December

8, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 77

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, much has been said in the

past several weeks about the operation of the Marystown Shipyard and

government's role in the operation. The most recent incident which saw the

Hibernia Management Development Corporation remove work from the facility

because it would not be completed according to the

schedule established by HMDC,

impressed on government the urgency of dealing with the obvious shortcomings at

the facility if we are to avoid similar situations in the future.

At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I must repeat what I have said on

numerous occasions in the past, that no single person or group of people are to

blame for what has transpired at the Marystown Shipyard. The blame must be

shared by government, management, unions and workers to the extent that their

respective actions or inaction contributed to the problem. In this regard, in

October I announced government's intention to restructure Marystown Shipyard in

order to make it viable. At that time, I indicated what would be required to

accomplish this.

Starting with the Board of Directors, on November 10, the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology announced the restructuring of the

board. This move saw four new members appointed, Harold Duffett; Captain Sid

Hynes; Don Warr and the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, David

Oake, who will become the only public service representative on the board. These

four individuals are well-known in their respective fields of expertise and I am

pleased that they agreed to serve on the board. On November 10, Mr. Furey said

that two other members would be named to the board at a later date. Mr. Speaker,

I am pleased to inform the House today that Lloyd Hines of Grand Bank has agreed

to serve on the board. Mr. Hines has worked for many years in the marine

industry. For the past 20 years he has owned and operated Southcoast Marine

Electronics Limited. Prior to this, Mr. Hines worked for 10 years with the

Canadian Marconi Company Limited. I am confident that his experience will be an

asset to the board.

The second individual is the President and Chief Executive

Officer of Royal Oak Mines, Peggy Witte. Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say

that there are not many people who have not heard of Peggy Witte, particularly

in the financial community and in the mining community, where she has become a

force to be reckoned with. Her competition in the mining industry has referred

to her as an outstanding entrepreneur. She made her first mark in the mining

industry by helping to introduce a new gold-recovery technology in Canada more

that a decade ago, which made low-grade ore bodies more profitable to exploit.

Since then, she has turned a collection of old mines that have poor, low-grade

ore reserves into profitable operations. It is largely because of Peggy Witte

and her efforts that the Hopebrook Gold Mine is operating today. I remind

members, Mr. Speaker, that the great BP, a subsidiary of BP Oil, operated

originally at Hopebrook Mines and ran into troubles and couldn't cope with the

environmental or the financial problems they were having, but it was Peggy

Witte's company that took it over and turned it into a profitable operation

employing some 270 Newfoundland workers today. Ms. Witte's business acumen,

particularly her reputation as a sound financial manager, will be invaluable to

the board as efforts are made to have the shipyard operating as a viable

commercial operation.

In addition, I am pleased to announce that Sir Graham Day has

agreed to act as a consultant to the board. A well-known strategist, Sir Graham

is well known for taking on troubled companies and turning them around. He

really made his reputation in the U.K. - although his origins are Nova Scotia -

when in 1971 the British Government invited him to become chief executive of

Cammell Laird, a struggling shipbuilder on the verge of insolvency which he

subsequently made profitable. Following a two-year stint with Dome Petroleum, he

returned to British Shipbuilders and successfully returned what was left of the

business to the private sector. At present, he is chairman or director of

several international companies. Sir Graham has told me that he will make

himself available whenever the board feels they could benefit from his advice

and has insisted that he will not receive any compensation for acting in that

capacity. With his background, the board will be well served by his input as

they work to revitalize the yard. I should add, Mr. Speaker, that Sir Graham now

lives in Nova Scotia, so travel would not be as difficult as it might otherwise

be if he were in the U.K.

These new board members will join Thomas O'Reilly, who will

continue as Chairman of the board, and Eric Jerrett, who will remain on the

board. Max Ruelokke will sit on the board as an ex-officio in his capacity as

President and Chief Executive Officer of Vinland Industries. In announcing these

new board members, I must take this opportunity to express sincere appreciation

to those individuals who served the board faithfully over the past several

years. The challenges they faced were not easy and no doubt accounted for many

sleepless nights as they dealt with some serious issues. I personally thank them

for their contribution and thank them, as well, on behalf of the people of the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, restructuring the Board of Directors was the

first step in a three-step process. We must now ensure that the other two steps

in the process are implemented. Restructuring the board will mean nothing if

there is not a review of the management structure and the collective bargaining

agreement. That, however, is a task for the new board. In that vein, the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and I met with the new Board of

Directors on Friday, November 25, to inform them that in the future there would

be no governmental involvement in the running of the shipyard. The exchange with

the new board was frank in that there was considerable discussion about the

level of financial support the shipyard received in the past from the Province

and the recognition that this cannot continue. There was recognition as well,

however, that government must continue to provide a reasonable level of funding

to give the new board time to develop and put in place new strategies for the

operation. While the government would like for the shipyard to be a profitable

enterprise, and has made it clear that it cannot continue to subsidize it to the

level that it has in the past, I have told the Board of Directors that a break

even position would be acceptable, at least to start with.

Mr. Speaker, in handing over full responsibility for the

operation of the Marystown Shipyard to the Board of Directors, government will

not be meeting with interest groups as it has done in the past. Instead, should

problems arise in the future, the board will be the arbitrator of these

problems. Unless specifically requested by the board, government will not become

involved in any aspect of running the facility.

It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that we didn't take this step

before. Instead, we continued the practice that had been established for many

years, and it was clearly a mistake.

I realize this is a departure from past practices, but I

believe that part of the problem has been the number of groups who have had

direct involvement in the day-to-day operation at Marystown. The management and

the workers at the shipyard must work together to make the facility a viable

operation, and if there are differences there is a competent Board of Directors

in place to deal with them.

Mr. Speaker, this government remains confident in the

long-term future of the Marystown Shipyard. If this were not the case, we would

take steps immediately to close the operation after the shipyard had met all of

its contractual obligations. Instead, we have appointed a new Board of Directors

to review the operation with a view to seeing the facility revitalized and able

to compete for business with similar facilities throughout the world. The end

result should be a sound financial operation offering jobs to those qualified to

fill them.

The matter is now in the hands of the new board, and I am

confident they will do the job.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to say at the outset, we support any initiative that

will be positive to the operation of the Marystown Shipyard, any initiative,

whether it is a change in the board of directions, changes at various management

levels, any changes.

MS. VERGE: Change of government.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, certainly a change of government.

I would really support that. Anything that is of a positive nature we will

support, but I want to say to the Premier that it is a little late in coming.

What we see here is a government finally taking some action after losing a major

contract, the MOF contract, a major contract that we could have achieved and

could have obtained for Marystown.

In the past few weeks we have seen a loss of work to Saint

John, New Brunswick, which should never have happened, Mr. Speaker. This has

really woken up the government after about two years of procrastination, I say

to the Premier. Eighteen months ago the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology said he was going to do what the Premier is announcing today. It is

not all done yet because we still have to wait to see some changes to

management, and the Premier has indicated they will want to talk to the union

about the union contract.

Of course I am very much aware of that having sat in the

Premier's boardroom a few weeks ago with a committee from the Burin Peninsula

and really heard the Premier point the finger at the unions. He tried to put the

blame on them, which, of course, was not the case in the loss of work to Saint

John, New Brunswick.

Mr. Speaker, it raises some questions of really what we are

about to see. I must say that I am impressed with some members, the new

appointees to the board. I do not know much about Sir Graham Day but the Premier

seems to be rather high on him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, a consultant. Not being compensated,

I believe, the statement says. In this capacity now he is not being compensated

which is certainly a very good gesture on his part. The present chief executive

officer of Royal Oak Mines seems very credible, I must say. Looking at what the

Premier said about her and what we know about her through public statements she

seems quite credible and I am sure will bring a great deal of expertise to the

board, which it needs.

There is an obvious absence here. I read no representation on

the board from the union in any way and that is probably by design, from the

community at large, I guess. I guess that is what the Premier means when he is

getting away from interest groups, it is the union and the communities. I am

really not sure what that all means and how it will all play out in the final

analysis of the operation of the Marystown Shipyard, and whether or not that end

result will make it more profitable. We will have to wait and see that.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset I support anything that

has a chance to make this yard profitable. We all know what the Marystown

Shipyard does, not only to the people of the Burin Peninsula and to the economy

of the Burin Peninsula, but to the provincial economy and to employment

throughout the Province. We want to see it continue to operate, and I just hope

that the new board does get on with some changes in its management which I, by

the way, can support. I know there have been some problems in the various levels

of management at the Marystown Shipyard and I said that in a meeting with the

Premier a few weeks ago. I told him at the time: Do you want a list? There are

some people there who should not have been there, as I guess in any big

operation. If that is what it takes to make this thing profitable and to keep

the employment levels up, then let's do so.

I find it quite interesting as well that the Premier says

really that government sort of would be satisfied with a break-even sort of

situation at the Yard.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, well, I don't know how long that is

going to take or what is involved in that, but I would be quite interested to

see this thing develop within the next twelve to eighteen months. I really hope,

my sincerest wish, Mr. Speaker, is that there indeed will be a profitable

Marystown Shipyard in operation at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to

advise the House of Assembly that earlier today Sister Marion Collins, Superior

General of the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy, on behalf of the

Congregation, and I, on behalf of the government, signed an agreement respecting

the future of St. Clare's Mercy Hospital. This agreement was negotiated over the

past year by representatives of the Sisters of Mercy, the Board of Governors of

St. Clare's, and senior government officials.

Under the agreement, the government has purchased the St.

Clare's Mercy Hospital property which will be operated under the direction of

the new St. John's Hospitals Board announced earlier in the year. The agreement

provides for the Sisters of Mercy to continue to carry out their ministry of

health care at St. Clare's. It also provides that the mission, philosophy,

values and ethical principles of St. Clare's Mercy Hospital will be maintained

within the new Board structure. The title to St. Clare's Mercy Hospital will be

transferred to the Province, and governance of the Hospital will be with the new

Hospital Board.

Mr. Speaker, the government has purchased the St. Clare's

Mercy Hospital property for $6.5 million, which will be amortized as to

principal and interest over a period of twenty years. The purchase price, while

recognizing the value of the land and the direct financial input of the Sisters

of Mercy into the St. Clare's property, cannot in any way be projected as

representing the value of the significant contribution which the Sisters have

made to health services in this Province, or the current replacement cost of St.

