Volume XLI Tuesday Province of Newfoundland FORTY -FIRSTGE _NERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Second Session VERBATIM REPORT {Hansard) Speaker: Honourable Thomas Lush [Preliminary Transcript] Number 29 8 May 1990

The House met at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Speaker (Lush): Order, please! ~ The hon. the Member for Kilbride. Mr . R. ~d: ~Speaker. Thank you, very On behalf of all Members of this House of Assembly I would like you to send condolences to the family of Thomas Anthony Horan, Blue Puttee 212, who died at his residence on Southside Road on Friday. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Horan was ninety-six years old at his death. He was a survivor of the battle of the Somme in the 1916 July drive where the Newfoundland regiment was decimated, Mr. Speaker, at Beaumont Hamel in France. Mr.

Horan and his wife raised sixteen children and I am sure Members of the House of Assembly here would be familiar with some of Mr. Horan's children, all very fine upstanding people living in this Province and throughout Canada right now, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Horan was a very good friend of my grandparents, a very respected person in this Province, and in the District of Kilbride, and in his church the parish of Corpus Christi. The irony, I guess, of Mr. Horan's death is that on Friday the Royal Newfoundland Regiment celebrated its 195th birthday, and that was the day Mr. Horan died. ~r.

Speaker: The hon. the Minister or Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Mr. Gullage: Mr. Speaker, we would like to add our words of condolence as well to the Horan family. I personally knew the family very well. Being a southsider myself, of course, the Gullage family and the Horan Ll May 8, 1990 Vol XLI family both lived on the Southside and I got to know the family very well over the years. As a matter of fact Mr. Horan made me always welcome every time I went to his house. He was a fine, fine gentleman, as was mentioned by the Member, and raised a family of sixteen, a rather large family.

He was a world war veteran and a very respected and well liked person particularly on the southside among southsiders and throughout the District. We would like to add our words of condolences to those of the Member. Thank you. t1r Speaker:-: The hon. the Member for Humber East. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask Your Honour to send messages on behalf of all Members of this House to the seven Status of Women Councils in our Province that operate women's centres.

I suggest that the messages congratulate them on their largely successful campaign to have the Federal Government extend operating funding so that all centres will be able to continue their valuable service throughout this year. I say, largely successful, because the Federal Government has not assured continuing core funding for women's centres, so I suggest that in addition to congratulating the women's centres on their campaign for continued Federal funding that we pledge our ongoing support for their continuing efforts to secure Federal funding beyond this year.

Their campaign aimed at ongoing Federal funding proved that they enjoy widespread support of the citizens of our Province. The messages that I am suggesting are No. 29 (Afternoon) Rl

consistent with the resolution passed in this House a month or so ago on a motion by the Member for Bellevue, which was supported unanimously . Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.~_eJlker: with the Orders Before proceeding of the Day, the bon. the Member for Fogo. Mr. Winsor: Mr. Speaker, for the second time this year a Newfoundlander has distinguished himself in the hockey world. Dwayne Norris sometime ago caught the attention of Canada and Newfoundland when he scored the winning goal in Europe, and last night John Slaney of St.

John's, a defenseman with the Cornwall Royals, won the Outstanding Defenseman Award for all of Canada in the Canadian Junior Hockey League. Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Winsor: I would like for this House to acknowledge John's great contributions and have the Speaker send the appropriate commendation. ~ Speaker: Before proceeding with the Orders of the Day, on behalf of all han. Members, I wish to extend a most cordial welcome to sixteen Grade 6 and Grade 7 students from Rigolet in the District of Torngat Mountains.

These students and their teacher, Melva Bradley, are visiting under the Newfoundland and Labrador Intraprovincial Travel Program administered by the Youth Services Division of the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs . So we would like to extend to them a sincere welcome both to the Capital City and to the House of Assembly. L2 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Statements by Ministers Mr. Speaker: The ~inister of Fisheries . han. the Mr .

Walter Carter: yesterday, the Valcourt, Minister Mr . han. of Speaker, Bernard Fisheries and Oceans for Canada, announced the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program. The Premier held a press conference immediately after this announcement to give the reaction of the Government of Newfoundland to the Program. It is my intention over the next few days to offer additional comments on this Adjustment Program and also to make this han. House more aware of the proposal which had been advanced by the Province to -the Federal Government to be included as part of the Federal/Provincial Response Program.

The Province has a number of major concerns with the Adjustment Program. One of our major concerns is the fact that it is focussed almost entirely on the offshore sector, without recognizing the devastating impact that resource reductions are having upon inshore fishermen. I will be speaking later on the need for an income support program to meet the urgent requirements of fixed gear fishermen, particularly on the south and west coasts of our Province. On August 23, 1989, the Premier and I met with Members of the Federal Cabinet Committee to discuss our assessment of this crises in the industry.

We indicated at that time that action must be taken to deal with a major economic crises arising from a No. 29 (Afternoon) R2 .

reduction in ground fish quotas of more than 100,000 metric tons. We translated these quota reductions into an economic output loss of close to $200 million and 3,200 person years of work in 1990. The Province also proposed a Federal/Provincial economic development and diversification program which would recognize the need for alternative employment opportunities to be created outside of the fishery. Because of the failure of regional economic development policies, the Newfoundland fishery has had to carry a disproportionate responsibility for contributing to our economic well-being.

Too many people have found it necessary to find a livelihood in the harvesting and processing of fish. · This has had the effect of reducing earned income in the Newfoundland fishery to levels significantly below those in the other Atlantic provinces and significantly less than the industrial wage of other Newfoundland workers. Mr. Speaker, if the Newfoundland fishery is to be prosperous and productive, then there must be opportunities outside of the fishery. This is why the Province has proposed an economic development and diversification program to create new employment opportunities.

I will have more to say about our proposed program later and I will be telling this han. House about the components of our proposal which included not only expenditure components but also policy changes which could be taken by the Government of Canada without adding to the Federal deficit. However, the strategy which the Federal and Provincial Governments had been embarked upon was directed towards creating new L3 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI .. opportunities outside of the fishery. The Newfoundland fishery will not be strong and prosperous unless it is part of a healthy Newfoundland economy. By the same token, Mr.

Speaker, the Newfoundland economy will not be healthy and prosperous uhless we have a strong and prosperous fishery. The two go hand in hand. Mr. Speaker, the question has been raised as to whether the Newfoundland Government has proposed or endorsed a downsizing of the Newfoundland fishing industry. Newfoundland did indeed propose that thousands of new jobs be created outside of the fishery in order to provide job opportunities for people in the fishery who were earning an inadequate income.

However, Newfoundland also proposed that there be further development of the fishing industry so that we could build a stronger fishing industry. We believe that a stronger Newfoundland economy and a stronger fishery can be created by further development within the fishery, as well as diversification outside. We agree with Mr. Valcourt in his statement yesterday that emphasis should be given to the development of under-utilized species, to aquaculture, to fisheries and fish-product development and marketing.

We believe that there is considerable potential to build a stronger and larger fishery through further processing, through improved quality, and generally through higher value added. However, we are disappointed, Mr. Speaker, with the magnitude of the fisheries development proposal contained in Mr. Valcourt's announcement. No . 29 (Afternoon) R3

The Federal Program seeks to downsize the fishery as a mechanism for adjustment. This downsizing of the fishery is to be undertaken through regulatory means. More restrictions will be imposed upon entry into the fishery. Mr. Speaker, we do not believe that this approach will be successful. Such a restrictive approach to downsizing of the fishery is doomed to failure. The economic diversification component of Mr. Valcourt's announcement yesterday was $90 million. This amount will be spread over five provinces and five years . The amount that will be available to Newfoundland will be virtually insignificant.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this represents a repudiation of the structural approach which both the Federal and Provincial Governments had adopted in the fall of 1989. This structural approach was based upon a large-scale economic diversification program combined with fisheries development. Whether this structural approach would have led to a downsizing in the fishing industry is open to question. Certainly with substantially reduced quotas, there will inevitably be a reduction in employment in primary processing. However, Mr.

Speaker, with a successful program of fishery development and development of fisheries related manufacturing, we believe that the negative impacts can be substantially offset. Unfortunately, the announcement yesterday rejected the structural approach which had been the foundation of the joint Federal/Provincial endeavor L4 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI arising from our meetings in August of 1989. Mr. Speaker, I have called upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada to reconsider his rejection of the structural approach and to re-open discussions with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have asked the Federal Minister to give serious consideration to the detailed proposals which have been made to him and to his Government. These proposals recognize the limited fiscal flexibility of the Federal Government by proposing a number of budgetary and non-budgetary components. Mr. Speaker, we hav.e not given up hope that reason will prevail and that a rational Federal/Provincial program can be put in place. The Province has indicated its willingness to share in the cost, not withstanding the difficult financial situation in which this Province finds itself. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and hon. Members. Mr.

Speaker: The han. the Member for Grand Bank. .Mr. Matthew~: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I first would like to thank the Minister of Fisheries for a copy of his statement, albeit I did not get it in as much advance as I usually do. I think his fax machine broke down today because he usually faxes statements over to me and I fax my questions to him. But I did have it before the House started and I would like to thank him for that. Mr. Speaker, I just want to react to the statement by saying that this side of the· House is not completely satisfied with the package that was announced No. 29 (Afternoon) R4

yestet"day by Mt". Valcout"t and the other' Fedet"al Minister's either'. Thet"e at"e some positive aspects to the package and thet"e at"e some negative aspects to the package which, as well, the Mini stet" has alluded to in his statement. But, Mt" . Speaker', let me say this, listening to the mumblings and the uttet"ings of the Pt"emiet", that I have never' seen such an about-face in my life as I have witnessed ft"om this Pt"emiet" and the Govet"nrnent. Some Hon Member's: Heat", heat"! Mt". Matthews: I have stood in this House since last fall pat"ticulat"ly, Mt".

Speaker', and I have listened to the Pt"emiet" and the Minister' of Fishedes talking about downsizing and t"ationalizing the Newfoundland fishet"y. The Minister' of Fishet"ies even went so fat" as - about what is happening in this fishet"y, the Atlantic fishet"y, could be a blessing in disguise. And I can show him and quote him in Hansat"d to that effect. The Pt"emiet" has spoken in this House and outside this House publicly saying that the Newfoundland fishet"y must be t"ationalized and downsized and thet"e must be other' alteLnative industt"ies and employment found. Some Hon. Member's: Heat", heat"! Mt".

Matthews: What an about-face, Mt". Speaker', when I watched and t"ead what he had to say yestet"day. And not only that, Mt". Speaker', but I have sat in pt"ivate with the Pt"emiet" in meetings in his office with a delegation ft"om the Town of Gt"and Bank, and they wet"e told in no uncet"tain tet"ms that thet"e was no futut"e fot" them in the fishet"y, that their' fish plant would have to close, when asked a vet"y dit"ect question by LS May 8, 1990 Vol XLI the Chait"man of the Gt"and Bank Fishet"ies Committee. An. Hon. Member': It is a shame! Mt". Matthews: Now, Mt".

Speaker', yes, we have some concet"ns with the Adjustment Pt"ogt"arn and the Minister has highlighted one which we have alt"eady today highlighted as well in a pt"ess confet"ence early this moLning, and that is the inshore sec tot". Thet"e is no question that thet"e must be action taken to deal with the pt"oblems with the inshot"e fishet"y. We all know that the stocks and the t"esout"ces at"e in tr-ouble. That is why this vet"y drastic action of t"eduction of the TAC has taken place, which is seeing a lot of communities along our coast, pat"ticulat"ly the offshot"e dependent communities, being shut down.

