Volume XL Monday Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Fourth Session VERBATIM REPORT {Hansard} Speaker: Honourable P.]. McNicholas Number 6 21 March 1988

The House met at 3:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! MR. SPEAKER: I would like now to deal with the question about the petition that was raised by the hon. the member for St. John's East (Mr. Long) on March 17. The right to petition the legislature is an ancient and venerable one dating from two resolutions passed in the House of Commons in 1699. The practice has always been accorded great importance in Newfoundland where in modern times it is used more f~equently perhaps than in any other jurisdiction. It is for this reason that I wanted to give the matter some thought.

With respect to the form the authorities state quite clearly that petitions should bear original signatures: "A petition must have original signatures or marks, and not copies from the original.... The signature must be written upon the petition itself ... " Beauchesne Fifth Edition, Paragraph 676. The document presented by the hon. the member for St. John's East on March 17th consisted of one sheet bearing the original signatures of two bon. members plus one other original signature and a number of photocopied signatures on succeeding pages.

It is my opinion that the latter, photocopied signatures are out of order and I must therefore so rule. The purpose of procedure is, in afford citizens, otherwise have a the petition my opinion, to who would not means of making L267 March 21, 1988 Vol XL their voices heard, to afford them a means of ensuring that their grievances are aired before their elected representatives. I do not think that the petition itself is an opportunity for hon. members to petition the House. Hon. members can speak by right to the House, themselves.

It is clear from our Standing Orders and from the authorities that an individual has as much right as a group to petition the House. I therefore rule that the first page of the material presented by the han. the member for st. John's East is a valid petition from M. E. Carter, signed as required by S.O. 90 by the Member presenting it. I would also like to inform the hon. member that his time for that petition has elapsed. Statements by Ministers MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. MR. WINDSOR: Mr.

Speaker, the House will recall that in 1987 government announced that steps were to be taken to interconnect the Islands of Fogo and Change Islands to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's main transmission grid. At present, communi ties on Fogo Island and Change Islands receive their electricity from diesel generated systems. Completion of the intertie, scheduled for September of this year, will result in lower electricity bills for the 1,600 residents of the area since they will be able to avail of the hydro rate and the diesel generators will be shut down. No. 6 R267

I am pleased today to announce that the first major contract in this project valued at $5.6 million has been awarded to Canamont Construction. The contract provides for the supply and installation of the 25 kv submarine cables. Work on the installation of the cables is scheduled to conunence in June for completion in September. The total project is valued at $13 million and involves construction of 20 krn of 69 kv transmission lines from Newfoundland Light and Power Company's sub-station near Boyd's Cove to Farewell Head .

A 69 25 kv sub-station will be bull t at Farewell Head and the 25 kv submarine cable will extend from there to Change Islands. After crossing Change Islands overland, the cable will again dip into the sea and carry on to Fogo Island. The submarine cables will be protected by cast iron necklaces which are being manufactured by Labco Limited of Long Harbour. In total the project includes 20 km of 69 kv transmission line, 10 km of cable and 30 km of 25 kv distribution line as well as substations to be built at Farewell, Change Islands and Fogo.

The project is a continuation of Hydro's policy to interconnect conununities in the province to the provincial grid whenever it is economical and feasible so to do. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Mount Scio - Bell Island. L268 March 21, 1988 Vol XL MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are pleased to see a continuation of this programme and the addition of two further areas of the Province to the Island grid.

It is unfortunate that we do not yet have a provincial grid because the submarine cable that we are all waiting for on this side of the House, and people throughout the Province are waiting for, is the submarine cable that will interconnect Labrador with the Island of Newfoundland. We hope that we will see some action on this within the next few months. We have seen some tidbits in the press, thrown out by the Premier, indicating that there is some behind-the-scenes activity.

There are a lot of people in Labrador and on the Island, waiting for word that would indicate that this project, this interconnection between Labrador and the Island of Newfoundland is to go ahead, because this will have a great impact upon rates in this Province and ensure a stability of rates that otherwise we will not see.

It is too bad the minister did not indicate maybe he would at a later date the number of jobs that are likely to be expected on this project, because I am sure there are a lot of people in the area of Fogo Island and Change Islands who would like to know whethe r employment will be possible and whether local individuals will be hired for this project and how many jobs can be anticipated for them. The other point we should make, Mr. Speaker, is that now that the number of conununities on diesel generators has been significantly reduced around the Province, over the last couple of years, the time No. 6 R268

has come to take another look at whether in fact the diesel rate itself might not be reduced, or at least be at the lower ends of the scale, because these rates are a very heavy burden on people who are living in diesel supplied communities; many of these communities will never realistically be able to expect interconnections.