Clare's.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this agreement is in the best

interest of the people of the Province, and I want to thank the Sisters of Mercy

for the vision they demonstrated in their negotiations with government. Their

willingness to relinquish the title and control of St. Clare's Mercy Hospital

and allow it to continue as one of the leading health care institutions in our

Province reflects their deep commitment to the health care system and to seeing

St. Clare's continue as an integral part of the new regional board structure in

St. John's.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not pay

tribute to the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy for the tremendous

contributions they have made to health care services in this Province during the

past seventy-two years. The people of this Province have benefitted immeasurably

from that contribution. It is my hope and expectation that the Sisters of Mercy

will continue to contribute to the health care system of the Province through

St. Clare's Mercy Hospital and that the people of our Province will continue to

benefit from their ministry in health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Firstly, I commend the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy

for their invaluable contribution to health care services in this Province. I

say, the minister may have come out of his state of denial. Less than two weeks

ago the minister stated, `absolutely nothing has been determined with any

finality as to which facilities will remain open or be closed or if, indeed, any

will be closed.' So I say to the minister: Will you tell the public that you

know, as well as I do, that there will be two acute care facilities in this

city, the Health Sciences and St. Clare's Mercy Hospital? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, for several weeks now, since the

House has been open, I have been asking questions on the Trans City Holdings

issue, and up until now, the Premier has been trying to distance himself from

this issue and from these hospital contracts. So far, his main defence has been

his poor memory, his inability to recollect. Now, according to information that

we received yesterday - which I am prepared to table and which I know the

Premier is fully aware of - the Premier's

schedule for Thursday, April 4, 1991,

shows that he met with Bill Case, Tom Hickman and Joe Butler who happened to be

the principals involved with Trans City, and the meeting convened at 5:00 p.m.

Now, at that meeting he was accompanied by the Member for Humber West - the then

Minister of Justice, and the President of Treasury Board - the Member for

Gander. Would the Premier tell the House who requested this meeting and what

topics were mentioned?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Last week or the week before I explained

this meeting in the House when I spoke, I mentioned this meeting or I mentioned

it somewhere recently.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, yes, I did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, no, others remember that I mentioned

it and have said so; as a matter of fact, I was asked about this yesterday by

Mr. Wangersky from CBC.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, no, he reminded me that I have been

talking about it for some time, including back in 1991 when I made a public

statement on it at that time. My recollection at the time, Mr. Speaker, is that

was being considered as one alternative to meet the library needs of the Law

Society. They had to move out of the Court House and ultimately those library

needs were met by renting space in Atlantic Place. An alternative was to build

other facilities adjacent to the Court House or across the street from the Court

House and that is what that proposal was at that time. Hence, the person who was

Minister of Justice and the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of

Finance, were present at the meeting.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if the discussion was about

library services why would Bill Case, Tom Hickman and Joe Butler be there? Could

he answer that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. They were

aware of the need for library space and were bringing forward a proposal to

supply it, the same as numerous other people have proposed to meet government's

needs in the Province and, Mr. Speaker, just so that there is no mistake about

it, let me say, I encourage any entrepreneur or business person in the Province

to take such steps in the future. It shows good sound judgement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear the Premier. Who

requested the meeting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will go back and check to see where the

request came from. I don't know whether it came through the President of

Treasury Board or the Minister of Justice, or from Mr. Hickman, Mr. Butler or

Mr. Case.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: No, I don't think it originated with me. I

think somebody would have asked me for the meeting - I think - but I will go

back and check.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Could he explain on his

schedule agenda what is meant by

Duckworth Chambers, then, if that was the topic?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I just heard the president say that was

the name of the proposal. That seems to make sense, but I will go back and check

that, too. I think that was the name of the building that was being proposed,

and my recollection is that it was across the street from the courthouse and

what they were proposing was a walkway over Duckworth Street or a tunnel under

it - I have forgotten which - something like that.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary then, to the

Premier: Can the Premier confirm that it was also at this meeting on April 4,

1991, that he specifically discussed their original concept to

design/build/lease, which they had proposed earlier on with respect to the

courthouses, that he also discussed specifically their original concept, but

this time it was for use in the upcoming tenders to be called on the hospital

contracts?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot. As far as I

know, it had no connection with it; it had to do with that proposal, to the best

of my knowledge. I will check and see whether there is anything in the records

that indicates anything else was discussed. The only recollection I have at the

moment is that it dealt with library facilities for the court.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, surprisingly enough, things

developed very quickly on another front, on the hospital contract front, shortly

after that meeting on April 4, 1994. Shortly after the meeting, the government

cancelled, at a cost to taxpayers of $400,000, a contract that had been awarded

months before to Newlab Nycum to design and draw up specs for the new health

care centres. I want to ask the Premier: Was there discussion at all at this

meeting, and was that not the reason why the contract was cancelled shortly

after his meeting, discussion about the hospital contracts?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, there

is no connection whatsoever, no discussion at the same time at all. To the best

of my knowledge, nothing else other than Duckworth facilities for the courthouse

was discussed at that meeting.

The minister tells me now, or reminds me, that the original

discussions on leasing instead of buying or building directly by government

originated with government early in 1990.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand all of that. We heard that sworn to in the court

as well, with respect to the courthouse. Let me ask the Premier this: Doesn't he

find it a little bit strange that it was only about a little over two months

after this meeting that he held with these three principals that, in fact,

Cabinet passed a Minute-in-Council that approved the exact concept that they had

proposed back in 1990, the design/build/lease/financing concept for the health

care centres, and wasn't this exactly the concept that the principals of Trans

City had proposed to the government?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am answering because I remember the context in which it was

done. We examined build/lease and that concept back in late 1989 or early 1990,

and the reasons, I could go into and have gone into in the past, Mr. Speaker.

One of the examples we were using was the build/lease

proposal done just a year or so before that by the hon. gentleman when, I

believe, he was President of Treasury Board on, I believe, the Grand Falls

Courthouse. That was a build/lease proposal as well, so the build/lease

proposal, that process was the kind of thing that we were discussing. We didn't

do it in 1990 because evidence indicated that at that point in time, with the

spreads in the market, we could not do it at below our cost. In 1991, conditions

changed drastically; we were into a recession. Our spreads went from about 90

basis points above the long-term rate to about 125 to 130 basis points above,

and that was what made it possible then to re-examine the build/lease proposal,

because then we could get it done more cheaply than we could it ourselves.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: This has absolutely nothing to do with my

question to the Premier, but I thank the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

for the lesson, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask the Premier this question: Has the

Premier ever discussed this hospital contract matter with any or all of the

principals of Trans City?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I just listened to the

President of Treasury Board and he reminded me that the original idea for doing

these (inaudible) was copied from the Grand Falls courthouse, as I recall, built

when the hon. member was President of Treasury Board - a similar approach.

Wasn't that what was done at the time?

MR. BAKER: Except there was a (inaudible) -

MS. VERGE: That wasn't the question.

MR. BAKER: - 100 basis points above what we could have

done ourselves (inaudible).

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) question!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, the question. I just remind - because

I just heard the minister say it, and I had forgotten that at the time. Mr.

Speaker, as to whether that was ever - I can't say at this moment that I did or

I didn't. I just simply don't recall ever doing so. Maybe I did at some time or

other, but I don't recall ever doing so.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange that the

Premier would be so specifically mindful of what was discussed at this meeting

on April 4 1991 - he just told us a few minutes ago in the House what it was,

but now somehow he is not sure - is that he is saying? - if he ever discussed

this with any of those principals. Surely he must remember that. Besides, with

respect to the point he made at the beginning, the proposal for the Grand Falls

courthouse was not the same as the proposal put forth by Tom Hickman.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) money! (Inaudible) lost a lot of

money (inaudible)!

MR. SIMMS: Not the same proposal put forth by your

buddies, Tom Hickman and the rest of them!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Not the same at all!

AN HON. MEMBER: You cost the (inaudible) money.

MR. SIMMS: And you know it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: - I remember the meeting that took place

in my office. It was recalled to my memory by Mr. Wangersky showing me a copy of

a time sheet. I recall the discussion taking place and I recall the access

overhead from the courthouse to the library. I recall it looked at the future

needs for the court, too, so I do remember those discussions at the time.

Mr. Speaker, I remember discussions in Cabinet about this

proposal for the health care facilities, and so I did - I was involved in

discussions relating to the health care facilities, certainly in Cabinet. I

expect I would have been involved with discussions maybe in P and P, too, for

all I know. I don't recall specifically, but I expect that I was. I probably

also had discussions directly with the President of Treasury Board on it, but I

do not recall specifically discussing them with either Mr. Butler, Mr. Case or

Mr. Hickman, but I can't say to the House with certainty that I did not.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, my questions are for the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation. Mr. Speaker, there were four more tragic deaths on our

provincial highways this morning, which bring the total of highway fatalities to

nine in the past seven days. Anyone travelling the highway knows that highway

maintenance and safety have deteriorated over the past two or three years. I ask

the minister: Will he take action to ensure that the carnage we have already

seen does not continue on our highways this winter?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I realize what the hon. member is saying, that any death is a

tragedy on our highways. I, as the minister of this department, take it very

seriously when we hear about any tragedy, and especially nine in the last four

days. Last year, between October and December, we had fifteen tragic deaths on

our highways due to vehicle accidents. If I, for one second, thought it was

through the neglect of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation I

would resign immediately. I can tell you very clearly, there has been no

downgrading in the services. We have continued to operate our service, put new

vehicles, new ploughs, new trucks on the highways, and train our front line

workers.

We have to remember that the condition of the highways in the

wintertime and when it is snowing creates a hazard. You cannot drive in the

winter with the slush conditions at the same speed as you would drive in the

summertime. All too often, people get themselves caught in this type of

situation. That is the reality of driving in those conditions, you must adjust

your speed. The accident that happened this morning was in Terra Nova National

Park, it was not on the highway for which our department is responsible, but

that is not to take anything away from the service being provided by the

snow-clearing efforts of those people in Terra Nova National Park. What it tells

you is, that the highways are hazardous when it is snowing and slushy and you

must adjust your speed. I wish I did not have to stand and respond to a question

like that, an unfortunate case where we have lost nine people in the last four

days.

