polling station between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. and cast his or her ballot, and

walk off. There are many other circumstances to be considered during that

twelve-hour time, or before or after that, for people who do not find it that

convenient.

The special polls alleviated a certain part of that. I at one

time, in the 1972 election, probably, I was working in Robinsons at the time,

out in the west coast area. I was very determined to vote that day. We spent

twelve hours in the woods, all day, surveying some mining leases for Hooker

Chemical, I think it was called. Salt mines were supposed to be developed out

there sometime.

AN HON. MEMBER: They drilled for them, I believe.

MR. R. AYLWARD: They drilled for them, yes. They found

salt. But it wasn't economical. Anyway, election day came and I was determined

to vote. So after we got back to the boarding house after a good long day's

work, I only had an hour and a half to get to the polling station. So by the

time I got washed up and took off for Stephenville like a bullet and ran out of

gas a mile away from the polling station and got to the polling station five

minutes after it closed, I wasn't too pleased that I could not vote. But it

wasn't the fault of I didn't have the opportunity. Because had I been ten

minutes earlier I would have had the opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, had I not had that opportunity of going to

Stephenville I don't -

MR. MATTHEWS: You wouldn't have gone out of gas.

MR. R. AYLWARD: - there would have been no - I would not

have had to go looking for gas, yes. But there would not have been a legitimate

opportunity for me to vote. A proxy vote is not acceptable to me. I do not agree

with it, I do not think it is possible. I suppose there are lots of people back

in my district who I could get to vote for me, and they could probably guess how

I was going to vote. I do not think that might have been a secret at the time,

but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: That was in the 1971, 1972 time. At that

time, like many of the members across there probably at the time, or some of the

young members - there are not many of them there my age; some of them are older

and some of them are younger - I was one of the anti-(inaudible). 'It is time to

replace the government' was my philosophy at the time, and there were many like

us.

We wanted, at the time, to have a real change, and we did get

a change eventually. In that 1971 election I was going to vote - ironically as

it worked out, I would have had to vote that time for a Mr. Hugh Shea who

happened to win the seat in 1971. I was almost pleased, two or three months

after the election, that that polling station was closed, because I was somewhat

upset with what Mr. Hugh Shea did in the meantime. I am quite delighted now with

what he did, because had he not done it I would not be here, most likely. He

would probably still be here, because he was quite a politician. He was a good

orator. He could stir people up. He got a lot of people to vote for him in that

district, and not a big lot of people in Kilbride at the time knew him, although

he had a store there. He had a store at the time. I was glad that he eventually

- I was not glad at the time, but right now I suppose it all worked out to the

better that he did not stay where he was.

Still, the point is that I had an opportunity to go to

Stephenville and vote. As expensive as that might have been on the whole system,

it was an opportunity for somebody who was away from their home, and even with a

proxy vote I do not think I would have - I am not sure of the details of the

proxy vote now, because after we decided that we did not support it, I sort of

gave up on remembering what the details of it were - but had I tried to vote by

proxy, working out in Robinsons, I would have to have written the returning

officer in the district and tried to get a ballot sent out to me, or tried to

get somebody sworn in who would vote for me, and they take the ballot. Somebody

would take the ballot. I am not... Anyway, it would have been a bit confusing. I

would not have had as much of an opportunity, we will put it that way, to vote

in that election as I would with a special poll.

I do not disagree with studying this further. I must say, I

do not completely disagree with that. I partly do, because this thing has been

studied in quite a bit of detail by The Federal Task Force on Electoral Reform.

They have made their recommendations. The task force themselves, the ones who

studied it the same as, I guess, close to what our committee would have done,

did the study. They made the recommendations. Now it is in the political realm,

or the government realm, I guess, again whether they are going to accept it or

not.

This amendment that I did prepare is based pretty well

word-for-word, and there are probably a few words in here that would have to

come out, because it refers to the Canadian Armed Forces personnel and the like.

This amendment that I would propose spells out fairly clearly what is required

by the federal proposal.

I think, and I believe that if we made the amendment in our

act, and put that special ballot in our act, the details then should be worked

out by the chief electoral officer or whoever is going to have to administrate

this.

We can go back to the committee again and work on some more

study and make some more recommendations, but still the final implementation of

this, and the final recommendations, or how practical this is going to be, will

have to be worked out by the chief electoral officer and his staff.

If we make the amendment now, and let him go to work, we are

telling that chief electoral officer that we want this. We want this special

ballot -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mail in.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, this special ballot put into our

act. Then he/she can work out the details.

