December

12, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 78

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

For the purposes of Hansard I would to record that the House

did not meet on Friday, December 9, 1994 because of a power failure here at the

Confederation Building, among other places.

Statements by Ministers

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform hon.

members of the House of Assembly and residents of this Province that my

department's plans to call early tenders for highway projects funded under the

Roads for Rails Agreement for the 1995-96 construction seasons. This year's

projects, totalling $55 million, includes the upgrading and paving of gravel

roads, resurfacing of existing paved roads, and repairs to existing bridges on

the Province's Trans-Canada Highway and trunk roads. I would also like to advise

this hon. House that my department will include with these contracts some

projects funded by the Provincial Highways Program which is 100 per cent

provincially funded.

Mr. Speaker, the projects to be carried out under this

Capital Highways Program reflect the priorities established by my department to

improve the overall transportation infrastructure of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The government realizes that the projects I am announcing today will not meet

all requirements for highway improvement throughout the Province. However, given

the restraint that government must adopt, the amount of funds approved for this

purpose is significant and will boost employment throughout the provincial

highway construction industry.

Mr. Speaker, tenders for the work will be called as soon as

possible, and it is anticipated that all projects will be tendered by June. For

the information of hon. members and the general public I have listed each

project separately as attached.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that the other reason

for my calling them is because it will give the construction companies time over

the winter months, those who have successfully tendered, to get their machinery

repaired and those who are not will not have to go through the expense of

getting their equipment ready for the construction season for projects they may

not necessarily get, so it is an advantage to the construction industry as well

as to government.

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

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

Let me have a brief second to respond. I note that the

minister did not highlight how much the Province would be putting into their

program. He says it was 100 per cent provincially funded but he did not say how

much it would be. It is my understanding that it's $2,755,000.00 to be exact,

somewhere in that area, but we agree with early tendering, Mr. Speaker, it is

something that we did when we were in government and we know the advantages to

both the construction industry and to the Province, they will get better prices

and hopefully get more road work done, but I say to the minister, I certainly

hope that there will be a further announcement from the minister as it pertains

to a provincial roads component program where - this is not all we are going to

see because just about all this money, 98 per cent or 99 per cent of this money

is federal, money from the Roads for Rail Agreement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - so I hope that the minister will, in

the next few weeks, stand up and announce a Provincial Roads Program for us.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have a

summary of the events

of the last few days regarding the electrical problems in the Province and I

have had a rather long statement prepared by Hydro on the Hydro experience; I

will not read it but I will table it for hon. members so they can see the

details of what happened to Hydro; I have a number of copies available. I have

just received, since I arrived here today, a two-page

summary from Newfoundland

Light and Power, I have not had a chance to make copies of this but I will make

copies and table this as well, as soon as copies are made.

I will not go into the details myself right now, except to

say that I would like to congratulate the many lines crews with both Light and

Power and Hydro, who have done a lot of work in the last few days and are

getting the Province back on line, and have done a marvellous job, a marvellous

job!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I spoke to the

minister just before the session started and he mentioned it to me; but we too,

want to share with the minister in paying our tribute to the men and women I

guess who have been working basically the entire weekend trying to put the

electrical system back in place. There are parts of this Province that still do

not have electricity at this present time, even though the men are working hard

trying to restore the power but I am sure I will have an opportunity to discuss

it with the minister in a matter of minutes.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I could have leave of the House, just to make a brief

statement to clarify certain issues that have risen from the Question Period on

Thursday.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to address

the House? Is leave given?

MR. WINDSOR: I just want to clarify things, Mr. Speaker,

because of news media reports over the weekend and quite a bit of controversy

and sensationalism that arose from that exchange in Question Period on Thursday.

First of all, I make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I did

not, in this House of Assembly, call the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation a murderer nor was it ever any intent of mine to do so or imply

so, and if that in fact was the result of that, then that is most unfortunate,

and that clearly, Mr. Speaker, was not my intent. Indeed, had it been, or had I

inadvertently done so, I have no doubt Your Honour would have brought me to task

in this hon. House, as you should because it clearly would have been

unparliamentary.

I want to make it very clear there was never any intent on my

behalf, nor did I do that. It is unfortunate certain members of the news media

tend to want to sensationalize and took an unfortunate choice of words that I

used at that particular time to sensationalize, instead of getting into the real

issue, which were the conditions of the highway that I had complained about to

the minister on two occasions. I was pointing out to him again that in my view,

and in the view of many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, highway conditions

during snow and ice problems have been far less than satisfactory and have

deteriorated.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, Mr. Speaker, in

that that day and subsequent to then it is has been my observation and that of

many others in fact that we've seen a tremendous improvement in the level of

service that is being provided. If the result of what I said has in fact saved

even one accident then I think it was well done.

If there is any effrontery to the minister I would apologize

to the minister. I say, however, that I really don't feel I have anything to

apologize for. There was no intent, either implied or intended to in any way

imply that the minister was in fact a murderer. I would certainly not do so and

did not do so and would never do so in this hon. House or anywhere else. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of hon. members, I would like to

welcome to the House of Assembly eighteen adult basic education students from

Lawrence College on Blackmarsh Road here in St. John's, accompanied by their

teacher Ms. Isabelle Maynard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to Trans City

Holdings. I want to ask the Premier a question. We understand - and this comes,

I guess, from sworn public testimony - that on October 17 1991, the day before

the resignation I guess of the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir then as Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation - I think it was October 17 -, that a

Cabinet meeting was held and a decision was made at that Cabinet meeting after

the Premier had left that particular Cabinet meeting to seek a legal opinion on

the Trans City Holdings case. Can the Premier confirm this information?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know the time at which it

was decided to seek a legal opinion, but however in literally hundreds of papers

that are dealt with by Cabinet we quite often go back to seek legal opinion and

so on. I don't remember the date. If the hon. member says it was in sworn

testimony, then I guess that was the date, but I don't recall.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't ask the Minister of

Finance if he recalled, I asked the Premier if he recalled, and if he could find

out, was that the date of the meeting and had that decision been taken to seek a

legal opinion on that issue after he had left the Cabinet meeting? That is what

I am trying to find out.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the minister has answered the

question fully and thoroughly - I have no other knowledge. I don't even know

that I left the Cabinet meeting on that day.

MR. SIMMS: Will you find out?

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I will take a look but I am not

going to turn the thing inside out because the member suggests I left the

Cabinet meeting. What difference does it make whether I was there or I wasn't

there? A decision was taken by Cabinet, it was Cabinet's decision and I am

responsible for it whether I was there or I wasn't there.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it might not be of any interest

to the Premier but it is of interest to others and that is why I am asking the

questions. Now, let me ask him again with reference to questions I asked him

here in the House on Thursday; back in 1991, in reference to the health care

contracts, you told The Evening Telegram and I quote from the interview

here, `you had never met with Mr. Hickman or anyone connected with this project

to discuss this project, never at any time.' On Thursday in this House you felt

a little less certain about that, because in answer to another question I asked

about the same thing, you said, in response to my question, `I can't say to the

House with certainty that I did not.' Now, I want to ask the Premier, which tale

is true? At any time did you or did you not talk to Mr. Hickman or any of the

principals about those health care projects?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the

Opposition is dragging and scratching to try to give some credibility to the

attempt they have made over the last few weeks to create a mountain out of a

molehill but I can tell the hon. member he isn't going to succeed. I have given

the answers to the questions and I don't always accept what The Evening

Telegram says, still less am I prepared to accept something that is

interrupted by the hon. member out of The Evening Telegram .

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the reason I was hesitant was

because he didn't answer the question, which seems to be the approach he has

used in response to all my questions over the last several weeks. So it isn't

me, making a mountain out of a molehill, it is the Premier.

He also said, Mr. Speaker, in the House last Thursday that at

his meeting with Mr. Hickman, Mr. Case and Mr. Butler on April 4, the discussion

at that meeting had to do with the proposal to do a design, build/lease contract

to Trans City, to build a library for the court house on Duckworth Street, and

that was all that was discussed.

I want to ask the Premier this question: If your good friend,

Tom Hickman, can walk into your office looking for a contract to build a

courthouse library, do you really expect anyone to believe that there never was,

at any time, any discussion between you and Tom Hickman, or any of these other

people, about the more lucrative health care projects?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, he just fell through the

bottom of the bucket and he has gone right out of sight, right down wallowing in

the mud, and he is obviously choking on it; that's why he has come up with this

mess.

Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that I met with the then

Minister of Justice, the then President of Treasury Board, and myself, with the

three gentlemen who proposed this as a solution. There was no decision to give a

contract to anybody to build a courthouse. This was proposed as a solution, and

if that had been a solution that the government were prepared to follow at the

time, proposals would have been invited in a public manner in the same way as

they were with respect to the health care facilities.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, let's get back to the meeting on

April 4, then, that you say dealt with the Duckworth courts. Now, we have been

told publicly that the decision to reject Trans City's proposal on that idea

had, in fact, already been made months before by the government, in 1990, so

what possible explanation can the Premier have to be meeting those people back

in 1991, several months later, after the government had, in fact, already

rejected the idea?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

member gets the information and, if he doesn't get the information, from what

cloud he produces it. I know of nothing of any accuracy in what he just said, so

I can't answer any question in relation to it.

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

MR. SIMMS: It is the usual response, Mr. Speaker. This

information comes from sworn testimony. What we do know is that the government

did ignore the advice of its own officials - there is lots of evidence on that -

Finance officials, Works, Services and Justice officials.

We have a Finance Minister who has been standing in this

House over the last number of weeks, saying he didn't know anything about this

appendix. He doesn't know who wrote it, who gave it to him, why he signed it -

he doesn't know any of that - and the Premier's response in all of this is: I

can't recall; I don't remember; I can't say with any certainty.

Well, I want to say to you, Premier: Isn't it a fact, because

of the evasiveness of all of this that you have been showing now, that you knew

everything from day one and that you are masterminding a cover-up of this whole

situation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, he has left the planet

altogether - he is out in Mars somewhere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a sign of guilt

you see it there every day with his answers. He can abuse me and attack me about

questions I am asking all he wants but the fact of the matter is you are pulling

the wool over the eyes of the people of this Province and you are covering up

everything you have been doing on this whole issue. That is what is going on

here.