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

supplementary.

MR. CAREEN: Opposition members, and I am sure government

members have been flooded with complaints about snow and ice on the highways.

The open line shows are choked with similar complaints. When is this minister

going to stop blaming the victims? Minister, are you going to take the

responsibility you have for your department, and ensure our highways are safe?

When are you going to assume your proper responsibilities?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: I am not blaming victims; please do not

insinuate or make the accusations that I am blaming victims.

What I am saying is the highway conditions in the wintertime

do not allow people, all of us, to drive in the same condition as we do in the

summer time. The other thing we have to remember now is driving conditions -

adjustment of speed across the Province. Since the railway disappeared in our

Province we have a tremendous amount of trucks that would not be on the highway

as there are now; much more, heavy traffic as tractor trailers, it is something

we have to contend with especially during the winter months when the

snow-covered roads are there, and with the heavy traffic on our roads, that is

another reason why we should adjust our speeds.

I cannot say how and why it happened; that the individuals

who were in the accidents in the last three days was due to high speed, all I

can say is, that the roads were not in good condition. Friday morning, I came in

thirty minutes before the accident happened east of Roaches Line, it took me at

least thirty-five minutes longer to drive from Roaches Line to St. John's that

it ordinarily would have, so I adjusted my speed according to the roads. There

were very bad conditions, the plow had made three trips, from Avondale to that

section of road prior to the accident, but you cannot be in the one spot

twenty-four-hours a day. It is moving and the snow falls and causes slush - it

is a very unfortunate thing.

There has been no downgrading in service; there has been an

increase. We spent $22 million last year in snow clearing and salting on our

highways; we put 100 per cent salt on the highways, no mixture of sand and salt.

There is no mixture of salt on the Trans-Canada whatsoever, there is no sand in

it, and we are upgrading, new vehicles and new training programs; even the

drivers are trained how to operate the new vehicles in the conditions we are

operating under.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No.

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

for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We just heard about the railway and extra pressure. Well, why

don't you talk to your federal counterpart in Ottawa and support year-round

service, probably for these trucks to come into some port into the Avalon

Peninsula, particularly Argentia or St. John's or wherever if you want to get

some of the vehicles off the road, particularly transport trucks.

Mr. Speaker, highway workers are telling people they are

under direct instructions to make sure the piece of road the minister drives

over every day from Port de Grave, is cleared of snow and ice from 5:00 a.m.

every morning until he returns home in the evening.

Minister, shouldn't every Newfoundlander be entitled to the

same treatment as you are being treated yourself?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will say that I was in Opposition from '85 to

'89, and I put some loaded questions to the ministers on the other side, but I

never ever once, stood in my seat and accused a minister of saying what you are

saying.

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member to put that evidence

on the table, that this minister, directed anybody - I will challenge the hon.

member very clearly, Mr. Speaker, if he puts that evidence on the table with the

proof that I did that, he can have my resignation immediately, otherwise, his

resignation falls on the table. That is low and despicable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have some questions for the same minister and on the same

topic. I find the minister's answer to my colleague from Placentia quite

interesting.

On March 21, of 1994, this year, I asked that same minister

if it was the policy of the department to have a different level of service on

various sections of the highway, because it is obvious, in fact, that certain

sections seem to be cleared better than others sometimes, depending on whichever

depot is responsible. The minister's reply at that time, "Anyway there is a

Liberal district." Would the minister now like to reconsider the answer he just

gave my colleague?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: It is absolute nonsense for the member to get

on with that nonsense. Mr. Speaker, the Trans-Canada begins at St. John's and

goes right across to Port aux Basques. The hon. member knows full well that the

trucks start to work at 5:00 o'clock in the morning. They leave their individual

depots and they do the Trans-Canada with 100 per cent salt in the back of the

trucks and the ploughs on the front of the trucks. The individual drivers are

trained.

It is not a

schedule that I create. It is a

schedule created

by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. They operate until l:30

in the afternoon, depending on the weather, and if weather conditions dictate

they continue on to work after that. Then they are on call in for the rest of

that day until 5:00 o'clock the next morning. There is no discretion used as to

any district except for the fact of where the snow and ice conditions are, and

that is where the trucks go.

Everybody in this House and everybody in this Province knows

full-well the procedure as to the operations of the department.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, exactly one year ago today,

December 8, 1993 I put some questions to the same minister on this same topic.

In fact I told him at that time there were six vehicles off the road between

Butterpot Park and Mount Pearl that very morning. I asked the minister then why

snow and ice control services had been downgraded, and the minister made a joke

of it. He thought it was very funny at the time and he gave a similar answer as

he gave today. He said sometimes the trouble is the cause of the people driving

the vehicles.

Would the minister like to tell the families of those nine

people who have been murdered on our highway in the last week that that is

indeed the cause and that it was their fault those accidents took place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister.

MR. EFFORD: I always knew the member was sick but I never

realized he was that sick. I drove that particular stretch of the highway the

day that the hon. member is referring to and two vehicles passed me and one of

the pickups ended up on its cab in the ditch, so it was the condition of the

road and the fast driving that caused the accident on that stretch of road. That

individual passed me that day when I was going home to my own district.

The climate changes from time to time, sometime three or four

times in a day. You could get a mild spell, two degrees above, and in the next

hour or two it is two degrees below. You cannot drive the same speed under

wintertime conditions as you would in the summertime. As far as the hon. member

making reference to me causing the nine deaths, the murderer of the nine deaths

on the highway, you can make all the accusations you want but I feel just the

same as all hon. members of this House, I feel very sad and I feel burdened with

it, because I am the minister and I asked myself the question: was there

something else we could have done? I called the staff immediately and asked: are

you sure the trucks were out that morning? I even came over the road three

quarters of an hour earlier that morning and I had to adjust to the conditions.

Even then questioning, making sure we are doing everything humanly possible to

keep the roads clear.

I called officials into a meeting but you still ask yourself

the same questions. It is not something easy to live with. I know what those

family members are going through and I can bear some of the pain but not to the

extend that they can. For you to point a finger at me and the staff of the

department, that is your choice if you wish to do that, but I can assure you

with respect to everybody in this Province we are doing the best job we possibly

can. If we had five times as many vehicles on the highway you are still going to

have unsafe conditions which will cause accidents. That is the reality of

climate conditions that we experience in this Province.

The hon. member can make brownie points if he wishes but I

tell you we take the job very seriously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister takes it

serious now. It is too bad he did not take it seriously a year ago when I told

him that this situation was taking place on our highways. I told him then that I

would hold him responsible if somebody was killed. It is too bad that nine

people had to be killed before this minister woke up. Will he now do the

honourable thing and resign, or will the minister get a flick out of Cabinet

again before more people are killed on our highways this year?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) but I have to under such

despicable conditions and the words coming out of the hon. member's mouth but

nevertheless, last year between October and January there were fifteen people

who lost their lives. We know that there were slippery conditions when that

happened. You cannot control the temperatures in this Province and have the

roads in perfect condition, the same as in June, July and August, as we do in

the winter months. It is impossible, the road conditions are slippery and they

are going to be slippery. We implore everybody in this Province to use caution

when driving their vehicles. We implore you to understand that snow does fall

and ice conditions do take place on our highways and you cannot maintain a speed

of 70, 80, 90 kilometres under those conditions. The public relations department

is trying to get that message out over the highways. We cannot do any more than

we are doing. It is absolutely impossible.

The hon. member can keep making all kinds of remarks across

this House but we, on this side of the House and I am sure all members on that

side of the House, understands the seriousness of the condition except when he

wants to make some political points.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, who is also the Minister responsible for Human Rights. With

International Human Rights Day approaching, will the minister and the government

mark this International Human Rights Day by introducing in the House of Assembly

a simple but long overdue amendment to the Provincial Human Rights Legislation

to extend human rights protection to gays and lesbians by prohibiting

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to the hon. member that this government recognizes

human rights to its full extent. However, we are now discussing other areas of

the human rights legislation and I cannot say to the hon. member that the

question she asked will be looked after within six months or a year or whatever

the case may be. She sat as the Minister of Justice for a lot of years and was

responsible for Human Rights, Mr. Speaker, and I don't know that the hon. member

did a whole lot in that area but we recognize the human rights aspect. We will

be talking about it tomorrow and I say to the hon. member, over the year or

years, we will certainly do what we can and do what is right, as we always have.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions following up to the Premier in his capacity

as acting Minister of Justice. The governments own Human Rights Commission has

taken the position that because the Provincial Human Rights Legislation fails to

protect gays and lesbians, the code violates the constitution, the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms, and the commission has announced its intention of going to

court with a charter challenge. Why won't the Premier and the government respect

the legal advice of their own Human Rights Commission and spare the taxpayers

the cost of an unnecessary court case by introducing a simple bill in the House

of Assembly to rectify the Human Rights Legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the commission is performing

its statutory role as appointed under Statute. It is not a legal advisory body

for the government. The officers of the Department of Justice, as the member

well knows, are the legal advisors for whom the government takes its advice and

will continue to take the legal advice from that source, not from any other.

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

for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Premier, what

is the Department of Justice advising? Isn't the Department of Justice advising

that the Provincial Human Rights Code violates the constitution by failing to

protect gays and lesbians? Why won't the Premier spare the taxpayers the

unnecessary expense of the court challenge?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the advice that officials

give the government and Cabinet, as the hon. member knows, is confidential legal

advice and the Cabinet would intend to treat it that way. I could ask the hon.

member what advice they gave the hon. member when she was minister for so many

years and took no such steps.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health.

Since the death of Sylvester Lynch in January of 1994, the Witless Bay Fire

Department still cannot respond to medical emergencies under the 911 system and

since that time there have been numerous other emergencies and even deaths. When

will the department enable the qualified fire-fighters at Witless Bay to respond

to medical emergencies?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Frankly I hope

we will be able to soon allow them or enable them to respond. There are a number

of issues that still have to be addressed and sorted out. A tripartite committee

from the Departments of Justice, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and Health,

who are all parties to the 911 system, have met. There is a final report now

being drafted to provide some recommendations as to the issues that have to be

cleared up before these people, who are quite qualified in many instances in a

volunteer fire department system, can be brought officially on line as

responders.