But we are pleased to see that this interconnection is coming for Fogo Island and Change Islands, as has been the case with respect to other parts of the Province in recent years, in many cases, of course, as a result of industrial activity such as the Hopebrook gold mine, which saw areas on the South Coast for the first time being in a position to be viable as far as an interconnection with the Island grid is concerned. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. Just two or three comments with respect to the announcement.

I am glad to see that constl:"uction is starting and that the people of Fogo Island and Change Islands will now have the same rate structure as currently exists on the rest of the Island part of the Province. I would like to echo some of the comments made by the member for Mount Scio Bell Island (Mr. Barry), who I think accurately pointed out that we are now getting fewer and fewer communi ties who are on the diesel generating systems.

With the L269 March 21, 1988 Vol XL elimination of Burgeo other communities on Coast and with Fogo and some the South Island and Change Islands gone, there are only a number of communities on the Northern Peninsula and a few along the coast of Labrador, primarily, I believe, that are left. I think that over the next two years we will see about three quarters of the diesel generated electricity areas actually connected up to the grid and then getting the lower l:"ates.

So, I would like to echo the request made by the critic for the Liberal Party, that it is now time, I think, to see what is necessary in order to bring all those diesel generated rates down to a reasonable one. I· recognize in saying that that there may be an increase in consumption by reducing the rates, and I think it will have to be a comprehensive programme in which efforts are made to ensul:"e that we do not see a vast upswelling of electric heat put in.

But I think a comprehensive pr'ogramme to address their needs and bring their l:"ates down is now clearly in order, since virtually, I think, 90 per cent to 95 per' cent of the Province is now on the interconnect and it is that 5 per cent of the communities that l:"eally deserve a break now. Thank you very much . Oral Questions MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition. No. 6 Leader of the R269

MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, in light of the information and allegations contained in the WS program and The Sunday Express news report - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. WELLS: - would the Premier now advise the House that the government has reconsidered the matter and is prepared to appoint a judicial inquiry to inquire into the Sprung matter? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the Leader of the Opposition should have asked was, Is there any information relative to some of the allegations - most of which we heard before on the T.V. program last evening? And- rather than just broadly sweep over, Now is time for a judicial inquiry, Is there any information that the government or the Sprung Group of Companies have to offer as a result of these allegations last night? Then, after getting the information from the other side, decide whether he would still want to call But you not in members to just matter. for a judicial inquiry. note, Mr.

Speaker, it is the mentality of hon. opposite to ask that, but go ahead and judge on the So the question that the hon. Leader of the Opposition asks demands a fairly comprehensive answer, and I want to say, therefore, to the Leader of the L270 March 21, 1988 Vol XL Opposition, that I beg his indulgence so that I can set the record straight so that then, based upon the information that I am about to give, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition may be less inclined to be so enthusiastic to ask for a judicial inquiry. The impression left last night on WS, Mr.

Speaker, was that I guess the Sprung Group of Companies are not even producing any tomatoes at their facility in Calgary, and latterly now here in Newfoundland, because they had to buy five packages or something from a certain company. The company is Scott National. I have here for hon. members' attention copies of invoices. These are really, I guess, as the Leader of the Opposition would say, legal documents. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: These are legal documents. By the way, WS was wrong last night. They said June 17 that the flve packages were brought.

It so happens that I have an invoice here showing it to be July 17. Just a little, tiny inaccuracy made by WS last night. I have that invoice here to table, Mr. Speaker. But I also have invoices here of tomatoes that were produced and sold by the Sprung Group of Companies from their facility in Calgary to this Scott National Company on June 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 26 and 30 of June of 1986, the sale of tomatoes from their production facility, good, juicy tomatoes from their facility to this company, this wholesaling ~ompany, which then, of course, sold them to the marketplace. And No. 6 R270

all of that happened during June. For example, on June 16 there were 109 cases of silver tomatoes, 25 cases of gold and 33 cases of double gold. This was on one date, just to give you an example, of tomatoes produced in this facility. Of course, the impression left last night was that they had to buy, sneak by devious means tomatoes from somewhere else to try to demonstrate that they could produce tomatoes which they were not producing in the facility at all, that they were getting them under the table from somewhere else and pertending that these were being produced at the facility.

So here are a whole range of invoices, legal documents, showing the sale of tomatoes from the facility to Scott National and other wholesalers that they sold the tomatoes to in June. Also, before I even come to July 17, I want to also release production figures, Mr. Speaker, for the facility in Calgary, tomatoes and cucumbers - this is another legal document, Mr. Speaker - MR. WOODFORD: Evidence No. 2, is it? PREMIER PECKFORD: Exhibit B. that were sold, and you will see, near the end of the period in question, that production fell off.