Let me ask the Premier this question, will he put an end to

this once and for all? Will he appoint a judicial inquiry to decide and

determine whether or not there was improper political interference into this

whole mess? Will he do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me say again, there is a

judicial inquiry in progress and I am not about to cause another judicial

inquiry to be conducted. The member just stood here in the House talking about

sworn testimony being given. Where is this being given?.... in a court where a

judicial inquiry is taking place. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will not subvert the

course of civil justice in this Province, even to satisfy the political urges of

the Leader of the Opposition. I simply will not do it.

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

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: The Premier had no difficulty in subverting

the Public Tender Act, it appears, Mr. Speaker, and he knows full well that the

civil court case which is ongoing has nothing to do with political wrongdoing.

That is what I am asking for. That is a civil case looking into whether or not

the act was broken and whether people who feel aggrieved will be compensated. I

want an inquiry into whether or not there was political wrongdoing by him and

his government. Will he do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will say again. When the

present court case is concluded, if there is anything that comes out of this

court case, or anything from any other source except the raving imaginings of

the Leader of the Opposition I will most certainly cause a public inquiry to be

held.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Energy. He said earlier

he had some information so I want to ask him now if he can tell us if he has any

preliminary estimates of the amount of damage that was done and how much it will

cost for repairs as a result of what took place this past weekend?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any dollar values

on the amount of damage but the amount of damage was really significant,

particularly to the Newfoundland Light and Power system. There was some damage

to the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro system but in retrospect as we look back

on it now it was quite small. In the Newfoundland Labrador Hydro system case

there was the failure of one major breaker at Holyrood that is now being

repaired, and will be repaired probably within hours, certainly within a day or

two, and one of the major lines for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro between here

and Long Harbour went down, Line 201. That one had seven wooden structures

collapse and that is going to take a few days. I will probably have an estimate

of cost in due course on that. Maybe by the end of a week, by this time next

week, that line will be back in service.

That is all the damage that Hydro had, really, significant

damage. There was one conductor that came off Line 217 and had to be spliced in

three places but that wasn't a lot of major damage. It came down because of the

weight of the ice and snow that was on it. Really, in terms of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, not a lot of damage at all, despite the problem.

In the Newfoundland Power case, though, between here and

Gander there were some major failures in structures. Naturally with the

distribution system there are a lot more facilities that can be affected and

were affected in this case. Over 200 poles were destroyed, lines were down all

over, primarily though on the Avalon. There were some problems as far west as

Gander but these were taken care of quickly. Light and Power right now has

thirty line crews and twelve pole crews in the field on the Avalon west of St.

John's. They've had fifteen crews in the field in the St. John's area getting

new poles in place, getting lines in place. A lot of damage. Even despite all

the damage, with all the crews they've put into the field they expect to have

pretty well everything back on line again by tomorrow night.

There are going to be some towns back on line by tonight out

in the Freshwater - Placentia area, and then there is another string of towns

around the northern Avalon Peninsula down around Heart's Delight, Brownsdale,

and down around that peninsula, that are expected to be back on line by tomorrow

night. A lot of damage, a lot of work, and it will take some time I think to get

the cost.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin

- Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there has been some concern about

how long it took to put the Holyrood generating plant back on line. I'm

wondering if that is the case, if it was longer than it should be, and if it was

what caused it to take so long to put it back on line.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could say a few things

of what is in the note that I tabled for people's information. When the major

failure occurred on Thursday night-Friday morning as a result of the storm it

wasn't primarily because of a failure of the Hydro system. We lost two lines,

one at 11:04 on Thursday evening and one at 1:34 on Friday morning. At that time

all that happened was that the eastern Avalon became isolated from everything to

the west and we were running on Holyrood. There was an adequate supply from

Holyrood to keep the eastern Avalon going. It was doing that. The problem was

that the Light and Power system, was down and could not do any distribution.

Lots of power was available.

What happened at Holyrood that caused it to go down happened

on Saturday afternoon when Hydro after surveying Transmission Line 217, a big

230,000 volt line, couldn't find any faults on it and decided to try to get it

back into the system. When they did hook it back into the system a major breaker

at Holyrood blew. When that one happened it tripped out the Holyrood system, it

knocked out the Holyrood system. Once that is done the machinery takes over and

it has to close down in a routine fashion. It has to close down in such a way

that there would not be damage to the equipment. That did happen on Saturday

afternoon and Saturday evening.

Within twenty-four hours Hydro had all that back and

restarted again. I've got the exact times. On Sunday everything was back and

operating. Unit 2 was operating at 12:44 p.m. on Sunday, Unit 3 at 1:35 p.m.,

and Unit 1 a little bit later in the day. We got everything back on Holyrood. It

did take close to twenty-four hours but that is nothing unusual because of the

nature of that particular system.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I heard the minister giving his

statement to the media early Saturday morning when he was awakened by the media

stations. I would like to ask the minister, was there any provincial agency on

the ground coordinating the emergency relief measures throughout the areas that

were affected?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't ask any particular

agency to do anything. I dealt with Hydro to get power available to the

Province, to the eastern Avalon, and Light and Power was doing everything it

could to get its system back in place to get that power distributed to the

customer. I didn't consider it to be an emergency or declare an emergency.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

In the Budget last March, the Minister of Finance announced

that the three diploma schools of nursing in the St. John's area, namely: St.

Clare's, The Grace General and The General Hospital will be consolidated into a

single program this year. We are now close to the end of the calendar year and

nine months into the fiscal year. I ask the minister, can he tell us, when will

the consolidation take place?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The matter of the consolidation of the three nursing schools,

the two at the hospitals and the one at the university, is under consideration

right now. Government has not dealt with it in finality; I can tell the member

that as late as this morning, I sat with my officials and had discussions on the

issue and I will be proposing some options for consideration by government

within the next week or ten days through Cabinet and in due course, not too

long, probably late this year or early in the new year, assuming we deal with it

at that level, I will be able to indicate exactly what government's plan is to

amalgamate, consolidate these three schools of nursing and the time frames, the

time parameters within which we hope to have this achieved.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I gather there is not, but I ask him if there is, a specific

plan. The reason I am asking, is because the staff at these three schools of

nursing, who were very concerned about their jobs and their livelihoods, have

heard nothing about a plan and know nothing about a plan.

Now, is there a plan to treat them with fairness that they

deserve or are they going to be lined up again this year for one of the

Christmas delights that this government is famous for?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, to my hon. colleague, there is a plan; it will be

presented to government and it will be discussed in the near future with them.

Once we finalize the preferred option, the preferred time frame into which we

want to do this, we will make it known. The people who will be affected in terms

of their jobs, in terms of employment will be given, ample, full time consistent

with collective agreements and that sort of thing, to be made aware of what the

plan is, when the thing will happen, and everybody will be treated in a fair,

balanced, and considered way, consistent with what this government does

traditionally, on pretty well everything we deal with.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, in the same they have treated things in the past. I say

to the minister, they found out about it when he read his statement here, when

he brought down his Budget this past winter, that is when the schools of nursing

found out.

Now, already, directives have been sent out to those schools

of nursing to slash from $250,000 upwards out of their budgets for the upcoming

year. Now, is the minister putting the responsibility on those schools to get

rid of the staff before the new board takes over?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, we are not. What is done in a budgetary consideration is

one thing, what is done in terms of policy direction with respect to the

consolidation of the schools of nursing is another thing, and whatever

directions have been given to the schools of nursing in terms of budgetary

considerations have been done on one of two bases. It is being done in the

context of budgets that were approved last year or it is being done as a

collaborative consultative process, looking forward to Budgets next year, but

the budget thing and the consolidation of the schools of nursing are really two

separate things and please don't get them mixed up in the question.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how far advanced the design

work for the so-called Caboto Centre is; when does the minister see start-up of

construction, and most important of all, anticipate the completion of this

building?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As indicated in the statement I made to the House one day

last week, the preliminary design work has been completed by the consulting firm

and the Provincial Government will be making an official request of the Federal

Government for funding hopefully, before Christmas.

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

Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, a part of my first question I

will have to repeat, again.

I asked the minister, when does he foresee completion of the

Caboto Centre? Will it be ready for the 1997 celebrations?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the whole idea of making the

official request to the federal government at this point in time is so that we

could meet some deadlines that would allow us to have a visible structure in

place sometime in 1997.

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

for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the minister should be more interested in the

stadium.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm sorry - I can't hear the hon. member.

MR. MANNING: He should be more interested in a stadium

than a Caboto Centre, the way he is skating around the question.

Newfoundland Museum, and I was trying to get at it in my first question. On a

television interview last week, the minister stated that they had no intention

of renovating the existing Newfoundland Museum, or the building that holds the

Newfoundland Museum, because they were planning a new Caboto Centre. We are

looking at a possibility of four - possibly five - years before the Caboto

Centre will be ready. I would like to ask the minister: Does he really believe

that the people who are in wheelchairs in this Province can wait for four years

to enjoy the Newfoundland Museum, or should he act right now and do something

about it?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe, as well, the hon. member could ask his colleagues in

the front benches who were in the Cabinet for seventeen years when the same

Newfoundland Museum which is in the same building.

We have indicated clearly that the plan of this government is

to replace the museum with a new structure that will be totally accessible

according to current and modern building codes. I don't know what the plan of

the other group was for seventeen years; I didn't hear tell of it, but in fact,

the plan of this government is clear. We understand that it does not make sense

to spend thousands and thousands of dollars putting elevators into a building

like the old museum, because ramps can't fit in there. It would have to be

elevators which are very expensive in that structure but in fact we will,

indeed, at the earliest possible opportunity, have a new museum in place.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. It has to do with a bill now

before the House, Bill 42, which is

an act to deal with the purchase of freehold

land from Corner Brook Pulp and Paper.

