May 11,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 34

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Having been a number of years in this hon. House, it is

incumbent upon me to stand wearing the white rose of death commemorating the

mining disaster in Nova Scotia, one of the victims being a young family man from

Triton in my own constituency. I ask that Your Honour pass on a message of

condolence to the Speaker of the Nova Scotia Legislature, and a general message

of condolence to the families concerned.

Thank you.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day, I agree with

the hon. member. We, in the government, as well, would like to encourage Your

Honour, on behalf of all of us, to send those condolences.

We recognize that when these disasters occur it heightens

awareness for all of us as to the increased need for occupational health and

safety in the workplace. Unfortunately, in times like these, it is after the

fact and regrettable for all of us. We, as the government, and all members

encourage you to send condolences, as indicated by the hon. member.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make it clear that the motion urged upon Your

Honour by the Member for Green Bay be unanimous for this House; that all members

share the concern about the death of this young man and others, and also the

important issue of occupational health and safety.

MR. SPEAKER: Before moving on to our routine proceedings,

on behalf of hon. members, I welcome to the galleries today, fifty-five students

from St. Peter's School in Upper Island Cove, in the district of Harbour Grace,

accompanied by their teachers, Ms. Judy Adams, Mr. Norman Mugford, Mr. Winston

Lynch, and Student Assistant, Ms. Judy Earle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I stand today on behalf of my

colleague, the Minister of Development responsible for Tourism. The hon. Chuck

Furey is in Toronto today at a tourism convention, promoting Newfoundland and

Labrador in the Ontario sector.

This being National Tourism Awareness Week, I stand on his

behalf to bring to the attention of the House the fact that May 11 - May 17,

1992 has been declared National Tourism Awareness Week across Canada,

recognizing the importance that the tourism industry plays in our economy and in

our everyday lives.

The national theme during tourism week is 'Canada Grows With

Tourism'. This is an appropriate theme because it is the world's fastest growing

industry. What's more, the United Nations has estimated that by the year 2000,

tourism will have become the world's largest industry. In Canada, as an example,

tourism is a $25 billion industry accounting for 622,000 jobs, ranking second

only to the automobile industry in export earnings.

Mr. Furey has often said that tourism is an invisible

industry, one which, however, permeates most aspects of all economic

development. It is our job through National Tourism Awareness Week and, indeed,

throughout the year, to raise the profile of the tourism sector to be more

visible and to be recognized as the dynamic, economic stimulant that it truly

is. In Newfoundland and Labrador, there are approximately 3,500 businesses

scattered all over the Province which derive all or part of their income from

servicing the travelling public.

These businesses employ approximately 10,000 residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador, that means that on average, each business employs

only three or four people, which gives the industry a very low profile; however,

one of its major advantages is that it has a very high proportion of

entrepreneurs compared to other industries.

Because of the industry's apparent lack of visibility, the

minister wants to take this opportunity to encourage all members to keep the

tourism industry in mind when formulating or debating policies in this House.

Sometimes we have the tendency to forget about tourism when discussing such

topics as resource management, education or transportation policy. However, all

these issues and many others impact directly upon our ability to compete

successfully and effectively in the highly competitive international tourism

marketplace.

In this dynamic environment, we must continue to foster the

growth of this industry, not at the expense of other sectors but mindful of

tourism's growing importance. We continue to see that more people want to visit

here because we have something that is truly attractive to them, a pristine

environment, a way of life which has retained its traditional values, dramatic

scenery and many other attributes. We all have a tendency to take these

attributes for granted and sometimes, even to abuse them. We should all remember

that those very things that attract our visitors can be easily eroded and lost

forever if growth is not managed properly.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the tourism industry is not only

here to stay, but that it has the potential to become one of the most important

economic engines in this Province. Colleagues will recall that recently, Mr.

Furey announced the formation of the John Cabot 1997 500th Anniversary

Corporation. This anniversary of world significance provides a major opportunity

to highlight, build and promote this Province's heritage, culture and

environment. As we gear up for this event, the true potential of our tourism

industry will become visible to everyone. We cannot permit otherwise.

As such, tourism will continue to play an increasing role in

the debates of this House and in the lives of the general public, as well. That

is why Mr. Furey, as Minister responsible for Tourism, is pleased to announce

this week, May 11 to May 17, as National Tourism Week in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to respond to

the statement by the minister. We are certainly pleased to participate in

National Tourism Awareness Week. It is a good initiative, a national initiative

designed to focus attention on tourism. In the minister's statement he says,

'Tourism is the invisible industry.' I would prefer to say it has been the

forgotten industry. Too many people look upon tourism as a recreational pursuit,

not as an industry, and, indeed, it is an industry, as I have said in this House

many times before. It is an industry where you do not take your product to the

market, you bring the market to the product.

Tourism in this Province has more potential to grow than any

other industry. It is, indeed, a resource-based industry, one of which this

government would be well advised to put a lot of emphasis on, because there is

no other industry in this Province that has the potential of tourism to grow. We

must do everything we can in bringing awareness to tourism, making people aware

that tourism is a significant industry. In fact, I believe it is the third

largest industry in this Province today in terms of employment. It is third

largest second only to the fishing industry and the forest industry I believe.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is, indeed, a very significant industry.

Anything we can do - I am not sure what these flowers that we

are wearing today have to do with tourism. except I understand the government

has distributed these to bring awareness to tourism week. I understand that was

the purpose of them. If that has any significance then that is worthwhile, I

suppose, as well. I think it is a good initiative. We welcome it and we

certainly support it.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I forgot - I wasn't aware that

I might be required to say it, but the white carnations are distributed today by

Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador.

Oral Questions

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

West.

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

Minister of Social Services, but I notice that half the Cabinet is absent from

the House. They all seem to be following the line of the Premier who has only

been here for two days so far this session.

I don't know if the Government House Leader could tell me to

whom I could direct my question, as to the Acting Minister of Social Services.

Who would be the Acting Minister of Social Services?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess he does not know

who the acting Minister of Social Services is.

Yesterday a very serious matter took place in this Province

regarding the youth correction division of the Department of Social Services at

Pleasantville, one of the worst we have ever seen. There is no doubt that

happened because of the lack of security at the facility, and I would suggest,

Mr. Speaker, the lack of security at the facility is as a result of the cutbacks

this government has implemented. Can I ask, whoever the minister is, why there

was such a lack of security yesterday at that facility to let these four youths

do what was done?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of ministers

absent today, as the hon. member mentioned in his

preamble. The Women's Lobby is

meeting in Gander and basically the Social Policy Committee with another

minister is in Gander with the Premier at the Women's Lobby, as I suppose is the

Leader of the Opposition, who is also not here today. I just wanted to explain

these absences, Mr. Speaker.

In answer to the member's question, which I believe was why

was there such a lack of security at the Pleasantville centre, the answer very

simply is that this instance was not caused by lack of security therefore the

question has no meaning.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there is a clear indication that

there was a lot of security for that to happen - who is the minister trying to

fool? Let me ask the minister why the Department of Social Services and in

particular the Youth Services Division has been cut drastically? For example the

Budget for 1988 had the youth corrections budget at $8,742.200 and this year it

is $6,794,000. Why has government cut back that division's budget, Mr. Speaker?

Why has that division's budget been cut by $2 million? If the minister is

concerned let me ask him that.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there has not been a cut of $2

million. There might have been some re-arranging of money but there is no cut of

$2 million.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable. Total youth

corrections was $8,742.200 and in 1992 the total for youth corrections was

$6,794.000. Mr. Speaker, this government has cut the Department of Social

Service's budget and as a result the youth of this Province are being neglected.

Let me then ask the minister another question. The administrator's position in

that group home has been vacant since last Fall and I ask the minister when was

the position filled, and if so, who filled it?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again I will say to

the hon. member that there was no $2 million cut in the ongoing operations of

that division. There may have been some rearranging. So I just want to assure

him that what he is saying is not true, and that I will provide him with the

exact details as soon as I can get it put together. As to his other question,

I'm not sure that I am clear about the position he is talking about.

MR. TOBIN: Administrator, administrator.

MR. BAKER: Yes, but administrator where?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Okay. Then I will check into that matter, Mr.

Speaker, and get back to the hon. gentleman.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)!

MR. BAKER: The answer is, Mr. Speaker, I will look into

that matter and get back to the hon. gentleman.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker. A question for the Minister of

Finance. Last fall the minister postponed his proposed implementation of tax

reform. Would the minister tell us what his revised

schedule is? When does he

propose to come forward with some tax reforms?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have already

carried out some tax reform. I refer specifically to the elimination of the

school tax and certain other measures. What we have done, we studied tax reform

generally last year and we have focused in now specifically on the question of

harmonization with the Goods and Service Tax. We have recently written, I won't

say all, but a great many businesses and organizations in the Province, asking

for their views on the impact on their businesses of harmonization with the

Goods and Service Tax.

When we have these responses back our officials will then

have discussions with various businesses to identify problems. We will be moving

a little bit around the Province, so that we can get the precise impact of how

our harmonization with the Goods and Service Tax would impact various

businesses. When that process is completed, hopefully later this fall, we will

then put out a proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government may well have eliminated the school tax, but they

have doubled the payroll tax and taken millions of dollars more out of the

pockets of industry in this Province. That is what they have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: The minister says that he is now consulting

with certain businesses around the Province. Will the minister consult with

everybody in the Province? There is more in the Province than businesses. As

much as I like to defend the interests of business, there are many groups and

organizations and concerned people around this Province who would also like to

have input. Will the minister conduct public hearings around this Province

before he moves ahead with any tax harmonization?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was part of a

government that lasted seventeen years and the only tax reform they made was to

increase the sales tax. That is all they did. And when they did consult the

public, they were thrown out of office.

We will be having wide consultations in the Province, Mr.

Speaker, as wide as possible.

I might, just for the record, correct the hon. member when he

said that we increased taxes. Actually, as a result of the recent Budget,

business taxes decreased by $2 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is why we have a

record number of bankruptcies in this Province. What foolishness!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: The minister should take his head out of the

sand and have a look at what he is doing to business in this Province, Mr.

Speaker.