Because this was the time of the gas leakage from the old refinery site, which the city council, and legal counsel for Calgary Council said in a public meeting was the responsibility of the Calgary City Council and the Province of Alberta, and in no way L271 March 21, 1988 Vol XL was libel upon the Sprung Group of Companies because it was not their fault. That was said publicly, and it was in all of the Calgary papers and there was an editorial in a Calgary paper, but not one of the press down here covered it. But when there were negatives in the Calgary press, all the press down here covered it.

But they never_ covered that the liability has now been admit ted by the City Council of Calgary and admitted by the Province of Alberta, and even by Imperial Oil . So here is the list of production figures, and they tend to wane off as you get into July because the crop started to fail because the gas leaks from the old refinery site started to enter into the facility. So here is that information. Then, 'unknown to Mr. Sprung and his daughter, who were managing that project, a gentleman who then worked with the Sprung Group of Companies, Mr.

Steve Verhorst, on behalf of the company - here you have all kinds of thirties and hundreds of cases that were sold to this company went to the company that they had sold the tomatoes to asking for five cases to be bought back, unknown to Mr. Sprung and unknown to Ms Sprung, for one Mr. Michael Anselm, who at that time was a consultant for the Sprung Group of Companies. We and the Sprung Group of Companies do not know anything about that five cases of tomatoes. They paid for them.

I have the receipt here, the company paid for them, because he worked for the company, ordered them on behalf of the company, and gave them to Mr. Anselm. What Mr. Anselm did with them we do not know. The Sprung Group of Companies do not know. They were paid for, a grand total of No. 6 R271

$102.35. That is what the cost of five cases was. So the story that was on television last night, to come directly to the Leader of the Opposition's question, is that the allegations that were made, most of them were the same as we have heard over and over again and they are false. The documentation that I just produced demonstrates that what was said on WS last night holds no water. We can give you the production figures out there, and the sale of the tomatoes from the production facility.

Five boxes were bought, b-o-u-g-h-t, back from one of the companies that they had sold tens and tens and tens and tens of boxes to the month before. MR. BARRY: The same cases of tomatoes? PREMIER PECKFORD: We do not know. Mr. Sprung does not know, Ms Sprung does not know, because they never saw the tomatoes. They were bought by somebody in the company for Mr. Anselm, who wanted them to demonstrate to somebody or other. They are not aware of them. All they know is that going through their accounting division they have found the invoice of five boxes that were bought by one of their employees for Mr. Anselm.

They did not see them, so they do not know. They honestly do not know. But they admit that they paid for them, $102 for five boxes. That is the story on that. That is the great expose of WS as it has been the great expose by everybody else who does not want to see some research and development go on in this Province, to which I say, 'Pooh! Pooh! Pooh!', we are going to have it. L272 March 21, 1988 Vol XL SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. WELLS: I would ask the han. the Premier, Mr.

Speaker, if he would deal with some of the real issues that are of significance that came out of those programmes and not create these straw men to knock down - AN HOM. MEMBER: There is only one man (inaudible). MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

WELLS: - the opinions of the experts, as disclosed in that programme and in the newspaper articles, that the fabric was defective and could not be reused here, but in fact that is the fabric that is being reused here; the fact that a year earlier BRO Resources had agreed to purchase that facility for $11.4 million, and when it comes to be dealt with - PREMIER PECKFORD: Three million, not $11 million, because it is only worth $3 million. Remember what you said last week? MR. WELLS: The hon. the Premier is trying to create another straw man that he can easily knock down. MR. MATTHEWS: A $150,000 straw man!

SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! No. 6 R272

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if you would maintain order in the House I will try and ask the question. The questions that I want the bon. the Premier to deal with, Mr.

Speaker, are the issues raised concerning the incompetence of the fabric that was used and the fact that it had deteriorated and was no longer suitable for use facilty of that nature; secondly, the fact that in a and, BRO Resources had agreed, shortly before the arrangement was made with this Province, to buy the facility or to invest in the facility for $11.4 million and when it came to dealing with it by this Province its value suddenly got to be $18.4 million. Would the Premier, in the light of that, appoint a judicial inquiry? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, this is absolutely ridiculous. Now, the Leader of the Opposition has gone to $18 million. He knows that the contract that has been signed between Newfoundland Enviroponics Limited and the Sprung Group of Companies is for $14.5, and the rest is the lights that were not there in Calgary. So, why suddenly come up then and go from $11 million to $18 million? The Leader of the Opposition knows better than that. He is misleading. He knows the contract.

He himself said last week that the contract was for $14.5 million and now he puts out, to the press and so on, $18 million when he knows the difference is on the lights, and L273 March 21, 1988 Vol XL that the contract is $14.5 million. If the Leader of the Opposition is really honest and wants to get to the bottom of this, tell the truth and ask the question based upon the facts and not on inflating some figure now. Last week the Leader of the Opposition was talking about the value of the facility being $3. 5 million.