In the agreement and in the indentures there is a

section

there excepting the urban areas of Corner Brook, Deer Lake and Pasadena -some

sections of the urban areas of those three municipalities - from this particular

agreement. Could the Premier explain why those particular areas were left out of

the total agreement to purchase 272,000 hectares from Kruger?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, members have to remember,

that agreement was a negotiated agreement. We weren't judging whether it was

right that Kruger should keep it or Kruger shouldn't keep it. It was what was

negotiated, what we would buy for that amount of money, and the whole of it was

a negotiated agreement. They wanted to keep a lot more and we said: No, if you

are going to do this, and going to live up to the principle of conveying back to

the Crown the original Reid lots, pretty well all of those original Reid lots,

unless there is some compelling operational reason from the company's point of

view, and that is where they got down to the city of Corner Brook, the town of

Deer Lake, and the town of Pasadena, which are three areas where either now or

in the recent past the company has had operations and could well need the lands,

or some of the lands, that are there. That was the agreement that was

negotiated. There was no other reason other than that.

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

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Could the Premier explain to me why all the interests of

Kruger, especially as it pertains to two sections of land in

Schedule A(

e) on

Adies Stream, comprising some five hectares each - ordinary Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians will only get half an acre for a house or something, and they got

thirteen or fourteen acres for a cabin - the Hammond Farm property is looked

after, the Marble Mountain property is looked after, all rights of way of Kruger

with regard to Junction Brook, Spillway or transmission lines in the Province is

looked after, and yet we have the Town of Deer Lake, that needs the land within

the boundaries for development, comprising approximately 100 hectares in total,

plus the ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian in that area who cannot get

title to their property. Could the Premier explain that to me, please?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: To explain, it is quite simple. Hammond

Farm was leased by the Bowater company, before Kruger bought the shares of

Bowater, to Mr. Simmons, a long-term lease - I think it was thirty years, I am

not sure but I believe it was thirty years - that lease also contained an option

to purchase it, in the event that the company decided it was going to sell the

property it would have to give an opportunity to purchase it to the lessees. The

lessees have purported, whether they have succeeded in doing so or not is a

legal question, they have at the very least purported to exercise their option

to purchase, whether or not they succeed in that remains to be seen. That is the

sole reason for that, it has nothing to do with looking after Hammond Farm, it

comes to the government.

Now the other thing he said was looked after was Marble

Mountain. Marble Mountain was not looked after as such. The property at Marble

Mountain was transferred by Bowaters to the Crown in right of the Province I

believe about 1985 or '86. I have forgotten when but it is around about that

time when it was transferred to the Province. There is a little small piece down

at the base that was not transferred to the Province, this comes back to the

Province under this arrangement.

The land at Adies Stream - I think there are two small

parcels of land and to the best of my knowledge what that is is a fishing camp

area that employees of the company have had fishing camps where they take turns

using it during the summer for the employees and to the best of my knowledge

that has been in operation for thirty or forty years. It just seemed

unreasonable for the government to insist that the mere fact that title of that

still vested in the company meant that it had to be transferred to the Crown. It

did not seem to be the right thing to do so we agreed with the companies request

that that be excluded for that reason.

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

for Humber Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier that I consider it just as

unreasonable to have ordinary people who cannot get title to their property

looked after as well. Would the Premier make a commitment to the House today,

that if there are any individuals in the Deer Lake - Spillway area that cannot

get title to their property, even after this exercise is completed, that he

would intervene, through his office, with Kruger so that they would gain title

to their property?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The key word is `their' property. If they

own the property there is no problem getting title to it but if somebody squat

on company lands in the last few years and decided: well I am just simply going

to claim this. I am there now, I have built a cabin or I've farmed a garden or

something like that, I am going to claim it... then no, I will not guarantee

that. If somebody got a deed or a title document of some kind from the company

twenty or thirty years ago and they have lost it without having registered it,

sure, the government would do everything reasonable to facilitate that because

it is their property that they've purchased from the company but I will not give

a blanket guarantee that will allow the member to go out and say: well, the

Premier said if you've got possession of a piece of property he will guarantee

title. The answer is no, not in that circumstance unless there is some proper

legal basis for the claim.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Last week I

asked the minister a question pertaining to the sea urchin processing license

for 3 T's Fisheries of Woody Point. I am wondering if the minister can now

inform the House whether or not he has determined if there is a processing

requirement for that company to process sea urchins at Woody Point or can the

minister confirm that indeed the company will be shipping unprocessed sea

urchins, I am told, to Portland, Maine without any processing taking place at

Woody Point?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Initially the requirement was for the processing of sea

urchins at plants in Newfoundland - to do the total processing here on the

island. At the industry's request, because of market flexibility and so on, at

the industry's request 60 per cent of the processing of sea urchins occurs in

plants here on the island and at the request of the industry to accommodate

their needs, 40 per cent they can now export live, 40 per cent of the sea

urchins.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: This company is no different. They are

processing up to 60 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. HULAN: 3 T's. They have the equipment and they are

processing up to 60 per cent. 3 T's, Woody Point.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the Opposition House Leader was asking the

questions and Hansard is not picking up the supplementary from the other member.

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

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

tomorrow move that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole on Supply to

consider certain resolutions for the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her

Majesty. (Bill No.2) - last years.

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

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

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

Reciprocal Enforcement Of Support Orders Act, And The Support Orders Enforcement

Act." I might add that the bill is not much longer than the

long title of it,

but it is a very straightforward bill we will deal with in due course.

Petitions

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise once again today to present a petition on behalf of

people from the District of St. Mary's - The Capes. I will read the prayer of

the petition, Mr. Speaker. To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents

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

accept the following prayer. We the undersigned do hereby request the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to

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

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to present another one of the

many petitions that have been forwarded to me from people within my district,

and to bring a concern of not only people in my district but indeed people

throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador regarding the employment

situation, or the lack thereof, I should say, that many people find themselves

in.

I was very disappointed Friday when the House did not sit

because I was anticipating that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

would be standing in his place on Friday, hopefully, to announce a program. Once

again, today, I waited with anticipated breath hoping he would announce

something today. I know in my own heart and soul that the minister would like to

stand up and announce something. I know he is working diligently to find

something for the people of this Province. I know he has been, ever since he

became minister, trying to put in place some type of program for the people who

need employment in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I give credit where credit is due. I know

that the minister is trying, but my concern are the blocks. The blocks are up

somewhere, either in his own Cabinet on that side over there, or the block is in

Ottawa. It is not the block from Quebec I am talking about it, it is the blocks

that are in the cousins of his own party, Mr. Speaker.

Whatever the case maybe I just want to emphasize once again,

as I am sure the minister understands, that there is a desperate need for

employment out in the Province, Mr. Speaker. Day after day there are people

throughout the Province who have resorted to social assistance. There are only a

couple of weeks left before Christmas, Mr. Speaker. I know there can be nothing

started before Christmas but at least if people knew something was coming down

the tubes in a few weeks time they would be able to sit back and hopefully be

somewhat at peace during the Christmas season.

Mr. Speaker, there are many young married families. I had a

call last week from a man who was facing eviction who has a family of three

children under ten. It is these stories that keep coming and coming, Mr.

Speaker, that are really hard to listen to, but they must be listened to. These

people must have a voice and I am glad to have the opportunity to present

petitions in the House here because at least the voice of these people, I hope,

is being heard not only in the halls of Confederation Building but in the halls

of the House of Commons also, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that over the next few days the hon. minister has the

opportunity to stand up and present something in the House, and propose

something in relation to job creation, whether it be on behalf of the federal

and provincial government, or on behalf of the provincial government itself, if

it cannot get any co-operation from the federal government. While I understand

that times are tough economically we see a lot of money being wasted away while

many people out in our area are looking for work. These short-term programs as

I've said before and several members on both sides of the House have said, they

are not the answer to all the problems that we face in Newfoundland today. But,

as the hon. Member for Baie Verte - White Bay said a couple of weeks ago, they

are the answer for supper time for a lot of people.

Over the next few days more petitions will be arriving. I

hope that I don't get to present them all. I hope that the minister has

something to announce before all the petitions arrive. There will be more

petitions, there will be more calls for this government to do something about

the employment situation in this Province. There will be more calls for the

minister to put in place a program that will put food on the table and clothes

on the children. It is hard to believe, but there are children going to school

in this Province hungry and without the proper clothing. We don't have to go

from our shores to see that. We can see it right here within this City of St.

John's and throughout many parts of rural Newfoundland.

I hope that through airing this situation again that the

minister, indeed the government, will look over the next couple of days in

providing some type of job creation program for people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. MANNING: - so that the people -

MR. SHELLEY: Stand up and support it! Stand up and

support it!

AN HON. MEMBER: Time's up, time's up, time's up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: Oh, a new Speaker now, have we?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government

announces something in the next few days so that these people can go to work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to

support the petition of the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. He and many

others have presented petitions in the last number of weeks concerning this same

issue. One thing that constantly comes up, and I hope that the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations is going to be able to answer this question when

he rises after this petition, one question that comes up and hasn't been

satisfactorily answered yet is: Why is it that the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations or this government seems to have to get the permission of the

Liberal Party of Canada or of the Liberal government in Ottawa to go ahead with

an employment program?

We've had emergency response, emergency employment programs

for the last three or four years running. The former Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations came and announced these programs. They were used with

provincial government dollars and they met a much needed need, a need that is no

less great today. In fact, it is greater today than it was last year, the year

before, and the year before that. I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, does he have the political will himself, and his government, to

ensure that these programs are going to be put in place, or is he off asking

Lloyd Axworthy is he allowed to do it. Does he have the permission of Lloyd

Axworthy or Paul Martin or somebody in Ottawa, does he need that permission, in

order to do something for the people of this Province?

I know the minister has said on occasion that he wants to

make sure that whatever the government does is coordinated with Mr. Axworthy's

plans. I've got a very grave concern about some of Mr. Axworthy's plans, because

those plans seem to run counter to the interests of the people of this Province.

Some of those plans include destroying what is left of the unemployment

insurance program to make third-class citizens out of the unemployed in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Some of those plans are being discussed today by a

committee from the House of Commons who are listening to a few people - five

people, is it? Five minutes each they give people to talk about it. I don't know

if the minister is going down to make a presentation or not on behalf of the

government. The ordinary people of this Province and organizations and people

representing thousands of members are only given five minutes to say a few

words, only in St. John's and nowhere else in this Province.