But, as well because of the stock pt"oblem and the t"esout"ce pt"oblem, landings and eat"nings of inshot"e fishet"men have also been t"educed. And I expect to see them further' t"educed after this season. I am hoping we will have a gt"eat fishet"y this yeat", and that we will all be wt"ong. But in t"eality, I think we have to expect that the eat"nings and landings of inshot"e fishet"men will be t"educed.

And yestet"day the Fedet"al Govet"nrnent should have recognized, in pt"inciple, this pt"oblem; and by t"ecognizing in pt"inciple, they could have awaited the outcome of this fishing season and consequently then compensated inshore fishet"rnen fat" t"educed eat"nings. That is the fit"st thing they should have done. The other' thing, Mr. Speaker'. An. Hon. Member': (Inaudible) . Mt". Matthews: I am talking about No. 29 (Aftet"noon) RS

the package yesterday. The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that could have happened was the talk about the changing of gear types and increasing the size of the mesh. That there must be money given to inshore fishermen for that - to make that change. It is going to cost them money to increase mesh size. And as well by increasing mesh sizes, we are going to see smaller fish escape from nets, which is very, very important that smaller fish escape to grow and to spawn.

But what that is going to mean as well is a reduction in the earnings of inshore fishermen in this Province and the Federal Government should have recognized that as well. So with that particular part of the program we share the Minister's concern, and we call upon the Federal Government to immediately look at re-addressing, if you want to call it, that particular side of the problem. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Matthews: On the other side of the coin, Mr. Speaker, we, as well, would like to call upon the Provincial Government to do something. In this statement, Mr.

Speaker, the Province recognizes that really there is nothing else to do in those communities that are being negatively affected. And we have said that all along. And the Federal Government to a degree yesterday recognized in their statement and their package as well, at least they had the sense to be community specific, which is what we wanted all along. We wanted to be community specific, because for those communities that are going to have their fish L6 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI plants shut down there must be something else for them. And that I might add, Mr.

Speaker, is a real change from what this Government wanted for those communities. Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Mat thews: We saw passing reference of what was recommended to the Federal Government for Grand Bank and Gaultois and Trepassey, Mr. Speaker, from surveillance to gear manufacturing; to skiing in the White Hills; to Marble Mountain; to Egypian submarines in St. John's. That is the kind of specifics that this Government recommended to Ottawa, to take care of this very serious problem, Mr. Speaker. This Government recommends to ottawa to take care of this very serious problem, Mr . Speaker.

What we saw sent to Ottawa from this Government, Mr. Speaker, was nothing short of a panic list. The eleventh hour had arrived and this Government had not put anything concrete in front of the Federal Government. It was a panic list that was first drawn up by Dr. House and then on April 3 the Premier sent up a letter to sort of back that up, where he made his passing references to Grand Bank and Gaul to is, and I do not think it is good enough. Now, the other question, Mr. Speaker, is that there was $110 million supposed proposal by this Government to get involved in the package. Well, Mr .

Speaker, this Government can still get involved in addressing this very, very serious issue by using its $110 million to complement, or to devise its own programs to address this very serious crisis. We do No. 29 (Afternoon) R6

not agree and we do not know, to be very honest, Mr. Speaker, in some aspects of this package whether there is enough money there. In some cases it is hard to judge today whether there will be enough money there to look after this problem as the stocks decrease and the earnings decrease. That is a hard judgement call. We are not satisfied with all this package, Mr. Speaker. There are some positive aspects to it and there are some very negative aspects. Some Han·. Members: Hear, hear! Oral Questions Mr. Speake~: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday we saw the spectacle of the Premier telling this House and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that one of the prime reasons for his opposing the fisheries aid package, which was announced by the Federal Government yesterday, was that it forced people out of the fishery, it forced downsizing and rationalization of the fishery. Now, Mr. Speaker, in a report dated October 30th, 1989, the Federal Task Force on northern cod, the Stein Task Force, reported the following to the Federal Government: The task force prepared a structural adjustment note for consideration by Newfoundland officials.

With minimal revisions, this note was presented to the Newfoundland Cabinet who gave it approval in principle. That is ·the report by the Stein Group to the Federal Government, Mr. Speaker, dated L7 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI October 30th, 1989. Now, I want to ask the Premier this: Will the Premier confirm that the Newfoundland Government did, in fact, in October 1989, give approval in principle to this so-called structural adjustment note, also known as Building a Viable Fishery? Mr. Speaker: The han. the Premier. Premier Wells: No, Mr.

Speaker, ·we did not give approval to what the han. the Leader of the Opposition says. Here is our position in the fall of 1989, and I will read it. It was in response to a question raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and it is reported in Hansard, November 22, 1989. The Leader of the Opposition was talking about the real problem.

He says, 'I guess where the real problem comes in is the difference between providing an economic alternative now and people having the opportunity to get back to the fisheries when fish stocks rebuild, as they will if they are properly managed.' He was concerned about this concept of downsizing and we spelled out our position. It was not to downsize the fishery. There was no specific aim to downsize the fishery. What we spelled out in the fall of 1989 is what I said yesterday. There is total and complete consistency, contrary to the position of the Leader of the Opposition, which has done a 180 degree twist.

Some han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Wells: We will see. It is all on the record to be seen. Now let me read, Mr. Speaker - ~er: Order, please! No. 29 (Afternoon) R7

. , Premier Wells: They do not like truth. Let me read from Hansard of November 22, and here is the position of the Government. 'Mr.

Speaker, the position we took' - and this is in relation to dealings with the Federal Government - 'the position we took is that if the Federal Government is prepared to put the resources in, we will put whatever Provincial resources along with it to help improve the overall economy of the Province, as well as providing for the fishermen who are displaced, so that in the meantime, four, five, six, seven or eight years from now, as the fish stocks regrow, there is an opportunity for people to go back into the fisheries or stay with the alternative employment if they want to.' The objective was to give people a c hoice, and we laid it out quite clearly.

I went on to the next page to spell it out clearly several times . It appears on page R9 of the same day. 'Mr. Speaker, we take this approach because we believe it would be wrong to say to the Federal Government what you have to do is spend $400 million or $500 million. ' ~r. Simms: Reading Hansard, is all you are doing. Premier Wells: Mr. Speaker, they ~ant the truth of the position last year. Our position is the same yesterday as it was last fall and is today. There is clearly too great a pressure on our fishing industry.

There are too few job opportunities in this Province so that our people have to put pressure on the fishery to earn an income or to get means of qualifying for unemployment insurance. So, Mr. Speaker, we must provide alternative L8 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI employment. It is not sufficient to buy them out of the fishery now, and then block the door to their entry next year, and leave people next year with no alternative means. That is why we have taken the approach, and that is why we say the approach now endorsed by the Opposition is totally wrong, because that is what the result will be. ~Mr.

Speaker: The hon . the Leader of the Opposition . Mr. Simms: Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. Mr. Rideout: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we know exactly what the Premier said on the public record in this House, read out again today, and so does everybody else. What we are concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is what the Prem ier and the Government say in the secrecy of the Cabinet room and then transmits to the national Government. That is the difference, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, will the Premier confirm that building a viable fishery option, which was approved in principle by him and his Cabinet in October, 1989, clearly outlined the implications of creating a modern, commercially viable fishery in Newfoundland as the following: fewer fishermen, fewer plant workers, and fewer fish plants . Wasn't that what the Government approved, Mr. Speaker? Premier Wells: No, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The hon. the Premier. Premier Wells: Here is what approved - this No, Mr. Speaker. the Government is precisely what No. 29 (Afternoon) R8

the Government approved, and we will put forward the proposal, the August 23rd proposal, we will put that forward. That is what the Government approved. That is the Government's position. Now what Mr. Stein says, or what Mr. Crosbie wants to contort it into, or what the Leader of the Opposition wants to contort or twist it into in order to cover up their own failures, is up to them. I am quite prepared to let the public of this Province judge us, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of what we have said in writing, not what Mr. Stein or the Leader of the Opposition says we said, or would like to think we said. Mr.

Baker: Right on! ~ Mr. Simms: Squirming, squirming. Backed into a corner now. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideo\!.t: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The coverup here, Mr. Speaker, is the communication from this Government to the Government of Canada in October, 1989. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier this: Mr. Simms: He doesn't even know what you are talking about. Mr.

Rideout: Will the Premier confirm again that the building a viable fisheries option which was approved in principle by him and his Cabinet in October, 1989, contained the Government approved principle that companies must be viable without Government subsidization? Did this Government approve that principle Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Premier. L9 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI :eJ;=emi er W9lls: I approve of the principle, and the Government does, that companies must be viable without Government subsidization in order to succeed.

Now, I do not know what document the Leader of the Opposition is talking about when he talks about building a viable fisheries option. _Mr. Simms: You already said you did twice, now you don't know what he is talking about. Premier W~lls: I would like to see it. Mr. Speaker, I cannot say whether or not the Government approved anything that is in it without seeing it. If he is prepared to table what he is talking about or what he is fronting for his friends in Ottawa, then I will answer the question. Mr. Speake~: The hon . the Leader ~f the Opposition. ~r. Rideout: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier did not know about the document, and said no. Now he doesn't know what document we are talking about. Yet, in October or November of last year, when I asked him questions here in this House, which appeared in Hansard, he knew all about the document. There is something wrong with that. .Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this.

Will the Premier confirm that the building a viable fisheries option, which was approved in principle by him and his Government in October, 1989, that by approving that document in principle, by approving that option in principle, this Government, in fact, gave its approval to restricted entry to the fishery, and gave its approval No. 29 (Afternoon) R9

to c-educing f ishennen by the tc-ansfec­ buy-back of phaseout of Didn't the all of those the total numbec- of placing a fc-eeze on of licences, by a licences, and by a pac-t-time fishennen? Govec-nment agc-ee to things, Mc-. Speakec-? Hc-. Speakec-: The hon. the Pc-emiec-. Some hon. Membec-s: Oh, oh! Mc-. Speakec-: Oc-dec-, please! The hon. the Pc-emiec-. Pc-emiec- Wells: It is obvious, Mc-. Speakec-, that the Opposition have been led down the gac-den path by theic- fc-iends in Ottawa. They somehow want me to say that we appc-oved something the Fedec-al Govec-nment wc-ote some whec-e, some time.

I can only say to you now I know this much: In Octobec-, 1989, we tabled the document we gave to the Fedec-al Government on August 23, 1989. Now that is what we appc-oved in Octobec- of 1989. I do not know what he is talking about when he talks about this building a viable fishec-y. If he will show me the document, I will tell him whethec- oc- not we appc-oved it. As fac- as I know, it is a complete fabc-ication and a concoction, ei thec- by the hon. Membec-, oc- by his fc-iends in Ottawa, oc- by somebody else. I know nothing about what they ac-e talking about .

I do not know whe thec- it is c-eal, whethec- it is fabc-icated oc- what, so I cannot say that we appc-oved it oc- we did not. Mc-. Speaker· The hon. the Leadec- of the Opposition. ~r Rideout· Mc-. Speakec-, let me tell the Pc-emiec- that the Pc-emiec­ acknowledged this building a viable fishec-ies option in this House in Novembec- past. What is LlO May B, 1990 Vol XLI wc-ong with the Pc-emiec-'s memoc-y, Mc-. Speakec-? Let me ask the Pc-emiec- this: In this option, building a viable fishec-ies option, which the Govec-nment dealt with - An Hon. Membec-: Table the document. Mc-. Rideout: Mc-.