Now if philosophically we do not want this, if we do not want

a special ballot put in our Elections Act, well that is something else. If this

House agrees that we do not want it at this time, or we don't want it ever, I

suppose, if we decide on that, that is another thing. It would be my argument

that if we agree with the special ballot and we could make an amendment which

would suit that special ballot in our act now, the chief electoral officer can

immediately start to work to implement this. That person or that office can work

out the details, and I believe that is the way it should go rather than have us

go back and do another study and we will make a report again next year in the

legislature maybe by the fall if we could get the details.

One of the reasons we didn't do that is because the next

phase of studying that, we considered at the time that we would have to either

meet with the federal task force who have done the studies, that would cost

money. Either get them down to Newfoundland or some of us would go see them.

That was unnecessary because the electoral officer is going to have to do that

again when we are finished. Whoever is going to implement this is still going to

have to meet with some people who are operating this.

Another thing is we figured it couldn't be overly complicated

because a procedure similar to this is used in Saskatchewan presently. That was

what was reported to our committee, that Saskatchewan has a similar system in

place now. So if it is working, someone might want to phone Saskatchewan and see

if it does work suitably. They had it in their last election. Somebody might

want to do that and see if this provision works or had worked in their last

election. It can't be overly complicated. It can't be that hard to do if

Saskatchewan is doing it.

The federal task force have studied it, and our electoral

office will have to implement this so they should work on the details. That is

why I would suggest that we should now - while we are doing this act so it will

not be delayed any further - implement this special ballot. Put the proper

amendment in our act now to have a special ballot included in our next election

process. There are many changes. It is just as well to do them all in one sweep.

It is going to be tough the next election for district associations and other

people to try to keep track of this new act because it is new, not because it is

overly complicated, but just because it is new and there are going to be a lot

of volunteers involved. If we are going to do it, it is just as well to do a

good job of it now.

The government, by suggesting that we should study it further

for more details, seems to be convinced that this is probably a way we could go.

I don't think there is any great disagreement on that. The disagreement is

whether the committee should study it further and make another recommendation,

or my suggestion is that we put the amendment in now and have the electoral

office do the detail work which seems to me they are going to have to do it

anyway, so I don't know why the committee would study it further unless there

would be some thought that the committee might come back and rule against it

completely. That could possibly be, but right now the federal task force who

have been working and doing some detail work for the federal elections act have

recommended against proxy votes, they have made that decision.

Proxy votes are not acceptable. Those are the conclusions

they came to at the time. So it doesn't make sense to me that we would be

bringing into our brand new act a proxy vote which we never had before, and

people who were doing some studies in this general area now have already

recommended against because of complications because of privacy or for whatever

reasons. It doesn't seem to me that it would make sense for us to put in a proxy

vote in our Elections Act now.

A proxy vote could be left in there. I am not saying that

should be taken out completely. Maybe there are people who would like to vote by

proxy. That is quite acceptable to me. A special ballot will take care of the

proxy vote, it will take care of the student, in particular, living out of their

district, it could take care of Newfoundlanders going to university or have some

type of arrangements, a government exchange program in Ottawa, it could take of

those people who could vote home in their districts, it could take care of large

construction sites without the great expense of special polls. It could take

care of a site such as Hibernia. If there happened to be a group of people

working out on the Grand Banks on the day of election pumping oil or drilling

for oil, whatever, they could have their special ballot look after their needs.

So I would say that because of the information that is

already available on the special ballot, and because of the federal task force's

conclusions that proxy ballots or proxy voting is on its way out, and this new

special ballot should be on its way in, in a modern act. And because of

presentations made to our Committee, and made fairly forcefully, and

particularly by the Federation of Students Union, that if we cannot keep those

special polls I would think, and I would like to hear - I hope the Chairperson

of the Committee will be making -

MR. MATTHEWS: Not allowed up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Oh, I am sure he will be up. Whether he

is allowed or not he will make his views known.

MR. MATTHEWS: Not allowed up, boy.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I think he would agree with what I am

saying.

MR. MATTHEWS: He's muzzled!

MR. R. AYLWARD: That if the special ballot could be put

in place, the special poll, I think the students would agree that special polls

would be left out. That was the understanding I had. I still believe that refers

to remote sites. Remote construction sites, woods camps. That can solve a lot of

problems. It can give the same result as our special polls now at about half the

cost, I would say. It is not nearly as costly as the special ballots.

So, Mr. Chairman, these will be comments. When we go through

the Act I will be making the amendments. Either an amendment to put in the

special ballot, which I have shown the member opposite already. If that cannot

fly I will also be making an amendment to bring back special polling stations

for areas such as large concentrations of Newfoundlanders who happen to be, on

election day, living outside of their district. That would include more than

just the University, but it would include - and even if details, again the

electoral offices could work on details, we can give them permission to say that

you have to have at least a concentration of 500 people living in - from

different districts. I do not know what the numbers would be.