Let me ask the minister this, Mr. Speaker: Many governments

in Canada have, in fact, decreased business taxes in an effort to try to

stimulate the economy of those provinces, while this minister is imposing new

taxes, particularly payroll taxes, increasing corporate taxes and others. Will

the minister decrease taxes in order to try to move the economy of this

Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, our tax increases in the last

Budget were marginal. We decreased business taxes by $2 million. We increased

overall taxes by $6 million, which meant that the personal sector was hit by $8

million, largely as a result of the increases in the tobacco tax, which came to

exactly $8 million.

We are unable to reduce taxes in the foreseeable future, as I

see it, because, first of all, we cannot increase our deficit. We don't want to

increase our deficit because we have this very fragile credit rating and we have

to be very careful of that. Secondly, we have so many demands - the hon. members

opposite have been asking us to increase our spending. Every day they get up and

tell us how they can spend another $100 million or so. So we are caught between

keeping spending down - not being able to increase our deficit - and there is no

way that we can decrease taxes in the foreseeable future, as I see it, as much

as we would love to do it.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have never asked the minister to increase spending, we

have asked him to spend wisely and stop wasting taxpayers' money.

That is what we have asked him to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister would have us

believe that taxes actually decreased by this past Budget. The fact of the

matter is, if you read the fine print, that taxes have increased this year and

he has also increased them for next year. The fact that taxes will increases

more next year is doing more to harm the economy than what the minister actually

did this year. It is the same old trick. Will the minister roll back those tax

increases so that business can look forward to a better year next year?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is a

majority of one who is dissatisfied with the provincial Budget.

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

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

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Last Friday the Stats Canada

results came out showing that the labour force in this Province from March to

April has shrunk by some 7,000 people in actual numbers. Can the minister give

an explanation as to what happened to these 7,000 people who are no longer

actively seeking work?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon.

member for his question. From time to time there are fluctuations in the size of

the labour force in the Province, just as there is in the unemployment rate, and

any other indicators that might be used to determine the status of the economy -

employment rates, number of people looking for jobs, number of people not

looking for jobs. It is clear that one of the statistics that is kept is that

from time to time as well, depending on the likelihood of accessing work at any

one time, people decide for their own reasons to stop looking. Therefore they

get lost from the statistical base from which unemployment insurance figures are

calculated and the unemployment insurance rates change.

So there are 7,000 people out there and all that anybody

knows about them for sure is that they have stopped actively looking for work.

Now what they are doing in the meantime, there is no way to ascertain, unless we

did research on an individualized basis. But there are 7,000 less people

actively seeking employment through the last statistical record. That can go up

or down in a month, and it will probably go up and down twelve different times

in the next year and twelve times in the year after, it is a common occurrence.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister should also

indicate where these 7,000 people have gone - as the Department of Social

Services has been the recipient of most of them.

The minister is obviously aware of the crisis that we have in

this Province. We have an unemployment rate nearly twice the national average,

yet the minister has just brought down a budget that does absolutely nothing to

stimulate the economy of this Province. Can the minister indicate to this House

when he is going to address the problem of the unemployed in this Province and

come forward with a program to do something about this abysmal UI rate we have

in this Province?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of

things to point out in relation to the question that was asked. I note that in

the media on the weekend the hon. member was trying to make a direct connection

between 7,000 more people not in the labour force and 7,000 extra people gone to

Social Services.

That is not the case. The caseloads in Social Services do not

correspond directly or in any definable proportion to the number of people who

are actively seeking work in the labour force or not actively seeking work.

There are discouraged workers, but that does not equate to the fact that there

are people who are then social services recipients. If you would like to draw

that direct line I would like to see the evidence for it produced.

The other aspect of it, it has been pointed out many times

before, and the hon. member as the critic rightfully continues to refer to the

unemployment rates and so on, I would also like to point out though that five

years ago, in 1987, in a comparable month, the unemployment rates were about the

same as they are now, and we were into an economic boom. So I wonder what the

previous administration was doing at that point in time in 1987 with a

prospering fishery, and with no real difficulty economically in the country, and

with an unemployment rate exactly the same as it is now.

So when we talk about the numbers, the unemployment rate is

only one of several useful statistical indicators to reflect what is going on

with the work force at the time. We ourselves are dedicated and committed again

to trying to have an economic climate doing as much as we can, along with the

rest of the provinces and the federal government, throughout the country, that

promotes the opportunity for private investment, so that people can seek work

other than to have to rely on the government to give them short-term work out of

taxpayers' dollars.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible), all the mother's sons, are they

alright?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is recognising the hon. Member for

Fogo for the next question.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister still has not satisfactorily explained what

happened to the 7,000. Let me ask the minister: Is the reason that they have not

shown up on the roles of social services the fact that many of them are single,

under the age of twenty-five, who are not eligible to receive social assistance?

Is that the reason that they do not show up as statistics, because these people

have actually nothing to live on, because there is nothing in this Province for

them to do? Social services cannot care for them. The minister has failed to

take care of them, and they have resorted to a life of despair. Is that not the

real reason?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member can make that speech all he likes, and try to

convince himself or anybody else that that is the reality, which is not the

case. There is, in fact, a category recognized every month of what are

legitimately recognized in the system as discouraged workers. Those people, for

their own reasons, ascertain what the possibility of there obtaining work is,

and then they decide whether or not they are going to actively pursue that or

have themselves, of their own volition and because of their own reasons, removed

from seeking work for a period of time. Next month, depending on their own

individual assessment of their likelihood to ascertain work, they may be back in

the work force again, and they may show up as part of the statistic. Any month

we could be standing up, asking the same question, and giving the same answer,

but it does not mean that the rhetoric that the hon. member opposite uses has

any substance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister responsible for Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. Approximately a month ago the minister announced a capital

program in the House of approximately $60 million. One of the intents of that

program was to try to stimulate the economy and provide approximately 3,000 or

4,000 jobs to some needy Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Could the minister

inform the House, or tell the House today how many municipalities have already

turned down the request for capital funding that had been approved?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, probably three or four that I

know of, but we have not really scrutinized the returns on this yet. We are

giving the municipalities probably another week to ten days to get their

responses in. There was an April 30 response time, and hopefully municipalities

will be able to make up their minds by the middle of May, which is getting close

now. If I have some figures at that time I will be delighted to pass them on to

the hon. member.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: Could the minister tell the House the total

dollar value so far of municipalities that have turned it down and have also

notified the department by telephone that they are going to turn it down - the

total dollar value of the capital projects?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I will have to check that out, Mr. Speaker. I

do not have that figure readily available.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows full well the reasons for those

municipalities turning down the funding, and that is because of the new formula

for the repayment of capital debt. Could the minister now tell the House if he

is going to consider asking his Cabinet colleagues to change that particular

formula so that municipalities in the Province can take advantage of the capital

funding for 1992?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I must say, they are all very good questions

that the member has put forward on this subject today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Anybody as stunned as you would have problems

with any answer.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise all hon. members that the

department has undertaken, in consultation with the Federation of Municipalities

and the Administrators' Association, to put together a committee to review the

experiences of the Debt Retirement Plan and of the Municipal Operating Grant

Plan. They hope to, over a period of time, come back to the department with

their observations on the experiences of, I guess the year to date, and what the

actual specific experiences have been in some municipalities. Arising out of

that I would imagine there will be submissions made to my colleagues and others

regarding that particular subject.

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

MR. WOODFORD: My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would say it is going to be too late when the

committee does report, if it does report, the minister would still have to

change the formula for the repayment of capital debts. So I would ask the

minister today that if that is not changed in the near future would he consider

reallocating the amount of funding that has been turned down by municipalities

so that the same amount of jobs can be taken advantage of in the Province for

the construction season of 1992?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now answer that question.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Again, a very good question, Mr. Speaker. The

instant reaction would be to say no to the hon. member, but that also would have

to be given some consideration under the review process that we have initiated

as we do with all the new programs that we introduce.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have

a question for the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that in Lewisporte there is a

senior citizen's home, I believe, called North Haven Manor. Could the minister

tell this House how many beds are in North Haven Manor, how many of them are

private and government sponsored, what the ratio would be, and how much money

the government has to spend each year on North Haven Manor? Does the government

have those figures available?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that

question under advisement. I don't carry that kind of information around in my

head.

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

MR. TOBIN: What head?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. There

are seventy beds out there. Sixty-five of them are government sponsored to the

tune of about $3.1 million.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: who appoints the board of a

facility similar to North Haven Manor?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, the board of North Haven Manor

is made up of appointees by the churches. It is an interfaith board, and

government doesn't make the appointments. But I would say they are a very fine

group of volunteers, Mr. Speaker.

As a matter of fact I had a complaint not too long ago about

North Haven Manor suggesting that the board took government money and brought

the chairman of that board from Florida to Lewisporte for a board meeting. I

checked it out only to find it is a malicious lie, a rumour, an insult to the

volunteers of this Province, Mr. Speaker. I am willing to bet dollars to donuts

that is exactly the question my hon. friend was going to raise today.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was interested more in how much money the

government spent. But, Mr. Speaker, I do have a letter directed to me from

Lewisporte, April 22, 1992, which also states that the North Haven Manor paid

transportation for a Clyde Mullet to return from Florida to home for a meeting

in January. Mr. Speaker, does the minister have any kind of a written report on

this from the administrator of the hospital and would he table it in this House,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I want my donuts.

This shows, Mr. Speaker, what happens when people get down

and crawl in the mud. This hon. member has been known for that over the past

number of months in this House. Mr. Clyde Mullet is a volunteer who gives freely

of his time. Last week was volunteer week when in this House we acknowledged the

contributions such people make. But always there are people who will try to

discredit anyone who does something voluntarily. I suspected that the hon.

member would get down deep enough in the gutter to come forward with that

question. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that he owes an apology not only to Mr.

Mullet, but to all the interfaith homes in this Province and to all the

volunteers in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: The hon. member comes in this House to try

and dig out the truth, but that does not give him the licence to discredit

volunteers in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member should be ashamed

of himself, and he should stand up and apologize to Mr. Mullet who is a

tremendous volunteer, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is an attitude like the minister has that

lead to the whole Hughes Report Commission in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this issue was raised with me by letter from a

person from Lewisporte, and it is my duty to raise it here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Does he have a written

report on this from the administrator of North Haven Manor and will he table it

in this House? The minister did not answer that question.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this matter was checked out in

detail two or three weeks ago. I am totally satisfied. Mr. Mullet, who spends

two or three months of the year in Florida, had to come back to Lewisporte to

deal with some business matters, including the selling of a boat which he had.