Speakec-, the Pc-emiec- acknowledged knowing about this option when I asked him about the option last fall. Pc-emiec- Wells: I don't know about lt . ~c-. Rideout: Will the Pc-emiec­ tell us whethec- oc- not his Govec-nment gave appc-oval - An Hon. Membec-: (Inaudible). Mc-. Rideout: Pac-don? Mc-. Doyle: Would you like to c-epeat that? Mc-. Simms: 'Liac-', he said. Mc-. Rideout: c-epeat that. Would you like to ~· Tobin: That came fc-om the othec- side, Mc-. Speakec-. Mc-. Speakec-: Oc-dec-, please! The Chaic- didn't heac- the expc-ession, but, again, the Chaic­ has been notified by expc-ession of han.

Membec-s that an unpac-liamentac-y made. I am gentleman will uttec-ance suc-e the do as the was bon. Chaic- c-equests, and unpac-liamentac-y made, I would ask to please withdc-aw ~. Gdmes _,: No if an uttec-ance was the hon. Membec­ it immediately. unpac-liamentac-y No. 29 (Aftec-noon) RIO

utterance was made, Mr. Speaker, and I do not withdraw. I did not make any unparliamentary utterance. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The Chair will check the tapes for what the hon. gentleman said. We will let it stop there for the moment. The han. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: I was asking the Premier before that rude interruption from the corner, whoever it was, whether or not his Government, in approving this building a viable fishery option, had given its approval to manage an orderly downsizing of plant capacity, referred to by the Stein Task Force as the soft-landing approach.

Did the Premier ever hear tell of that, Mr. Speaker? Did the Government every hear tell of that and give its approval, or otherwise, to the Government of Canada? Mr. Speaker: The han. the Premier. Premier Wells; Here is what I can tell the House and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker: It is found on page 5 of the document to which I referred. This the only time I know the phrase 'building a viable fishery', and this is stated to be the challenge, building a viable fishery. Here is what we said with respect to that: 'Therefore' if the hon.

Leader of the Opposition wants the answer, I will give it to him - 'the objective of building a viable fishery must be accompanied by an objective of economic diversification. These objectives are inextricably linked. It is not possible to build a viable Lll May 8, 1990 Vol XLI fishery without diversifying the economic base. On the other hand, it is not possible to have a healthy economy in Newfoundland without a viable fishery sector.' Now, I admit to all of that, I accept authorship and support for that, if that is what he is talking about.

If there is something else he has in mind, for heaven's sake have the decency and the courage to show me what he is talking about and I will answer his questions. Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! .Mr Speaker:: The han. the Member for Grand Bank. Some Han. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The Chair has recognized the han. the Member for Grand Bank. Jir . Mat thews : Thank you , Mr . Speaker. The Premier is making some comment about Telexes from Ottawa. Maybe it is about Meech, I do not know. I would like to ask the Premier a question.

When the Premier made his press release last January 5 pertaining to funding for the extended notice period for workers, particularly at Grand Bank, Gaultois and Trepassey, he reiterated at that time that the extended notice period was the only action the Province could take by itself to minimize the short-term hardships associated with fish reductions and plant closures. And further on the Premier stated 'the action being taken by the Province is not intended to, and will not, avert these closures.' Looking at happen with what the is expected to total allowable No. 29 (Afternoon) Rll

catch next year - it is expected to be reduced - and the reference in the Premier's release, his reference to '91 for funding to enable those people to work for twenty weeks in 1990-91, could the Premier inform the House if any of this money has been paid to Fishery Products International to date, and how much he expects to be paid this year? Hr. Speaker: The hon. the Premier. Premier Wells: I forget the complete details as to how much will be paid this year and how much will be paid next year, but there is $6 million in the Budget of the Department of Employment and Labour Relations for - An Hon. dollars.

Member: Nine million Premier Wells: Nine million, I am sorry. There is $9 million in the Budget this year for both Fishery Products and National Sea. My recollection is that close to $3 million of that, or something approach $3 million, will probably be required for National Sea, all of which would be required this year. So that leaves my Estimate of $6 million for Fishery Products approximately correct for this year. I believe that is the way it would work out, but I could check the details and get it for the hon. Member. Hr. Speaker: The bon. the Member for Grand Bank. Mr . Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Premier a supplementary. Of course, we expect the TAC to be reduced, and I, personally, if the TAC is reduced any further, do not expect that Fishery Products International will operate Grand L12 Hay 8, 1990 Vol XLI Bank, Gaultois or Trepassey at all in 1991. I hope they do, but I am fearful they will not . If such is the case, then the $13 million or $14 million of Government's commitment will not be totally spent. My supplementary to the Premier, Mr.

Speaker, is would the Premier make a commitment to provide any portion of the unused funding to the communities of Grand Bank, Gaultois and Trepassey? With the Premier having acknowledged that the $300 million for NatSea will be used this year, would the Premier make that commitment, to provide that funding to those communities to assist them to adjust to this very serious crisis? Some Hon. question. Members: A good Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Premier. Premier Wells: No, Mr.

Speaker, I will not make a commitment as to how the funds will be spent before the circumstances that justify the expenditure or lack of expenditure arise. We will meet the circumstances as they arise and make the decision at the time. It would be irresponsible to do what the hon. Member asks . Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The hon. the Member for Grand Bank. Hr. Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask the Great Pretender another question.

The Premier, the Great Pretender, on December 13 in this House, in debate, said he thought the time was right now for the Federal Government and the Provincial Government to get heavily involved No. 29 (Afternoon) Rl2

with aquaculture promotion and development i.n all species in the Province, 'and this is a good opportunity to put people to work effectively in that area.' Would the Premier explain for the House, please, after having said that, with the Department of Fisheries Budget reduced by $2.1 million, and aquaculture being reduced from $337,000 from last year to $288,000 this year, a reduction of $50,000, how he could have made such a statement? Mr. Warren: He is not going to answer. He is The Great Pretender. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The han. the Member for Grand Bank . Mr.

Matthews: Let me just say very simply to the Premier, then, in light of the importance at that time, the priority put on aquaculture as a way to get around this very serious fisheries crisis, to develop and expand the fishing industry and to create employment, how could his Government, and particularly his Department of Fisheries, and he is the Leader of the Government, justify a reduction in Subhead 3.1.04, under the Fishing Industries Support Services of the Budget, by $50,000? Mr . Speaker: The hon. the Premier. Mr. Wells: Mr.

Speaker, I will examine that particular Subhead and provide the House with the answer in due course. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Mr. Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to get back to the extended notice we talked about. The Government, when the Ll3 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI companies announced closure of the plants, asked them if they would give extended notice and consequently provided somewhere from $11 to $14 roil lion.

If the TAC is reduced this coming year and the companies refuse to open their plants because they do not have resource enough to make it a viable operation, will the Premier confirm- then that they will not receive any of the money as committed? Mr. Speaker: The han. the Premier. Premier Wells: If the companies do not open the plants, the companies will not receive the money that would otherwise be paid next year. I am confident that that is so. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Mr. Hearn: If we have a severe reduction in the TAC, Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Premier, then, if the plants are closed, and if there is no diversification plan in place - because he stated the reason he asked the companies to give extended notice was because the Government was ill-prepared for what had happened and had to put a diversification plan in place what are the people going to do? If plants close with no diversification plan in place, what are the people going to do for employment? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Premier . Premier Wells: Let me correct the han. Member, Mr. Speaker. I did not say this Government was ill-prepared.

What I did say was the Government of Canada was not ready to deal with its responsibilities, and had not worked out an arrangement with the No. 29 (Afternoon) R13

Province to deal with this particular situation, and in fact procrastinated until yesterday, and yesterday only announced something that they could have announced six months ago, for all that was in yesterday. That is what I did say, Mr. Speaker. If that eventuality occurs, where there is a further reduction in the total allowable catch next year and the plants we did expect to remain open in this coming season do not remain open, we will have to deal with that circumstance if, as, and when it arises. I am not going to deal with such an issue in a speculative manner now. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for St.

Mary's - The Capes. Mr. Hearn: Mr. Speaker, the Premier certainly has selective memory, because in public meetings he quite clearly stated that the Government was not prepared to address the problem and consequently needed more time to put a diversification plan in place, and consequently offered extended notice, which really means nothing, because this year the companies were going to keep the plants open anyway, and next year, if the TAC is reduced severely, then the Government does not have to put in anything in . It was nothing but a smart political move.

I ask the Premier, then, in light of the fact that the companies might close plants if the TAC is reduced, and in light of the fact that the Government has no plan in place, is not the only viable option the one offered by Mr.

Valcourt yesterday, when he stressed the funding provided will help in promoting diversification within the fisheries to provide a Ll4 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI broader base for a viable fishery over the long-term, with emphasis being placed on the development of underutilized species, aquaculture, fisheries and flsh products, with the priority being placed on plants which are now in trouble so they can be kept open to provide employment for the people? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Premier. Premier Wells: Let me correct the hon. gentleman again, Mr. Speaker.

The position we took was that we brought this matter to the attention of the Federal Government on August 23 and they dillydallied for months and would do nothing. Finally, we made the issue public in october and forced them into doing something. MS VERGE: Ah! Ah! PREMIER WELLS: The Member for Humber East can moan and groan if she wants, it cannot alter the fact. Moaning and groaning is not an intelligent response to the fact, not at all intelligent. I am prepared to debate on an intelligent basis, but I am not prepared to moan and groan with her on the issue. Mr. Speaker, that is the fact of the matter.

Now, the way to deal with the issue is not the way Mr. Valcourt has suggested, the way to deal with the issue is to find viable alternative employment for our people in a variety of areas of the Province, in particular in the communities affected, but also in other parts of the coast of our Province, where people must rely on the fishery. That is what we asked the Federal Government to do. We have put proposals to them. Ms Verge: (Inaudible). No . 29 (Afternoon) Rl4

Premier Wells: Let the Federal Government do what is right and put a naval station in Trepassey. That is what we have asked them to do. Let them do that. If Mr. Crosbie is committed to the people of Trepassey, let him - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! PREMIER WELLS: Indeed it is not . Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Order, please! Premier Wells: I was not going to say this, but I have perhaps been goaded into saying it, because they are fronting for the Federal Government with their telexed instructions from Ottawa, as he reads out from Ottawa the questions the Federal Government wants asked in this House today.

If that is the way they are operating, then I will tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that recently we have had a request from the Federal Government for usage of a portion of the Southside wharf, operated by the Marine Institute, for naval facilities. An han. Member: Sure we know that. Premier Wells: Sure you that. They know that. Federal Government is dealing the Opposition. Well, if Federal Government wants to with the Opposition of Province, that is up to them - Mr. Simms: That is old news . know The with the deal this Premier Wells: - if that is their competence.

Our response to them is stop trying to crowd out St. John's harbour. Put your naval facility in Trepassey, if you are interested in the people of this LlS May 8, 1990 Vol XLI Province and in rural Newfoundland. If you want to deal with the real problems, put your naval facility in Trepassey. That is the thing to do. If you want to deal with the real problems of this Province, put a foreign trade zone in Grand Bank and the southern part of the Burin Peninsula. If you have any concern for the people of this Province, that is the thing to do. That is right, that is the thing to do. Some Han. Members: Oh, oh! Mr.

Speaker: Order, please! Order, please! is now having great deciding whether the answering the original or whether he is a barrage or myriad of coming from Members to I would ask the Premier The Chair difficulty Premier is question answering questions my right. to finish up, please. The han. the Premier . Premier Wells: In response to the question of the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes as to whether or not what Mr. Valcourt proposed was the best solution, my judgement is no, it is not the best solution.

You cannot buy people out of the fishery for six months or one year, as he is proposing to do, because what are they going to do next year, and the next year, and the next and the next? You have to provide viable economic alternatives and this is - An Han. Member: disagreed with him. (Inaudible) Premier Wells: I would still like to answer the question. The viable economic alternatives we No. 29 (Afternoon) RlS

would propose is a naval facility in Trepassey instead of crowding St. John's Harbour; a foreign trade zone in Grand Bank to provide for assembly operations. An hon. Member: It is not proposed, he says. Mr. Simms: Silly! Premier Speaker. Wells: It is here, Mr. It is in this document. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Order, please! Premier Wells: I would still like to answer the question, and not three or four others. We think this is the way to deal with the problem, because what the Federal Government is providing, Mr. Speaker, only deals with the immediate short-term problem.