One of the biggest issues that has to be addressed, of

course, is the issue of liability. There are three things really involved in

terms of talking about bringing volunteer fire department people into the 911

system. We have to ensure that there is a need, we have to ensure that there is

capability out there to respond, and we have to ensure that for purposes of

liability they are covered, and that is one of the things that has to be

addressed.

In terms of the Witless Bay situation we have taken some

corrective measures. At the moment we have tied in as a responder Hickey's

ambulance service from Holyrood. They can get there in fifteen or twenty

minutes, which seems to be about ten or fifteen minutes better on occasion than

the Health Sciences. We are also looking at the redeployment of the ambulance

capacity on the Southern Shore. We have a situation up there where we have three

ambulances within a five- or ten-mile radius, and we have a significant space

where we have no ambulances. We have significant under-utilization in the

capacity that we have there.

We are doing a number of things to ensure that people in the

area of Bay Bulls - Witless Bay get responded to properly, efficiently and in a

manner that will give them protection, assistance, and provide for health care

for them on a proper basis.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the

public galleries Mr. Peter Peter Penashue, the President of the Innu nation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the report

of the Public Tender Act Exceptions, October, 1994.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. WINDSOR: I would just like to point out to the

minister, Mr. Speaker, that under the act, these exceptions are supposed to be

tabled within fifteen days of the House opening. It is a little bit late.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, are we on Notices of Motion?

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion, yes.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And

Errors In The Statute Law". It is the one for which we have all been waiting -

eighty-seven commas, four full stops and three dashes in that one.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House. I

had some notes to provide information on a question that was asked yesterday, I

believe, about the leave of Mr. Emmerson, a man in Corner Brook, to go to his

wife who was dying, leave from prison. I apologize for having to give it as I

remember reading it, because I left it in my office.

My recollection is that the Director of Penitentiaries, Mr.

Marvin McNutt, will be issuing a release today which will provide the

information he has on it, and that release will indicate that a call or calls

had been received in the Penitentiary system and had not been followed up. One

or two people in the Penitentiary system had not been diligent in following up

the call on a timely basis. So, Mr. Emmerson, under the ordinary policy, would

have been given escorted leave in those circumstances. The policy clearly

permits that.

It appears as though there was a failure in the system. Mr.

McNutt has indicated that the matter is being further investigated and steps

will be taken to ensure that it does not occur again, but it was a fault that

occurred within the system.

Petitions

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition from the people of

Southern Harbour who ask the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

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

Employment and Labour Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to

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

your petitioners will ever pray.'

Mr. Speaker, since this House opened, this session, every day

we have been up on petitions - petitions from people who need emergency work.

Only twice have we heard any member opposite get up to support such motions.

Don't tell me that members opposite don't get calls from their constituents.

Their constituents are not living in a Utopia. We all share the same Province,

we all share the same needs, and people do not have work.

The Placentia area itself, I have told you time and time

again, is hovering around 70 per cent unemployment. It is not much better in

Long Harbour, Mount Arlington Heights, Fair Haven, Little Harbour, or this

community with their petition today, Southern Harbour, a prosperous little

community, now on the rack.

Some people have managed some fishing efforts to qualify them

for unemployment, others are on TAGS, and some of the TAGS people are going to

be dropped just after Christmas. We have other people unemployed, construction

workers, people who work at other seasonal trades. They are right in the shadow

of Hibernia, and when Hibernia was starting they were saying that these people

in a certain 60-mile radius would be given preference. They were not. There are

some fifteen people from Southern Harbour working at Hibernia - far, far shy of

what it should be.

I said to you before that work is good for your head - not

only your pocket book, it is good for your soul and good for your mind, and what

are people to do? What are women to do when all the men are home within their

domain? How do they cope with the frustrations that go with unemployment? I know

people who are getting money from TAGS who are not used to being home those

hours of the day. They are used to being out working. They go for an early

morning walk at 6:00, at 6:30, because they were never seen before out late in

the day.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't see them at 6:00 a.m.

MR. CAREEN: Well, if you ever saw anybody at 6:00 a.m.

probably it was into someone's oil tank. Anyway -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Oh yes. I sometimes lie down at 6:00 a.m.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes. Anyway, it is a very serious matter. I

know the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations - I've talked to him on the

side about it. I say to the minister again: with both elbows, elbow your way

into your Cabinet to get their support. I mean, the Province has to take the

initiative. What Ottawa does afterwards is gravy. We can't always be waiting on

Ottawa. We have a responsibility here, a prime responsibility to our own people.

We shouldn't always let Ottawa come to us with its colonial attitude. Let us

help our own.

Sinn Fein itself borders on - there is a dispute, an argument

over Sinn Fein and its workings. But the words "sinn fein," do you know what

they mean? It means: `we, ourselves' - `we, ourselves' or `our's alone'. Either

one, take it or leave it. It is literally translated. Sometimes words translated

lose their effect. We, ourselves, for starters, should start looking after our

own, the people of this Province. It is our responsibility. But the nod has to

come from the people across the way. I urge the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations to get in with his Cabinet friends again and give a nod to the

people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As usual, I will get up to support the petitions that have

been presented over the last - I think this is the third week as of today that

we started with these petitions. Sometimes we get criticized for the different

petitions that we present, but we have to reiterate the point that it is the one

way that people in the Province can get a direct line into the House of

Assembly. So, Mr. Speaker, we feel it is very important that we take this

opportunity to present the petitions. Also, as my colleague mentioned earlier in

his remarks, it doesn't hurt at any time for anybody on either side of this

House, including the ministers, including the back-benchers, this is your

opportunity, at any time when a petition is presented, to stand in your place

and turn to your Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and say: We support

you also, we, too, are getting the calls and we understand the situation.

We are not asking for the political Brownie points that the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation related to the other day. It is

certainly not - because I know, I've talked to the members over there. You get

the same calls, you get the same situations come up in your districts. I think

it was last Wednesday, I can't recall the day exactly, but the Member for

Harbour Grace, a lady from his district called me, and she told me I could give

her name to the media. I won't use her name here in the House of Assembly but

she did say I could her give name to the media, and I think the media did talk

to her. Here is a real situation, just an example.

She is a lady whose husband is disabled. She has ten

insurable weeks and needs two more. She had four children coming home for lunch,

and she said to me point-blank, she didn't know if she had anything to feed them

for lunch.

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation said that we

sometimes exaggerate the stories. Well, Mr. Speaker, if anybody in this House

doubts that story you can ask me and I will give you the lady's phone number,

you can call her and she will tell you the same story.

Mr. Speaker, they are not exaggerated stories. I tell you

here today, that story hit me as hard as it would hit any hon. member in this

House. We know it is true and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

knows it is true. I can tell you more stories from my district, and I'm willing

to bet that any member in this House can stand up and tell you stories they have

heard that are similar. It is not an exaggeration, it is not a fabrication.

The point is, we will keep doing this every day, as the

minister knows. And we have commended him for his efforts; I know he is going

back and forth to Ottawa and everywhere else, if he has to go to Halifax or

whatever he has to do. Mr. Speaker, all I am saying to the minister and to the

Premier - I am glad the Premier is still here in the House today - is that, I'm

sorry but that's not good enough. As late as 10:30 this morning, I had another

call from a gentleman who went to Hopebrook, had ten weeks, his wife is on TAGS,

she finishes December 31 - I can't remember the number of children, either two

or three children in the family - she is off TAGS in December, he has ten weeks.

I know him personally, that's why he didn't want me to use

his name. He was embarrassed to be calling me about it. But the bottom line, Mr.

Speaker, is, that gentleman, as of tomorrow, will be going to the welfare office

in Baie Verte to ask for social assistance for the first time; and if somebody

wants that gentleman's number, I will give him that number. Mr. Speaker, they

are not exaggerated stories, they are real, true stories, and I would like to

see, as we continue with petitions in the next few days, some ministers, the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, the Premier, any time we present a

petition, just stand up and say this is not political Brownie points, we are

crossing party lines when we are talking about real people with an urgent,

urgent problem in this Province.

This is an urgent problem, Mr. Speaker, that should be

addressed and supported by every single member, and the members on the opposite

side who say they don't have opportunities, many times, read the House Orders;

you can stand on any petition and speak to it, so for heavens sake, cross your

political lines, look at your minister, look at your Premier and tell them: Yes,

we do get the same stories, the real stories that should hit the heart, because

there are people in this Province, going to welfare for the very first time, and

it is really sickening, to me, Mr. Speaker, day after day.

Minister, I say to you, when you look at me - and I say the

same thing to my callers - I am hearing it is going to be tomorrow; we are

hoping it is going to be by Friday, we hope it will be Monday. Mr. Speaker, I

don't know how many more times I will tell - as we all know, we get the same

call sometimes from certain people; how many more times this week am I going to

tell that same lady and that same gentleman that they have no where to go, that

the government is not acting. They are not an organized group like the Hydro

people or others. They cannot congregate here on the steps; they are in every

nook and cranny in Newfoundland, one person at a time, too embarrassed to speak

up in the media and say he has to go to welfare.

They are real stories, Mr. Speaker. So I say to the minister:

Remember, this is a silent cry from every part of this Province, and I know it,

because I have had the calls from every part of this Province; from Pouch Cove

to Harbour Grace; those places are not my district, people saying that they need

it and if the minister has been listening to Open Line , those are the

people who speak very quietly but they mean a lot, Mr. Speaker. They may speak

quietly but they mean a lot. So I challenge the members on the opposite side and

the minister, any minister, any back-bencher, the next time we present a

petition, stand; we don't have to ridicule the minister and we are not doing

that.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, just take your opportunity, it is a

great opportunity to stand up and support your minister and the Premier and

hopefully have something done on this very soon.

Thank you.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition echoing the comments of

my colleagues. The petition reads:

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

Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, ask for the House of Assembly to

accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned, do hereby request the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to

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

your petitioners will ever pray.'

This petition, Mr. Speaker, is among many, many petitions

that have come to my office over the past several weeks, asking me to present

them in the House of Assembly on the people's behalf. I am pleased to have the

opportunity to do so, as several of my colleagues and, indeed, members opposite

have touched on, when they spoke about the desperate need of some type of

employment generation program in our Province right now.