Months before he went to Florida he knew he would be coming back at that time.

He advised the board that he would be coming back at that time and they arranged

a board meeting to coincide with his visit to Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. He is a

very responsible, dedicated volunteer whom the hon. member wants to discredit.

Mr. Speaker, it is a part of a smear campaign of which I have seen too much from

that hon. member over the past six months in this House. I think it is utterly,

totally despicable and disgraceful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister can yell and scream as much as

he likes. I think he is protesting a bit too much. I asked a very simple

question, Mr. Speaker. He is acting similar to the way he acted when he got

caught jumping the line in St. Clare's, Mr. Speaker, when he didn't want to

answer that question, but eventually he had to answer it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. minister: Does he have a written

report on this incident and will he table it in this House of Assembly? A simple

question.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if I am acting similar it is

because the sleazy question is similar. It brings out the same emotion in me,

Mr. Speaker. I have told the hon. member that I have done an investigation, I am

totally satisfied with the answer that I have received, and I have said that in

the House.

Mr. Speaker, I will also tell the hon. member that the

information I have is not signed 'Anonymous'.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House has finished with that line of questioning. I am

assuming we are going to a new line of questions, or at least, a new member.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Minister of Health. Mr. Speaker,

I, along with a number of other members of the House, attended a memorial

service last night for the victims of AIDS and also those suffering from HIV

Virus Syndrome. I want to ask the minister: Knowing that he has met with the

AIDS Support Committee on Friday of last week and knowing, from the statements

made last night, of the very valuable and important service provided by the

Newfoundland and Labrador AIDS Committee, whether the minister can tell the

House now what his government is prepared to do to assist the committee in its

current financial difficulties?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I hear that the Member for St.

John's East was the only member who got political at that very touching

candlelight service last night.

We are dealing with a very serious issue here and I certainly

don't intend to try to score any political points on it. The hon. member's

statement, that I meet with the AIDS Committee is not quite accurate, but

officials from my department did meet with the AIDS Committee. I was unavoidably

absent at the time, Mr. Speaker. However, we did tell the members of the AIDS

Committee at that meeting, or my officials told them with my approval, that we

will be looking at putting some kind of bridge financing in place to help them

through the next few months. We have not agreed on an amount, Mr. Speaker. The

AIDS Committee is actually a very responsible committee and I don't think it is

their intent that we would be trying to make cheap political points on what has

become quite a disaster, actually.

My officials have met with them and, on my instructions, have

told the AIDS Committee that we will be putting in place some bridge financing.

As hon. members will know, they are also expecting some money from the federal

government.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My supplementary is to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations in his capacity as the Minister responsible for the Human Rights Code.

Would the minister be prepared to acknowledge, as the

Minister of Health appears not to be, that there is a political dimension to

this particular disease, in that one of the most high risk groups that has been

identified with this has been gay men. Can the minister agree that if there had

not been the discrimination against gays and lesbians permitted by the

Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Code, that this disease would be dealt

with a little bit more quickly, more openly and more up front? And can the

minister tell the House that his government is prepared to reconsider its

previous position with respect to sexual orientation in the Human Rights Code

and advise the House that it is prepared to amend the Human Rights Code to

prevent and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is

now permitted by the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Code?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am a little puzzled at the presentation by the hon. member

because with his law background, I would expect him to approach it a little bit

differently.

The fact that the Human Rights Code at the present time does

not have a prohibition and does not state that discrimination on the basis of

sexual orientation is against the law of the land, does not mean that it permits

it. There is no permission for discrimination of any kind in the law in

Newfoundland, so the twisted logic that would lead someone to make that

statement, that the Human Rights Code permits discrimination in the Province, is

an improper representation of what is, in fact, occurring.

The current position of the government in the Province, Mr.

Speaker, is well understood, I think, by everyone who has addressed this issue

before, and that is, that it is presently still under review and basically, that

we are in a position waiting to see what changes will occur in the federal Human

Rights Code, and have indicated that if such changes are forthcoming on the

national scene, that the government in the Province would be probably disposed

to look at in a little more urgent light and might fast track a little bit more,

but in the meantime, I have been in receipt of correspondence, since

responsibility for the Human Rights Code has moved to the Department of

Employment and Labour Relations, and it is currently under review again within

the department. There will be presentations made to myself, as minister, and to

the Cabinet, in the near future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before proceeding with the other routine business, on behalf

of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the public gallery a delegation from

the town of Point Leamington in the Exploits district. The town is represented

by the following persons, Mayor Wilfred Mercer, along with councillors Haggett,

Warford and Thompson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

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

Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act." (Bill No. 24)

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the

Minister of Environment and Lands, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act," great

reforming legislation.

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

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

tomorrow introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS the resource-based industries of our Province have

been seriously crippled, and are, in some cases, about to crumble; and

WHEREAS the downturn in our resource-based industries has

caused a downturn in the construction industry; and

WHEREAS the combination of both have put thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians either on UI or social assistance with no hope

for employment this year;

BE IT RESOLVED that the provincial government take immediate

action to help the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are finding

themselves caught in the worst financial and social crisis to hit them in recent

memory.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the answer to the question related to

ministerial travel which is on the Order Paper.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 10, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The continuation of the debate on Bill No.

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have spoken on the amendment to this bill, but not to the

main motion, itself, so I thought I would take a few moments to reflect on the

reality of what we are doing here. The title of this bill has to do with

restraint of compensation; however, I think it might be more appropriately named

something to the effect of the disbanding of public trust in the Province, not

compensation in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we all know we are in difficult economic times,

and these are times of restraint, but the most difficult of times, I think, is

when people, organizations, etc., either show their best or their worst, and

given the current economic circumstances and government's reaction to its

treatment of public sector employees in this Province, I can only say that this

particular time of crisis economically in our Province has shown this government

to be at its worst. Not only do we have a crisis economically and socially in

this Province, Mr. Speaker, we have a crisis in trust. We have a government

which, right up until the last minute, was negotiating in good faith contracts

with public sector unions, only to, right out of the blue, come down with this

heavy-handed draconian measure, restraint of compensation. Every economist in

the Western world, for the previous year, was talking about an upcoming

recession. All the talk shows, Canada A.M., the Journal, all the usual political

pundits, were talking for the better part of a year about a coming recession.

There was no surprise that this recession occurred. I think, anyone with two

clues, in the civilized world knew it was coming, yet this particular

administration went to work and continued to do business as usual with its

unions, to negotiate contracts as per usual, right up to the very last moment,

and then, having brought down the axe, they stripped, tore up, destroyed the

contracts that just literally days previous, they had signed in what people

thought was good trust.

Mr. Speaker, we went through a major economic crisis or

recession in the early 80s. The government of the day was a Progressive

Conservative Government. We had to restrain wages as a restraint measure, which

was a very difficult thing to do, and no doubt, we pay the political price for

it. But, Mr. Speaker, we did not break probably what is the most sacred rule of

thumb in the minds of the labour movement and that is the stripping or the

tearing up of duly signed contracts. We indicated that collective bargaining

would be temporarily suspended for two years when your existing contract ran

out, but existing contracts, themselves, were honoured; therefore, people went

into their two-year restraint period at various times, depending on when the

contract they were under, expired.

This government, Mr. Speaker, is not a government that can be

trusted; that is what this entire bill is about, and what my entire remarks are

about. It has to do with trust and

an act to disband trust in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, before coming to office, during the election

campaign, the government promised to bring home every mother's son to create an

economic climate that would lead to job creation. The economic climate, Mr.

Speaker, is only surpassed by our natural one, which at times causes us

tremendous grief. I think, of late, the economic climate under the Wells

Administration has even surpassed the natural climate.

I am really surprised, the weather forecasting being under

federal jurisdiction, that the Premier, himself, hasn't been blaming the weather

on the feds. But the economic climate, I think, while it is going to be bad

throughout the Western world, because it is a global recession, in this

particular Province, because of the actions of this particular government, we

have a Made in Newfoundland Depression. And a lot of that came about because of

a large layoff of public sector workers that took people's spending power out of

the economy and made existing public servants extremely cautious with their

money.

You have commercial radio stations and businesses and a

handout here in this hon. House a couple of weeks ago, with some literature and

lapel buttons to the effect of 'Buy something' and you hear various community

and business leaders endorsing on the radio, this 'Buy something' campaign.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a new button that I think a lot of Newfoundlanders

would like to be able to wear. The unions had a button a little while ago as to

the Premier's trustworthiness, a button that was deemed to be unparliamentary to

wear in this House. the button entitled 'Clyde Lied', but there is another

button, Mr. Speaker. It relates to this thing we hear on the radio these times,

and it should read as follows: 'Clyde, try something.' 'Clyde, try something,'

because this government is a do-nothing government. It has done nothing except

tear down. Everything it has touched has turned to ashes. I remember the hon.

Minister of Health, at one time indicating in an answer to a question, since I

have been a member of this Legislature, that because of the budgetary measures

of this administration, the government and the economy and the people of

Newfoundland would 'rise like a phoenix from the ashes', I do believe, were his

exact words. Well, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on the television panel that

particular week to the now Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, there

is certainly considerable ashes from which this phoenix has to rise and I have

my doubts, Mr. Speaker, given the stewardship of this particular administration,

if there is any rising from the ashes forthcoming in the short to medium term.

Trust, Mr. Speaker, is the hallmark on which this government,

I think, will fall. It had a report on the sexual abuse of children, the Hughes

report; it sat on that for a dog's age. It has an education Royal Commission

report it still has not released. They claim they eliminated the school tax.

They say: 'This is one instance where we have kept faith with our trust.' But

they really haven't eliminated the school tax. They played some economic

trickery. They increased personal income tax. Senior citizens who were exempt

from school tax but now have incomes above a certain level are paying school tax

for the first time ever. So the promise to eliminate school tax and the action

taken to eliminate school tax is a violation of trust, again, an example of how

this administration says one thing and does another.