And they have thrown a sop to the longer term solution, by providing for $90 million for the four Atlantic Provinces, and perhaps some to Quebec as well, $90 million over five years. That is an average, say, of $18 million a year for the whole of the Atlantic Provinces. Sure the former Government wasted more than that on Sprung! Mr. Simms: The matter is sub judice, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The bon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Mr. Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . A final supplementary. It is quite clear the Premier does not understand the implications of yesterday's document.

I ask him, in light of the hints he dropped yesterday about plans for Trepassey, and in light of his revelations today, and in light of the fact that the Federal Minister Ll6 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI in yesterday's proposal made it possible for the people to use their own discretion in what they would like to do, number one, the first thing would be to keep the plant open and, secondly, to f lnd ways to diversify, to find extra employment above and beyond not instead of, as I pointed out one time before when the Premier himself was saying close her down, I ask the Premier then, in light of his comments, would he be quite satisfied to cooperate with the people of Trepassey, and myself, in using the funding provided by the Federal Government to develop some of the plans he and others might have?

And I ask him, in order to help the area generally, will he support a year-round fet'ry to Argentia? Mr. Speaker: The han. the Premier. Premier Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the people of Trepassey, great respect for the Mayor and the council in Trepassey. They are absolutely tremendous people to deal with, very reasonable, very understanding, very fair-minded and very considerate of others. That's the people of Trepassey.

I would not do or say anything to mislead them or lead them to expect there are great solutions just around the bend, I would be fair and honest and straightforward with them at all times. We can do no more for Trepassey than we do for Gaultois, Grand Bank and the St. John's workers and fish plant, and Burgee, Ramea and all the other places around this Province . Now, Mr. Speaker, it doesn' t take any more intelligence than is available on the Opposition side of the House to know and to understand - No. 29 (Afternoon) R16

Mr. Matthews: There you go again. There you go. Premier Wells: I did not say anything about the level of it, I said it doesn't take any more intelligence - Some bon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. · Speaker: Order, please! Order, please! Premier Wells: It doesn't take any more intelligence than is available to know, Mr. Speaker, that when you have reduced the total allowable catch from 266,000 tons to 197,000 tons, and with the prospect of reducing it still further next year looming over the horizon, that some plants will not operate. Now, some plants will not operate.

Any reasonable level of intelligence could only come to that conclusion, so I will not say to the people of Trepassey falsely, to give them false hope, 'we assure you we will work with you to keep your plant open. ' We cannot do that - we cannot do that. We say to the people of Trepassey, we assure you that we will turn ourselves inside out to try and find a viable economic basis for the community of Trepassey. And if that is going to be in fishery, God bless the fishery and God bless Trepassey! If it has to be in something else, so it will be. Then, still God bless Trepassey! Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr.

Speaker: The bon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We just saw in the Premier's answer the Government's real position as it was forwarded to the Government of Canada last Ll7 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI October. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries.

On November, 15th in this House, talking about the downsizing and rationalization of the fishery, the Minister said the following: 'I believe we are going to have to make some tough decisions in that respect and maybe reduce the number of fishermen, maybe remove or reduce some of the part-time fishermen in the industry. ' How does the Minister square that position with the position being articulated by the Premier in this House and other places, yesterday and today? What is the Government's policy, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Simms: A turnaround position, quickly. Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Fisheries. bon. the Mr. W.

Carter: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious. I think when I made that statement my meaning was quite obvious, that in order to do that we would first of all have to involve ourselves in some economic diversification to provide jobs for the fishermen who obviously would have to leave the fishery. We are not suggesting that fishermen be taken out of their boats and left onshore with no other source of employment, what we are saying is join with us, Mr.

Federal Government, join with us and let us start diversifying the economy, where fishermen who will be displaced from the boats or from the fish plants will then have a job to which they can go and earn a living. Mr. Speaker: expired. Question Period has No. 29 (Afternoon) Rl7

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to present the report of The Public Tendering Act exception for the Month of March. Mr. Speaker: The bon . the President of Treasury Board . Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to table the Annual Report of the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Simms: It is about time. Mr. Baker: This is the fourth such report we have presented in the last year.

Notices of Motion Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Justice . Mr . Dicks: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code, 1988"; I give further notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act." Orders of the Day Mr . Baker: Motion 8, Mr. Speaker. Motion, the hon. the Minister of L18 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI Health Act To Health 45). to introduce a Bill, Amend The Department Act", carried. (Bill "An Of No.

On motion, Bill No. 45 read a first time, orde~ed read a second time, on tomorrow . Mr. Baker: Motion 9, Mr. Speaker . Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a Bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly (Retiring Allowances) Act, The Public Service (Pensions) Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act". (Bill No. 44). On motion, Bill No. 44 read a first time, ordered read a second time, on tomorrow . Mr . Speaker: Order 2. The motion is that I do leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to discuss the Estimates.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair. Committee of the Whole Mr. Chairman (Snow) : Order, please! The hon . Leader. the Government House Mr. Baker : Thank you, Mr . Chairman. I will be very brief. There is one thing I recognized that I meant to clear up before we left last night and did not. The Opposition House Leader asked a couple of times about the re-organization of Treasury Board, and that kind of thing. There is No. 29 (Afternoon) R18

-• a combination being done. The reason I was reminded of it is because today they are moving things around down there. It is a combination of the Staff Division and the Budget Division, instead of having two separate Divisions now we will now have one Division. The Staff Division does analysis of papers for Treasury Board and the Budget Division also performs part of that function as well as the Budget preparation and Budget control. So they were in fact sharing part of that function of preparing papers and so on for Treasury Board.

We felt that we could perhaps make them a little bit more efficient by joining them together. I think there were about five employees in each Division. Now that will create a single Division. We envisage not needing any more than maybe eight individuals in the combined Division, and all of the same functions of both Divisions will be performed by these individuals. So it is an efficiency measure to make the system a little more efficient in Treasury Board. So that is the details on the number of employees and so on. Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the President of Treasury Board for that answer. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be appropriate after three and three quarter hours yesterday of examining the Estimates of the Executive Council, which includes the Premier's Office, Intergovernmental Affairs, and other responsibilities of those particular individuals and Ministers. Ll9 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI At least, I would like to, from my perspective, summarize briefly some of the matters that we addressed yesterday. And after three and three-quarter hours of scrutiny, I guess, we managed to scrape a few answers.

Now the President of Treasury Board quite frequently, as I pointed out last night, from time to time had to indicate or had to answer in very vague terms, as far I know, and I think we plan to and in these times of answers, so I asked him if he would perhaps get his officials in this morning and maybe have some more firm answers.

But I thought for a moment maybe it was just because the President of Treasury Board was not totally prepared, or did not quite have all the information at his fingertips until the revelation of the Minister of Finance, and I am glad the Premier is here today to hear this because he may not be aware of this, once again his infamous Minister of Finance put his foot in his mouth, because yesterday evening, and you will see a portion of it in Hansard, as a matter of fact, although unfortunately they did not quote it all, but it is pretty clear what he said, and everybody in the House knows what he said. Mr.

Parsons: Make sure the Premier is listening. Mr. Simms: I could not get the answers from the President of Treasury Board, when all of a sudden the Minister of Finance shouted across the House, you will get the answers after the House closes. Now, Mr. Chairman, if that was not the most startling comment of the evening, I do know what might be classed as the most startling comment. That prompted, of course, the Leader of the No. 29 (Afternoon) R19

Opposition and myself and others to then suggest the reasons why the Government is having these night sittings to try to get through their estimates. And the reason for it is pretty obvious, they want to get out of here by the end of May, this great reform party that was going to keep the House open forever and a day.

But the reality of this situation was emphasized by his Minister of Finance, when he said, 'Never mind the answers.' I kept asking for the answers and, he said, 'You will get the answers after the House closes.' That is what the Minister of Finance said and, of course, that is precisely what the Minister of Finance did with respect to his infamous payroll tax. We all remember in this House, and I am sure the public remembers, for days on end, for weeks, we peppered the Minister of Finance with questions about his payroll tax. Who is going to have to pay the payroll tax? Who will be involved?

Who will be responsible? And he kept standing up day after day after day for the first part saying, I do not know. And then eventually saying I will make a statement; I will advise the House; I will make a statement. What happened is we adjourned for Easter for one week or ten days or whatever it was, and the Minister of Finance puts his information out, not at a press conference where the press could scrutinize it, but over the NIS wire, I presume, he put out some kind of a press release. So he did it, when the House was closed.

He answered the questions on the payroll tax that had been asked of him for three weeks or four weeks in a row. He would not do it when the House was opened. He waited until the House closed and answered it. Slipped it out L20 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI on the wire. the courage conference. He did not even have to call a press But we thought that was fine and dandy, until last night when I was saying to the President of Treasury Board, can you please get me some of these answers. I would like to have some of the answers. And the Minister of Finance shouts across and says, you will get the answer after the House closes.

In other words, threatening us, hurry up and close the House. Now that, Mr. Chairman, is not acceptable. But, of course, it is fitting and it is in keeping with the Minister of Finance's whole approach and attitude. Last night when we left this House to leave to go down on the elevator, the Minister of Finance once again, the infamous Minister of Finance, he was getting on the elevator with a group of us, from both sides, and Mr. Seward from CBC came to him and said, 'Could we do an interview?' And The Minister of Finance walked into the elevator and he said, 'No, no way, not tonight.

Maybe tomorrow.' So we got on the elevator and the comment was made, I guess it is not only us that have trouble getting answers from the Minister of Finance, even the press could not get it. But that is typical of the Minister of Finance, unfortunately. I do not think it does much for the image of the Premier's Government.

I would like the Premier or the President of Treasury Board, whoever is going to respond or speak in this debate, to tell me whether or not the Minister of Finance was enunciating Government policy - that is the question - when he said, 'You will only get answers after the House closes.' No. 29 (Afternoon) R20

Is that Government policy? If it is not Government policy, has the Premier slapped him on the wrist, rapped him on the knuckles? Is that why he is not in the House today, because he cannot stand the pressure and he was told to stay out? Because every time he is here, he opens his mouth, puts his foot into it and gets into all kinds of trouble. Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention that in passing, at the outset. An Hon. Member: of breath. You are all out Mr. Simms: throat. No, I have a sore Last night, Mr.

Chairman, after three and three-quarter hours of asking questions and not getting anywhere with answers , we managed to scrounge out of the Government House Leader the fact - and I think he just blurted it out. I asked him who was getting the funding under professional services rendered for the Hibernia Implementation project, and the Government House Leader blurted out, 'Oh, there are a bunch of companies involved in that, Peter Lougheed's law firm' - Peter Lougheed's law firm! Now, I do not know but the Liberal Party won the election on that issue. ·I mean, that was a big issue for the Liberal Party.

They chastised us, they attacked us, they criticized us every which way but loose about employing Peter Lougheed's law firm, as well as Peter Lougheed, to assist in the work his firm is noted for internationally with respect to offshore oil. And we find out last night that this company, Lougheed's law firm, is still on the payroll of the Government, the Liberal Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which criticized the Tories time L21 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI and time again, another example, I suppose, of hypocrisy.