What is happening is that if the government of this Province

is going to dovetail its plans in with those of Mr. Axworthy, I have a very

grave concern about what is going to happen to the people who are seeking for

work in this Province and the people who are dependent upon social assistance

and other forms of the social safety net that the Liberal government in Ottawa

seems to be hell-bent on dismantling.

I have a grave concern, and perhaps the minister is able to

reassure me and assure the House that it is not the intention of this government

to go along with those plans, and that independent of whatever the government of

the day in Ottawa is doing that his government intends to bring forth an

employment program to meet the needs of the people of this Province. That seems

to me to me to be much more of a concern than what Mr. Axworthy is or isn't

going to do and how our plans might dovetail in with theirs. It is a very

serious issue.

Last week, last Wednesday, hon. members opposite and their

Liberal friends were able to attend a $500 a plate dinner in St. John's, some

500 of them, on a Wednesday night. On Thursday night in the very same hotel the

president of the national anti-poverty organization was speaking and not one

single member opposite was there, Mr. Speaker - not one single member was there

the next night on the issue of poverty in this province, in this country and

that, Mr. Speaker, I consider to be a spectacle deserving of great note.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations to try to provide some explanation as to why his government

doesn't seem to be concerned about this issue except in some kind of lock step

with what Mr. Lloyd Axworthy and the Liberals in Ottawa are doing, and that, Mr.

Speaker, seems to me to be wrong. Perhaps the minister could explain why he is

dilly- dallying and not bringing about the programs that are needed for the

people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour Relations.

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

We have discussed this issue for some time now. Let me say to

the hon. the Member for St. John's East, that obviously, the need in the

Province to give people an opportunity to get to work to qualify for UI would

take a tremendous amount of money if we were to look after every situation that

is out there, so I think it was a wise approach to go to the Federal Government

to ask them, as we have in five other programs they participated in, to

participate in this particular program.

I agree with the hon. the Member for St. John's East - not

very often, but I agree with him today - that, yes, we do have some serious

concerns about the social programming and the social direction taken by our

friends in Ottawa, and we will continue to address that concern. We didn't get

involved today, I say to the hon. member, because we wanted to leave that

opportunity available to those people, community groups et cetera, and I

understand that the House committee will only be meeting for five and ten

minutes at the max, which I find a little bit condescending.

I don't think people with grave concerns can get their point

across in ten minutes. And I say to the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes, I understand his concern; he and other colleagues on this side and on his

side, have stood on this emergency response.

I can honestly tell you that we have not given up on the

Emergency Response Program and we are very hopeful that before - as I said last

week, most hon. members know how this process comes together; it takes that time

to deal with the feds and to deal with the government itself. Most hon. members

in the front would certainly know that and I am sure members in the back also

know it.

I am very hopeful, I say to all hon. members, that we will

have something to relieve the very serious situation that exists throughout the

Province, before the end of the week. I can assure the hon. member, and they all

know that nothing would better suit this member, than to be able to stand in my

place and announce some kind of assistance for some of our people, because I

think most of us understand we just won't be able to help them all.

So with those few words, Mr. Speaker, I hope that that

response is at least some kind of a ray of hope for hon. members opposite, that

we are still going along, still trying. As a matter of fact, I have to call my

friend in Ottawa before 3:15, and with that in mind, I move on to the other

petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, could we first deal with Motion

3, please, which is leave to introduce?

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law," carried. (Bill

No. 57).

On motion, Bill No. 57 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, would you please call Order 23,

which is Bill 51, that is the EDGE legislation; and my recollection which is

refreshed by Hansard, is that the hon. the Member for Green Bay adjourned the

debate and will presumably carry on with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, Order 23, the hon. the Member for Green

Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will have a few more brief comments on Bill 51, "An Act To

Promote Economic Diversification And Growth Enterprises In The Province", a bill

commonly referred to as the EDGE Bill.

As the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pointed out when

this bill was first brought up for debate and as I indicated on Thursday past

when I discussed the bill, we had some serious concerns with regard to the

initial draft of this bill, both in terms of its content as regards labour

relations, and as regards its content in the area of economic development and

job creation.

The Official Opposition made several representations on this

matter over the previous months, and we were quite pleased when the government

finally tabled the legislation that we have before us here today. Some

considerable progress was made in terms of broadening the scope of the bill to

include a wider variety of enterprises that might be able to avail of the

incentives and tax breaks that are allowed for in the bill, and the really

offensive matters regarding labour relations were eliminated.

As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, we also had very serious concern

with regard to the initial draft of the bill because it tended to be very narrow

and restrictive and we were worried, with some good reason, as to whether or not

this bill, instead of being a bill of general application, was really a bill of

some specific application for some favourite son or corporation of the Wells

Administration.

We have seen, in the past, legislation on financial

corporations that was essentially tailored to the Fortis corporation, and we had

severe concerns that the intent of the government with regard to this particular

legislation was, indeed, to give an easy access, a lucrative advantage, to some

particular individuals or corporations that had the ear of the government in one

way or the other. We are glad that the current draft has broadened the

legislation somewhat, and our concerns are lessened that this is in some way an

avenue for political pork-barrelling.

We have seen, in matters raised in this Assembly over the

last few weeks, certainly in the matter raised by the hon. the Opposition Leader

today, this administration is quite capable of political interference in the

proper conduct of Her Majesty's business, and we have every right, and I guess

we have a duty, as an Opposition, to point out our concerns in that regard. As I

indicated, I think our concerns for once did not fall on deaf ears and there

were some considerable improvements in this bill.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, I will leave it there. I think

there are other colleagues of mine who have specific concerns with regard to

this bill, and I will let them speak now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today and have a few comments on Bill

51. This bill is a significant improvement over the proposals that were put

forward in the White Paper. In particular, we want to draw attention to

section

3 on the amount of capital that is required, the changes to the minimum amount

of capital from $500,000 down to $300,000, and the change in the incremental

sales from $1 million in total sales to at least $500,000, and the change of the

language from ten full-time jobs to ten permanent jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that Bill 51 is a strong policy

statement by the Provincial Government. We say it is a positive policy

initiative, and it is designed to stimulate the economy of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and all members of this House, regardless of which side they sit on,

would want to do anything that can be done to stimulate the economy of our

Province.

Mr. Speaker, it shows that the government is attempting to

face the new challenges and the changes that are occurring in the new economic

order that we have in this Province and, of course, in this nation and, as we

saw on the weekend, with the new economic order throughout not just North

America but now including South America as well. Newfoundland has to be ready to

face the world, and we have to do all we can to get our people and our business

community and our labour force ready to face that challenge.

Mr. Speaker, this bill shows as well the benefit of

consultation with interested groups in the community. I say to the minister that

his White Paper caused many potential investors in this Province some great

concern. Many of them expressed concerns to the Official Opposition, and the

Official Opposition brought their concerns, or they brought their own concerns

to the public forum. The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities

made representation, and I'm glad to see that the minister was listening to that

kind of representation. The Chambers of Commerce, the Board of Trade in St.

John's, and others in the community at large had made representations on this

particular concept, and they have made good representations because it is

admitted that all of these groups together caused the government to listen.

I say to the minister today that the listening approach that

he has followed in his dialogue with the community is commendable. It is good to

see that the government was willing to listen. Because, in this particular case,

the minister can see the benefit. Today, we are pleased as a Province, and I am

pleased as the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, to say there is a lot in this

particular piece of legislation that we can apply. Because the minister has been

listening to the representations that have been made by the community at large.

It is good to see that he has developed more of a non-confrontational approach.

Certainly, I would say to the minister, perhaps he should be talking to his

colleague, the Minister of Education, and saying to him that he might follow

similar approaches; then we might not have the controversy over educational

reform that we have in the Province at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I want, as well, to reference a couple of other

points. In the Throne Speech read by His Honour on February 28 of this year

there was a significant comment on page 4 of that Throne Speech on the

government's determination to review all existing governmental regulations, and

I quote, "...with a view to substantially reducing the onerous regulatory burden

that is presently imposed on those who wish to pursue or carry on economic

activity in this Province." Further in the same speech we read the following

statement. It says, and I quote: "All unnecessarily burdensome regulations will

be eliminated and steps will be taken to streamline and make the burden that

remains far easier for business to bear."

Now, Mr. Speaker, we haven't seen a great deal of evidence to

date of any deregulation that is proposed. We commend the government for that

initiative but we want to see some action on it. I know that Mr. Michael Dwyer

has been meeting with various government agencies. We know that there are some

recommendations that have been prepared and submitted to the Ministry, and to

the Cabinet, I assume, by this time, for action. We say to the minister, if he

is going to truly attract business to this Province, he has to be willing to do

away with a lot of the regulatory stumbling blocks that we now have. It is not

good for Michael Dwyer to do a report if it is going to sit on some shelf. I say

to the minister, one of the things I have found in my many years is that

investors are so frustrated with the regulatory processes. Let me illustrate.

When we have an investor coming to our Province, he often

will visit the local municipal office. It takes about three to six months to

process a simple municipal plan amendment. Very often it is nearer to six months

than it is to three months. Some years ago I did a little analysis of municipal

plan amendments and I found out that they vary from a minimum of three months to

a maximum of two years. I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, if they are going to truly try to implement the EDGE legislation, then

not just his department but all departments of government have to be willing to

be a facilitating agency. We say to the government that they should be acting on

the intent announced in the Throne Speech; it was a good intent. And we have to

bring Michael Dwyer's recommendations alive, we have to be positive on them and

get some work done.

Some of us a few days ago were quite perturbed at the ACOA

announcement. When the ACOA people announced that they were not going to be

giving any more grants to potential investors in Atlantic Canada, it really

wasn't news, we already knew it, but the ACOA people decided they would make a

big announcement on it. Mr. Speaker, the difficulty we have is not with what the

ACOA people said, but with the negative attitude it gave towards investment in

Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the three Maritime premiers met on

Friday to discuss this matter, among others, and the local paper carried a

commentary on it. All we say to ACOA is, do what you can to make Newfoundland,

Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick a level playing field in

comparison to other parts of Canada, and that is what we have to be fighting for

in Atlantic Canada. The Golden Triangle of Canada, the Central Canada group, we

don't begrudge them their industry - we don't begrudge them their automobile

industry, we don't begrudge them their high-tech, but we do get pretty upset

when they begrudge us the bit of industry we have in this part of the country.