I have people calling my office, Mr. Speaker, on a daily

basis telling about the financial hardship they are in; I hear stories about

children in this Province - it is hard to believe, but I have heard stories

about children in this Province who are going to school hungry and without

proper clothing. We live in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and it is

hard to believe this is happening. I have received calls about families being on

the brink of being evicted from their houses because of their financial

difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, during the good years in our fishery, many

people in our Province had what I like to call indirect jobs from the fishing

industry. These are the people who worked in the stores, as baby sitters, worked

at the local restaurant or whatever the case may be, and these people now,

because of the shutdown in the fishery, find themselves with their backs to the

wall. They could not be part of the NCARP package or the TAGS program because

they were not directly involved in the fishery, Mr. Speaker. They were people

who were left out in the cold, I would say.

I had a gentleman call me last week from a community in my

district who told me that for the first time in his forty-eight years on this

earth he had to turn to social assistance. He sat down outside the social

services office in my district for two hours trying to decide whether or not he

was going to go in, but he had no choice but to go in because he had three small

children under the age of ten that he had to feed and keep a roof over their

heads. Mr. Speaker, there is something to say about the dignity of

Newfoundlanders, and over the past couple of years people have been losing their

dignity because of the financial hardship they find themselves in.

Over the past several weeks we have presented petitions on

behalf of our constituents. The minister has been in Ottawa and in Halifax and

hopefully within the next few days, as every Newfoundland and Labradorian hopes,

the minister will stand up in this House and announce something in relation to

some type of job development program. I am sure that the minister would like to

do that today but negotiations are still ongoing. Christmas is fast approaching

and people are in desperate need of some type of assistance.

While I realize that the efforts of the minister are genuine

I hope that his federal counterpart and indeed his colleagues within his own

Cabinet understand the situation he finds himself in, and the situation I am

sure he is hearing across this Province. I am sure the minister is receiving

telephone calls the same as all members on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, these type of programs over the years have

always had a negative light because of the misuse and abuse of them in some

small communities. I said before, and I say again, that if you drive around my

district, and I am sure every district in this Province, you will find

worthwhile projects that came from those programs. It wasn't the programs

themselves, Mr. Speaker, but the delivery of the programs that caused the

problems.

I hope that whatever solution comes with respect to the

emergency situation in our Province now, that there is some rationalization

toward how those programs are delivered in our communities to make sure that we

get the best bang for the buck. Over the years there have been many instances in

our communities where people have found themselves in dire straits, but the

government, whether this government, the previous government, or the federal

government, always found the money to respond to what can only be called an

emergency situation.

It is an emergency out in our district now and some type of

emergency generation program should come forth. The government always responded

in the past and I hope that the government will respond now in what is indeed an

emergency, Mr. Speaker. I hope that over the next few days discussions will come

to an end and something will be announced in this House of Assembly so that

people in our Province can not only put food on the table but indeed keep a roof

above their heads.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to present this petition today. I have

several others that I hope I do not have to present. I hope when the time comes

the minister will stand in his place and announce something pretty soon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I rise and support the petition

that was presented by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. I believe that

everybody on this side of the House supports the initiative that is being

undertaken by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations in the Province.

Let me say to him that all the details, and all of us on this

side are aware of all the points the hon. gentleman has made in presenting his

petition, that all hon. gentlemen on the other side have made in presenting

their petitions. Let me also say to him that there have been representation made

to the Minister of Labour in this Province by all of us on this side who

represent the same kind of districts and who have the same kind of problems that

he has. We have all pointed out to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations that there are problems associated with the downturn in the fishery

and with the people who are coming off TAGS.

I suppose the indirect employment that resulted from the

fishing industry in this Province is no longer there, but let me also say to him

that my supporting this petition today in no way shows a lack of confidence in

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. The minister has been working

diligently with his federal counterparts.

I want to take this opportunity to assure the people that I

represent, the people in Fogo, that I believe and I hope that the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations will have something to tell us before Christmas.

As he has said to me so often: I would love and I want to be able to give the

proper gift to the people of your district - I am using the term Beaton - I want

to be able to do that for your district and for other districts in the Province

as well. So, Mr. Speaker, while I support the petition by the hon. gentleman I

have to say to him - and while it is his right to present the petition - that I

don't believe for a minute that he needs to remind the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations of his job.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I agree, and he has to do that job, Mr.

Speaker, he has to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I am not ridiculing the minister and I

understand the hon. gentleman is not. I am just saying to the hon. gentleman, if

you keep your cool over there, take a mouthful of water and cool down, that I

believe that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations will answer our

problems within the next little while.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I say to him that I support his petition, I

support the efforts of anybody who supports the efforts of the Minister of

Employment and Labour to get jobs for people in this Province. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Where the problem lies with this emergency response program

is that this government has lost the ability to govern. They want to run this

Province out of Ottawa. This Province has every right, and they did it for the

past several years, to bring in an emergency employment program to meet the

needs of people in this Province. Now the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations stood up in this House and said: I am not going to take any approach

that is going to impact upon and/or negatively affect the federal governments

negotiation with this Province in addressing the whole social assistance

program. Now I say to the minister, there are 12,000 - I will give you the page

if you want to read it - less people in the workforce in this Province today.

There are 19,000 more unemployed than there was four years ago and every

government for the past several years saw fit to bring in an emergency

employment program to put food really, on the table for people who were in dire

straits. A lot of this money, I will tell hon. members, was not a waste of

money.

In my district, the Southern Shore Development Association

has improved - lighthouses have been taken from a dilapidated state into very

modern and acceptable buildings; they have assisted in removing deadwood in

forestry projects from an area; they have beautified and enhanced numerous

things in the area that are conducive to the tourism industry in our area. Apart

from that, they have given people a little income, some dignity and some food

for people to put on the table because we have reached astronomical levels here

in unemployment in this Province. I say to the minister, we do not need Lloyd

Axworthy in Ottawa to tell us if we can go with an employment response program

here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister may be well intended but I

think the government has lost the ability to take responsibility for their own

affairs in this Province and they are afraid to do something with Ottawa. When

we stop running this Province out of Ottawa - we should be fighting with the

people in Ottawa to defend and to encourage them. If you want to take on Ottawa,

ask them to put in funding to reduce regional disparities in this country. We

have catered to Quebec and Ontario - they all get their per-capita share, we are

getting a small pittance allowance under per-capita. We need more than a

per-capita allowance to stimulate economic growth in this Province because we

have greater problems. We have higher unemployment in this Province.

Here is a good example, I say to the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology, the development association in this Province has a total

budget of only over $3 million and they run on $2.117 million, they employ

coordinators in every single office for some $30,000. In my district they run an

office, they hire a staff to run an office and they administer up to fifty

students each year who look after projects and enhance the lighthouses and other

tourist facilities. You get a better return for the dollar because almost 100

per cent of the effort is volunteer effort and here we are going to see large

regional areas now that are going to ignore smaller geographical areas for the

sake of some $30,000 dollars. We are structuring seventeen economic zones. We

have been given notice the funding is going to end. It is extended -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Here is what I am against, I will tell you

now - the minister would like to know. You cannot divide this Province

geographically into seventeen zones unless you are going to subdivide certain

zones that have a unique history and geography and that have been doing a

tremendous job of serving people in these areas with adequate funding to

operate. I am not opposed to structure if the funding is not going to be pulled

out of those other specific areas, because for some $30,000, I tell the

minister, you are not going to get a better return on the dollar than I have

seen spent in my district by the development association than anywhere else in

this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) status quo.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not saying the status quo. I

didn't say that. The minister is making -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I know what I want, and what you are going

to give is not what the people want. I want to see some $30,000 continued,

whether it is through the seventeen economic zones, to a geographical area that

has been providing an excellent return in service, employment and enhancement of

facilities from a tourism aspect. That is what I want to see maintained, and you

will not get the return if it is gobbled up into a large infrastructure, and it

won't be directed because you will lose the volunteer labour that is so vital to

maintaining those specific areas.

Now, I say to the minister, go back to the Cabinet again to

get the Cabinet to make a decision on the affairs of this Province, not to ask

Lloyd Axworthy to make a decision on whether this Province should bring in an

emergency employment program. I think they have abdicated their responsibility.

This government has abdicated its responsibility to the people of this Province,

and they should do something about it now and get off their butts and not wait

for Ottawa to do something.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we have had the two petitions.

I understood from the Opposition that they were only going to have two, but I

will make it certain so the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes doesn't need to

worry. I move that the Orders of the Day now be read.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

Before we call the order which will allow the Leader of the

Opposition to speak, as was arranged earlier - the gentleman from St. Mary's -

The Capes didn't seem to be aware of that - would you be good enough to call

Motion 3 and we will move that bill forward one stage, please?

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Works,

Services And Transportation Act (No. 3)," carried. (Bill No. 62)

On motion, Bill No. 62 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to

call the adjourned debate on Order 23, which is the EDGE Bill, that is Bill No.

51. My friend, the Leader of the Opposition, adjourned the debate and has the

floor when Your Honour calls it.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 51, Order 23, the hon. the Leader

of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the opportunity, finally, to address this

legislation in the House of Assembly. Members opposite, as well as members of my

own party here, would know that immediately after the Premier released the White

Paper back in June, I think it was, to the Board of Trade in St. John's, I held

a press conference on behalf of our party to offer our observations with respect

to what was contained in the White Paper and the draft bill, and we consistently

pointed out, not only at that press conference that was held immediately after,

but at subsequent opportunities where I spoke at a number of functions around

the Province, as recently as just a couple of weeks before the House opened, to

the St. John's Board of Trade, the Mount Pearl Chamber of Commerce, the Corner

Brook Chamber of Commerce, the Grand Falls - Windsor Rotary. I held a press

conference in Gander and I held a press conference in Stephenville.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Because there was no time to arrange it. There

was no organization meeting at the time that I had designated the two days. I

could have called you and asked you.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is

that for a period of several months since the release of the White Paper we

consistently pointed out what we humbly felt were considerable flaws in the

draft legislation and in the White Paper. I have to say this. Quite often - and

members opposite who served in the Opposition in days gone by would recognize

this old myth, that the Opposition does nothing only criticize. It never offers

alternatives or suggestions for improvement or anything of that nature. Members

who served in an Opposition in previous political lives would be aware as we are

now that that truly is a myth. If ever there was an example of that being a myth

it is with respect to the role we played, the Official Opposition, as well as

others around the Province, in ensuring that the flaws were correctly pointed

out to the government and were eventually corrected.