The leader of this administration, Mr. Speaker, before

becoming elected to politics, in recent times was a courtroom lawyer, and no

doubt has a way with words and is very smooth with words. The former member for

St. John's East, now the Mayor of St. John's, accused the hon. the Premier of

sophistry, where you basically say something and give a certain impression but,

in actual fact, you mean something just the opposite, which would indicate to me

that this government is not to be trusted.

On the matter of Meech Lake, that we had on the go some time

ago, the Premier of the day basically said to the people of Newfoundland: 'Trust

me, I know what is good for you.' The people did trust him in great numbers. I

can remember, many constituents to whom I talked at the time on that particular

matter, when you asked them about the details of the constitutional package,

said: 'I really don't understand it, but I trust the Premier. He is a lawyer, he

is a smooth talker, so it is a matter of my trusting his legal and professional

judgement as to whether or not Meech Lake is a good package for the country.'

Here we are now a couple of years later, our country on the

verge of either saving itself or falling apart. Should it fall apart because the

Meech Lake agreement failed, I think our Premier will have violated his trust in

governing this Province. He took an oath when he took office to look out for the

interests of this Province. I think in retrospect now, any constitutional

package forthcoming will make Meech Lake look like chicken feed compared to what

will have to be signed. Therefore, the trust that was given the Premier was

badly placed. The nation is in jeopardy because of him. This Premier and this

administration are not to be trusted.

The Premier, I have no doubt, believes in himself and means

well, but, Mr. Speaker, his background is corporate law; he has developed unto

himself and on the mainland of Canada, an image, I would think, a false one, but

nonetheless, an image that has developed as a constitutional lawyer. Really, he

was a corporate lawyer. We saw the real man when the Bowater company pulled out

of Corner Brook. The hon. gentleman at that time himself pulled up his stakes

from Corner Brook and moved his law practice to St. John's, where the pickings

were better. That shows the type of person we are talking about here, a person

who follows the buck, the dollar.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. HEWLETT: You can talk about my severance pay till the

cows come home. I am sick and tired of hearing about my severance pay. The fact

of the matter is, I received severance pay according to the rank of a deputy

minister, which I was at the time. And very shortly thereafter, when this

administration took office, this administration fired a number of deputy

ministers under severance packages far more generous than the one that was given

me. So this administration has no need whatsoever to talk about severance pay,

Mr. Speaker, because they have severed thousands. They have spent millions and

millions in severance pay since they have come into office. Everything they have

touched has turned to ashes.

They are not to be trusted: that is the message I have for

the people of this Province with regard to this government, Mr. Speaker. Our

Premier is not the type of Premier who wants to wade in and get involved in

solving the economic problems of the Province. It is all the federal

government's fault. The economic revival of the Province is being left to a

commission of appointees.

Of all things we have a sociologist in charge of economic

development in this Province, which makes absolutely no sense. If one were to go

with some sort of commission to revitalize the economy of the Province, one

would think that one would go for Lee Iacocca type or something or another. But

to use the university sociologist who studied the problem to implement economic

policy, Mr. Speaker, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But, again, there is

the proof positive that the Premier is abusing the trust put in him by the

people when he was elected to office.

This Premier that we have, Mr. Speaker, is a Premier that

this Province can ill afford to have. We need a Premier who is not afraid to get

his hands dirty, take off his jacket, roll up his sleeves and get down to work.

We need a Premier who should be over in Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore right

now, not depending on the oil companies, not depending on the federal government

to make sure the billion dollar hole in Hibernia is fixed. We need a Premier who

is willing to intervene, who is willing to work like a former Premier did when

the current Premier pulled out of Corner Brook and moved to St. John's where the

pickings were better, the Premier of the day took his team of best bureaucrats,

had them scour the world and found a replacement for the Bowater Company in

Corner Brook.

We need a Premier who is willing to work, because being

Premier of Newfoundland is not an easy job. Probably Boris Yeltsin is the only

guy on the face of the earth who has a harder job to do than be Premier of

Newfoundland. What do we have, Mr. Speaker? We have a fancy speech maker. We

have a smooth talker. We have a smooth talker and a fancy speech maker. The

mainlanders love him. They put up billboards to him. Well, I say, Mr. Speaker,

they are welcome to him. I wish they would take him, because this Province needs

a practical Premier, a Premier who is willing to work hard at carrying out the

duties entrusted to him by the people.

I know I am being heckled from the other side, Mr. Speaker,

but I think that is an indication that I am touching probably a sore point or

two. There might be a little salt falling into a few wounds, and the reaction

from the other side is, of course, predictable. Unfortunately, I have a sore

throat. Normally, I have no problem whatsoever shouting down the entire works of

them on the other side and I don't need a microphone, but today I have a sore

throat so I have a problem shouting them down, Mr. Speaker. But I think I am a

match for any or all of them over there when it comes to making my points in

this Assembly. They can bellow at me all they want, Mr. Speaker, but they are

not going to shut me up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HEWLETT: Trust, Mr. Speaker, trust! 'Amalgamation,

trust us on amalgamation.' They got elected never mentioning amalgamation to the

people in the general election and then ramming it down the throats of dozens

and dozens of municipalities in this Province, driving up the taxes of many

communities in this Province. That shows that this government can't be trusted.

It got in office, then started implementing a whole bunch of policies that have

absolutely nothing to do with Liberalism, absolutely nothing to do with their

party platform. A lot of policies are exactly opposite to their party platform.

They are not to be trusted.

The Americans put on their money, I do believe, Mr. Speaker,

'In God we trust.' In this Province, I wonder can we put on our bills that we

pass through this Legislature, 'In the Premier we trust'? I doubt it very much,

Mr. Speaker. I think that is the reason we have the saying that we have under

our Coat of Arms which translates: 'Seek Ye First The Kingdom Of God'. Because

in the year 15-something or other, 500 years ago when that Coat of Arms was

granted to the Province of Newfoundland, the heraldic designer of that

particular Coat of Arms must have foreseen the day that the current Premier was

going to come to office because 'In God We Trust' is about all. 'Seek ye first

the Kingdom of God' is the motto under our Coat of Arms. I guess it is to heaven

we have to look, because if we look for the Premier we can only look for him

trotting around the globe and making fancy speeches, impressing the mainlanders

with his smooth talk, and discouraging Newfoundland workers into not

registering. Seven thousand more have given up on even the thought of earning a

living.

As I indicated, he is trusting in himself. He is trusting the

wrong people. He is trusting the feds and the companies to save Hibernia. I hope

Hibernia is saved, but if Hibernia is saved it will not because of this

particular Premier. It will be in spite of this particular Premier, because this

particular Premier is not getting actively involved. This is not a pro-active

Premier. This is a laissez-faire Premier. This is a

sit-back-and-let-the-big-companies-run-the-show Premier. This is the Premier who

was Chairman of the Board of the power company and took the vocal consumer

advocate off the Public Utilities Board to look after his corporate buddies.

This Premier has proven that he cannot be trusted.

This is the Premier who brought in the Crown Lands Act that

prevents a Newfoundlander now from trouting around a pond. You can get a licence

to build a boathouse and if your boathouse is more than ten metres long, access

to the beach is blocked. You put a boathouse on each corner of your property and

you have effectively created a private beach for anyone who wants to approach

that beach unless they approach it by boat or by parachute. The Newfoundlanders'

500-year-old right of circumnavigating a pond and casting out his line looking

for a trout has died under this administration - another breach of trust with

the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask 'Danny' who was the guest speaker at

Red Bay for the graduation - his district.

MR. HEWLETT: I am told I should ask the hon. Member for

Eagle River who was the guest speaker in Red Bay for the graduation. I presume,

by asking him that, he must not be. Maybe that will quiet him down for a moment.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you another example of trust on the

part of this administration. During the latter years of the Peckford

Administration, they started a provincial park at Crescent Lake in my district,

a lake which has tremendous tourism potential. Here today, it is rather ironic

that it is Tourism Awareness Week. We had a ministerial statement talking about

tourism awareness. We started a park at Crescent Lake, a park around the lake

that is reputed to have a lake monster similar to the Loch Ness Monster in

Scotland, which no doubt has brought millions and millions and millions of

pounds into the British and Scottish economy; but what did they do? They have a

tremendous tourism potential. The mainlanders and Europeans are suckers for lake

monsters. They will come to spend money and get their snap taken by the side of

the lake with the lake monster. But what did they do? After the Peckford

Administration started work on this park, the new administration stopped work on

the park and then, in the dark of night, they sent out a crew with chain saws

and they sawed down those signs which we all see along the side of the

Trans-Canada, 'Provincial Park. No Cutting'. Can you imagine? In the dark of

night, they sent crews out with chain saws to cut down the signs 'Provincial

Park. No Cutting'. Now, you talk about sleaze. The hon. the Minister of Health

was talking about sleaze earlier. How much sleazier can you get than that? Where

is the trust there, that they would do such a thing?

During National Tourism Week, I have the opportunity to point

out that they killed a tourism project which would have worked wonders for the

south shore of Green Bay and for the economy of the Province as a whole, but

they had the temerity to sneak around in the night with their chain saws and saw

down the signs that said 'Provincial Park. No Cutting'. They didn't have the

guts or the gall to go out there in the daylight and face the citizens of

Roberts Arm and saw down the signs in front of them! They had to do it behind

their backs after dark.

Trust -

an Act Respecting the Restraint of Compensation. We

need `An Act Respecting Trust', because this government cannot be trusted, Mr.

Speaker. I wouldn't buy a used car from this government. No wonder they give

themselves a car allowance. I mean, after two or three years, the way it used to

be was that ministerial cars could be traded in. But who would buy a used car

from this government. No wonder they gave ministerial allowances to buy cars,

because no one would buy a car driven by a minister of this Crown.

I remember, on a couple of occasions when we had Premiers'

conferences and Royal visits, we had to purchase, as a Crown, a number of luxury

limousines for VIPs, that the garages leased out to us for a short while during

the dignitary's visit. They were advertised on the radio, `Come to such and such

a car dealership and buy a car that was used to drive the Premier of Alberta or

the Premier of Quebec' or `Come and buy one of a fleet of cars that were

involved in the Royal visit of so-and-so and so-and-so.' It was a great drawing

card and the car companies concerned very quickly sold those particular cars.