We don't complain about the Canadian Wheat Board, we don't complain that the

federal Department of Agriculture was an official department as far back as the

1870s and they had a strong lobby group that fought for their rights as farmers

in this country. We don't go around and complain about that but it sure hurts

when you hear people from Central Canada kind of treating ACOA funding as if it

were some kind of gifts to some - not just underdeveloped - almost like

treating, in a welfare sense, that we in this part of the country don't deserve

to be supported in the way we should be.

So, Mr. Speaker, we say to Central Canada, stop begrudging us

our few dollars that we get from the Federal Government. And I say to the

government today, we should watch out that ACOA doesn't become what it was not

supposed to become, and that is, more interested in supporting Central Canada's

principles than it is in preserving a level playing field in our Province and in

our region.

So, Mr. Speaker, we want to say as well, again, that the poor

timing of the ACOA announcement sends out a negative message. Atlantic Canada

shouldn't have to apologize for the money it receives from Ottawa for regional

development and we don't want to be portrayed by national politicians as poor

country cousins. All we ask for is fairness in the approach to investment in

this country. We are on the fringes of the continent - we know that. We know

that trade is difficult to foster in the Newfoundland environment and we look to

Ottawa to be a supporter of a common denominator approach, trying to give us the

kind of benefit that we should expect from being part of this country.

Mr. Speaker, if I could return to talking about Bill 51 and

municipalities. I am pleased to say that the minister, in his bill, compared to

the White Paper, is giving more options to municipalities; that is an

improvement. I say to the minister, he should be striving to involve the

municipal level of government more directly in the decision-making approaches.

For example, what is wrong with involving the municipalities

as active participants in the decision-making that is required, and why should

there not be a member of the municipality, particularly those municipalities

which have their own economic development offices - why should these

municipalities not have people who can be involved at the facilitation stage so

we don't find that the decisions are made and then they are being passed over to

the municipalities without due consultation? That kind of approach has been

tried in the past, it hasn't worked that well, and it ends up having everybody

frustrated.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs that he should try to involve municipalities in

decision-making, do it up-front, and things will work better if it is done that

way. I say again to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology that one of

the things I found when I had been doing some talking about this particular

issue is the, I suppose you could call it the differences that investors find

when they are talking to Newfoundland government officials as opposed to talking

to government officials, let's say, in the Province of New Brunswick.

Premier McKenna, rightly or wrongly, has sent out a message

that New Brunswick is open for business. When I talked to an investor just a few

days ago, he said, when I contacted the government office in New Brunswick, I

found that within a day, I had a call from the Premier, himself. He was

surprised that he was able to get access so fast to so much information. He had

information within a week that perhaps would take him a much longer time to get

in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about the one-stop approach to business

development. We say to the government, it is in the Throne Speech and we should

be acting on it. Investors want to be led through the bureaucracy. They want to

be told what is possible to be done. They want to have all the help they can get

in overcoming all of the burdensome regulatory processes that often are not as

necessary as they might appear to be.

Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is, give decisions on a

timely basis, reduce the bureaucracy, and regulate for success. Very often we

find that bureaucrats fail to see the point of the regulation other than the

fact that it is a regulation. Very often we know that bureaucrats need to have a

change of attitude. I found during my many years as a municipal person that you

had to encourage the bureaucracy to be positive, to have a development attitude,

to be pro-active, to follow up on every lead that comes by, and to turn what is

simply a proposal into a concrete plan that is ready for implementation.

Mr. Speaker, we also want to note that if all of these people

pull together, if we can have a one-stop approach and it can be made to be

effective and efficient, the investors will respond. We are not going to have a

situation where we are going to have people knocking on our doors every day

saying: `We want to develop in Newfoundland and Labrador.' We have to go out and

look for investment.

I can tell you how frustrating it can be. I spent many, many

years trying to get an investment proposal going in the city of Mount Pearl at

the Pearlgate Shopping Centre. It isn't easy work. Sometimes you can get

potential investors and sometimes you can't, but one thing was for sure, my

office door was not being knocked down by people who wanted to invest. If that

is the case in the St. John's region, then we know it is even moreso outside of

this region.

Mr. Speaker, I have one final comment, which is to say that

this particular piece of legislation still doesn't address the issue of small

business and the payroll tax. If we are going to compete with all of Atlantic

Canada, then we have to have similar taxation structures. The payroll tax is a

disincentive to investment, not only in Atlantic Canada, but if we implement

this bill as it is written, and we don't do away with payroll taxes, we are

going to have, as the Mount Pearl Chamber of Commerce has said, two lots of

businesses - one group of businesses that will pay the payroll tax, and the

other group of businesses that will not be paying the payroll tax.

This creates difficulties within our own communities; it

creates difficulties within our Province. We say to the minister: Please

recognize that it isn't a fair approach to have one group of businesses

operating on a different playing field from others. In the case of the payroll

tax, we advocate its complete elimination so that all businesses, large and

small, can have the same benefits and can operate with the same kinds of

incentives, and with that kind of approach we believe there will be even greater

efficiency and it will bring even greater meaning to the intent of Bill 51.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Your Honour, you did recognize me but by

tradition it normally goes back and forth. If the member wants to speak, I will

wait until later.

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

first on his feet, so the Chair recognizes the first person up; it doesn't

matter which side.

MR. WINDSOR: Exactly, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: But you are willing to yield?

MR. WINDSOR: I will yield to the member if he wants to

speak first, sure.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I really wanted to have a few words on this particular issue

because I do believe this is a very important piece of legislation. I would say

it is the most important piece of legislation we have seen these past couple of

years in this House, and we have seen some very important pieces of legislation

passed.

I think it will be recorded in history as a very important

piece of legislation for a number of reasons, first of all, because it does

fundamentally attack the underlying problems of economic development in our

Province. It does make some fundamental changes in the way that the economic

development opportunities will exist for entrepreneurs. It gives significant

investment opportunities for people out there now who feel this is not the place

to do business. I do believe, at the end of the day, we are going to find

significant investment interests in the Province as a result of the changes that

have been made, and I guess one of the things I would like to say from the

outset is that it must be good, it must be great, it must be absolutely

outstanding, because we are getting the accolades of members opposite.

The Leader of the Opposition took a couple of days to

research his position on it, and came back a couple of days later telling us it

was an excellent piece of legislation, one that he had no problem in supporting.

I went through a number of his statements and he did point out, yes, there were,

I think, six areas where the Opposition initially had some concerns. Members on

this side of the House had some concerns initially, but certainly it would have

to be recorded as probably the most important piece of legislation that has come

to this House, that has received such wide support amongst the parties in the

House and people who have more than a passing interest in this area of public

policy, Mr. Speaker.

I am encouraged by the words I am hearing from the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology. I'm encouraged by what he is telling me, that

every day there are enquiries in this Province. That is one of the things, I

guess, that we want to make sure of, that the word goes out from Nain to

L'Anse-au-Clair, Labrador City, Port aux Basques, everywhere in this great

Province, we are encouraging investors in this Province to take control of their

future, to put money into new business opportunities, to create those jobs that

are so necessary for the sustaining of our rural economy in particular. I see

that some of the aspects of this legislation have certainly not been in any

other piece of legislation we have seen in the past when it comes to economic

development.

I guess, in the areas of extra incentive, there would be

extra years given of a tax break on the basis of the unemployment rate in the

various regions of the Province. As a member for Labrador, where we have very

high unemployment for a significant part of the year, we are encouraged by that

aspect of it. Because we know that if there is going to be an extra three or

four years of tax breaks for these new businesses, if they can go, for instance,

into Deer Lake and set up, then it wouldn't be unusual, it wouldn't be that hard

for them to move on up the Northern Peninsula and on to the Labrador Straits,

for instance, and be able to set up and function just as well. Obviously, in the

Labrador Straits area, they would get a greater tax benefit from setting up

there.

That, to me, is the essence of regional development. You

don't just bring in a policy of regional development and put it from one end of

the Province to the other regardless of the setting. Because there are areas of

this Province, mainly the urban areas, where economic activity is greater, where

the recovery from the recession is quicker, in areas like St. John's, Gander,

Grand Falls, Corner Brook, these areas, Labrador West, Goose Bay. We have seen

these areas relatively stable over the past few years as we have been grappling

with the fishery closure.

So, Mr. Speaker, to see that element in this bill is very

encouraging. I would hope, and certainly I guess all of us in this House are

praying, that this is something that will work. Because we have tried so many

times before; we have tried with our grants programs, we have tried with our

loans programs, we have gone out, and certainly previous administrations and -

not just to pick on the administration before. Administrations before that with

the late Smallwood Administration certainly tried a number of things that did

not work. The previous administration tried a number of things that did not

work.

I think what we have here today is an element of regional

development that we can say is ours. It is designed and it is brought forward

and it is going to be out there with the Liberal stamp on it. It is an hallmark

of the consultation process that this government is famous for right from 1989.

We have consulted everybody in this Province - whether it came to education

policy, or social policy, or to debating the future of the Constitution of

Canada, we gave the people a chance to speak. So, for this new piece of

legislation, when it comes to how we are dealing with the economic

bread-and-butter issues, we gave people a chance to speak. We put that in place

with the Strategic Economic Plan and certainly, this is a very substantial part

of the Strategic Economic Plan that is going to be implemented in this Province

with a big Liberal red stamp on it.