We also discovered, in scrutinizing the Estimates last night, that nearly one quarter of a million dollars has been budgeted in the Estimates this year on Meech Lake, nearly a quarter of a million dollar at least, budgeted on Meech Lake, according to the President of Treasury Board, in answering my questions; the establishment of the constitutional division in IGA, not counting the Premier's travel and all the rest of it, at least nearly a quarter of a million dollars. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Simms: On Meech Lake. He said it was related to Meech Lake.

I can only tell the Premier what it was, and perhaps he can tell us the rest of it. Thirdly, we got a forthcoming response from the President of Treasury Board who acknowledged finally that, yes, indeed, they expect a lot of trouble in collective bargaining this year. They expect a considerable amount of trouble; in fact, to use his words, 'We would be foolish not to expect much more conflict than usual.' Now, those are his words, so if the Member for Placentia wants to participate in the debate and say I am wrong, please do so, but don't shout across the House and interrupt me when I am trying to make a point.

And the reason we discovered it is because there is a sizeable increase in funding in Treasury Board for conciliation and arbitration. In fact, it is over No. 29 (Afternoon) R21

a 100 per cent increase. And when we asked the question time after time - I asked the question maybe ten times before he finally said, 'Yes, we do expect mot"e conflict than normal. There is expected to be a difficult situation this coming year, with all the gr"oups that are going to be up for negotiation. • We discovered that after 3-3/4 hours. Now, so far, there is not very much, but that is how the process wot"ks. We get up and ask questions, and the Minister's get up and refuse to answer, they walk all around them.

And, finally, of course, which I was pleased to see covered extensively by at least the pt"inted media today, was the question of the Newfoundland Information Services move. We discovet"ed that Newfoundland Information Services, which this hon. crowd opposite, when it was in Opposition, attacked us for" and said it should be disbanded, should be dismantled, it was nothing but political - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mt". Simms: Oh, yes, they did. The Premier is here shaking his head, when last night the President of Treasury Board said, 'Yes, I admit it.

In fact, I was one of the ones who wanted to dismantle it.' That is what the President of Treasury Board said. The Premier is over there shaking his head, no, no, no. You had better have a chat to the President of Treasury Board. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Simms: idea. Yes, that is a good Anyway, said it L22 they attacked it. They should be dismantled, it May 8, 1990 Vol XLI was a waste of money . Mr. Effot"d: The way you operated it. Mr. Simms: We did not opet"ate it! Don't be silly! The Minister of Social Services is, as usual, being silly. There was $160,000 budgeted for last year.

Do you know how much is in the Budget this year for NIS? $338,000, more than a 100 pet" cent increase, doubled the cost, additional employees, more money for publications and pdnting and all the rest of that kind of thing, and it has been moved f t"om the Depat"tment of Public Wot"ks into the political arm of Government, Executive Council. Now, whose office is in the Executive Council Estimates, I wonder? Well, you have the President of Tt"easury Board, you have the President of the Executive Council, and, strangely enough, you have the Premier's Office. Now, isn't that rather intet"esting?

I guess the Premier can now have a closer eye on NIS, its services and operations. The President of Treasut"y Boat"d basically confessed last night that t"eally he had a change of heart after' he got in Government, he assessed the situation and he realized he was wrong; it wasn' t being used for political purposes. It was nothing nonsensical, as the Minister of Social Services says, anybody at all could use it under the rules that existed, whatever they wet"e. I remember Member's on this side - Mr. Efford: Your' t"Ules. Mr. Simms: They were Wt"i t ten t"Ules, brother.

The Minister of Social Services, as usual, doesn't even know what he is talking No. 29 (After"noon) R22

about. I asked the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to table the rules. Let us have a look at them and let us see. I remember Members on this side coming in complaining because Mr. Callahan, down in NIS, would not put a release over the wire because it had a word in there attacking somebody, or saying something about another Member. It was not political. That is nonsense, foolishness. It is a good system, it is a good process.

Now the only question that arises is why you would double the Estimates, from '$160, 000 to $330,000, that is an interesting question in itself, when you have also provided FAX machines to every Minister's office in the Government? Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The han. Members's time is up. Mr. Simms: I will get back at it, if nobody else wishes to speak. Does the bon. the Premier wish to speak? Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Premier. Premier Wells: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things I need to do to correct some of the wrong suggestions that have emanated from the hon. House.

Indeed, I am quite pleased to answer some of these questions. I am going back now and looking at last night's Hansard, when some of these questions were raised. They wanted to know the number of people in the Premier's Office. Well, there are seventeen in the Premier's Office here and two in the Premier's Office in Corner Brook, for a total cost, Mr. Chairman, of everybody, including the Premier's salary, everybody, of $780,000 altogether in the L23 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI Premier's establishment. Mr. Simms: The Premier's Office and Executivce Support.

Premier Wells: Under the Premier's direction is a total of seventeen people in here and two in Corner Brook, for a total cost, both here and in Corner Brook, of $780,000. Mr. Simms: What about the Premier's Office and the Executive Support staff? That is the political side. Premier Wells: That is included. Mr. Simms: What is the breakdown of that? Premier Wells: I can give you the breakdown. Mr. Simms: I will give it to them afterwards.

Premier Wells: The Premier and the Secretary directly in the Premier's Office is $107,600, the salary cost of fifteen permanent positions, which is the political support staff and the administrative staff in the Premier's Office, is $608,900. That is what we are requesting in this Budget. Mr. Simms: Premier's about? Is this including the salary you are talking Premier Wells: No, the Premier's salary is included in the amount of $107,600. I have added up the three components.

There is $107,600 for the Premier and his secretary, $608,900 for the fifteen permanent positions, and then there is an Executive Support Staff of two permanent positions, totalling $53,800. When you add No. 29 (Afternoon) R23

all three of those together, you come up with a total cost of $780,000 for the nineteen people involved in the Premier's Office. Mr. Simms: So, the salary Estimates are wrong? The Salary Details shows nineteen people. Premier Wells: I apologize. The salary Estimates show for one position that is not filled. I say there are nineteen people there now. If all positions were filled, there would be twenty. That is for a total cost of $780,000. That compares with the last full year cost for the former Premier, Mr. Peckford, of $1,300,000.

So there is a substantial difference; it is a $600,000 reduction in the cost of salary operations in the Premier's Office. An Han Member: What about the cost of consultants? Premier Wells: There are none. We haven't had any consultants. I will tell you what the former Premier spent on consultants as well, if you want to know that. I can get that information, but I can tell you that up until now, we haven't spent any money on consultants. Mr. Windsor : Almost every Department has (inaudible) its money allocations for consultant services (inaudible) cutting back on (inaudible) services.

Premier Wells: That may be so. There may indeed. I will take a look at it, and if there is an increase in consultants - I don't know, but I will certainly take a look at it and I will explain why. Mr. Chairman, that and travel is largely the difference between the much lower cost of the L24 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI Premier's office now from what it used to be before. The other question asked was under Executive Council, The Office of the Premier.

The revised expenditure figure under Transportation and Communications for the fiscal year showed an expenditure of $55,000 but the Estimates show a budgeted figure of $78,000. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, but there is a reason for the difference . Hon. Members will know that the new Government was only formed on the 5th of May, so the Premier was quite busy reorganizing the new Government and there was very little travel in the first two or three months, and we knew it would be less. This year we are running from April 1 to the March 30 next year.

Last ' year we were effectively two or three travel months short, so that explains the additional amount, Mr. Chairman. The next question was Transportation and Communications, increased from $116,000 to $155,000. That appears, Mr. Chairman, under Transportation and Communications, and is pretty well the same explanation. We had Budgeted $136,0000 for last year but we did not spend it, we only spent $116,000. We expect this year, because of the additional travel we anticipate for a variety of reasons, partly due to constitutional issues, as well, we may need as much as $155,000, Mr. Chairman.

But we may be as prudent this year as we were last year, and we may be able to indeed save some of the money. I sincerely hope we will be. There were a couple of other questions which were raised, Mr. Chairman, one about Mr. Lougheed's Law Firm. When we got involved in the middle of the Hibernia discussions and negotiations with No. 29 (Afternoon) R24

that particular law finn, and we should use the law finn's name, which is Bennett Jones, in Calgary, they were so deeply involved in the negotiations that it would have been most imprudent for the Government to have changed horses in midstream, so we did not. An Han. Member: (Inaudible). Premier Wells: I have no doubt about their capability. I think they are a capable finn, but I am also confident they are not the only capable firm, and I don't say they are the most capable firm, but I have no quarrel with their capability. But, Mr. Chairman, it would have been imprudent for us to change.

The other question raised by the han. the Member for Grand Falls related to the expenditure allowed for the Constitutional Division, and this was due to Meech Lake, in the Department of Justice. That is not accurate. Mr. Simms: Did you read Hansard. Premier Wells: No, I did not read Hansard. I don't have to read Hansard to know what the truth is. Mr. Simms: Hansard, you said. If you had read would know what I Premier Wells: I am just referring to the comment the han. Member made, and the reality is, Mr.

Chairman, the Government wants to put in place a Constitutional Division in the Department of Justice to deal with major matters, including fisheries jurisdiction and offshore matters Mr. Simms: (Inaudible) the Department of Justice, is it? L25 May 8-, 1990 Vol XLI Premier Wells: Pardon? Mr. Simms: You said you intend to put a division in the Department of Justice. Premier Wells: Well, we were looking at it, either in IGA or the Department of Justice . Mr.

Simms: It according to this. is in IGA, Premier Wells: The vote at the moment is in IGA, I understand that, but we may rethink that and put the Constitutional Division in the Department of Justice, set it up as a

section of the Department of Justice. IGA has most to do with it. For example, negotiating native land claims, and so on, that is a major matter that is normally attended to -by IGA. The constitutional advisor would be heavily involved with that. Negotiations with the Federal Government with respect to Hibernia and offshore, with respect to fisheries jurisdiction, with respect to a host of other matters that have a constitutional overtone, usually involves IGA. So there is a difference of opinion as to whether the legal division can work best in IGA or in the Department of Justice.

We had provided for the vote in IGA; we may, indeed, change that and let it operate in the Department of Justice instead, but finn decisions have not necessarily been made on that matter yet. Now, Mr. Chairman, the other thing they asked about was NIS, double the vote, the vote is up to $338,000. Well, Mr. Chairman, that includes some of the public relations officials we have hired recently in place of the myriad of press aides every Minister, or virtually every Minister in the No. 29 (Afternoon) R25

former Government had, and cost the people of this Province about $600,000. We abandoned that, and we are putting in place a proper information service through NIS, and that is part of the reason why NIS is increased in the manner in which it is. Some of those people are involved in that. An hon. Member: (Inaudible). Premier Wells: just for the Ministers. No, no, that is press aides to Mr. Parsons: just did. (Inaudible) what you Premier Wells: detailed cost before. Mr. Parsons: ahead. I will get of operating (Inaudible) the NIS go Premier Wells: Let the Member sit tight for a minute.

I will get the total cos~ of operating NIS and all the press and media aides the former Government had following them around, and put that all together and provide a lump sum cost of the information services that were provided. We have done it differently. We have taken it out of the political realm, and we are going to operate largely through NIS and a single public relations service, and we will give you the comparable costs of the two systems of operating. Mr. Windsor: A single public relations firm? An external public relations firm? Premier Wells: No, no, internal to Government.

And some of the people will be assigned because of the work load to a particular department, or maybe two departments, and some may have L26 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI responsibility for two or three departments. We think this is a more efficient, more effective way to operate, and we have 1 ined up some very competent people, Mr. Chairman, to do that job. In swmnary, Mr. Chairman, we have been able to reduce the total operating cost of the Premier's Office by $608,000 this coming year over what it was in the last full year under the former administration. And, Mr.