Now he has suddenly jumped to $11 million, and does recognize, obviously, that the concrete here in this facility was three times the cost of the concrete out in Calgary. So $14.5 million is the price that Newfoundland Enviroponics is paying to the Sprung Group of Companies for the project in its totality, Mr. Speaker, which is reasonable when one looks at the time frame between when the cost was $11 million and the labour cost. Nobody has talked yet about the labour costs. How much did labour cost out here with the various subcontractors to build this? The facility itself was $11 million.

How about putting up the facility and doing all of the other things that had to be done? I mean, this is just foolishness and crazy. And all of the allegations that have been made against this project, when the facts came out as they did last week about $3 million versus now $11 million, which the Leader of the Opposition now has admitted, he has gone up $8 million. Now we are on to the fabric. Every day there is a new issue. Now it is the fabric. Last week it was the cost. You know, what is it going to be next week? MR. SIMMS: The tomatoes. PREMIER PECKFORD: The tomatoes. Right.

Is something wrong with No. 6 there the R273

cucumbers? Is the reason why there are no seeds in the cucumbers because there is some kind of weird and wonderful chemical injected in the cucumber to make sure that it does not have seeds, which will cause cancer to all the people in the world? What next are we going to have? The bottom line is that right now, Mr. Speaker the proof of the pudding is in the eating! - the fabric is okay. There is nothing wrong with the fabric! We are producing 8,000 to 10,000 cucumbers a week out of less than half of one production zone, Mr. Speaker. That is the proof . It is not the fabric. It is not the technology.

It is not the cost of the facility. Is the facility producing? Yes, the facility is producing. Are we going to have a couple of more zones come on in the next few weeks and produce more? Yes, we are. I mean, that is the whole point of it. I want to table for the bon. Leader of the Opposition, if he does not believe what I said, an editorial from The Calgary Sun of January 27: 'Imperial Oil, which formerly use the site for a refinery' - Remember last year? We are on fabric now but last year it was that it was Sprung's fault because of the gas leak.

The gas leak was caused by Sprung, not by Imperial Oil. 'Imperial Oil, which formerly used the site for a refinery, has agreed to pay one-third of the cost of the study and the province has said it will chip in' because it is their problem. Obviously, it was a case of aldermen not being fully prepared for the meeting. The city L274 March 21, 1988 Vol XL solicitor, Del' whatever his name is 'had warned that the city would be vunerable for damages if people got sick as a result of the lead contamination.' Another

article from the same paper is a news story and not an editorial. 'In a rare display of frustration, Kvemshagen gave council a tongue-lashing and warned that potential lawsuits over the contamination are the most serious legal problems the city had ever faced. 'God help us if anything happens to anyone or anything in this city as a result of lead contamination.

You are sitting ducks', the legal counsel for the City of Calgary told council.' If anybody ever sues us, we are going to be libel - this is the legal counsel for the Calgary City Council 'for millions and millions and millions of dollars . ' Now last year we heard the same allegations about the gas as we are now hearing about the fabric. And every allegation that has been brought against this project has been, through factual information provided, proven to be wrong. And they are wrong on the fabric now, Mr. Speaker. And it is from people who are no longer with the company who have certain axes to grind, Mr.

Speaker. That is the long and short of it. MR. SIMMS: Crazy Clyde strikes again. MR . J. CARTER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: No . 6 R274

The han. the member for St. John's North. MR. J. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to address to the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to quote the authority. It is in

Chapter V of the fourth Edition of Beauchesne. MR, FENWICK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the han . the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: My point of order is I cannot see how an individual can ask a question of a person who is not a minister in the House. It is my understanding that it is only ministers of the Crown who can be asked questions in terms of their responsibility. MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The han. the member for St. John's North. MR. J. CARTER: Quoting the authority,

Section 39 of

Chapter V of the Fourth Edition of Beauchesne states that, "Questions may be placed on the order paper seeking information from Minister of the Crown relating to public affairs; and from other members, relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House, in which such members may be concerned," etc. , etc. , and it goes on and extends the argument to some extent. Now, I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that what holds for written questions also holds for oral L275 March 21, 1988 Vol XL questions. Therefore, I request that I am address my question. MR.