It has often been said, and I've said it myself, that the

role of the Opposition is to identify those flaws in any government policy or in

any government legislation or whatever, bring them forward, bring them to the

public attention, in the hope that the government will listen and eventually

take some of them under consideration. That means in the end, if they do, and if

we make some sense, that you have better legislation and better policy. That is

what the process is all about. This is a good example I think of where that

worked. Of course, there are lots of other examples where we have supported

government legislation in the House. We've often supported government

legislation in the House that never gets mentioned or anything else. We are

quite proud, frankly, of the role that we have played in the development of this

piece of legislation.

Before I touch on the bill itself, there were a couple of

alternatives or other suggestions that we had mentioned, as well as pointing out

the flaws and changes that we felt needed to be required in the bill itself. We

talked about other alternatives to help the local business community in this

Province create jobs. What we suggested and talked about were tax incentives of

some sort or another, tax relief of some sort or another, that would be offered

to a business in this Province for the creation of any new job. Not just ten

jobs, as some magic number. Why ten? Why not five? Why fifteen? Why not one?, we

say. What we proposed was that any established business that created new jobs,

no matter what the numbers were, would have part of their corporate income tax

or their RST rebated to them. There would be a formula obviously based on and

related to the size of the business and the number of jobs created. This was

another alternative that I know was not perhaps meant for this piece of

legislation, but it was an opportunity for us to bring it forward as an

alternative. I still think it is something that could be considered, perhaps in

another piece of legislation or whatever.

The other area which we touched on quite frequently as we

spoke on this piece of legislation had to do with the payroll tax. Everywhere I

went around the Province I mentioned the payroll tax and how strongly we had

felt about it for quite some time - and have said so on many occasions publicly

- that we really think that this is a tax on jobs. It is a deterrent to creating

jobs. Members over there know what I'm talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) workers' comp.

MR. SIMMS: No. The difference with workers' comp, Mr.

Speaker, is that it was there a long time. The payroll tax is something that you

brought in only four years ago at a time when it was the last thing businesses

needed.

Mr. Speaker, I finally got some information from the Minister

of Finance and Treasury Board's department. I asked years ago - it seems like

years ago; certainly months and months ago, and in another session - I wanted to

know the breakdown of the payroll tax in terms of how many businesses are under

that $200,000 threshold, how many are under $300,000, how many are under

$400,000, and how much are they paying.

MR. BAKER: I (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The minister probably sat on it for months.

Here is some interesting information that I want to put on the record in

response, finally, to my request for this information.

Mr. Speaker, last year in 1994 - I guess that is up to the

present time, or whatever the time I asked, I'm not quite sure now. In any

event, in 1994 there were 1,245 businesses paying the payroll tax with payrolls

of less than $300,000, and they paid to the government coffers $1.9 million.

That was the revenue from the payroll tax. Now, to my way of thinking, that is a

measly, paltry, scrawny amount of revenue to grab from 1,245 small businesses in

this Province. It is hardly worth it. Then, I looked at 1994 also, the numbers

for those between $300,000 and $500,000, and found there were 347 businesses in

that grouping, and the government collected from them only $1.8 million. So, if

you eliminated the payroll tax for those under $500,000, you are giving up less

than $4 million in revenue, but just think of the positive that would come out

of it.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) threshold you expect everybody

else to go to the larger payroll?

MR. SIMMS: I'm using the numbers now that his department

has sent me.

MR. BAKER: Yes, they are correct.

MR. SIMMS: They are correct, exactly. You've collected

less than $4 million from businesses with less than a $500,000 payroll.

MR. BAKER: That's true.

MR. SIMMS: That's true. Of course - everything I say is

true.

MR. BAKER: If you take the half-a-million dollar

threshold -

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. BAKER: - that would then apply to all the bigger ones

as well. Because (inaudible) the payroll tax (inaudible) all the bigger ones.

MR. SIMMS: I'm sorry? What is the minister trying to say

again? Go ahead. Would he like to stand and please explain this to us?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to point

out to the hon. gentleman that what he is saying is correct.

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. BAKER: But if you then take the $500,000 threshold as

he is suggesting and say there will be no payroll tax on payroll up to $500,000

then the larger -

MR. SIMMS: Under $500,000 -

MR. BAKER: Under $500,000, okay -

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. BAKER: - the larger companies would then have the

exemption - the payroll exemption would be set at the $500,000 level and you

would also lose a lot of money from the larger companies. That is the way it

works. You have the payroll thresholds and you set those thresholds, it is as

simple as that. So he is correct in saying that from these small businesses that

is the amount we would lose, we would lose $4 million or $5 million or whatever

it happens to be - somewhere around there - but then, if we used the $500,000

threshold for everybody else, we would lose a larger amount from everybody else.

MR. SIMMS: No, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Now I understand where the minister is coming

from. That is not quite accurate because he doesn't have to do that. He can

change the percentage if he wishes.

MR. BAKER: Okay, how do you do it?

MR. SIMMS: You can change the percentage. You've already

done that before. You had no hesitation in bringing in a tax originally that was

at 1.5 per cent with an exemption of $125,000 or less. Then in 1991 it remained

at 1.5 per cent but you increased the exemption to $300,000 or less. Then in

1992 you lowered the exemption but you increased the rate to 2 per cent. So, I

mean, there are all kinds of ways you can do it - and he knows what I'm talking

about. There are a lot of ways to do it.

My whole point, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell the minister, not

only from the speaking engagements I undertook, just a couple of weeks before

the House opened, on this particular bill, but everywhere else I've gone, most

places, talking with business people for the last two years, they hate it. It is

dreaded. I have had business people come to me and tell me over the course of

the last couple of years since this tax came in - and I'm sure the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology has heard this - businesses have told me they

have deliberately laid people off in order to get down below the threshold.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not done.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, yes, they have. They've told me, I say to

the minister. He might not want to believe this is true. I can tell him this is

a fact: business people have told me as well that they would have liked to have

hired somebody but if they had done so, it would have put them over the

threshold, whatever the threshold was over the last four years. You hear it all

the time. So, for a measly, paltry, scrawny - paltry, scrawny, measly $4 million

or less, you could make 1,700, 1,800, 1,500, almost 1,600 small businesses in

this Province, pretty happy, pretty positive, and the outlook for them from a

perspective of job creation might even be more positive -

MR. BAKER: Let's bring back the school tax.

MR. SIMMS: No, that has nothing to do with the school

tax. Listen, you have made more changes in taxation than any other government in

previous history in your short, six-year tenure.

MR. BAKER: Bring back the school tax.

MR. SIMMS: No, the minister can try to get us to say that

but that is not true. In any event, if he doesn't want to listen to what I am

saying, that's fine, I'm only telling him what business people have told me, for

the last several years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, well, we won't get into that.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, having made those few preliminary

comments on some other issues that I would have liked to have seen addressed by

the government during this process and in the midst of this White Paper, let me

talk about the bill, itself, Bill 51. And I want to say to the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology, that, from the beginning of this process, if he

had heard any of the reports on any of the statements that I made or whatever on

this matter over the last four months, he would know that from the beginning,

the Opposition supported the principle of this bill, this legislation, the

principle of providing some tax relief, and any other incentives to try to

encourage new businesses to create new jobs in the Province, Mr. Speaker. But we

did always claim, at the same time while we agreed in principle, that the draft

legislation, the White Paper, contained many, many flaws and that, in fact, it

was too restrictive, so restrictive that many legitimate businesses and

potential investors would not invest or even qualify for the incentives. And we

are not the only ones who said it but I am speaking today for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Well, I will get on and tell him a little

more of what we said - I want to get it on the record of course. Mr. Speaker, we

have not been the only ones to say it, but today I speak on behalf of the

Opposition, so I just want to make those points, and I will say categorically up

front now, that this revised bill, Bill 51, either fully or substantially, at

least, addresses most of the concerns that we had addressed. But we said, first

of all, that the very small number of business owners and operators and

investors would be able to meet that required minimum investment level of a

million bucks, that there wouldn't be too many who could address the million

dollars in sales, and the ten permanent, full-time jobs became an issue unto its

own, for a number of reasons, not to mention the fact that full-time was in the

legislation.

Now, I am pleased to see the bill lowers the minimums to the

$300,000 level, the half-million dollar investment and ten permanent jobs as

opposed to full-time. Let me just make one passing point to the minister in

having a quick look as this bill,

section 14 (2) of Bill 51 still uses the

terminology, permanent, full-time job. I think the minister's intent was to

delete the wording `full-time'?

MR. BAKER: What

section is that?

MR. SIMMS:

Section 14 (2). Has he a copy of the bill in

front of him? In any event, he can just make a note of it and have a look at it

afterwards.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Section 14 (2) is (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: What about

section 13 (2), maybe I am looking

at - I'm sorry, it is

section 13 (2). It was

section 14 (2) in the old draft

bill, I say to the minister, it is now 13 (2). It is a minor amendment that I am

sure he would want to move during the Committee stage on that clause.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, and your intention is to eliminate that

`full-time' wording. So, Mr. Speaker, I think the changes now, the lowering of

the minimums that we talked about, will improve prospects, I hope, and also it

will probably give the opportunity to local investors and local businesses,

maybe, to be able to benefit more from this program than they would have under

the higher numbers.

In particular, I commend the minister for dropping that

definition, I guess, of full-time jobs because that, in fact, faces up to the

reality that many of the opportunities for new investments and for jobs in this

Province are obviously based on seasonal activities such as fishing and tourism

and forestry, and all these other ones that we have often heard about, that

these same seasonal industries are the backbone of our economy, and it is the

rural economy of Newfoundland and Labrador that is urgently in need of new

investment and new job creation. So dropping this requirement definition of

full-time, ensures that this incentive program can be used to attract investment

and jobs, particularly to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. So we commend the

government for that, and the minister, for taking that initiative.