But I will bet you one thing, Mr. Speaker, if the ministerial cars policy had

continued and this particular administration had traded in some of those cars,

there wouldn't be a car dealership in this city or this Province that would put

an advertisement on the radio saying, `Come and buy a Cabinet Minister's car.'

Mr. Speaker, who would buy a used car from this crowd? No one, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, 'An Act Respecting Restraint of

Compensation' should be `An Act Respecting Dismantling of Trust,' `An Act

Respecting The Stripping of Contracts,' `An Act Of Mistrust', Mr. Speaker. This

particular administration has proven, many times over, that it cannot be

trusted. It has taken away rights of Newfoundlanders that we have had for

centuries. It has broken its election promises, willy-nilly. They even claimed

to have kept their school tax promise, but that was another piece of sophistry

on their part, another little trick. `What the right hand gives, the left hand

taketh away.' `It is Clyde's way or the doorway.' That is the basic line of this

administration, Mr. Speaker.

I do not trust this administration, Mr. Speaker. This

administration cannot be trusted. It has proven it over and over. The

mainlanders trust this Premier, Mr. Speaker, and, by heavens, they are welcome

to him. I wish they would take him tomorrow, because we need a good, practical

Premier down here, one who is willing to get down in the dirt, roll up his

sleeves and work hard on behalf of the people of this Province, not a fine,

fancy speechmaker. He would be better off at the United Nations or in the House

of Commons or some place, but we need a hard-working, practical Premier, not a

smooth talking Townie lawyer. That is what you have there. He left the City of

Corner Brook when it couldn't give him a decent living and then he moved to the

City of St. John's. The man lives off cities and their law practices.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: A man cannot live by bread alone.

MR. HEWLETT: No, that man didn't live by bread alone.

When he quit his law practice even, he had to receive a supplement from his

party until he could obtain the office of the Premiership. Then when we did his

estimates here in the House of Assembly, we got out of him there last year on

his estimates that when he disbanded the private dining room, which was supposed

to be a great saving to the people of the Province, the private dining room that

the hon. members opposite were so critical of, he admitted that the $20,000 home

entertainment allowance he was using was to do his lawns and gardens. Your

average Newfoundlander out there was supposed to be shocked to understand that

it took $8,000 to keep his lawns and gardens green at his own personal mansion.

This was money he was taking onto himself, he said, to entertain ambassadors.

I asked the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy in his

estimates the other day, because his entertainment budget was a little over what

was set aside, whether the Premier had snuck in for some particular conference.

Because I gather what the Premier does when he has dignitaries and delegations

in from overseas and doing legitimate entertaining - I am not saying that the

First Minister shouldn't be legitimately entertaining - but what he does is he

keeps the $20,000 home entertainment allowance, wines and dines them at a local

hotel and then sends the bill to the minister of the department concerned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: You talk about trust, Mr. Speaker! You talk

about sleaze! The hon. Minister of Health talked about sleaze earlier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: They are yelling at me again, Mr. Speaker. I

must be getting on their nerves. That is all I can say. It is just too bad I

have a sore throat and I cannot shout them down because I can shout down the

entire lot of them over there. I am afraid of nothing or no one over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. HEWLETT: That is all you can come up with. You even

throw up Sprung but do you know what?... in Sprung we tried. We failed but at

least we tried. That crowd over there, Mr. Speaker, have tried nothing and that

is the reason I say we all need to be sporting a button saying: Clyde, try

something before we all starve to death.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: We have had monsters in Tanya Lake before.

The hon. Minister of Provincial and Municipal Affairs is quite familiar with

swimming in Tanya Lake and when he jumped in, the water left, and he went over

to Dumbell Lake and, of course, we all know now why the name was changed to

Dumbell Lake.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of speaking

on this Bill 17,

An Act To Extend Restraint Of Compensation To The Public Sector

Of This Province. This infamous piece of legislation has done a lot to undermine

the creditability of this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. minister does not

stop berating me I will throw snowballs at him and he knows I am very adept at

throwing snowballs.

This Bill 17 has upset a lot of public employees and it has

also raised the concern of a lot of the unionists in this Province in the

private sector because it has taken away the right of collective bargaining from

the public employees of this Province. Collective bargaining is the right for

employees to have representatives go to their employer, sit down at a table and

negotiate nose to nose, eye to eye, with their employer, the government. This

government did that, they said you can do this. They said to their employees,

you have the right. Now, these employees, some of whom had to go on an illegal

work stoppage, a strike, in the early 70s to get the right to have collective

bargaining and now they are seeing a piece of legislation presented to the House

to remove that right of collective bargaining, the teachers of this Province.

They are concerned because they believe, as do the unionists

involved in the private sector, they believe this is the tip of the iceberg of

an attempt by a right wing regime to remove rights of workers so as to establish

that employers and businesses, including government, will attempt to balance

their books, increase profits on the backs of employees by removing contract

stripping, removing wages, removing benefits which, Mr. Speaker, is very unfair.

The right of collective bargaining is the very basic tenet of unionism. It is

that right that unions have fought for for a hundred years, I guess, Mr.

Speaker. They have fought for the right to have people represent them at a table

and collectively bargain for their wages and benefits.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a right that we have often taken

for granted. I suppose the fact that we have taken it for granted is why we have

seen this government table this legislation and take it away, and we have not

seen the people hit the streets. Some people have suggested that the reason why

people have not hit the streets is because they are in favour of it. I have not

met a person yet who is in favour of removing the right of collective

bargaining.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Until I sat in this House and listened to

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations for this Province, that speaker

stood and spoke of how he was in favour of removing the right of collective

bargaining. Mr. Speaker, a former leader in the labour movement, to stand with

his back to the people who put him in this House.

Now, somebody just muttered from the other side that I do not

believe in unions. Well, I certainly do believe in unions, and the people in

western Labrador know that I believe in unions. The steelworkers in Labrador

City know that I support them, and know that I have supported them. The private

sector unions are concerned about the fact that this government, this regime,

has seen fit to go and strip the right of collective bargaining in the public

sector -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Eagle

River is suggesting that I supported the local labour movement in western

Labrador by donating premises and equipment to the union movement, so that they

could subsidize the purchase of groceries -

AN HON. MEMBER: During an election!

MR. A. SNOW: And it was not even during an election, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The bar, yes, did open at 7:00 a.m. that

day, and closed around 2:00 a.m. But, Mr. Speaker, thousands of miners that

night had steak for supper, because it was subsidized by the union, and space

donated by myself and my companies, to help them, to provide food for the

families of union workers that were on strike.

But that type of cooperation you would never see from this

group of individuals. These people do not stand with their union members. These

people stand against, opposed to, the union membership and that is tremendously

unfair.

Now the violation of trust that this regime has seen fit to

instill into this Province is going to have a tremendous impact, I believe, on

what is going to occur down the road if this government continues with this

right-wing movement that they are onto. They have violated the trust that public

employees and the electorate have put into them, and people are very

apprehensive about it. People have talked to me about it in my district. I

probably live in the most heavily unionized district in this Province. It also

happens to probably be the wealthiest district of this Province. Whether you

measure per capita earnings, or if you measure the wealth of the gross

provincial product from that particular district or from the industry, or if you

measure the amount of discretionary income that people have, it is probably the

wealthiest district in this Province.

It is not just because of the wealth that is in the ground

which the people remove with equipment. It is because of the energy and

commitment that the work force has that work these pieces of machinery, Mr.

Speaker. That is what creates the wealth in my district, and they are paid

handsomely for what they do. They are paid very, very well for what they do, and

they work hard for the money they receive, the remuneration they receive from

their employer, Mr. Speaker. Last year we saw the employer award them an

unprecedented wage increase that I believe was accepted with a 90-odd per cent

acceptance by the membership. Mr. Speaker, because they are paid well for the

work they do, they work harder than most other miners in this country. They work

harder than most other people in this Province and produce more.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is also a basic trust between the

employee and the employer. We have seen that works to the benefit of the

production of wealth by this particular mining company. What do we see in this

Province, Mr. Speaker, by a major employer in this Province? A breakdown of that

trust between an employer and an employee. They don't trust this government, Mr.

Speaker. Employees don't trust this government. If you are a nurse in a

hospital, you can't trust them or if you are a patient expecting good service,

Mr. Speaker, for all the tax dollars that you have submitted to this government

to deliver services, you can't trust them. If you are a policeman or a

fire-fighter protecting the safety of the public, you can't trust this

government.

AN HON. MEMBER: For a good reason too, Art.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, if you are a wildlife officer

or somebody working in the line departments such as Social Services, you can't

trust this government because they know that they will sign an agreement on one

day and tear it up two days later, and they probably would have done it the day

following if they had not taken a little space out to increase the taxation, Mr.

Speaker, because what they have done really, it is not just a wage restraint,

they have rolled back the wages through tax increases. They will tell you that

they had no choice but to do it. It was done with their eye on a so called big

picture, the idea being that the previous administration had total

responsibility for creating the mess that this group has found itself in.

Mr. Speaker, when they took over the reins of the management

of this Province, when they brought in the first budget, they had a surplus, a

$10 million surplus. Through their mismanagement we have seen increased deficit

financing ever since they have been elected. That is not coincidental, Mr.

Speaker. I think that it is because of how they approached it. They have

approached the manner of administering this Province with a simple bookkeeping

mentality, and that can't be done. They have to be more creative. They have to

be more imaginative than just increasing taxes or cutting services, or as they

suggest the third option being to borrow more money.

We never said you could just go out and borrow more money,

Mr. Speaker. We have not said that. Some people may have suggested it, but, Mr.

Speaker, one of the reasons why I have strong disagreements with the party I

used to belong with, the New Democratic Party, is because some of their

philosophy is to borrow, borrow and borrow, some people in that particular

party. Although we are seeing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: But, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that we

can borrow our way to prosperity, and neither does my leader. Mr. Speaker, I do

believe that there is a time when the Crown should be participating in the

economy. There is a time when we should have the Crown participating, and there

are things that the government could be doing to stimulate the economy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), tell us where you are

getting the money.