SPEAKER: I did not quite get the bon. member's question. MR. J. CARTER: The question is I would like to address a question to the Leader of the Opposition, and the authority I am quoting is f~om Beauchesne which suggests that I may do so. MR. BAIRD: What part of Beauchesne? MR. J. CARTER: Chapte~ Edition. question? V,

Section May I 39, F'ou~th address my I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition: Since eithe~ he has indicated or it has been indicated by the press that he is not satisfied with a number of his caucus members, if he would indicate which ones are the lame ducks so that we may disregard them in the upcoming debates in the House. MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition . MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the question is not worthy of a dignified member of this House . It is not worthy of answer. It is insulting. MR. J . CARTER: A supplementa~y question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Leader of the Opposition will not indicate - MR. SPEAKER: No. 6 R275

Order, please! I have allowed a question from the hon. member for St. John's North. I am now going to recognize another member. The hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage . MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice (Ms Verge) . I gave her some notice, because I wanted her to have an opportunity to be prepared for the response . The minister will be aware that

Section 6 of the Environmental Assessment Act requires that every proponent of an undertaking in the Province causes the undertaking to be registered. The minister will also be aware that the Minister of the Environment and his immediate predecessor both undertook in this House, in the last week, to inform the House that the Sprung project had not been registered as required under

Section 6. I believe the minister will agree that the failure to register the project constitutes a breach of

Section 6 of the Statute which she has before her. Will the minister then indicate to the House whether it is her department's intention to take steps to ensure that the law is upheld in this instance, and will she indicate to the House what specific action she has taken, as Minister of Justice, or she proposes to take in view of the non-compliance with the act in the Sprung instance? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice . L276 March 21, 1988 Vol XL MS VERGE: Mr.

Speaker, just three or four minutes ago the member opposite had delivered to me a copy of an exerpt from The Environmental Assessment Act with a note indicating he would be asking me a question on the yellow sections. Mr. Speaker, as members opposite should appreciate, Beauchesne clearly states that a question must not seek of a minister a legal opinion, an opinion on a Statute or any other legal matter. Mr. Speaker, I have to refute the statement contained in the lead up to the hon. member's question. I cannot associate myself with that.

I had no knowledge of the events which he outlined in his question until he actually put the question. It is a matter that I can take under advisement, but that is really as much as I can say now. MR. SIMMONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the han. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: I thank the minister, and I say to her that not only is she right in saying that it is not proper to seek a legal opinion, I say to her also that no legal op1n1on was sought.

In case she misunderstood my question, what I asked her is: Is she carrying out her administrative responsibilities as minister in respect of this legislation? That was my question. It had nothing to do with her legal opinion, which I am sure I would respect if I heard it. I ask her specifically, in case she was not aware the first time, what she is doing in her capacity as minister to ensure No. 6 R276

there is compliance particular case. Further, Mr. Speaker, supplementary - MR. SIMMS: in this in my A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, supplementary. AN HON. MEMBER: I A point of order. MR. SIMMONS: am putting Sorry, I did not hear him. MR. SPEAKER: a A point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is clearly referenced in Beauchesne that supplementary questions should not require a great deal of

preamble. In the case of the hon. member for Fortune - Hermitage, he seems to have been making a habit of it, in fact, all during last week and now again this week. I hope he does not continue that kind of trend. He has now spent about a minute of so talking about or explaining what his first question was. That is totally irrelevant to what his supplementary question should be. So Your Honour, I suspect, will probably want to bring him to order and suggest that he ask his supplementary question without further

preamble. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, there is not a point of order. I would, however, like to say a few words on question time but I do not want to take up the half hour that is available. But just L277 March 21, 1988 Vol XL at the end of that period, I will. The hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the minister is: Will she ensure the House that she - MR. MORGAN: Not will. House. 'she': Learn MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: The the hon. minister rules of the - will pursue her responsibility as minister to ensure that there is complicance with

Section 6 of the Environmental Assessment Act? Will she assure the House that she will ensure that compliance? MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice. MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, earlier in this same Act, the member opposite will see if he reads it in its entirety, that another minister of the Crown, the Minister of Environment (Mr. Russell), is t"esponsible for the administration of The Envit"onment Assessment Act, and he is discharging that t"esponsibili ty very well.

If the member opposite, or for that matter if any citizen of the Province, has reason to believe that there has been a violation of the Act then it is the t"esponsibility of that person to make a complaint to the pt"oper authorities and it will be investigated in the usual way. No. 6 R277

MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I can think of no authority more proper than the Minister of Justic, no time more appropriate than now, and no place more appropriate than here, so I am now making the complaint. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I am aware - MR. SIMMS: What is the question? MR. SIMMONS: Here it comes . I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of the Environment is responsible. He has told the House, I say to the Minister of Justice, that he has neglected his responsibility. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: So my question is in view of the failure of the minister to exercise his responsibility under the Act, what action does the Minister of Justice propose to take as the chief law enforcement officer of the Crown? What action does she propose to take? MR. SIMMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the President of the Council L278 Karch 21, 1988 Vol XL MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I hate to get up and interrupt the bon. member, but he asking for it himself by continuously continuing to have long, lengthy

preambles, and to enter into debate and argument in supplementary questions. And clearly the question that he is asking now is the same as the question he asked in his first supplementary which was the same as the original question, and it is clearly out of order. Because Beauchesne Fifth Edition, Paragraph 357 Subsection 171, items (

c) and (

d) both refer to it. A member 'must confine himself to the narrowest limits .... The purpose of a question is to obtain information and not to supply it to the House.' It must not 'multiply, with slight variations, a similar question on the same point,' which obviously he has done. And (d): It must not 'repeat in substance a question already answered, or even a question to which an answer has been refused. ' And clearly, Mr. Speaker, the han. the member for Fortune - Hermitage is out of order on both of those scores.