In addition to that, the definition of eligible corporations

- we had some concerns about that, and I see now that it has been broadened to

include co-operatives. I think that, too, will benefit rural areas of

Newfoundland and Labrador by encouraging the formation of co-operatives as a way

for communities to invest in their own future, so we are very pleased with that

as well.

Secondly, we severely criticized the stipulation in the first

draft bill that only companies that would not invest in the Province except for

the special incentives could qualify for EDGE corporations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) awkwardly worded.

MR. SIMMS: Very awkwardly worded, and could have been

interpreted another way. We severely criticized that, but now we see that is

modified to limit use of the incentives to attract investment that would

otherwise go somewhere else, or might come to the Province but at a later time.

I think that is a good change, but I want to say to the minister, I have to say

to the minister, that though this revised wording is better than the original in

the old draft, I still don't see the need for any kind of restriction, in fact,

along this line. I still don't understand that. Perhaps when he speaks in the

debate he will be able to elaborate, rather than interrupt my train of thought

now. I would be interested in hearing, because I think it would be far better to

make the incentives available to any business bringing new investment capital

and jobs to the Province. That is my own view.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I am really not sure why there should be any

restrictions at all. There is nothing wrong with attracting businesses that

might go elsewhere, I say to the minister.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but you are only talking about and

focusing on one area. I am not talking about the Hibernia situation. I am

talking about broader areas, and I just don't think there should be any

restriction in that regard. In any event, it seems that it would make far more

sense, at least, to encourage businesses that want to be here in the first

place, as opposed to having this kind of restriction on them.

In any event, thirdly, we also pointed out that under the

rules of the first draft bill, big companies could make a relatively small

investment in order to become an EDGE corporation, or to get EDGE status, but

yet still get a ten-year holiday on all of its taxes. That is the way the bill

was worded and the way it was interpreted, and that would not just be on the

additional taxes they would generate as a result of all of the business

expansion. So the revised bill, I am happy to say, closes that particular

loophole, a very important loophole from my perspective. Maybe it was only a

drafting error. I shudder to make any criticisms of the people who do the

drafting of legislation. They can only do what they are told, and we have to

assume that is what they were told to do. In any event, it is not much point to

belabour it. It has been changed, and that is very, very important and certainly

addresses one of the concerns that we had raised as well.

Fourth, we strongly pointed out that the first draft bill

stipulated that an EDGE corporation could not be directly competitive with or

have an adverse impact on the viability of other businesses. That was what was

in the original bill.

Now we generally agreed with the need to protect existing

businesses from unfair competition, from EDGE corporations, who would be

operating with the advantage of the ten year tax break but the restriction in

the first bill, in our view, virtually denied those EDGE benefits to investors

and business activities that had any detrimental affect on any established

business in the Province. So again, the revised wording in the new Bill 51 is an

improvement because now these EDGE benefits will not be given if it results in a

company gaining a direct competitive advantage. To me that wording provides

adequate protection, I would think, for established companies in the Province

without placing unreasonable restrictions on the kinds of business activities

that could still qualify for the EDGE benefits.

Fifthly, Mr. Speaker, we were concerned about the process for

screening and approving EDGE corporation applications. We were concerned about

that, as were others I know. In the first bill the applicants would have been

evaluated by a committee of Cabinet ministers who would make recommendations to

Cabinet. We argued that the evaluation should be done by people who had some

expertise in the field, who knew how to read a financial statement and all the

rest of those kinds of things, people who basically were professionally

qualified to assess applications on their merits without being subject to

political, partisan influence.

Mr. Speaker, the recommendations we thought then of those

experts should go to the Cabinet and not to a committee of the Cabinet or

anything else. Now the revised bill accepts that proposal, those suggestions

that we were making. So again, we have to say we are pleased with that

particular change and I think it is a big improvement. A public and private

board made up of people from all fields, still appointed by the Cabinet of

course, not much other opportunity -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, that is true. You have to be appointed by

the Executive Council, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

Mr. Speaker, sixthly, the first bill proposed special labour

legislation for EDGE corporations and we said, quite adamantly, that creating

two sets of labour laws would be discriminatory, not just for workers or unions,

as some people accuse us of defending the unions, but it would be discriminatory

for businesses and companies. So it was discriminatory on all fronts and it

could potentially lead to labour unrest, there is no question about that. We

argued that the legislation also, as it was then drafted, was based on a

wrongful assumption. I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations,

the original draft was based on a wrongful assumption that in this Province

unions and management could not agree on items and matters that were in their

own best interest. There are lots of examples of it occurring, recently Kruger

in Corner Brook, Abitibi Price in Grand Falls, even the Marystown Shipyard

eventually agreed with the Premier when he went down and met with them and asked

them for concessions. So I think that is a wrongful assumption in this Province.

As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say that it is probably based on a

prejudice. I say to the minister, it was probably based as well on a prejudice

and that is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.

So this revised bill drops all of the provisions that were

contained in the draft legislation, Mr. Speaker, dealing with labour relations

and now rightly so, EDGE corporations will have to live with the same labour

laws as all other companies and businesses in this Province do, and so they

should. So we are pleased that the government has made that change. Now I have

to make this comment, just in passing, we are pleased that they made that change

with respect to the labour issue contained in the bill. EDGE corporations will

be treated like everybody else, and so they should be in my view, but I will say

at this point in time, particularly to the labour movement in this Province,

that they should not applaud too quickly, they should not jump up and down

because let's not forget the government is also on another course and on another

path reviewing labour legislation.

The minister I think tabled some kind of a document - several

weeks ago - a White Paper and I would not be surprised if some of the things

contained in this original draft could end up in there, we don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The minister can't say no, it's the White

Paper. He doesn't know what kinds of comments or suggestions he will get. He may

be surprised, but it wouldn't be the first time the minister was surprised, I

will say to the minister.

Anyway, I just want to put it on the record. I would suggest

to the labour movement they had better keep their eyes open and not jump up and

down too quickly because this is necessarily removed from this bill that it may

never see the light of day again. I'm not so sure of some of that.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few other changes in Bill 51 which

really clarify the intent and the meaning of some poorly worded clauses in the

first bill. I wouldn't go so far as to call it poor drafting, I suppose, just

occasional obvious drafting errors that we often see. Even the drafters would

see that, I suppose, and might even admit to it and confess to it from time to

time. In any event, virtually all of those changes now tidy up those problems

that were contained in the first draft.

Those were the major criticisms and points that we made in

response to the White Paper. Again I believe I can speak on behalf of my

colleagues on this side of the House when I say that we feel very proud of the

fact that this is a great example where an Opposition has been effective and has

effectively brought to the attention of the government some major flaws

contained in the original draft legislation. The government to its credit

listened to those criticisms and those complaints, and again to its credit acted

upon them and made the changes that were necessary.

If only they would do it on so many other things that come to

the forefront from time to time, like the Hydro legislation. It is too bad that

you've got to depend on unrest within the caucus to bring about changes in some

other policies, but at least they get changed, and that is what is most

important. All of the changes virtually in this new bill incorporate most of the

criticisms, if not all, substantial criticisms that we had made.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I thank the minister. Yes, we believe they

were constructive criticisms. We believe all the criticisms we make on

government policy and legislation are constructive. The government may not agree

and may not listen and may belittle criticisms that we make on many other bills,

but on this one it is pretty obvious they did listen to us and others and made

the changes.

Mr. Speaker, in short, what happened here is that we now have

a piece of legislation that will not necessarily create miracles in the future

from an economic perspective, but at least the new legislation will hopefully

make it an important instrument for economic development in the Province. It

won't create miracles but it will provide some opportunities. We hope that there

will be some new investment attracted. We really hope that is the case, because

we all know what the situation is like economically speaking in the Province.

I'm particularly looking forward to some investment in rural Newfoundland which

desperately needs a lot of help.

In short, these changes that have been made by the government

in response to the criticisms have really turned a bad bill into a good bill. I

can say to the members of the House of Assembly and the government members in

particular that we in the Opposition will have no difficulty in supporting the

principle of this bill, although a number of our members who have an interest in

business and economics will want to have a few other comments, and maybe make

some other observations. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to have a few

remarks today about the economic diversification and growth enterprises bill. I

was very pleased as the legislative advisor to the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology to have played a role in some of the changes that were made in

the bill subsequent to the release of the White Paper. I was also very pleased

with this initiative coming forth from government to try to promote business

investment in the Province, something that is needed, and I think we have to

focus on the fact that this is a promotion of investment. It is a promotion for

local firms to seek out investment capital, to expand, and to take advantage of

the tax free status of this initiative to somewhat shelter their new activities

and their expanse of activities from taxation. Hopefully the companies that have

some profit - are generating profit here in this Province - can now expand

further, creating further employment by virtue of the advantages of the EDGE

corporation initiative.

The overall process is one that the government, I feel, also

should be applauded for in consulting readily with the Chambers of Commerce, the

Board of Trade here in the St. John's area, and many different interested groups

not only here inside of the Province, but also in seeking the opinions of the

Province's fiscal agents throughout the country and elsewhere, in New York and

throughout the world. I know that Merrill Lynch and Solomon Brothers, our fiscal

agents in the U.S., supplied some information, as I understand. As well, we

received information from private business people who were interested in coming

here in light of what they saw as a necessity for the stimulation of their

interest to invest and to further their activities here in the Province.

Also, Mr. Speaker, as part of the overall analysis there was

one entrepreneur who contacted site location consultants, who normally are used

by large multi-national corporations, and these site location consultants gave

their opinion on how the bill, in its current form, along with any other

business incentives and land costs, et cetera, many of the different facets of

the bill, compare with other locations in the United States. It concentrated

primarily on other areas that may have some similarity to our area here in this

Province, and the proximity, I suppose, of being able to deal with vessels

travelling from Europe and otherwise being able to ship goods out of the

Province, and other aspects where there are similarities in those economies down

in the United States. That group was very favourably disposed to the White Paper

but did make some suggestions that I might point out I think the government took

into account in the redraft of the legislation, so the government is listening

to the different input.