MR. A. SNOW: You see, Mr. Speaker, that is the mentality,

we just have to have more money, we have to have more money, we are going to

increase taxes. You do not necessarily increase the amount of revenue to a

government by increasing the taxes, there is a point of diminishing returns. One

of the things that this government has seen fit not to do, is to create that

infrastructure to stimulate more investment. They do not create that atmosphere,

to stimulate more investment from the private sector, Mr. Speaker.

The responsibility of government, Mr. Speaker, is to provide

a framework for people to go to work, for people with a private sector mode or

motive or psyche, they want to invest their savings to be able to invest in this

Province and to opportunities in this Province and create more wealth, more

employment, that is what the role of government is, so that they will be able to

receive more money and deliver services to the people. That is what a

government's responsibility is, Mr. Speaker. It is not just to increase taxes,

it is to create more wealth. So they have to create the opportunity of

attracting more wealth, that is what you have to do, not like the minister

responsible for Mines and Energy, does. We have a Crown Corporation whose prime

purpose, Newfoundland Hydro's prime purpose in western Labrador, is to come in

and take more money out, not to create more wealth.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have seen people suggest on the other

side, that they are doing it for the benefit of the Province, that is why the

people in Labrador City and Wabush are going to have to pay, suggested by the

public relations people from Newfoundland Hydro, 300 per cent more for their

electrical energy, 300 per cent, Mr. Speaker, and they say that the public

policy purpose of that Crown Corporation for this government, this regime, is to

just come in and create more taxes, take more money out of western Labrador,

that is all they are doing, Mr. Speaker, and that is not very creative, it is

not very imaginative, it is not progressive, it is not liberal, Mr. Speaker,

this is regressive. They are stifling the economy of this Province by stifling

the economy in western Labrador. They should be creating more opportunities.

But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Forestry and Lands

says yes, it is true and he agrees with me and says that he is sorry, that the

Premier has forced him to do it and he wants to stay in Cabinet and that is why

he agrees with it, but it is unfortunate that he does not have the backbone to

stand up to the other people in the Cabinet and suggest that they should be

doing things differently. But the fact that this government has broken the trust

that was given to them by the electorate in '89, and, by the way, by people in

this Province for the last forty or fifty years. The people of this Province

believed that they had the right of collective bargaining until this group was

elected and removed that right, the right of collective bargaining, a basic

right of unions anywhere in the free world, we are seeing removed here in this

Province, the only province I know of that has seen fit to do that type of

thing.

The private sector unions have cause to be nervous, to be

apprehensive, to be afraid of what this government is going to do to them

because they start with their own employees first. You cut them first, you roll

back their benefits, take away their rights first and the next people you will

be attacking will be the people in the private sector,

whereas today, the

private sector is protected by the courts, the same courts that were supposed to

protect the public employees, but this piece of legislation has ripped away that

protection and is going to allow this regime to take away benefits and

compensation, and the rights of workers in this Province that we have never seen

removed by any other Legislative body in this country, and done by a government

headed by an individual, Premier Wells, who always espouses the equality of

individuals. We see today that when he gets the opportunity of treating people

equally, of giving employees the same opportunity as employers, he sees fit to

come down on the side of the employer through legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the people of my district have talked to me

about this piece of legislation. They recognize the financial dilemma that this

government has found itself in, because of their mismanagement of the economy.

They have said that they are against this piece of legislation. They are against

what this regime has seen fit to do. They don't believe that they had no choice,

they believe that they should have done other things. No other legislative body

in this country saw fit to do this to the employees, Mr. Speaker, except this

government. It is the only government that does it. It will reflect, I believe,

Mr. Speaker, on the House itself, it will reflect on politicians and, also, Mr.

Speaker, it will reflect in the polling booths in the next election. The hon.

members opposite fully realize that. They say the reason why they have to do it

is for the sake of the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know they had another choice. They

could have created the opportunity of providing an infrastructure to people to

invest more money and create more opportunities for employment. That would have

taken imagination and a little bit of daring, which this party lacks, Mr.

Speaker. Because of that lack of daring, lack of responsibility to govern in an

imaginative and creative manner, to provide the people of this Province with an

economic plan of diversification, an economic plan for growth and opportunity in

the future, Mr. Speaker, I won't be supporting this piece of legislation,

because of its hallmark of mistrust, because of what it does against collective

bargaining, because of this unwarranted use of power by this regime, because it

is completely unnecessary, because it is an attack on ordinary Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, and because it will do nothing to help the economy, those are

the reasons I won't be supporting this, Mr. Speaker. I hope the people on the

other side of the House will listen, and on this side of the House, I am sure,

they too will not support it.

Thank you.

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

he speaks now, he will close the debate.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few brief comments about Bill 17. I know that members

opposite have tried to make their points in opposition to Bill 17. The unions in

the Province have tried to make their points with regard to Bill 17. A common

phrase that you hear is: An agreement is an agreement is an agreement, and you

cannot break an agreement. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have had to break the

agreements. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker, if we had barrels of money, if we had all kinds

of sources of money, if we had a good credit rating, if we had all those things,

we could probably avoid Bill 17. If we had a leadership in the public service

unions that was willing to discuss things with us, we could have avoided Bill

17. There is no doubt in my mind at all, we could have avoided legislating a

wage freeze. But, Mr. Speaker, when the revenues go, when there is a limit to

your borrowing, when you get into the public service of this Province and you

cut and you cut and you cut, and you cut tens of millions of dollars out of

operating expenses and everything else, when you do all that and you still come

up short, you have a very simple choice, because the amount of money you can

spend on providing services to people is now fixed. No more borrowing. We have

reached the limit of that. No more borrowing. Very simple. You have to live

within these maximum limits. In order to live within the maximum limits, it is

either lay off more people or freeze the wages.

Now it is as simple as that. No matter how the public service

unions try to twist and squirm, and no matter how the Opposition tries to twist

and squirm, you come back to that very simple fact. Money going out has to equal

money coming in. Money going out cannot be more than money coming in. It is a

very simple fact.

So, Mr. Speaker, an agreement is an agreement. As I explained

a few days ago, collective bargaining and agreements in the private sector are a

little different from collective agreements and bargaining in the public sector.

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: It is a tremendous difference, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible)!

MR. BAKER: In the private sector - if the Member for Fogo

would listen now he would learn something.

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: That's right. A contract is a contract. Except

when you are in a position where - if you are a private company, and you sign an

agreement with your workers, you honour that agreement, but at the same time you

still have a certain amount of money that you can put into wages. If that amount

is going to bankrupt the company what you do is you lay off people. So you

always fit your revenue, your expenses always fit your revenue. I am just

talking about private sector now, not us, the private sector. If in fact the

revenue of the private company drops so that the collective agreement cannot be

paid, in other words the company goes bankrupt, then they simply close down and

go somewhere else, or close down and get into a new business.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what happens in the private sector.

Therefore, in the collective bargaining process, both sides realise that

possibility. On the one hand the unions have the right to strike; on the other

hand, they know if they push too far the jobs are gone. These are important

safeguards in the process. In the public sector bargaining the right to strike

is there but the safeguard that the company can go bankrupt is not there. That

safeguard is not there. That is why collective bargaining in the public sector

is totally different from collective bargaining in the private sector.

So you come to the point where you have choices to make. You

cannot close down the hospitals and move them somewhere else. What would be the

point of moving the hospitals somewhere else? You cannot close down the schools

and try to get into another business. You cannot close down your social services

system and try to get into a new business. Government cannot do that. The only

reason for the existence of government is to provide the services. So that

option of simply closing down, packing her in and getting into some other line

of work, does not exist. So government then has to, as a last resort, after all

the cutting and after all of the trimming and cutting expenses and so on, and

after the revenue options have been exhausted, the choice is this - you go to

the leaders of the public sector unions and you say to them, quite openly: look,

here are our books, here is the amount of money we have coming in, here are all

the cuts that we have made, here is the whole situation. Now, you can see that

we do not have the money.

In meeting after meeting you ask for advice on how to handle

this situation. In meeting after meeting it is all give on the government's

part, and the private sector union leaders sitting there with a smirk on their

face. It is all 'give' on the government's part, so meeting after meeting we

give. We give information, and we give them more and more information and say:

Look, this is the situation that we are faced with and we are going to have to

deal with, because we cannot close down the hospitals; we cannot close the

schools; we have to keep our welfare system operating, and we have to do this,

that and something else for the people of this Province. We cannot close her all

down like they did in Commission of Government. When they brought in Commission

of Government to take over the Province, 'close her all down and let somebody

else come in from outside who has some sense of fiscal responsibility and let

them run the Province'. We did not have that option. So we get no input from the

public sector unions. As a matter of fact, they took all the information, and

they eventually made some suggestions to us, some of which make sense in the

long-term, but nothing to solve the immediate budgetary problem that we had now,

nothing except 'Go out and spend another $100 million and that will generate

$200 million worth of revenue' - the silly economics, funny economics, funny

money.

So we, at that point in time, made the choice, the only

choice we could make. We did not want to lay off 3,000 or 4,000 public servants.

We did not want to lay off 500 teachers. We did not want to lay off 250 nurses.

We did not want to do that, because at this point in time, it would have too

great an effect on the system. That left us with the one option, and that

happened to be the wage freeze.