Chairman, if you added the normal inflation which would have taken place, it is probably closer to $900,000 that we have saved. So I think that that is pretty good performance in living up to our undertaking to streamline Government and make it more efficient and more cost-effective. · .I hope, Mr. Chairman, that has answered some of the questions raised by my hon. friend. If it has not, I would be happy to speak some more along the same lines. Mr. Chairman: The han. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think we are at variance here, and I am afraid I will have to ask the Premier to try to clarify a bit more for me . Because unless these documents are faulty and incorrect, the numbers just do not jibe, and I do not quite understand it. For example, the departmental salary Estimates for 1988-89, the last year of the Peckford Administration to which he refers, in total for the Premier's office, Office of the Premier, Executive Support, and Administration, it is 26 employees, $875,000. Now, that is the number. He can check it after. I will just give him what I have now, directly from the No. 29 (Afternoon) R26

Departmental Salary Details. This year for the Premier's Office, including Office of the Premier, Executive Support and Administration, total for the sub-program, the Premier's Office, is $685,000, which is $200,000 less for a total of nineteen employees. Now, maybe I am missing something, but, I mean, these are the salary estimates we are talking about for the Premier's Office - the salary estimates - and they show clearly a difference of about $200,000 from 1988-89 to 1990-1991, as provided for in the Estimates; $685,000 this year for your office with nineteen employees; $875,000 for twenty-six employees.

That is what is there, in the salary estimates. Now, further to that, since the Premier provided us with the information he had, I am not sure whether it is incorrect or something else is thrown in there we are not aware of, or what, but perhaps we need a full breakdown; maybe he can table what he has in terms of response so we can see where the confusion is.

But from the perspective of the political part of it, in particular, the Office of the Premier, which is the Premier himself and his secretary, and then the Executive Support, and it is the Executive Support, under the Executive Support Branch of the Premier Office, of course, where you have all your political people, basically, your Chief of Staff, your Public Relations Director, your Executive Assistants, or Special Assistants, whatever they are called, and then your secretaries, your parliamentary Assistant to the Premier, and so on, and so on.

So, under the Premier's Office this year, from the Departmental Salary Details, L27 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI this document tabled by the Government, the total number of people involved there are fifteen; the Premier's Office, Executive Support, fifteen. The total amount of money budgeted there is $54 7, 942 - it is on page 8. That is for fifteen people in the Premier's Office and Executive Support.

And if you look to the previous page and add the overtime - I am sorry, it is not overtime, it is called Temporary and Other Employees - you will see there is another $70,700 provided in the Estimates for Temporary Employees, an additional number of employees. It does not say how many, but it is $70,700. That is what is budgeted for Temporary Employees. And if you add the two, $547,000 plus the $70,000 overtime, it comes to $617,000. That is for the Office of the Premier - Executive Support, okay? It is $547,000 total for fifteen employees. That is what the Departmental Salary Details show.

Then the previous page shows what is there for Temporary and Other Employees. Then the Premier's Office - oh, I am sorry. Maybe I have misread it. No, Executive Support $70,700, Temporary Employees, page 6 of the Departmental Salary Details Booklet. Are you familiar with it? So you add the $70,000 to the $547,000, and it gives you $617,000. My point is if you take the Estimates from 1988-89, Mr.

Peckford's year, which is what the Premier has tried to do and would like to do, and you add the salary vote for the Office of the Premier and Executive Support, you will see the total number of employees is sixteen and the total expenditure is $617,000, precisely about the same amount as a matter of fact, under those two heads, Executive Support and the Premier's Office. No. 29 (Afternoon) R27

Where the real difference is is in Administration, where Mr . Peckford bad eight people employed. That is where he had his chef and those other ones, in that division, and the Premier only has two employed. That is where the big difference is. But in terms of the Executive Support and the Premier's Office, there does not appear, to me, to be any major difference. Anyway, I suppose, you can argue about it day in and day out, but I make the point for the obvious political reason, and I make the point because that is the way I read it.

I want to make sure that if we are going to have this argument for the next three or four years, that somehow both sides of the story come out. Now, can I also ask of the President of the Council, if he perhaps could listen and take note of it, in the 1989-90 Budget, last year's Budget, under the Premier's Office, there was a position identified in the Salary Details Booklet, on page 11, a position of Policy Advisor, okay? The estimated salary was $65,190 for a position of Policy Advisor. It was in your Budget last year. My question is simple: Was that position filled? Who occupied that position? Where is it now?

It does not show in this year's Budget. I want to know, for example, had it been Ms Coyne? Would that be the person, or what? Who filled the position of Policy Advisor? An han. Member: Nobody. Mr. Simms: Nobody. It was not filled. Well, okay, that is fine. That is why I asked the question. L28 May 8 , 1990 Vol XLI Where was Ms Coyne's salary located last year, then, in the last year's Estimates, prior to this April? I understand her salary now is in this Constitutional Affairs Division, or whatever it is called, in IGA .

And that is why I asked the question last night about whether this was mostly related to Meech? I got the distinct impression it was, because I understood that Ms Coyne was hired to give the Premier advice on Meech Lake, in particular. I do not know if she was hired to give you advice on fisheries and all those kind of constitutional matters as well, but I believe she was hired for advice on Meech Lake. If that is the case, she is the only employee in the Constitutional Affairs Division, a Division which has a Budget of $214,000, which I have said was related to Meech Lake. Mr. Wells: No . Mr.

Simms: The Premier says, no, no, no, it is not all Meech Lake. Yet, the only employee, the only significant employee with major responsibilities, is Deborah Coyne. So, perhaps he could explain that. Maybe I am just stupid, maybe I am confused, and the Premier will no doubt lecture me if I am and tell me how wrong I am, but perhaps he could explain that. Maybe, Mr Chairman, I will just leave it at that for those two. There are lots of other things we want to get on to, but I don't want to bog it down with a whole bunch of things, and we can see what the Premier has to say on it. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible) . Mr .

Simms: Yes, I think so. Thank you. No. 29 (Afternoon) R28

Mr. Chairman: The Han. Premier. Premier Wells: I have a recollection of a few things he asked. The figure I gave him of $1,300,000 for the operation of the Premier's office in the last full year is taken from the Public Accounts. Those are the actual expenditures in the Public Accounts. Mr. Simms: Not just salaries? Premier Wells: No, no, salaries alone. Salaries alone. The actual expenditure in the Public Accounts for the whole of the office was $1,778,571. That was the total expenditure, $1,778,571, taken from the Public Accounts of the Province for the year ended March 31, 1989.

This is the information the ·Public Service provided me with and I pass this on to the House. It is not taken from the Estimates, it is taken from the Public Accounts. Mr. Simms: Yes, I heard that. Premier Wells: Okay. Mr. Simms: The Estimates will give you the revised expenditure from the last year, and I want to see if it coincides. Premier Wells: I asked the people, Mr. Vincent in particular, in the office, who manages the accounts, to provide me with detailed information, and this is the information I now happily pass on to the House.

The actual expenditure on salaries was $1,300,000, and it shows the three divisions: $110,113 for the Premier's Office directly, the Executive Office, the political side, $1,014,686 and then, I guess on the administrative and secretarial, $175,594. Those L29 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI three added together round out to $1,300,000. Mr. Simms: I will wait, if you wish, because I think there has been an error somewhere. Premier Wells: Well, if there is an error, I would most certainly like to correct it.

Ms Coyne was engaged at the time to be a constitutional advisor but, quite frankly, the need at the time was because of the urgent matters arising out of the Meech Lake discussions and issues. That is what prompted the immediate hiring. Largely, not exclusively, the great bulk of the work Ms Coyne has been doing is in relation to the Meech Lake Constitutional issue. There is no question about that. Her salary would be included in that IGA estimate for Constitutional Division to which the hon. Member referred. I believe those were all the questions he asked. I guess he has some more now. Mr.

Chairman: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Mr. Chairman, I - Premier Wells: Mr. Chairman, just before he proceeds, when I sat in this House last it was the frequent practice, in order to ensure that the maximum amount of accurate of information was given at the time, it was asked to have one of the officials, who was very knowledgeable about the detail, be available immediately in the House to give the information to the Committee.

Now I do not know if that practice has changed significantly since, but I would certainly have no objection, if the Committee has no objection, to inviting the man who No. 29 (Afternoon) R29

is standing outside the door, and I can run out and get the information from him and come back and tell the Committee, which seems to be a terribly inefficient way to do it. If the Commit tee does not object, I do not mind having Mr. Vincent available, because everybody knows I do not know these figures. I am passing on to the House detailed information given to me by somebody else. I do not occupy my time with counting these dollars, other people in the public service do. It would be more efficient to do it that way, if the Committee has no objection. Mr . Simms: Mr.

Chairman, it is not a question of whether the Committee has any objection. It is not proper procedure. It is not parliamentary. When the Estimates under this Head are done they are done in the House of Assembly, in Committee of the Whole. You cannot have strangers in the House in Commit tee of the Whole. It is totally different if other Departments are done outside the House in Committee stage, by Estimates Committee. But in Committee of the Whole it is not proper practice or procedure to have strangers enter the House upon invitation, I think that really is not (inaudible) Mr. Chairman: The hon . the Premier.

Premier Wells: Mr. Chairman, somebody is going to immediately say yes, but that was in the dark ages. When I sat in this House before, it was the routine practice. As a matter of fact it may even have been that the present Clerk of the House sat with the then Premier, perhaps not. But others did, with every Department. When any Minister was L30 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI being examined and asked questions the officials of the Department were available to give the information. It could be done very efficiently and very effectively, instead of going back and forth in this way . But I do not insist on it.

I am not going to belabour the Committee with it. But it was the normal practice when I last sat in the House - when it got stopped or changed I do not know. Mr. Chairman: The han. the Opposition House Leader . Mr. Simms: Just to respond to that I want to - Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Mr . W. Carter: comment on what been saying . I just wanted to the Premier has Mr. Chairman: Well, the han. the Opposition House Leader was recognized first. Mr. Simms: No, go ahead. Mr . Chairman: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. Mr. W. Carter: I agree with the Premier.

I can recall back between the years 1975 and 1979 when I sat in the House. It was a common practice then for Ministers to have their deputies or their assistant deputies sitting next to them. I recall Mr. Ank Murphy, who was one time Minister of Provincial Affairs: Ank would not come in the House and discuss his estimates without his deputy with him. Of course, it goes back further than that because in my previous tenure in the House, the same thing happened. I do not know if there has been a change in No. 29 (Afternoon) R30

the House rules or not since then, but certafnly upon until the later part of the 1970s that was the practice. I might add, pretty well all Ministers took advantage of it. Mr. Chairman: The bon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: My understanding is that the experiences of the Premier in 1966, twenty-four years ago, and the experience of the Minister in 1975, fifteen years ago, were in fact thus as described by those two gentlemen. However, in 1979 the rules were changed by the House, by both parties in the House, by agreement.

And in those rules it was agreed, and it is in those rules now, that the Departmental Estimates are referred outside the House to be studied by Legislative Review Committees. In Committee of the Whole this one Department, Executive Council basically in the Premier's Office, is done in the House of Assembly in Committee of the Whole. Premier Wells: only one. And that is the Mr. Simms: Yes, that is the only on in Committee of Supply. Premier Wells: Then why don't we employ the former practice of having the officials here for that? Mr. Simms: Because the rules do not provide for that and do not allow for that.

Premier Wells: We can by consent . Mr. Simms: We are in Committee of Supply right now. The Legislative Review Committees meet outside. L31 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI Premier Wells: And they examine Executive Council. That is everyone Mr. Simms: That is correct. right. except Premier Wells: So why would we not do Executive Council the same way? Mr. Simms: As a matter of fact, Finance used to be done here but you have changed it and referred Finance out, for example, to be done by an Estimates Review Committee. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, the point is the Premier says he does not know all the answers.