We have one role in this, I think, and that is to put forward

public policy which will make Newfoundland and Labrador one of the best places

in all North America, in fact, if not beyond that, in any place in the world,

for businesses to locate. We hope it stimulates interest in local business, but

we do know that part of the overall concept is to stimulate interest of business

people outside to invest their capital here and assist in expanding existing

business, but also to locate here and hopefully we can develop jobs as a benefit

to the Province out of that concept.

Some other things came out of the process, of course, in the

analysis of business proposals that are put forward, in the method of informing

the public of any contracts entered into between government and the company that

would be set up and given EDGE status. That would have to, of course, be

disclosed publicly. There was a fear of the confidential nature of business

information, and we wanted to make sure that information did not, of course,

become part of the public domain. We wanted to maintain the confidentiality of

the different business ideas and proposals that came forward.

The different measures that are included in the business

legislation, I wanted to touch on a few of those, and things that I suppose over

the years, if we look back on the way that Newfoundland and Labrador has tried,

over many years, to become a good place to do business. Ultimately we probably,

in looking at some of the results over the last number of years, may be able to

suggest that the programs are working to a certain extent, but we are not

developing along the lines that Southern Ontario has from an industrial and

manufacturing point of view, and probably we will never do that, but there is a

growing small business sector; there is a growing high technology sector. With

Newfoundland, if you exclude the fishery and fishery related difficulties out of

the statistics, we are growing at a faster pace here than any other part of the

country.

Mr. Speaker, I think, the last statistic that came out was

4.3 per cent, our growth outside the fishing related activity, so there is a

very strong growth. I see it regularly in my capacity in the Department of

Industry and also I see it in my own district where we get people who are

interested in starting their own business. The business ideas are coming forward

fast and furious. A lot of them need some nurturing along, and a lot of them

need some assistance with the planning process. They are good, sound ideas, good

solid ideas, and they are probably, in a lot of cases here locally, ideas which

are generated partly, I would like to think, because Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, the people of this place are an ingenious type of people.

They are people who perform in spite of the difficulty,

people who manage to go beyond what a lot of others throughout the rest of

Canada would. There are many success stories. We might point out that through

the Ambassador Program we put forward information to people who we considered to

be ambassadors to the Province throughout Canada and throughout the world, and

provide them with information on some of the success stories here. That is the

kind of thing that is stimulating more interest and input from people in the

Province on some ideas they may have.

Now, we did some changing to the threshold

section of the

bill. Originally it was intended that there be a requirement for an EDGE

corporation to plan to have $1 million in annual sales, to have a capital

investment level of $500,000, and the intention to create at least ten new

full-time jobs. We have adjusted that somewhat. We have brought the overall

investment criteria down to a $300,000 level, which is a reasonable level given

the amount of capital intensity needed in the majority of businesses of the

nature that we feel would require EDGE status, that may require some variation

as far as the tax goes.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the incremental sales requirement has been

brought down to $500,000 which in turn will see a lowering of the overall sales

figure. We are not shooting for the moon here. A $500,000 business is a good

substantial business that will contribute significantly to the local economy.

Also the ten full-time jobs has been redefined somewhat to make sure that it is

ten person years, I think, is the idea we have come across, ten full-time

positions that recur on an annual basis. They have based it somewhat now on the

Statistics Canada basis for what constitutes a full-time job.

This will most certainly not be, I suppose, a be all and end

all as far as the saviour to the Province's economy goes, but it is a part of

the overall setup here in the Province that will allow us to attract new

business investment. It is an experiment, it is bold, it is a new way of going

about it, and maybe this will have some good results. I am very hopeful for it,

Mr. Speaker, and hope to assist in the promotion of this legislation in the new

year.

It seems that the Opposition is somewhat in favour of the

initiative and I hope we can then go out and promote the Province well within

the world business community, and through that promotion be able to attract some

of the partners for local businesses, to attract some business dollars that will

help the existing businesses to flourish, and find for the local companies that

are established here, and the new businesses that come in to set up, find them

markets.

The other thing with respect to the promotion, and maybe we

could even put something in St. Anthony,

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: Maybe when some of these individuals who come

to this Province with the interest - it is a different sort of business person

who will come here in light of this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RAMSAY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member could just take his seat for a

minute while I inform the House of the questions for our adjourned debate at

4:30 p.m.

The first question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer

provided by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board on the interest rates re:

Trans City Holdings. That is from the hon. Member for Mount Pearl.

The second question is to the hon. the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation on highway maintenance and safety. That is the hon.

Member for Placentia's question.

Question number three is to the Minister of Environment

concerning government policy on the importation of garbage. That is from the

hon. Member for St. John's East Extern.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to build on

where I left off. The fears were raised of course through the consultation

process about the fact that - say for instance a number of businesses come in

and they all have an interest in setting up in a specific location, be that

location St. John's, Corner Brook, what have you. We want to see what we can do

to stimulate their interest in other locations in the Province. If in fact all

of them wanted to set up in St. John's that would be fine. The Province would

benefit, but the regions of the Province would not.

There is some consideration given to making sure that every

different location in the Province will have an opportunity to put their best

case forward. The thing is, if a business decision depends on whether or not

they will go to another location if - say for instance St. John's seems to be

the best location for them to set up - if it means that they wouldn't set up,

then I don't think we would stand in their way. We would certainly encourage

them to establish here and allow our provincial economy to benefit, regardless.

The other thing I wanted to point out with respect to the

kind of development we hope to see as a result of this bill is it has to be

sustainable development. It has to be development of a nature that does not

wreak havoc with the environment. It will have to be development that does not

provide a competitive advantage by virtue of EDGE status to a company in

competition with the existing business base here in this Province. It will have

to be hopefully export-oriented business that will bring new dollars into the

local economy, something in the new economy area that isn't necessarily, as some

economists speak about, of the pig-iron variety.

I might also point out that we would hope that the

establishment of EDGE corporations here will not invite businesses to seek out

the possibility of sheltering tax only as their reason for establishing an EDGE

corporation. We hope their intent is to make money and generate wealth through

the economic activity that they foster by virtue of being located here.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did suggest something

with respect to the captive business activity. We wanted to make very clear that

our intent is not to preclude anything from the overall level of activity

generated. It is just to be sure that business which is captive to the Province

anyway - Hibernia was mentioned as a situation. One might also look at business

that is generated say by a company that deals with companies that existed in the

Province that would normally set up and deal with here anyway. They should in

that event I would think be denied EDGE corporation status. Because if they are

going to be doing business here anyway we would not necessarily want to give

them the tax incentives. We would want it to generate new wealth, and not wealth

that is (inaudible) to the provincial economy anyway.

There is just one thing I might point out that I feel the

department is certainly in need of being commended for their efforts on this

bill, they did turn it around once all the information was in rather quickly,

and we have changed the legislation taking into account that the business

community out there wants timely decisions. They do not want the process of

bureaucracy to prevent them from being able to function properly.

I might also point out, Mr. Speaker, that the process of

requiring a decision on an application for EDGE status, we have changed from a

60-day period in the White Paper to a 30-day period, so there is now a

requirement that government does its analysis and gets the answer back to the

applicant after we have received sufficient information, after we have a

complete application with the full and thorough documentation requested being

provided, we will respond to the proponent within thirty days, and that the

30-day time frame is the time frame which is bold in the government's sense

because, normally, no government can turn anything around with the exception of

emergency items and emergency decisions in less than thirty days and this

government intends, as a part of this overall EDGE Corporation status, to turn

that decision around in thirty days.

There are certain incentives available in the legislation,

Mr. Speaker. The taxation incentives from a standpoint of forgiving them for a

period of 10 up to 15 years, depending on the economic zone in question, we will

forgive the provincial taxation in all forms over that period of time. The

10-year status is granted to any EDGE Corporation with a further remission over

the period the year 11 on through to year 15.

Now the other things we might point out are that, in economic

zones where unemployment rates are higher, and this has yet to be determined the

exact way that it will function, but we intend to increase the EDGE status

window to 15 years as a base amount and from that point on we would then have

the decrease in the remission of tax.

Mr. Speaker, I also point out that we have provided some

flexibility on the part of municipalities that are very strapped for cash but

want to be able to make these incentives available by forgiving the property tax

and also forgiving the business tax. They have an either/or ability in that way

and we feel that it should be granted as an either/or function and we should not

have municipalities out there working against each other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: Also, Mr. Speaker, the labour relations parts

of the legislation were put in in the White Paper; I might point out that we

have removed those based on the input. It was one of the few times that we saw

business and labour in agreement. They seemed to be in agreement with us with

the overall proposal but the idea was, they did not like the labour relations

component of the bill, therefore, some people often say that when business and

labour don't agree, then obviously you are doing something right. In this case

though, we took the other route and suggested to the government that they change

this legislation in light of the fact that business and labour both, were

pointing out that they did not like the labour section.

Private sector labour relations in Newfoundland and Labrador

is generally very good, although Stats Canada will tell you that the labour

relations climate in this Province is not that good, one has to look at the

statistics as being not that accurate; the reason being that hospital workers,

is an example of a group, a sector in this Province are deemed to be private

sector workers under the current analysis that is provided by Stats Canada, so

the segmentation or division of employees in this Province is not done very

accurately by Stats Canada and is something that we will certainly have to look

at in getting accurate statistics so that we can put our best foot forward in

letting people know that labour relations in the private sector in this Province

is not as bad as it may seem according to the statistical indicators.

The other point that I want to make note of is the

productivity incentive. It is something that we see as a good benefit to this

legislation. It is something which the analysts from outside the Province

pointed out as being a very attractive incentive, and the $2,000 per job

productivity incentive as proposed in the legislation is, in fact, equivalent to

the tax amount that may be generated by that worker in a given year, so

therefore it is almost like a reimbursement, one would say, of the tax that

worker would generate to the economy. So we give it back as a productivity

incentive to the business for creating the jobs in the first five years. We

would prorate it over a five year period providing, I think it would work out to

$400 per year per employee over that period of time, so it is certainly

something that is seen as an added advantage.

Another point which we found is that the availability of land

in a lot of other areas of North America is certainly a difficulty. Land is

extremely expensive. Land is in short supply. There is no shortage of supply of

land in Newfoundland and Labrador. The other things that we wanted to do in that

regard was to find out, I guess, by providing this land, i