We are very proud to go from one end of this Province to the

other with it. I am very confident that we are going to have a very busy

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology in the years ahead. He will be going

to one opening after another, Mr. Speaker, of EDGE corporations, with the

scissors in one hand and red ribbons in the other, opening one EDGE corporation

after another. There is no doubt about that, and it is going to be refreshing,

it is going to be welcome, it is going to be great news for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I could think of no better way that we could end off

this session of the House, than to be able to stand up and promote the virtues

of this piece of legislation because it will be, I believe, seen as watershed

legislation for Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is going to be the other thing - apart from the aspects of

good, fiscal management that we have put in place over the years, the Minister

of Finance and Treasury Board in this Province and the administration generally,

have put our financial house in order; we have control of our expenditures, we

have control of our workforce, we have introduced a certain degree of fiscal

integrity that I think is the envy of Canada, and, Mr. Speaker, that is

certainly one of the things essential to keeping this piece of legislation

promoted to the forefront, because without that kind of hand on the tiller of

the economic aspects of the government, without knowing that we have a solid

fiscal manager, then certainly, nobody would be out there saying, even with the

benefits in this legislation, that they would still come here and invest.

Another aspect of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, that I think

is very welcome, is the removal of the labour focus on this legislation. I think

the labour movement has obviously responded well to this. Many on our side

thought this should have been removed in the first place - for all the right

reasons, it should have been removed. And I think the latest commentary by the

President of the Federation of Labour was very welcome indeed; the President of

the Board of Trade, I think, also gave his thumbs up to that aspect of it being

removed. Again, it is another example of how this government went out there with

the White Paper, and listened to what people had to say, and we have brought

forward a piece of legislation of which the consensus surrounding it is

unbelievable, and the fact that members on the opposite side have seen fit not

to say too much about it other than to go through the formalities of welcoming

it and extolling its virtues, Mr. Speaker, obviously, is very telling indeed.

We are on to a winner here in this piece of legislation and

there is no doubt that it is being acclaimed from all sides of the House and

indeed, throughout the Province. Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation, of

course, is long overdue. Especially now that we have the crisis in our fishing

industry, I believe where rural Newfoundland is grappling with its very future,

where we have to diversify our economy like no time ever, that, to have this

kind of legislation with the elements built in for regional development, to have

those extra incentives built in, indeed, it will be welcome news to rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. And that is one of the main points I wanted to bring

to this debate, that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is welcoming this piece of

legislation.

We are going to see new businesses open up in rural

Newfoundland as a result of this. I am sure that the Labrador Straits will see

some new investment; I am sure that people are keenly looking at the forest

industry down in the Port Hope Simpson, Charlottetown area; there are people

down there looking at the recreational salmon fishing industry along the Coast

of Labrador, where we are going to be able to have ten or twelve full-time jobs

I am sure, on at least four or five more rivers in the near future, after this

piece of legislation comes in, more full-time, meaningful jobs on the Coast of

Labrador as a result of this great initiative by this government.

We are, no doubt, on the leading edge of public policy-making

in this Province as we never have been before. This is province-building at its

best, Mr. Speaker, I would say. We have not seen province building yet, Mr.

Speaker, in this Province. Since the last twenty years we have not seen province

building of the sort that we are seeing now because we are telling every part of

this Province that yes, indeed you have a future. We are not telling one part of

this Province, we are not telling inside of the overpass that you have a future,

we are telling every part of this Province; to the mining industry in Labrador,

to the quarries and the new opportunities around Nain, to the possible future of

Labrador City and the new operation up there, Mr. Speaker, and down to the Coast

of Labrador as I just mentioned, the Northern Peninsula, over on the northeast

coast, down on the Burin Peninsula, down around the Southeast Coast of

Newfoundland. All of these places are saying this is finally an initiative that

has not been done for St. John's and the urban areas but this is something that

we know -and we have asked the government to do and they have responded to us in

a very, very significant way.

I know the members of the Opposition do not like to hear all

of this type of thing. They would like to have rural Newfoundland up in arms,

they would like to have the people out there saying that this is the bad

government again but indeed this piece of legislation shows that we certainly

had our thinking caps on. We have certainly done our homework on this piece of

legislation. We have amassed a number of elements of economic development into

this one piece of legislation that is not existing anywhere else in this country

and I would venture to say not existing anywhere else in North America. Indeed,

we are going to be, I think, getting tremendous interest shown in this Province

as a result.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not talking to the

galleries. I am talking to the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, that's what

I am talking to!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: And I am telling the future, I am telling

the kids out there today that when it was time to do something with our

imagination, when it was time to put our ideals to work, when it was time to put

our majority behind a piece of legislation that rebuilt the economic development

of rural Newfoundland, the Liberal Government was there!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: We were there and we were proud to stand

up and stand behind Bill 51! We were proud to be able to say that we are going

to have incentives for the Labrador Straits, we are going to have incentives for

the northeast coast, for over in the St. George's area and down on the Burin

Peninsula. We are proud to say that we were there for them. We did not shirk our

responsibilities. We, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House have never shirked

our responsibilities. People have wondered what we have done, people out there

have wondered what we have done but today again, just a year after we got

another majority government, we are delivering in the most meaningful

comprehensive way that we have ever seen the economic development approach in

this Province since Confederation. There is absolutely no doubt about it, Mr.

Speaker, and we are not doing it on the basis of throwing money at something, we

are not doing it on the basis of saying there is going to be $3 million here or

$2 million there to be able to do something. We are saying that there are ways

through the tax system, we are saying that there are ways through the other

mechanisms of government that this can be done apart from throwing cash at

something, Mr. Speaker, and I think that that represents a real change. The

taking out of the piece of the labour aspect of it, I think it was very welcomed

news by all the people in this Province, Mr. Speaker, very welcomed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: I think, Mr. Speaker, that probably that

aspect of it will go down as one - I know a lot of members on this side of the

House really pushed for the removal of that part of the legislation and, Mr.

Speaker, obviously there are other elements of this that we, on this side,

support fully. We give the government due credit, we give the minister due

credit, we give the legislative advisor to the minister due credit because it

was him, working with the minister, who made sure that that consultation process

worked. We made sure that those changes were implemented so that when it did

come to this House we would hear nothing but accolades extended from one end to

the other, one party after the other and one element of society after another,

whether it is the Federation of Labour or the Board of Trade, Mr. Speaker,

anywhere in this Province, anybody who wants to stand up and see where this

legislation is going cannot help but praise it. Cannot help but praise this

piece of legislation. Obviously, to all the people who were part of formulating

this piece of legislation we would have to extend our very, very sincere

congratulations because they have done a marvellous piece of work.

Mr. Speaker, with that said I ask all members of this hon.

House to extend their full support, not only to it today as we sit here in this

House, but after this bill gets the royal assent to go throughout this Province

and tell people the good news. Tell people what has happened and tell the people

the good things that this administration has done to make sure there are jobs,

to make sure there is a future, and to make sure there is a stable and growing

economy in all parts of this Province.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am absolutely delighted that I agreed to yield to my friend

for Eagle River. I would not have wanted to miss that performance for the world.

The hon. gentleman has missed his calling and I am sure there is a place for him

on Broadway. Either that, Mr. Speaker, or he is about to start his own ministry

and I cannot wait to join that. I will give him this, he certainly is an

entertaining speaker. I will give him ten for being entertaining. Zero for

content, but ten for entertaining. I have to admit that when he gets wound up he

can certainly go.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier realized that when he did not

put him in the Cabinet.

MR. WINDSOR: That is why the Premier did not put him in

Cabinet because when he gets wound up he is liable to say anything. He is like a

loose cannon on the deck of the Titanic, but he certainly is entertaining, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this bill for a few

moments because it is an important piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I recognized the hon. Member for Mount Pearl

but I am having difficulty in hearing him.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The three days power

failure gave him time to charge up. We have to run him down a little bit, I

guess, before we can get through with all this.

It is an important piece of legislation and I would like to

address it briefly. I will not take a lot of the time of the House because in

general principle there is a great deal in this bill that we can support. In

fact as we have said many times it has always been the policy of the opposition

party that we will support any effort that will hopefully result in the

attraction and the development of new business, jobs, and economic development

in our Province. Any effort in that regard is a welcome one. Perhaps a little

late as it took this government now five years to come forward with a scheme

such as this, but nevertheless the fact is that the bill is now here.

I am not without concerns about this particular piece of

legislation either. Although we recognize that it has some merit and for those

corporations that can qualify it certainly will be of some benefit to them, and

we certainly hope that there are corporations or investors that can be attracted

here as a result of that, or Newfoundland companies that can take advantage of

this. The problem I have with it is that it sets up two classes of company,

particularly as it relates to a tax regime, and I do have concerns about that.

There are many corporations in this Province that are

suffering greatly because of the tax burden on them. I think it is fair to say

that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are suffering because of the tax

burden placed on us, and many Canadians as well. Certainly, companies in this

Province are suffering from it. Now, with some of these taxes, Mr. Speaker, you

have to realize that if you are not making a profit you are not paying those

taxes, so tax relief in itself is not necessarily something that will help those

corporations that were marginally profitable at this point in time, with the

exception of remission of the payroll tax. That is the key here, that is a tax

that is a direct disincentive to all businesses, either from within the Province

or outside the Province, to invest and to do business in this Province. If this

government wanted to do something to attract development and investment they

would undo what they have done when they introduced the payroll tax in this

Province, which puts us at a decided disadvantage with most other provinces in

Canada, certainly all of the Atlantic provinces, which are, generally speaking,

our greatest competitors for economic investment.

The point also has to be made is that a corporation coming in

here will not be paying any taxes. If that corporation is a marginal corporation

anyway, so that they are not going to be developing profits in their early

years, then they wouldn't pay taxes anyway. So are we really giving up anything

by offering these incentives, outside of the payroll tax? As I've said many

times before, the payroll tax is a tremendous disincentive because you would pay

it regardless of your ability to pay, whether or not you make a profit. You pay

the payroll tax based on the number of people you employ, the number of jobs

that you create. The more jobs you create the more you pay in payroll tax. It

bears no regard to the profitability of the corporation or its ability to pay

that particular tax. That is why it is such an unfair and regressive tax to

corporations.

Other taxes they wouldn't be paying anyway, so we are not

offering a lot. If a company is not going to be profitable, not going to be

paying those taxes, then we haven't given away an awful lot. On the other side

you can argue that if we don't provide incentives and the corporations don't

come here or don't establish, or expand as the case may be, then we wouldn't

have given up anything either. You can justify these types of incentives from

two points of view:

a) that they wouldn't be profitable, therefore they wouldn't

have to pay taxes, or;

b) that they wouldn't be here anyway, in which event they

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) playing with their own money.