I submit to you, Your Honour, you should order the hon. member to ask proper questions and not waste the time of Question Period. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, it is very difficult for the Chair to assess slight variations, if there are slight variations, between one question and the other. I rule the hon. member is in order. The hon. the Minister of Justice. No. 6 R278

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated, in my answer to the second question, if the member opposite or any citizen of the Province has reason to believe or suspect that an offence has been committed under The Environmental Assessment Act, or any other statute, then the complaint should be directed to the proper authorities and will be investigated in the usual way and a professional assessment made as to whether there is any basis for legal action. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: My question, Mr.

Speaker, is for the minister responsible for Energy, who I believe is the Premier now, and it has to do with the study that the minister released several weeks ago having to do with gas and oil prices. My question for the minister is this.

Since the former Minister of Energy and the former Minister of Consumer Affairs held several press conferences over the last few years indicating there was something drastically wrong with the pricing of gas and oil in the Province, and since they indicated that they would bring forth some sort of procedures to deal with it, how does the present Minister of Energy square those commitments on the part of his predecessors with the fact that the report was released but virtually nothing is being done in order to address the very high cost of gas and oil in comparison to other provinces in this country? MR.

SPEAKER: L279 March 21, 1988 Vol XL The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, this administration is not in favour philosophically with what the hon. member is in favour of which is to regulate everybody in to the ground . We do not believe in that approach from a philosophical point of view. In various circumstances over the years, from time to time various governments, who do not share the hon. member's view of how society should be run, have made certain exceptions for short periods of time.

As it relates to the fuel oil or gas situation in the Province, we have studied it and we have monitored the situation.

As the statement said a couple of weeks ago, we wish to wait before taking any action, if in fact we would at some point in the future take action, which has not been decided upon at this point in time, to see what happens in the marketplace over the next year or so relative to Newfoundland Energy coming into the marketplace and selling some of its product • and local and various independent service station owners and so on buying it and seeing whether in fact that will put some competition into the marketplace.

So philosophically, number one, we are against intrusions into the marketplace, as the hon. member would like us to do,- in the way that his cohort in Manitoba did as it relates to auto insurance, and ran up a debt of $63 million, and then had to increase prices SO, 80, and 150 per cent, and suddenly found that he had to resign. That was one of the contributing factors to the resignation of the Premier of Manitoba. We view these things very cautiously and do not want to get into the marketplace and to create distortions there, but to allow No. 6 R279

small business and medium size business to operate in the normal fashion without putting extra regulations in place. So we want to move very cautiously on this, and over the next while we will monitor the situation and see what happens in the marketplace, given that there is a new player now there. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The time for Oral Questions has elapsed. 0 0 0 MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Before going on to the next item, there are a few comments I would like to make on Oral Questions, and they are off the cuff.

I have figured out the average length of time a question and answer takes, and it is about five minutes. So that just allows for six questions every day. If we cut down on the length of a

preamble and cut out

preambles, which we ought to do on supplementaries and on final supplementaries, that will allow more time. Or we could just have each member asking maybe one or two questions. Another way that we can allow many more questions is that the ministers, in answering a question, would have short answers, and if the question required a lengthy answer, it could be made in another form, as a report or otherwise.

Another problem I have is that there are sixteen Opposition L280 March 21, 1988 Vol XL members. members to ask time is I recognize the right of from the government side questions, but really the for the Opposition. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! PREMIER PECKFORD: It is for private members . MR. SPEAKER: For private members. I do recognize the right, but it is mainly the Opposition who are asking questions of the government on their policy. MR. MORGAN: That is not always the case. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

With fourteen members here and two members to my far right, if we allow five minutes for a question, it means that each individual member can only ask one every third day. What I have done is I have recognized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who I think by tradition is entitled to more questions. I have difficulty with the leader of the other party. There are only two members, so they . should only have two questions for every fourteen that the main Opposition ask, i.f one is to be completely impartial.

I have recognized the hon. the member for Menihek more frequently than that because he is a leader of a group or party here. It is his right to ask a question before the hon. member for St. John's East, if he wishes to do so, or if they agree among themselves. But if I do recognize the hon. the member for Menihek, I No. 6 R280

do not think it would be fair to have two questions in one day from these two members when the official Opposition have fourteen members waiting to ask questions. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, fully respecting your conunents as it relates to this, I feel compelled to say, as just an hon. member of the House, that in the conduct of the business of this House we have to be extremely careful that the Standing Orders and Beauchesne are adhered to as much as is humanly possible, even though from time to time we all, as hon. members, breach some of the finer tuned rules as elaborated by Beauchesne from the Standing Orders.