Mr. Speaker, this bill goes a step further. It says to the

union leadership, don't count on there being tons of money next year. It looks

as if the recovery is slower than everybody expected, so next year - you have to

have another year of zero - the year after that, 3 per cent is the maximum we

believe we can pay. So we had to tell them that. We have to say that to them in

all honesty, because that is what the indications are at this point in time. It

might be better, and it might be worse, but certainly there is no magic solution

in the next six or eight months. It does not exist.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this time, in Bill 17 we gave the union,

though, more options. We did not say, your wage scales are frozen. We did not

say that next year your wage scale will get an increase of 3 per cent. We did

not say that. We left it wide open and talked in terms of total compensation for

that unit, total compensation, which means that if the unions - if, in fact,

their major priority is take-home pay for their membership, then they have a

mechanism of getting the take-home pay for their membership. As a matter of

fact, some of their own members are suggesting lowering union fees so they have

a bit more take-home pay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Contract stripping that is called.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says,

contract stripping. I suppose a readjustment - we are not saying to the unions,

we are going to take this away from you; therefore, you can have a 5 per cent

increase in take-home pay. That is not it. That is contract stripping. We are

simply saying, 'This is the money we have. You decide how you want that money

spent.' We are passing the responsibility on to the union leadership, and let me

tell you what is going to happen. I am going to predict something now, what is

going to happen. The union leadership is not going to be able to carry out that

responsibility. They are going to refuse to carry out the responsibility because

they do not want to. They do not want the responsibility. All they want to do is

rant and rave and shout about the government who is trying to nail them. That is

all they want to do. They are not going to take that responsibility, and I

suspect that what will happen is this year there will be zero and next year

there will be 3 per cent added on to the wage scales. They will not look at it

and see how they can adjust expenditures to come up with more of a take-home pay

for their membership. They will not do that, because that is too great a

responsibility for them to have.

Mr. Speaker, we have to take the responsibility, and that is

why Bill 17 exists. That is why Bill 17 is the right thing for the Province at

this point in time. As much as we regret having to legislate, we are the only

ones who are willing to take the responsibility for the financial and the fiscal

integrity of this Province, the only ones willing to even consider that, and we

are quite proud of the fact.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 17.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now

read a

second time?

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the bill carried?

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

The Chair is just waiting for direction from the hon.

members. We called for division and we have to wait ten minutes unless the hon.

members indicate they are ready for the question.

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of second reading of the bill, please

rise.

The hon. the President of the Council, the hon. the Minister

of Health, the hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, the hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Mines and

Energy, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, Mr. Barrett,

Mr. K. Aylward, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the

hon. the Minister of Finance, Mr. Reid, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Crane, Mr. Penney, Mr.

Murphy, Mr. Dumaresque, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Small.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

Mr. Matthews, Mr. Tobin, Mr. R. Aylward, Mr. Doyle, Mr.

Woodford, Mr. N. Windsor, Mr. S. Winsor, Mr. A. Snow, Mr. Harris.

CLERK (Mr. J. Noel): Mr. Speaker, nineteen for the motion

and nine against.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Just one second, we are not ready yet.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Extend Restraint of

Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province," read a second time, ordered

referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 17).

MR. BAKER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting

Elections, Controverted Elections And Election Financing." (Bill No. 1).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased

today to rise and speak on this very historic piece of legislation, another

example of the reform of this government, another example of the kind of

commitment that this government has, to reform.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, after fighting the last election

campaign, and as we know today, what we have seen from this government is a

government that is committed to making strides in a number of different areas.

One of the main planks of our last platform, Mr. Speaker, was to finally bring

in reform to the elections act, to finally put into place accountability and,

certainly, the kind of structure that the people deserve in having their

elections run and, indeed, having the operations of the political parties

perform under.

So I am very happy today to see this great election, great

Liberal promise brought to the floor of the House of Assembly for second

reading. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that there will be hardly any debate on this

because there is such a consensus in the Province that what we have here is a

piece of excellent -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair just wants to clarify a matter. I have been

informed by the Table that the hon. member has already spoken on this in second

reading.

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, Mr. Speaker, I stood and submitted

the report on last Tuesday, but that was by no means the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, Mr. Speaker, I never spoke on second

reading. This is the first time it has been called for second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair just wants to take a minute to check.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he didn't speak.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes he did. Sit down.

AN HON. MEMBER: He introduced the bill.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I tabled the report, as I should.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give him leave.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I don't need leave, Mr. Speaker, either I

am abiding by the rules or I am not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. member?

Well the hon. member can continue by leave, is that it, until

the Chair has checked this matter out?

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the

situation straightened out because, I mean-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DUMARESQUE: - if you are going to listen to the

advice of hon. members on this, I know they are wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has just been instructed that the Chair is

checking out the matter and he can continue to debate, okay?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no doubt, we need lots of reform in the election

process and certainly we need to have some briefing sessions for people in this

House, if they do not know the rules. I mean that is -

MR. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: You could lose leave if you are not careful.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, just a point of clarification,

I think the hon. member is confused. I mean, it was obviously the table that

notified, Your Honour, that the member had spoken before, it was not us

objecting to the hon. member speaking. It is the table that advises, His Honour,

so we have no problem with the member speaking, he chaired the committee and we

were interested in hearing what he had to say, so you know, the problem is not

us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't not get snarky.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Okay.

MR. MURPHY: Jack, what are you doing in that chair?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Jack get over there boy, you will never

be the Leader of the Opposition, for sure, get over in your right place there.

MR. SPEAKER: According to the March 20th, Hansard, the

hon. member has already spoken in this debate on page 328 of Hansard. The hon.

member says: I am very pleased to rise and debate "An Act Respecting Elections,

Controverted Elections and Election Financing.", so the hon. member has already

spoken on this matter.

MR. DUMARESQUE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River, on a

point of order.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Now, Mr. Speaker, I never caught that.

You said when I spoke in second reading on this particular -

MR. SPEAKER: On March 20th.

MR. DUMARESQUE: On March 20th?

MR. SPEAKER: According to Hansard, the hon. member has

already spoken on March 18th, the hon. member rose in his place and was

recognized by the Speaker, and -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Second reading?

MR. SPEAKER: - on page 328, the hon. member for Eagle

River was recognized by the Speaker, and he rose and he spoke in the debate on

"An Act Respecting Elections, Controverted Elections and Election Financing."

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, certainly, Mr. Speaker, if that is

what the record shows, then I have no quarrel with it.

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

MR. BAKER: Would you notify the House, Mr. Speaker, that

if I speak, I will close the debate?

MR. TOBIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member is not

aware of what took place in the House when we were there at the -

MR. BAKER: He cannot speak.

MR. TOBIN: - no, Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out

that the member got up and the table suggested to the Speaker, that the hon.

member had already spoken in the debate, and as an opposition party we agreed,

when the Speaker said he had to check it out, that we would grant the hon.

member leave, if he wanted to continue to speak, even if he had spoken before we

were prepared to give him leave, so, when you stood that time, when the

Government House Leader stood, Mr. Speaker, we thought he was going to speak to

the fact that we had granted leave to his colleague to continue debate if he

wanted to, not to close debate on it, not to speak to close the debate.

We, as this party, despite the fact that he had spoken

before, we had granted him leave to debate it again if he wanted to.

MR. SPEAKER: So, the hon. member has leave to continue

the debate?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the

members opposite for allowing me this opportunity because I wanted to take a few

minutes to talk about the reform of this particular bill, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DUMARESQUE: - but, Mr. Speaker, I know that hon.

members opposite would certainly not welcome the kind of reform that this

government is putting forward in this area but I want to take a few minutes, Mr.

Speaker, to talk about the amendments we have recommended as a standing

committee.

Hon. members will note that some time ago, about four months

ago the House asked the Committee on Elections and Privileges to review the act

and to seek public consultation on the act itself. Albeit, where it has been

recognized as an excellent piece of legislation and a hallmark of reform for

this government we still went out, Mr. Speaker, and tried to seek public input

on this important piece of legislation to make sure that any blemish at all to

the proposed legislation, anything at all that deviated from our overall thrust

of accountability and our overall meaning to get the controverted elections, and

elections financing in this Province under a proper structure.

We wanted to make sure that we did whatever we could to make

sure that the bill was fine tuned and met with public approval. We undertook

that task and I wish to take this opportunity to thank the members of the

committee, the Member for Port au Port, the Vice-Chair, the Member for Kilbride,

the Member for Carbonear and the Member for Pleasantville, Mr. Speaker. All

members worked very hard and we had fourteen public meetings in which we

entertained representations from a wide variety of groups and also a number of

individuals representing, I would say, thousands of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians including the Federation of Labour, the Newfoundland Federation of

Students, the executive director of the Canadian Paraplegic Association.

We listened to people from the President of the Student's

Union at the university. A vide variety of people came forward to make very,

very good recommendations. I must also use this opportunity to acknowledge the

tremendous contribution that these groups and individuals made to this process.

We got some very comprehensive proposals that obviously reflected the kind of

thought and consideration that these groups and individuals put into this piece

of legislation.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I can speak on behalf of the

committee in saying we gave very serious consideration to all of the committees

that came forward and all of the presentations that were made. As the House well

knows we recommended some thirty-one possible amendments to this piece of

legislation because we wanted to make sure that once it was enacted it was done

so with the proper public scrutiny and certainly we wanted to make sure that it

reflected the principles that were outlined in the first part of this

legislation.

One of the things I wanted to talk about was the

representations that were made to us respecting the special ballots. A lot of

the individuals and groups who came to the committee said that the legislation

as proposed would see the elimination of all special ballots throughout the

Province, that that should be reviewed because it would give the whole process a

very cumbersome job and certainly would have made the chief electoral office

that much more, I guess, cumbersome to operate because it would definitely carry

a large financial price tag as well as a number of other basic administrative

challenges to that office in order to be able to see the elections carried out

as they have been in the past.

Apart from that administrative nightmare, as I think the

former chief electoral officer put it to the committee, apart from that there

was a lot of consideration made, or a lot of attention paid to the fact that the

proxy vote would have prohibited people from voting in the sense that it called

for a lot of documentation to be received in order for a person to be able to

vote by proxy. Certainly it would also take away the confidentiality of voters

in the sense that they would have to give the right to cast their ballot to

somebody else.

So, Mr. Speaker, this Committee diligently received and

pursued the recommendations that were put to us, and also we were fortunate in a

way that midway through our public hearings and discussions, the Royal

Commission on electoral reform that has been struck for the last couple of years

at the national level reported, I guess right in the middle of our

deliberations. That committee made I would think also a great number of very

comprehensive and very well meaning recommendations.

One of these recommendations was to the effect that the proxy

vote be abolished as it presently stands in the federal elections act. So, with

that in mind, we as a committee recommended that the proxy vote also be

abolished from this legislation, that it not be entertained as an option to

replace special polls. But instead we recommended that a procedure, as denoted

in the Royal Commission report, something to the effect of having a special

write in ballot, that that be looked at as a real option to replace the special

ballots. We believe that if this recommendation is accepted by the government

that it will go a long way to satisfying the kinds of concerns that were raised

in our public hearings. Particularly, it will give every voter the satisfaction

that their confidentiality will not be hindered. That indeed every voter who

wants to vote will have the ability to do so, by going to any polling station

and be able to obtain a special ballot.