MR. WINDSOR: They are playing with their own money. I

don't have a difficulty with offering tax advantages. In fact, I like - as my

friend for Waterford - Kenmount pointed out, finally municipalities now are able

to do their own form of economic development, or attracting economic

development, by providing incentive packages, tax relief, in accordance with

this. It may well be that for many of these corporations the only taxes that

they are actually getting relived is the municipal tax. Because they probably

wouldn't be paying other taxes except for the payroll taxes anyway. The

municipalities can now indeed - they are not bound to, but the ability is here -

provide tax incentives. We may have some problems with one municipality

competing with the other now and trying to offer larger tax incentives but we

will deal with that as the time comes. But even -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) waive it or not waive.

MR. WINDSOR: That is right. It is all or nothing. But

they are different levels of relief, and the term of that relief. They either

waive it for - they don't waive it for a whole period. They might -

MR. ROBERTS: All or nothing. We designed that very

carefully (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: So it is ten years or nothing.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. We don't want one municipality playing

off, one saying: We will give you 10 per cent or a five-year renewal, and the

other saying: We will give you (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Okay. So it is write them all off or

nothing. I stand corrected. In that case that resolves that problem. It is not a

major concern.

MR. ROBERTS: A level playing field (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

MR. ROBERTS: A level playing field.

MR. WINDSOR: A level playing field, and so it should be,

Mr. Speaker.

The real concern I have here is that we are bringing in

corporations or establishing corporations that would not otherwise establish

here. What does that tell us? It says that they are a marginal operation at

best. They need these tax incentives to survive. It is questionable whether or

not they will survive when the tax incentives expire at the end of the ten- or

fifteen-year period. It is questionable whether they will stay here after that

period. You always have that concern that a corporation will establish here for

that period of time and when those incentives are gone they will go elsewhere

looking for other forums or other incentives. That is always a concern, and that

would be the case regardless of the type of assistance that you offered. They

will come if you offer them grants up front till those grants are used up, and

then they will disappear. They will come until tax incentives are no longer

available to them and then they have to compete on a level playing field with

corporations that are presently here or that are not declared EDGE corporations.

There is a little bit of concern there, it gives us a little

bit of concern, as to the level playing field as my friend has pointed out. A

level playing field is fair ball. If we can't compete on a level playing field

then the question is whether or not it is the kind of corporation that is of

value to the economy. Jobs are important, and we should use everything possible

to create jobs.

The Premier made a statement in his introduction of the bill

that I certainly agree with. He says, every dollar we take out of the economy

through legislation impairs the ability of the economy to regenerate itself, and

he is absolutely correct. It impairs the ability of the economy to regenerate

itself, but the government has at least paid lip service many times to the

concept that the economy should be regenerated by the business sector, by the

private sector, and that government should be the facilitator of economic

development in this Province, and we certainly subscribe to that, but it is

important here to recognize that we are setting up two different types of

corporations.

I think the government should go a little bit further and not

only remit payroll tax to these corporation, but remit it as well to all

corporations, all businesses in the Province, in other words, eliminate the

payroll tax altogether.

There was some indication last year that government was

starting to realize that the payroll tax was a direct disincentive, was unfair,

was having a very, very negative impact on many corporations in this Province

and that they might indeed reconsider that and replace that with some other form

of taxation which would be less regressive to businesses in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, those are the key points upon which I wanted to

touch. I am a little concerned about making Crown land available for $1. It is

available to lease for $1, I think, for fifty years, and the company has the

right to purchase for $1 at the end of that year. I would be a little concerned

about that. That might be a tremendous advantage but, nevertheless, we have used

Crown land before as an incentive and it is not too unlike things that have been

put in place.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know where all of these corporations are

going to come from, and I don't much care where they come from. I don't care

whether they are from out of Province or in Province, or from out of country. If

this legislation can do anything to attract business, then so be it, but again

we are looking at companies that are investing a minimum of $300,000, with sales

of at least $500,000, and creating ten jobs.

MR. WOODFORD: How are you going to predict sales?

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

MR. WOODFORD: How are you going to predict sales?

MR. WINDSOR: How are you going to predict the sales?

Obviously. That is a good question my friend from Humber Valley brings up. How

do you predict the sales, indeed? You have to go on projections, I guess. You

have to accept certain information that is brought forward, but they are only as

good as the estimates and the assumptions that are made. We can all sit down

with a set of numbers. Our real concern with all of that is that it provides a

different regime for the bigger corporations, the bigger companies, because a

company that invests $300,000 in Newfoundland is a larger company. It is not

your normal small company that is operating in and around rural Newfoundland. It

is a small business, by any stretch of the imagination, but by our standards a

very small percentage of our businesses would have that kind of capital

investment. So it precludes many, many operations in this Province that could be

started up, many small operations in the tourism industry.

This government, in its great plan, is always saying that

tourism is an area where there is tremendous potential and I, for one, certainly

agree with that. There are dozens, hundreds, thousands, perhaps, of small

businesses that could be established in this Province based on the tourism

industry, but they won't be able to take advantage of this either because they

are too small and couldn't get involved in an enterprise of this size, or

because it could hardly be said that they are being brought in from outside or

otherwise would not have been established. It is very difficult here, and that

is one of the real problems, the subjectivity of deciding that they would or

would not otherwise have been established - very, very difficult.

I say to the government, without causing any political

connotations here, that they will be subject to political accusations, I guess,

that one company or another was or wasn't designated as an EDGE corporation so

they could take advantage of this, because it can be construed as a political

decision, so there is a weakness there.

Mr. Speaker, with those few points I think I have covered

most of the key things that I wanted to - could not be directly competitive

with, or have an adverse impact on the viability of other businesses.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to disagree with that but

difficult also to ascertain up front, whether or not a company will have a

direct impact on existing businesses. Obviously, it is not to our advantage to

invest in companies that are simply putting another company out of business, and

I don't think that it has ever been the policy of any government program to

allow that to take place if it could at all be avoided, but it is very difficult

to determine that; very difficult what the corporation might get into once it is

established, the intent of a corporation, the product lines or the services

whatever the case may be, may be very clear up front, but what guarantees do we

have that that won't change down the road, in five years time or even ten years

time that the company then is competing with somebody because the policies of

that company have changed as a result.

So, Mr. Speaker, those are the sorts of things that we would

be concerned about, but generally speaking, we support any effort as I said, to

promote economic development, to create jobs in this Province. It is too little

too late, unfortunately; I would like to see it expanded so that all businesses,

all investors who want to create even one job in this Province could receive

these types of incentives. We had a plan in this Province of providing a

remission of taxes for small businesses for three years, a program we brought

in, back I would say in 1978, I think.

It was a three-year remission of provincial taxes for all

new, small businesses in this Province and that has been eliminated since this

government took office, so now we are providing incentives for larger

corporations but not for the smaller ones, who will, in fact, who do I guess,

encompass by far the majority of businesses in this Province and also the

biggest employers in this Province, is the small business, Mr. Speaker, hundreds

and thousands in fact, of small businesses creating, two, three, four, ten,

fifteen jobs, and those incentives now are not in place.

Mr. Speaker, my real concern is that we are creating two

levels of business, two classes of business, two levels of taxation depending on

the circumstances of the particular corporation.

Thank you, very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on this bill because I think it is an

important piece of legislation. I would also echo some of the sentiments of my

colleagues on this side of the House in that, some of the changes that have been

made since the original proposal was made to establish EDGE corporations I have

to agree with. I had criticized, as had many others this legislation because of

what it was doing particularly in creating, what I referred to as our own

version of the Maquiladoras of Mexico, where you would have separate rules that

applied to labour relations in the corporations that would qualify for these

EDGE corporations.

I thought that, that was a very dangerous precedent, a very

retrogressive step, and one that would lead to the erosion of labour rights

throughout the entire Province in all sectors, because, Mr. Speaker, once a

particular group of corporations had different rules applying to their employees

under the labour relations statutes and rules, then if they were perceived to be

advantageous to employers, then there would be significant pressure on

government to level the playing field for all employers with respect to

employment relations, and that would be a very serious, retrogressive step; in

fact, it goes so far as being an attack on labour rights in the Province and the

government was quite rightly and quite soundly criticized for having such a

proposal before the people of this Province.

What was also wrong with it, Mr. Speaker, was that it was

going to take out the free collective bargaining which has worked very well in

this Province. Now, many people say that there is a lot of difficulties with

labour relations and problems with unions and strikes and that sort of thing but

the reality is very different, Mr. Speaker. The reality is that unions offer a

democratic alternative to employees if they so choose to participate, a

democratic alternative in the workplace that they may have some say over their

working conditions, their wages, and what is, after all, their means of

livelihood. To have a democratic means of exercising some rights over your

employment relationship is one of the hallmarks of a democratic society, and in

this Province that system has worked on the whole fairly well. Obviously there

have been problems. There have been some difficulties from time to time, but in

the vast majority of the cases - and I would say in excess of 95 per cent or

perhaps even higher of the cases - collective agreements are negotiated again

and again without the necessity of resorting to the strike or lockout which is

the extreme form of labour relations after a breakdown of negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, obviously that kind of action, whether it be a

strike or a lockout, is the one that attracts the news and becomes newsworthy,

creating an impression in the minds of many people in the public, fostered by

some of the interests that would seek to destroy the rights of working people,

foster the idea that labour relations organizations, that trade unions giving

rights to workers causes problems in the workplace and in the economy. I am glad

that the government has seen fit to let the labour relations system work in

these so-called EDGE corporations as it is working in other industrial sectors

and indeed the public sector in this Province.

One of the other criticisms that was made of these very same

provisions - and these were made not just by labour representatives or union

representatives, but made by business people - was that having that kind of

provision, special status for EDGE corporations with respect to labour

relations, was creating a false impression in the minds of potential investors

outside the Province that indeed labour relations was a problem here. That was

the concern expressed by a number of business groups and business individuals

who said, quite rightly, that by putting that sort of thing in your promotion of

investors package that you were, in fact, sending a flag or sending a message to

the rest of the country and to other outside investors that labour relations was

a particular and special problem that investors ought to look out for in

Newfoundland.