We understand that, but if he wishes to take notice of it, and get information we are quite happy. We have twenty-odd hours, I think, or so remaining on this particul~r Department. So we have plenty of time and he can get some information, but, as all Ministers you are responsible for your Departments. And any Minister could say the same thing. I do not have the information here but I will get it. But you are expected to be briefed when your Estimates are appearing.

You are expected to be briefed by your officials, bring them in five o'clock or five-thirty in the morning and ask them to run through it and tell you what this means and what that means and then when you come to the House you will have the answers, and you will not have to get up in the House and say, 'I am sorry I do not have the answers.' I mean that is what the President of Treasury Board was trying to get away with last night. Anyway, I am not used to that kind of legal parliamentary discussion, I am not interested in that kind No. 29 (Afternoon) R31

of stuff. We leave that to the lawyers. I want to get back to the $1.3 million in salaries that he is talking about, that he says he took ft·om the public accounts for the year 1988-89. Is that what he said? The estimates, for example, for last year 1989-90, provides for $1.3 million expenditure for the office of the Premier - everything. I am just wondering if the numbers somehow got mixed up or got confused because I cannot see - Premier Wells: question again? What was the Mr.

Simms: Okay, the $1.3 million, the answer you gave me was for salaries only in the Premier's office, 1988-89, was $1.3 million approximately. That is the answer you gave me a few moments ago for 1988-89. Mr. Premier: Yes. Mr. Simms: And I was asking where did you get that number because in the departmental salary estimates of 1988-89 it does not show that. It shows a different number. It shows a considerably different number as a matter of fact. But then you said the answer came from the public accounts of the Province.

So I sought then to get the estimates for 1989 to see what the revised figure would have been on salaries alone. Premier Wells: For 1988-89. Mr. Simms: For 1988-89. Premier Wells: Right. Mr. Simms: And you say that the number you have is $1.3 million approximately. Premier Wells: But in fact the L32 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI revised show much moJ!.""e than $1. 3 million. Mr. Simms: Well, that was my next question. So, I do not know where the information - there is a bit of confusion there.

And the other point I was making, of course, is that from the estimates of that year - I do not know why the significant increase in salaries under executives for that particular year in the Premier's office, two years ago. I have no idea what happened in 1988-89, but there is a significant increase for that particular year. Premier Wells: Up to $274,600. Mr. Simms: Now that would not have anything to do with I wonder would it? Was it in that year that the severance pay was paid out and things like that? No, it was not. That would have been the next year. An hon. Member: The year after.

Premier Wells: I will find out the precise details. But let me tell the House that I have two documents here dealing with the same subject. One is the public accounts. Now I take that to be the Auditor General's report of the public accounts to be an accurate accounting of the actual expenditures. Actual dollars expended. So, the figures I gave you earlier totalling $1.3 million come from that, and the exact amounts are $110,113, $1,014,686, and $172,594. That roughly is $1,300,000.

Now that is where I got the $1. 3 million, the revised estimates tabled with last years estimates, which were tabled in May - early June. An hon. Member: think it was. No. 29 (Afternoon) Early June I R32

Premier June. Wells: Two of identical. An hon. Member: Tabled in early those figures are Yes . Premier Wells: The $1,014,700 and the $172,600. The figure that is different is right directly in the office of the Premier where it shows $274,600. Now I am guessing - He cannot listen to both of us. I know he has two ears, but he can only listen to one of us. Mr. Simms: Absolutely. I can hear you. You were guessing you said, what you suspect. Premier Wells: The $274,600, I am taking a guess, but I will find out and let him know, that that probably included an amount for severance.

That is a guess on my part, which the Auditor General said you cannot do because the severance took place after March 31st, it took place in April or May. So you will note that in the revised for this year, if you look at the revised budget for this year, is up to $123,500. So I think the Auditor General probably said the severance has to go in the year in which it was paid. That is a guess on my part. But I will find out why that is there. But nevertheless the expenditure for the former Premier's Office, in his last year of operation, was at the very least $1.3 million for salaries; and it may have been more.

I took the least of them, $1.3 million. According to the actual Public Accounts. Mr. Chairman: I would like for han. Members to wait for the Chair to recognize them for the purpose of Hansard. And before I identify the Opposition House Leader, I would like to welcome to the House on behalf of hon. Members, Mr. L33 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI Jerome Walsh, the Mayor of Marys town, and Mr. Gert"y Appleby, Mayor of Burin. I think the other" gentleman is Rex Matthews, the Mayor of Grand Bank. Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Chairman: House Leader. Mr. Simms: Chairman. The Thank It is Opposition you, Mr. rather confusing.

There is no real reason for me to keep harping on it, but I want to make sure that it is clearly understood, because the impression is, of course, and far be it for me to defend the salaries . paid to the Premier's Office two year's ago, even though I was President of Treasury Board at the time, but I think the point I am trying to make here is that under the Executive Support Revised Figure, the $1.014 million the Premier referred to - of the $1.3 million. What I am asking is: wasn't a sizable portion of that amount of money for severance to the staff in the Premier's Office.

You recall when thet"e was a changeover, an Administt"ative changeover" and that happened before the end of March of that year, and I am suspecting that a sizeable amount of that would have been for severance, because it is a significant jump fr"om $600,000 - Mr. Baker: (Inaudible). Mr. Simms: Yes, over here I am talking about now, r"emember the change in the two Administrations? Yes, but the Budget amount was $600,000 and the final amount was $1 million. I mean that is a significant amount of over- expendi tut"e and I am a bit uncomfortable unless I knew - wet"e there thet"e additional staff people?

Was it for" severance of No. 29 (Aftet"noon) R33

staff? Yes, you will have to get the answer . But I will ask a couple of other questions. An Han. Member: (Inaudible) . Mr. Simms: Why do you not go ahead and ask, and I will just ask a couple of other questions or something, if you like. Do you want to comment? Premier Wells: Yes, it is easier to do it that way. Because you see all the other Departments are done in Committees where that is done. This is done right here in the Committee of Supply. Mr. Chairman: The han. the Premier. Premier Wells: My apologies to the Chair. Let me also tell the House where the $274,600 comes from in the revised for 1988-89. Mr.

Vincent has just explained to me that that incorporates part of IGA too because there was a separate Ministry of IGA before and there is not now . It is one of the Ministries we eliminated and your hard-working Premier, and Members of the han. House, your hard-working Premier is discharging both the responsibilities of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Office of the Premier, thus saving hundreds of thousands of dollars for the taxpayers of this Province.

So that is where that $274,600 differential comes from; and when the Auditor General has to do with it he can find it obviously to the Premier's Office and show the account somewhat differently. So that explains that. Now while he is asking another question, I will run out and talk to Mr. Vincent, if you insist on L34 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI continuing this very inefficient method. I will run out and talk to Mr. Vincent and try to get an explanation for the $1.014 million jump from $617,000. I will be right back. Thank you, Mr . Chairman . Mr. Chairman: The han. the Opposition House Leader. Mr.

Simms: Yes, anytime I get an opportunity to get the Premier running out and running in, I am happy to oblige. You know, it is not only his estimates that we are scrutinizing here, we are scrutinizing the estimates of the President of Treasury Board, President of the Executive Council and so on. So there are lots of other people we can ask questions of, as I did last night, when I asked three and three-quarters hours worth of questions and got very few answers. But hopefully I will get more answers today since the Premier is here.

I am sure he will crack the whip and will get the President of Treasury Board to be a bit more forthcoming with respect to his answers. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the President of Treasury Board to give us, at the earliest opportunity, after the Premier perhaps has a few more words or whatever, but at the earliest opportunity I would like the President of Treasury Board to tell us what is transpiring with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services at the present time, he is the Minister responsible for NLCS.

What kind of Administrative changes have taken place at that Crown Corporation in terms of the Executive, in terms of the Administration? More specifically, he mentioned last No. 29 (Afternoon) R34

night in a lot of his answers how a lot of expenditures for professional services are actually contracts with NLCS to do internal reviews of Departments and programs and things of that nature. I asked them last night to provide me with some information as to what programs are being reviewed, what Departments are being reviewed and under scrutiny, and he indicated he would try to get the information for me. Specifically, I would like - An hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Simms: No, the Opposition Office is not under scrutiny, I hope. The Opposition office is not be reviewed again, is it? An Hon. Member: Yes. Mr.

Simms: Oh, no! I can't believe it! But could he tell us a little bit about NLCS, where it is going and how it is doing? What Executive changes have taken place in the Executive and Administration of NLCS since the Minister, the President of Treasury Board is responsible for NLCS and, secondly, I would like him to give me a specific answer to the question concerning pay equity, the equal pay for work of equal value policy that was brought in by the previous Administration, I might modestly say spearheaded by the former President of Treasury Board at that time, as a matter of fact - An Hon. Member: (inaudible)?

Do you remember Mr. Simms: Do I remember? I certainly do. It was five o'clock in the morning, almost at the top of Signal Hill, sitting across the table from CUPE and a few other L35 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI NAPE people, and Mr. Dave Curtis, with whom our friend the President of Treasury Board would be very familiar, one of the chief negotiators of NAPE; if he doesn't know him well now, I can assure him he is going to know him well before the year is out. Anyway, it was five o'clock in the morning when we completed the agreement on pay equity.

The whole process started in 1985, with the Task Force on Affirmative Action, and it was one of their recommendations. That task force, I believe, was spearheaded and introduced by my predecessor, the Member for Mount Pearl. He was the one who had the foresight to set up this task force to look at affirmative action programs for the Public Service, and one of the recommendations was the pay equity issue - equal pay for work of equal value. In fact, it was announced in 1988, two years ago, in April.

The process at that time was to be a joint committee process, as I recollect, to do a general review of the positions in the Public Service that would be the appropriate ones to review, and once there was agreement, then the process would be put in place where the funding would be provided over a period of time to bring these positions to true equality, and to be retroactive, I believe, to April of 1988, the date of the announcement of the policy. I want to know, and would like to know, and I believe - Ms Verge: And the principle was to be enshrined in the legislation. Mr.

Simms: Yes, but what I want to know, first of all, is on the aspect of the financial part of the Pay Equity Program. I believe there was money allocated this year in the Budget for the first No. 29 (Afternoon) R35

phase of it, and I want to know how much. I am not sure how much was in there this year, but I presume it started - $6 million, I believe, was the amount. How much is estimated now it will cost, because they would have done the review. The Committee, I guess, would have a fair bit of the work done in terms of the review, if they have now decided to start paying the amount of money that is required. So how much longer will this go then, how many years? I think it was three or five years for a certain amount of money to be put in to bring it in. How many positions were involved?

How many did they - you know, a little bit of an update on what is happening with the pay equity issue. The other part of the pay equity issue, of course, had to . do with the question of enshrining pay equity, equal pay for work of equal value, into legislation. At the time, I remember, the Province of Ontario had legislation for private sector and public sector. There was some hesitation and some concerns about the Ontario legislation, as I recollect. The best legislation, as I recollect, was the province of Manitoba.

I believe the province of Manitoba had the most forward and progressive legislation in terms of pay equity. Nevertheless, we were the first Province that negotiated pay equity through a collective bargaining process, which was never done anywhere else in Canada at the time. But there was an intention to enshrine into legislation, and the issue of private sector pay equity legislation was also going to be looked at. Certainly, the public service legislation was part of the whole program, as we understood it. Maybe the L36 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI President of Treasury Board could tell us about that.

I understand the Liberal Party in its campaign, according to its brochure, intended to bring in legislation to deal with pay equity, quoted from 'Real Change, Party for Change' , a big picture of the Premier on the front. The picture is a bit old. I cannot believe he is that young looking. Mr. Verge: The promise is there in two places. Mr. Simms: Oh, yes, so it is.