You do not have to have special ballots everywhere. You would

not have to have that ballot in Stephenville like I used before. Not necessary.

If the reason we are doing this, if the reason we are dropping special polling

stations is expense, and administrative headaches, which is what I understand we

are doing it for, the special polling stations were very expensive and very hard

to keep the security in place. That is what the former chief electoral officer

told us anyway.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think our special poll - now I have - I

do not know, what way do we work this Committee? Do we get up ten and ten? Or

thirty minutes and finish it up or make decisions? I do not know what....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Ten and ten?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, I know, I have gone long way past

that ten. That's why I figured I had thirty minutes and that was the end of it.

I do not know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Okay. Anyway then, the next time I get

up, when we get off of this, or get beyond this, I do have some comments on this

referendum part of our Act, this referendum amendment that I think there are

some problems that I would have. Certainly there are problems that I would have

with the amendment as proposed now, and probably some of our other members will

have some more discussions on that.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, just for one minute. I just want

to comment a little further on the special ballot and the proxy vote. It is not

acceptable that we simply put into this Bill that we are going to have a special

ballot and leave it to the returning officer to work it out. That is not

acceptable. What we have to put in this Act are the details of how it works.

Because if we do it that way we are liable to end up with some kind of a

creature that we want to disown sometime in the future. So we have to specify

exactly how it is done in the Act. So when something is worked out I envision

that it will be a detailed proposal, it will be a lot of detail in terms of how

it works.

The proposed amendment that the Member for Kilbride refers to

is such a detailed proposal and once it is made I will discuss it further but I

do not think it would suit our circumstances and I have some questions about it

which I do not know the answers to. Very simply, Mr. Chairman, I agree with the

concept of special ballots. I think there has to be some better way than the

proxy, however, I am concerned that we have not done adequate studies to see

whether if we put both of them in there, the possibility of both of them, the

details of how the special ballot works have to be included and I have not seen

that yet and I have not seen something that I believe is acceptable to me or I

have not examined it, and that is why I was suggesting that the committee take

some more time and in the fall, come back with a detailed proposal as to exactly

how this would be worded in The New Elections Act.

I had a choice to make when the committee report came in;

either to put off until the fall putting the Elections Act through the House,

which would give the time to do the proper study, or, to pass the Elections Act

now, and the reason I decided I would prefer to pass the Elections Act now, is

so that we can put our returning officer in place so that returning officer will

know then what the parameters are under which he or she will have to operate and

can set up a system and would have a number of months so that in the fall,

hopefully, sometime the system would be in place and we could proclaim the new

act. In the interim we would be operating under the old act, so that is how I

envisioned it happening and why I wanted it to go through now and why I feel

quite confident in saying that,

whereas we support the concept of a special

ballot, I want to see more work done on it.

I would like to point out to the member opposite, that there

is no way that this issue can be sloughed off by doing this. As the hon. member

knows, when you have a committee, the chairman is the Member for Eagle River,

the Member for Pleasantville is on the committee, the Member for Kilbride is on

the committee, and as a committee of the House, that there is no way that is

going to be sloughed under the carpet and that the committee will do its job

properly and will report back to the House, as the committee should, so there is

no way to slough this thing off and it is not the intention of government to

kind of just hide this issue and hope it goes away.

We would prefer to see it dealt with properly and that is the

reason we are taking the position we are taking. However, I would be interested

when we get to the point where the hon. member moves the amendment that we could

discuss this proposal in detail and perhaps, at that point in time, we could

point out some unresolved problems with his proposed amendment that might need

further study. So, Mr. Chairman, I did not formally move, but I would like to

formally move that these amendments be made to the act and copies have already

been provided to the table.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: All of them. There are fourteen?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) including ten.

MR. BAKER: Yes, including ten. We do not have to deal

with them all in a group. We could deal with all of them as a group with the

exception of ten and debate that, but that was the next question and I was

wondering if we could deal with the ones that came from the committee as a group

and do the vote on those as a group, then deal with the hon. member's amendment

he intends to make, as well as number ten on this sheet.

MR. FUREY: The only problem is with ten.

MR. BAKER: Yes.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, just for the Government

House Leader, my only concern is amendment ten, that is the only one I have

concerns about. From what the Government House Leader said about the amendment

for the special poll, or special ballot, I mean it is hard to argue against it,

except that I believe that it has been studied quite adequately by this federal

task force. All we are going to do is get their information, look at it and give

you a recommendation, the chief electoral officer could do the same thing.

If we say we have an amendment to say we want it in there and

we want it to work, that would be enough. But anyway, if the Government House

Leader has his mind made up that it is going to go back to the committee and the

committee will study it