But if, in fact, the hon. member for Menihek wants to ask fifteen questions a day, and if, in fact, he is up on his feet before anybody else, then I guess, even though there are only two of them, he should have the right to ask those fifteen questions. I think we have got to be very careful in trying to be fair generally that we do not, at the same time, violate any of the Standing Orders and the elaboration by Beauchesne which are supposed to guide this Legislature. MR. WELLS: To that Speaker. point MR. SPEAKER: of order, Mr. To that point of order, the han. the Leader of the Opposition.

L281 March 21, 1988 Vol XL MR. WELLS: I have no quarrel with Your Honour's ruling. It seems to me to be eminently fair and sensible. Your Honour has recognized the right of all bon. members of the House to ask questions, members on the government side as well. But Your Honour has quite correctly pointed out that primarily the Oral Question Period is to allow the members of the Opposition, on the Opposition side of the House, to question ministers. Now, we should not depart from that without being any more dgid than is necessary in applying it. We should basically follow that.

I accept quite fully Your Honour's comments. I think they are very fair. PREMIER PECKFORD: Further to that point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Further to that point of order, the han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: If the Leader of the Opposition is in some way implying that this side of the House is saying that the Question Period is somehow not for Opposition members, let it be clear that we obviously recognize that. It is only very infrequently, two . or three tlmes in a few years, that members on this side of the House have even gotten in their places to ask questions of a minister or of the Opposition.

There is no question on that. I mean, it is a lot different from the time the Leader of the Opposition was here in the House before when there was no Question Period allowed. We have no problems with that. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! No. 6 R281

PREMIER PECKFORD: But let us not be cunning about this now, Mr. Speaker. Nobody argues with the Leader of the Opposition on it being the Opposition who are here to ask questions, and Question Period is mainly for the Opposition. Nobody argues with that. The point is not that at all, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, as he gets up to try to camouf !age the point I was making earlier. It is this: We have to be guided by, the Speaker has to be guided by, and this House has to be guided by, the Standing Orders and Beauchesne. Everything flows from there.

It does not flow from the Leader of the Opposition; it does not flow from the Speaker or anybody else; it flows from the rules and Beauchesne and how they are interpreted. MR. MORGAN: To that point of order, Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Mr. To that point of order, the bon. the member for Bonavista South. MR.

MORGAN: I think it is important that this be clarified, because surely, as mentioned, under the rules of the House, the Standing Orders, and Beauchesne, a member of the House of Assembly, whether he be on the Opposition side, on the semi-Opposition side or on the government side, has every right to ask questions of ministers in the House. Surely, Mr. Speaker, you are not saying that because I am sitting over here and not over there that I am not going to be recognized to ask questions of the ministers of the government or of the Premier when I want to. If that is so, Mr.

Speaker, you are taking away some of my rights, and L282 March 21, 1988 Vol XL I strongly disagree with that. So far in this session I have seen no very major, intelligent questions asked on issues in this Province. There has not been one question yet on the fisheries, not one question on the hydro development and other matters. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to a time when I am sitting here and I see no intelligent questions asked of the government on issues and policies, I am going to stand and ask questions of the ministers. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: To the point of order, I recognize the difficulty the Speaker has in terms of recogn~z~ng when there are 16 Opposition members, and I realize that we will certainly get a much smaller proportion of it. I would just ask the Speaker to bear in mind that it is helpful to ask the supplementaries as well so it would, from our prospective, be much more worthwhile for us to be recognized slightly more not at the end of the Question Period each time, which has happened at several occasions since the House has re-opened.

The real reason I rose on the Point of Order is Rule 366 on Page 134 of the 5th Edition of Beauchesne, which I believe is the operative one. It says, "Questions may be asked of private No. 6 R282

Members only under strict limitations." Virtually the only question will be in their capacity as Chairman of a committee and it is for this reason that I rose when the member for St. John's North (Mr. J. Carter) wished to ask a question of the Leader of the official Opposition, which I believe was totally out of order since he was not being asked anything in terms of being a Chairman of a committee. As I understand it, the only people who can be asked questions normally are Ministers of the Crown for the responsibilities that they are currently engaged in.

As for everybody else, they are not to be asked questions unless they happen to be Chairman of a committee that is in the process of deliberating. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the President of Council. MR. SIMMS: I am getting a little bit confused now. This is a different point of order, I gather. With respect to the first issue raised by Your Honour, I must be perfectly frank with Your Honour and say that I did not quite understand what Your Honour was trying to say, so I will reserve comment on it perhaps until I get a chance to read Hansard.