I think these business enterprises and other people felt

quite rightly that was not, in fact, the case, that on the overall, particularly

in the manufacturing sectors, it was very clear that this was not, in fact, the

case, that labour relations were going along quite smoothly, thank you very

much, particularly in the manufacturing and industrial sector of this Province,

and to include such provisions in a piece of legislation of this nature was, in

fact, putting a red flag out saying: Beware investors; unless you are an EDGE

corporation you are going to be in big trouble with labour relations in the

Province.

I think it was very wise on the part of the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology, to take that

section out of the act. I think

that the government, in doing that, listened to their better nature and for once

listened to the advice given to it by substantial members of the public. I

suppose the fact that some of the senior business people who were criticizing it

were also prominent Liberals might have helped a little bit as well, or at least

helped them realize that it was a sincere and serious criticism that ought to be

listened to.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask a number of questions, rhetorical

questions, I suppose, in my mind when I look at this legislation because it

really continues a trend, I guess, that has been going on in this Province for

many, many decades now, and that is creating special incentives to business to

conduct their activities in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I see that these

so-called EDGE corporations will have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council certain matters. We all know who that is, we all

know who the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is. They are the ones who will

finally decide whether or not -

MR. BAKER: Let's nationalize them all, Jack. That is a

good idea, let's nationalize them all.

MR. HARRIS: There is one company, I say to the Minister

of Finance and Treasury Board, that I would be happy to nationalize, because the

Province would make a lot of money if they did.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like what?

MR. HARRIS: Trans City Holdings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Should nationalize Trans City Holdings.

Because when we start talking about - and we will pay them what it is worth. Mr.

Speaker, when this government starts talking about giving the Cabinet power to

make these kinds of decisions one wonders what you have to do to meet the

criteria. We know how easy it was for Trans City Holdings to meet certain

criteria set down by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, so I wonder here when

you get the Lieutenant-Governor in Council making these final decisions what

control there is going to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I pause, because I would not

want to have on the record any of the things said privately by hon. members.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Education and Training makes

a good point that perhaps there should be a rule from now on that the ministers

should table their speeches, like the Minister of Natural Resources did this

afternoon, and then we wouldn't have to be bothered listening to them. We could

just go home and read all this stuff and not have the advantage of being

entertained by the speeches in the House.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board actually should

pay attention because one thing that is very absent from this bill - and this is

a bill that says to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board: You get no

retail sales tax for ten, perhaps fifteen, years. You get no post-secondary

education tax, no income tax, and all of this goes on for ten and perhaps

fifteen years. What I would like to hear the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board tell us is how much is this going to cost. I ask the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board how much this is going to cost and the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology swings his hand in some sort of goose egg.

I don't know whether the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board is prepared to say that foregone tax revenues means that there is no cost.

There is no income tax, there is no health or post-secondary education tax, no

retail sales tax, and this could go on for ten to fifteen years. Any income tax

that the employees would pay in the first year we are going to give back in the

form of $2,000 rebates. I would just like to know how much the minister

anticipates the foregone revenues of these corporations would be.

I say that because I don't have a lot of confidence in the

judgement of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council as to whether or not these

corporations would have invested or would have set up without these incentives.

A lot of judgement has to take place here in determining who gets to be

considered an EDGE corporation and who doesn't. If somebody comes to the

government and says: I'm about to make this investment that has a potential -

only a potential, now - we can potentially have incremental sales of half a

million dollars, we have the potential for the creation of maintenance of at

least permanent jobs in the Province, the potential only. I am going to say to

the government that well I would not have made this investment or we would not

have made this investment and we would not have set up this corporation if it

was not for these incentives and the minister's committee has to make

recommendations to government. The government has finally the right to decide

whether or not to designate an EDGE corporation. I would like to know how the

minister and his government intends to ensure the public of this Province that

in fact the circumstances are such that this investment or incremental

investment would not have taken place without the incentives that are provided?

The other thing I would like to ask the minister, is he going

to make it public what recommendations are accepted and what recommendations are

rejected by this committee that is being set up because we have here that the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council is being given the final say? We have a committee

appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, a board put in place, the board

is going to make recommendations and the Cabinet is going to make the final

decisions. Are we going to have to have the Leader of the Opposition probing and

poking and cross-examining the Premier for days and days on end to find out how

certain people might get past the post from the recommendation stage, where the

board may have said no but the government says yes in designating somebody an

EDGE corporation, or are we going to have made available to the House of

Assembly, a list of the recommendations made by this board and then designated

by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council as to which ones are designated and which

are ones are not?

Mr. Speaker, I think this opens the door to a lot of

hanky-panky. I personally don't have confidence that this government is not

going to indulge in hanky-panky, given their record, given their handling of

even

an act such as the Public Tender Act, particularly revelations that have

been made in recent weeks and days about the carryings on of the government. The

recommendations of the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board that were not

really recommendations because he does not quite make it exactly to the place

that they were designated to make. These are some of the concerns that the

people of this Province will have, as to how certain corporations get the edge,

Mr. Speaker, who gets the edge and who doesn't. Who gets the edge with this

government, Mr. Speaker, seems to depend an awful lot on politics. Who gets the

edge and who gets the shaft, as the Member for St. John's East Extern has said.

These are the kinds of decisions that are going to be made,

presumably by this board and by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, behind

closed doors. Where is the transparency, Mr. Speaker? Is the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology going to tell us here in the House today that he

will publish, on a monthly basis, a list of the decisions made by this board,

the recommendations made by this board to say, `yea' or `nay' and the Cabinet's

decision as to whether or not they are `yea' or `nay'? I see him nodding his

head and I would leave it to him to make sure that Hansard has recorded his

answer when he speaks in closing debate on this. So I have a concern about that,

Mr. Speaker, I have a concern that there will be a little hanky-panky as to who

gets the edge and who does not.

I also have a question, Mr. Speaker, this is obviously much

more for detailed debate but it comes under the general

section of the act. It

gives the right of a corporation to be given the edge, not being affected by any

proposal made to the government with respect to the establishment or expansion

of a business or undertaking in the Province, being June 29, 1994, on the day

which this act comes into force. I would like the minister to explain what

particular proposals he wants to make sure gets protected by that particular

provision or is it anybody - because that was the day presumably the

announcement was made to - the Board of Trade I think that announcement was made

to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The White Paper was released to the Board of

Trade was it? Yes, I think so. This was shortly after the House closed and the

MHAs were out of sight. They released this on the last day of June and wanted

all responses in to it over the summer when most people were not focusing

totally on public attention.

The Board of Trade, I think the minister called them the

merchants' union - the merchants' union, according to the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology. He wants to give credit for that quote to someone else,

but I understand the minister regards them as such as well.

I see here an awful lot of particular concessions being

given. I wonder whether any thought has been given as to whether or not there

should be some ceiling on the tax relief here. Is it right that someone can come

in and hire ten people and make a killing for fifteen years, make an absolute

substantial, gargantuan amount of money in fifteen years and not pay any income

tax on it? I know that some corporations in our country - the banks are very

good at it, not paying any taxes, making hundreds of millions of dollars.

MR. SULLIVAN: The banks paid $100 million in taxes this

year.

MR. HARRIS: The bank paid $100 million in taxes?

MR. SULLIVAN: Hundreds of millions.

MR. HARRIS: Between them?

MR. SULLIVAN: No. The Royal Bank had over $1 billion, I

think, and paid between $500 million and $600 million out of $1 billion

(inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am glad to see the Member for Ferryland

come to the defence of the banks.

MR. SULLIVAN: No. I am just telling the truth.

MR. HARRIS: I am glad to see the Member for Ferryland

come to the defence of the banks because they need their defenders, too. I am

sure the banks would be very pleased that they have their defenders here in this

House.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order because there was information not

factual attributed to me, and I want to go on record as indicating that it is

incorrect what the Member for St. John's East stated here. I have stated clearly

what I read in a magazine called The Financial Post on what banks

contributed in income tax to Canada, so I wanted to clarify for the record that

the Member for St. John's East took the liberty to say words that were not my

words, or imputing motives, if you want to call it that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has taken the opportunity to

clarify his position.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, the banks are particularly adept in avoiding

paying income taxes. In fact, a couple of years ago this woman worked as a

teller at the Royal Bank - Mary, I think - they used to brag about it. Mary was

the Royal Bank, and Mary used to pay more taxes than the Royal Bank did. Now the

Member for Ferryland informs us that this year, when they made $1 billion in

profit, they actually did pay some taxes. I am glad to hear that, and I am glad

that the Member for Ferryland is here quick to his feet, every time an

opportunity presents itself, to correct the record on behalf of the banks. As I

say, they need their defenders, too, and I am glad they have them here.

Mr. Speaker, I do have a concern here, and it is a legitimate

concern. Despite hon. members interest in making sure the banks get credit for

their taxes, I do want to ask the Minister of Finance or the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology, whether he thinks it is right that there be no

upper limit as to how much profit, how much tax remission, how much can go on

under this legislation, without any obligation to the people of this Province

other than the hiring of ten employees that should take place.

Mr. Speaker, I also have a concern, and I don't see the

answer here - maybe the minister can point it out to me - when we talk about the

definition of jobs here, they talk about ten permanent jobs in the Province. The

Premier in introducing the legislation talked about these ten permanent jobs. He

said they don't have to be year-round jobs, they can be seasonal jobs. Do they

have to be full-time seasonal jobs? Do they have to be full-time? Is there going

to be an amendment to the legislation to clarify that?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what permanent means.

MR. HARRIS: That is what permanent means. Mr. Speaker,

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology thinks that permanent means

full-time, forty hours a week, thirty-five hours a week.

MR. FUREY: Full-time was in the original legislation, and

there was a problem (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Okay. So, Mr. Speaker, if that is what they

intend is permanent seasonal jobs - a permanent job could be - if you worked

twenty hours a week fifty-two weeks a years you have a pe