As a matter of fact, as my colleague points out, under the labour aspect of the promises of the Liberal Party it says on one side, 'We will develop progressive and fair legislation to deal with double-breasting, industrial standards, minimum wage, and pay equity', and on the other side of the page, under women, this was under the labour heading, it says, 'A Liberal Government will introduce and inforce pay equity legislation.' I realize, I suppose, that you can say at some time during our term. I suppose that would be the answer, sometime during our term. Ms.

Verge: But if they promised it twice, you would think they would have rushed to do it early. Mr. Simms: Do it halfway during their term. Well, they are in their second year now. I am a bit more progressive than the Member for Humber East. I am prepared to give them a chance, a little, tiny chance. Ms. Verge: chance. Mr. Simms : They have had a tiny What will be interesting, if their commitment No. 29 (Afternoon) R36

was to do it sometime within their mandate - Ms. Verge: No, it was to do it right away. Mr. Simms: If it was. Let us say that is what they will argue, then let us see if they will fulfill their commitment and bring in legislation for pay equity before their mandate expires. Let us get them on the record for that. At least, we will have them on the record for something. Ms. Verge: It has to be in in the next year. Mr. Simms: Well, on this issue the Member for Humber East will no doubt attack my position on the matter, but will speak to it herself later on in the day, or later on tonight.

We will be here for the next twenty-four days, or twenty-four hours, I guess, debating these kind of matters. So, that is NLCS and pay equity. The Premier has an answer for me by now, I guess, on that other item, so maybe I will just take my seat and see what kind of responses we get. Mr. Chairman: Before I recognize the Premier, I would like to welcome to the House on behalf of hon. Members the Mayor of Fortune, Charlie King. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Chairman: The Hon. the Premier. Mr. Simms: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if you overlooked the gentleman, my eyes are bad, but I believe - Mr.

Chairman: The other gentleman is Gene King, the Town Manager of L37 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI Grand Bank. Mr. Simms: No, Mr. Chairman, I am referring to - Mr. Baker: We already did that. Mr. Simms: I was not listening. Sorry. Premier Wells: I understand. When the bon. Member was out, they were all recognized. So it is okay. The amount of $1,014,700 in the final accounts for 1988-89 do, indeed, include severance for the first lot of severance pay in the change of Administration, from Mr. Peckford to the present Leader of the Opposition.

Then the amount in last year's expenditures of $123,500, that also includes severance for the change from the now Leader of the Opposition to the present occupant of the office. Mr. Simms: Premier. Premier Wells: fulfilling two four. The hard working That is right, jobs, or three or Mr. Simms: Is the President of Treasury Board going to respond to my questions - Mr. Chairman: The Han. the Leader of the Opposition. The Government House Leader, I am sorry. Mr. Simms: Thank you very much for the promotion. I am sure you meant Opposition. I just had to listen to the machine to make sure of it.

Is the President of Treasury Board going to respond to my questions on NLCS and pay equity before we proceed? I think the Premier has No. 29 (Afternoon) R37

already set the example, coming in here this afternoon for the last hour, set an excellent example, I think, for his Ministers, by agreeing with me that the best process was to ask one or two questions so you don't get bogged down and everything like that, and get some answers. Maybe the President of Treasury Board did not hear the Premier when he said that, and I am sure he might want to reconsider his position at the next opportunity. I do not want to get up - Premier Wells: I do not have the memory capacity he does, obviously. Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr.

Simms: Well, there is a lot the Premier doesn't have, and that may very well be one of the things. Mr. Hogan: Don't get nasty. Mr. Simms: That was not nasty. The han. Member for Placentia, every time you open you mouth or say anything, 'Oh, don't get nasty! Don't get nasty!' Boy, if you can't take it, go out and have a cup of coffee in the common room, or something. Mr. Winsor: He is thin-skinned. Mr. Simms: Very thin-skinned, yes. I want to get back to Newfoundland Information Services, if I may, once again.

Before I get to that, may I just throw one more question to the President of Treasury Board, if he is going to take some time to reflect on the questions I have asked? Premier Wells: Can I - Mr. Simms: Be excused? L38 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Premier. Premier Wells: In effect, yes. I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, I have to meet with representatives of the Canadian Legion and representatives of the Joint Councils on the Burin Peninsula.

I have meetings scheduled with the two groups, and, assuming I have answered now all the questions the Commit tee has of me, I would 1 ike to go and fulfill those obligations. But I don't want to just walk out on the Committee. If they have more, I will be back tomorrow and the next day and the next day, or tonight or tomorrow night and so on, whatever is appropriate to answer questions. I do, however, have a commitment for tonight, so I would sooner make it tomorrow. Oh, tomorrow is Wednesday - Thursday then. Okay, we wi 11 make it Thursday.

I just want to do the Committee the courtesy of letting them know why I have to leave now, and I thank the Committee for their consideration. Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Of course, we obviously have no problem with that. We understand the Premier is a very busy man. The people who are waiting to see him are very busy people, too, and they cannot be kept waiting. We understand that, and we have no difficulty.

However, with respect to the Estimates process, I do not want him to misunderstand or be misled into thinking if the Committee has any more questions of him, because I can assure him there are many, No . 29 (Afternoon) R38

many more questions going to be asked of him. Now, if he is not here, then I am sure his right-hand man, the Deputy Premier who does not like to be referred to as the Deputy Premier, but everybody in the Province knows he is the Deputy Premier, will take note of the questions and hopefully provide the Premier with the questions and get his assistant to run downstairs and get the answers for him as quickly as he can, and respond sometime. Mr. Tobin: Are you talking about Dr. House? Mr. Simms: No, I am talking about the Member for Exploits, his Parliamentary Assistant. He will get the information.

Maybe I can get back to my old friend, the President of Treasury Board. Now that the Premier has gone and the pressure is off him he can relax a bit, and maybe get up. I think what happened was he was afraid to get up and answer my questions on NLCS and pay equity, because the Premier would then see for himself how inadequately prepared he is for these Estimates.

As everybody saw last night in the Estimates, the Government House Leader could not give me any answers and, today when I asked him a couple of questions on Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, for which he is the Minister responsible, a very progressive Crown agency, and questions on pay equity, which is another very important issue in this Province, the Government House Leader said, 'I would rather wait for a little while and I will answer later on.' I think the real reason was the Premier was there.

I don't think he wanted to get up and botch it, as he did L39 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI last night, letting it slip out that the Government still had Lougheed's law firm on their payroll, and things like that. He let that slip out, and I would say the Minister of Social Services took the President of Treasury Board to task afterwards, saying, 'What did you tell them that kind of stuff for? Why did you give them that information? But the President of Treasury Board is not ready yet to answer my questions on NCLS and pay equity, so I will just throw in one or two others.

These are questions which are going to require lengthy answers, so that is the reason I wanted him to take some time and give the answers. In addition to NCLS and pay equity, can he tell me a bit about the Hay Pay Plan? Since the Hay Pay Plan was implemented in the Public Service a few years back, there was, at that time, a lot of concern among public servants as to whether or not it was going to be acceptable, and I mean this seriously.

I think the initial stages for the Hay Pay Plan was that it would be applicable to senior public servants; I think it was going to start with management, and then it was going to be applied, presumably, through the rest of the public service, depending on how it worked, how it was accepted, once the whole barrage of appeals were out of the way, and so on. That has been several years ago, so I would like him now to tell me at what stage it is now. Is it intended to implement the Hay Pay Plan throughout the rest of the public service? Has it been settled at the management level?

Are things pretty well settled down by now? Are there still a whole barrage of appeals? How is it being No. 29 (Afternoon) R39

generally accepted, and what is the next stage of it? Mr. Chairman, I think I want to leave those three things. I would like to hear his comments on Pay Equity, NLCS and the Hay Pay Plan - those three very important items are obviously going to take a bit of time to respond to - before I get into some other interesting topics I intend to raise. For example, the political freedom of public servants is my next topic, in my next segment, so stay tuned for that. But I want the President of Treasury Board to please respond to those three items. Mr. Chairman: The hon. the President of the Council. Mr.

Baker: I will get up for a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, to give the Opposition House Leader a little rest. He needs to sit back and relax for a few minutes; he is carrying the ball alone over there and I sympathize with him. I will deal with one of the issues he raised. As he indicated, some of the issues he raised are issues which require long explanations and long comments. We are getting more into policy now than detail. I think the first comment I will make will have to do with the pay equity situation. I will spend a few minutes on that. As hon.

Members know, the Pay Equity Commit tee has been working very hard since 1988. I believe it was in the summer of 1988 that the agreement was reached. It was a joint initiative of unions and employers, and it was a very good initiative on the part of the Government at the time. I suppose L40 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI if you try enough things, you will hit a few good ones. Mr. Simms: As you are seeing. Mr. Baker: Yes, that is ~ight. The Steering Commit tee was set up and there was equal representation from the work force and the employers, and they have hammered out some terms and conditions.

This Steering Committee has been working ever since, and it has had to go through a lot of stages. I have so much on the topic here, Mr. Chairman, that it may take me a few minutes to find some of the things I am looking for. One of the biggest jobs, I suppose, in implementing any Pay Equity Program is to do an analysis of the jobs, and it is very, very difficult . We are talking about equal pay for work of equal value, and you really have to evaluate what wo~k is being done, and you have to be able to compare various job classifications. It is ext~emely important to do that and to do it properly.

Now, this also, I guess, relates to the Hay Plan and the Hay evaluation that was done in some areas. However, the Pay Equity Group decided to go back to step one and to hire their own consultants to do an evaluation; they decided to start with two branches of Government, I suppose, the Hydro employees and the health care sector. These are the two areas where an evaluation was done. When the evaluation is done, then you have to sort of do a pilot p~oject and a test on the system. I am trying to shorten the process down for the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Oh. no, go on. Mr.

Baker: You want me to spend No . 29 (Afternoon) R40

more time? I am trying to condense it a little bit for him. Mr. Simms: information. No, I want more Mr. Baker: The pilot project was undertaken and I should, I suppose, quote from some of the pay equity newsletters and updates, which I am sure the han. Member has been getting by one means or another. The Pay Equity Steering Committee, and this is the stage they are at now, planned and directed a pilot project, which included forty-four employees in twenty-two classes selected from the health care sector and Hydro, which are the two areas which have had the evaluation done.

The object of the pilot project was to test the proposed job evaluation system which had previously been developed with the help of consultants, I believe it was Touche Ross, or whatever they are called now - I think they recently had a name change. Anyway, with the help of this consulting firm, the program was devised and the pilot project was carried out. The pay equity newsletter says the pilot project was successfully completed. There were education sessions that were held and questionnaires that were completed.

These employees were interviewed, rather extensive interviews in terms of their functions and exactly what they did in jobs and so on, and the positions were evaluated by the Steering Committee. The next step, I assume, once the evaluation of the pilot project has been done, the detailed planning of the implementation of pay equity then begins. I suppose we can say at this point L41 May 8, 1990 Vol XLI that the preliminary work is over with.

The evaluation of these two sectors of the jobs, then the pilot project with these forty-four employees to test the system that was devised by the Commit tee and Touche Ross and so on, that has been completed. These are the details, and they are satisfied with the proposals they now have developed. So now, I suppose, the detailed planning for the implementation of the pay equity plan in these sectors has now started in earnest; they are now down to the final stages; they have the preliminary work done.

The step they are now in the process of doing, they have a Health Care Job Evaluation Committee which is starting work now, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Job Evaluation Committee are supposed to start their work, and most of their work will be done in the fall. So we are now looking at the fall before the detailed work in terms of implementing the pay equity takes place. The speed with which pay equity will be actually im