That special ballot would be, I guess, set up in such a way

that the individual voter would have the option of voting for the person who is

running in their home riding, or voting for the individual who is running in the

area where they may reside. How this would operate is that the student, for

instance, who is here in St. John's, would go to special poll, or the advance

poll, that is ordinarily set up - say at the Cabot Institute - and they would be

able to ask for a special ballot from the deputy returning officer. When they

receive that ballot it would be a blank ballot, and they would then have the

ability to write in the candidate of their choice. Then that ballot would be put

back into an envelope on which on the outside of the envelope would appear the

name of the district in which that person executed their vote for. In turn, that

envelope then would be put back into a special ballot box that would be at that

polling station, and therefore it would then receive all of the special ballots

that would be cast in that particular location.

Then, at the end of the day, that special ballot box would be

delivered to the Chief Electoral Office, at which time and place it would be

opened on election night. Certainly the Chief Electoral Officer would then be

responsible for seeing that each ballot that was cast, as they will be I am sure

- a lot of ballots cast for the district of Eagle River and other places in this

Province - they would then be apportioned to the appropriate slot. I certainly

hope, as one hon. member says, that there will be ample supply of Liberal votes

coming into that special ballot box from the special poll or the advance poll

here in St. John's.

That is the way I think that it can and will work. It will

cut down on the administration and certainly the cost of delivering that

know that they will be able to exercise that option, of voting in the riding in

which they reside, or indeed casting a ballot for the candidate of their choice

in their home riding. Certainly the overall effect and accountability of this

legislation will be improved if this particular recommendation is accepted by

the government.

Another series of recommendations that I guess could be

highlighted under a general topic would be the intention of the Committee to

make sure that the elections of this Province were accessible to the disabled

community. This is another area, of course, where there has been no, in our view

certainly in the provincial legislation up to this point, there is not a lot of

sensitivity given to the ability of the disabled people to vote, in the sense

that certainly there have been no measures taken, even to the effect that there

are no

definitions provided of a disabled voter and certainly nothing that would

give the chief electoral office some point on which they could reference and be

able to then allow for special considerations to be given.

What we endeavoured to do is to try and put in place in the

Elections Act, once and for all, measures that would be able to allow the

disabled community to access the polling stations. Also, once they access the

polling stations, that they would also be able to deliver their vote. In

particular to the blind community we suggested that braille templates be used;

that they must be used as a part of the process in which ballots are done up.

Ballot boxes would also be accompanied by appropriate templates, and this would

give a nice few members in the disabled community an opportunity to be able to

exercise their right to vote and be able to give them, as much as possible, the

of confidence in the system as any other voter has.

I was very pleased to see that members of the committee were

happy to support the recommendations along those lines; to see that in the

enumeration for instance - I am not sure how the disabled community may feel

about it, but one of the recommendations that we thought might be good is that

in the initial enumeration of voters that there be some way provided in which

members of the disabled community could be identified to the district returning

officer so that when he or she is preparing for election day they would know if

there are ten people in that community who are from a disabled community who

would need to be accommodated and therefore they would take the appropriate

action. This would be a way, I guess, of making people more aware of the people

in the community who would need these services, and I believe that it would make

for greater efficiency.

Another aspect of making this bill, I think, more sensitive

to the disabled community was a direct recommendation to the chief electoral

office that it put a training program in place - a training program that would

bring together all fifty-two district returning officers. Certainly a prominent

part of that training program must include the ability to make the necessary

preparations for the disabled community.

I think I can say with confidence that this committee not

only heard the representations made to us by members of the Civic No. 4 group

and the Canadian Paraplegic Association and others who touched upon this topic,

we can say with very great confidence that we have made some strides, I believe.

We have made some recommendations that if adopted will see for greater

indeed a greater effective piece of legislation for these people.

Another third recommendation we made was that the committee

should be given the mandate to further research the aspect of bringing

leadership and party nominations under the Elections Act. As members might know,

I believe except for one jurisdiction, there is no other jurisdiction in Canada

that has either party leadership conventions or party nominations under their

Elections Act. I think there is just one, but we thought that it would be a good

example of reform for Newfoundland and Labrador to take some of the first steps

in seeing that a party leadership process and a party nomination process be

given a similar kind of structure and accountability. I guess particularly we

are talking more along the lines of financing, and that there should be some

kind of financial parameters set around the party leadership campaigns as well

as the party nomination process, as we see now being proposed for the actual

election of the candidates at the district level, and certainly, for the

provincial party organizations, there is a cap on what they can spend at that

level.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thought we were responsible and we were

looking to trying to make that extra effort in Newfoundland and Labrador to be

sensitive to some of the concerns that have been raised in the public in the

past, as we have seen, where party leadership conventions, especially the way of

selecting delegates and things of that nature can get out of hand. You can see

it interfered with directly by vested interest groups or certainly, whatever is

needed, in many cases, to see that their particular delegates are selected.

So we thought it was another good example of reform in the

elections process that this government could consider, and, Mr. Speaker, I would

hope that they certainly will. I would hope that we would get the support of the

government for the recommendations that we have made. We believe quite sincerely

that the committee's work has been time well spent in terms of acknowledging the

contributions that were made by the presenters, Mr. Speaker.

I would urge all hon. members, I guess, on a concluding note,

this evening, to please carefully review the Elections Act, because, as you

leave this House of Assembly to go into the next campaign, under this piece of

legislation you should know what you are operating under. You must know what you

are operating under, because it is going to be a big change. There are going to

be a lot of changes in store in terms of - I will just give a couple of things,

Mr. Speaker. You are going to have to first and foremost, right away, get your

district associations at your district level, have them authorized and enshrined

as a legal entity. Because, if you do not, then your district association, if it

is not in place, they cannot propose a chief financial officer. If there is no

chief financial officer, of course, you can have no election spending in your

particular area.

There are a number of technical things, Mr. Speaker, that you

have to be wary of, and you certainly have to have all of that groundwork done.

There will be complete auditing requested and called for. You will have to have

each of your district associations audited on an annual basis. When you run a

campaign, each of your statements will have to be audited, Mr. Speaker, and

there will be penalties. We have also acknowledged in our recommendations that

some of these penalties are probably not strict enough. We would like to see

that reviewed, too, but certainly, as the legislation is structured, there are

penalties there that will see that people who flagrantly go out and try to avoid

some of the spending guidelines, try to take on services or resources that are

not duly accounted for, will be appropriately penalized.

We would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this part of the legislation

will be reviewed so that the penalties that are there will certainly be a very

strong signal to anybody who would think about thwarting this process, that they

will think twice about doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I would say on a concluding note, please

carefully review the legislation. Certainly, we would appreciate any other

comments that hon. members would have, but I would urge all hon. members to give

this piece of legislation your support. It is long overdue. I can safely say

that we have a very comprehensive elections act to come forward, and one that I

think Newfoundland and Labrador can hold up with pride across the country.

I would like to thank the members, Mr. Speaker, for their

work, and I look forward to the ensuing debate. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. members could take their places. The

Chair has to clear up the matter that is now before the House. The hon. the

Member for Eagle River, of course, who just spoke, spoke by leave of the House.

On Tuesday, March 24, the hon. the President of Treasury Board had adjourned the

debate, so he is the rightful member to be speaking in this debate at this time.

The hon. member rose on March 24. The hon. the President of

Treasury Board, if he speaks now, closes the debate. The hon. member did not

move the motion but he adjourned the debate shortly afterwards.

So, unless there is leave of the House, the hon. the

President of Treasury adjourned the debate.

MR. R. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point

of order.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, you might want to clarify

that a bit more. From what I understand your ruling is, during the last debate,

second reading debate was finished, except that the President of Treasury Board

hadn't finished his debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Since that time, we have tabled our

report and now we are going into Committee, I guess, at the next opportunity. Is

that what I understand it to be? I am confused now because I don't know what is

going on. I understood I was speaking next, but I don't know.

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

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My

understanding is that His Honour has said the debate was already at the point of

being closed, that I was closing debate. There is some confusion today, that I

assumed that I had not got up to close debate, but in actual fact, I was in the

process of closing off this particular second reading debate. I can remember now

exactly, Your Honour, that is exactly what happened. So, is the member clear now

that all the debate had finished in second reading, and that I was in the

process of closing off the second reading debate when the debate was last

adjourned?

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

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

point of order.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, or actually, a

clarification. I don't have the minutes in front of me, and Hansard, but did the

minister do what he did here today, say: If I speak now I will close debate, but

the minister never commenced his speech? If the minister never commenced his

speech, then debate would not have ceased, that would be my understanding, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The procedure is that when the minister

introducing the bill rises for a second time,he is recognised by the Chair. The

Chair indicates that if the hon. minister speaks, then he closes the debate.

That took place on Tuesday, March 24. The hon. the President of Treasury Board

did not conclude his debate at the time, he didn't move second reading, he

adjourned the debate. So when the matter was called again today, the hon. the

President of Treasury Board would have been the appropriate member to stand and

conclude the debate.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is, when this

proceeding takes place in the House, as it has in the past, oftentimes the

minister rises to speak, and it is indicated that if the minister speaks then he

would close debate. But it is my understanding from what Your Honour has just

said that the minister did not even commence to speak, let alone conclude his

remarks. Therefore, the debate is not concluded.

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that I

spoke for at least ten minutes about this great Liberal initiative. I believe

that was the context, if Your Honour will read, about the fact that this was

solely and totally a Liberal initiative until it got to the Committee. So I was

in the midst of my remarks when the debate was adjourned. I can remember that

now, but I didn't earlier.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that is correct. The hon. minister rose

in his place on March 24, he was recognised by the Speaker. It says: "The hon.

the President of Treasury Board. If he speaks now, he closes the debate." The

hon. member spoke for some time, and at that point he said: "Mr. Speaker, I

adjourn debate. I move that the House at its rising do ad