With respect to the Point of Order the member for Menihek raises, the fact of the matter is the member from St. John's North stood in his place, asked permission to ask a question of the Leader of Opposition and in fact, gave a reference from Beauchesne as to why he should be allowed · to do L283 March 21, 1988 Vol XL so. Your Honour clearly heard that and understood it and Your Honour clearly allowed the question to be asked.

Therefore, regardless of what the bon . member from Menihek thinks of what transpired, the fact of the matter is we have a precedent here in the House set now where private members here or over there may ask at least a question of the Leader of the Opposition, and that is the way we view the matter that transpired a little earlier today. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The point of order is well taken, I think I made it clear that hon. members on my left, the government House members, have a perfect right to ask questions, in fact, it was a right that I exercised myself when I was in the back bench. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Before I sit down there is just one of our Standing Orders I would like to read. It is Standing Order No. 31, Paragraph (f), "The Speaker's rulings relating to oral questions are not debatable or subject to appeal." Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, before all the press leave and scatter about to their various duties, I want to table this for honourable members. As a matters of fact, I have another document here in response to answers to questions that were given last week on the Sprung No. 6 R283

Project. I have a document here which quotes, and this was in July, 1986, a price for the facility of $13 million. It is gone up since a half hour ago from $11 to $13 million. I have a document here now which quotes $13 million. I also want to table, as a result of questions asked last _ week, Mr. Speaker, the

summary of progress payments from Newfoundland Enviroponics to the Sprung Group of Companies. I have had all of that taken off for the honourable members opposite.

I also have copies to be dist~ibuted to all honourable members of the complete construction cont~act, "Construction Agreement dated June 25, 1987 Between Sprung Environmental Space Enclosures Limited And the Sprung Instant Structures Limited And Sprung Sales Limited And Newfoundland Enviroponics Limited." I am sure the press now will scrutinize this in all its detail since they are so eager to make simplistic comments and inflate it into something which it is not. This is anothe~ legal document, Mr. Speaker.

This is the thirty-page construction cont~act and I commend it to the honourable members opposite and to the press to read over and to report on comprehensively. There are three things here: One is a complete

summary of all progress payments on the project; two, at thirty pages, the complete document on the construction contract, and also I have a two page thing which, no doubt, will interest the p~ess, because now, I imagine, they will carry the two pages more than the thirty pages, of a $825,000 loan guarantee from L284 March 21, 1988 Vol XL the Government to Sprung that was done in December.

Because, under normal circumstances, under the Mechanics Lien Act, there is a ten percent hold back, but in this case, because of the structure of the arrangements, the ten percent were held back from the $14.5 million which meant that the Company would be out close to $1.4 million in the delivery of the project, which was done and which will expire in June. There is a full explanation on that.

So there are three things here: There are the progress payments; there is the complete construction agreement between the parties; and the~e is an $825,000 loan guarantee to cover $1.4 million which was held back f~om the Sprung Group of Compani~s which would have reduced the project cost from $14.5 million minus $1.4 million. I table that for honourable members. The project cost has gone up to $13 million. I hope the press really read all of this information. Petitions MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Naskaupi. MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition, Mr.

Speaker, which is worded identically to the one presented last Tuesday on the 15th and it deals with the ~oad between the Upper Lake Melville area and Churchill Falls, and specifically that part of the road. No. 6 R284

There were some references, I guess, in the discussion on the last petition about the Trans-Labrador Highway. While the portion that I am concerned with, commonly called the Freedom Road, may very well become part of the total road network in Labrador, I am specifically referring to, and I was then, to the portion between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Churchill Falls. I will not read the prayer of the petition, in this case, Mr .

Speaker, but just to indicate that this particular petition was placed on the counter in the Town Office of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and sixty-seven people affixed their signatures during the period of time it was there. I would like to make some comments though with respect to what was said in the House last Tuesday in connection with the petition that was presented at that time. In my comments on the petition, I made some comments dealing with the inadequacy of the annual maintenance, but over and above the annual maintenance, there is a need for some capital dollars to go into the road as well.

There was a response from the Minister Responsible for Northern Development and some of that information is not, perhaps, as clear as it might have been, Mr. Speaker. I will make reference to some of the comments of the member for Torngat Mountains, the Minister Responsible for Northern Development (Mr. Warren) where he said, in the context of correcting some conunents that I made, that indeed there was some brush cutting done along the road.

He perhaps did not hear what I L285 March 21, 1988 Vol XL said in my comments, that there was indeed some brush cutting along the sides of the road, but it had been done too late in the year and was far from adequate.

He also made some comments about the Joint Councils in Labrador having taken the unanimous position that the road would start on the West end, and he meant the Trans Labrador Highway, which goes out to the Quebec/Labrador border, and not the portion of the road that I was even referring to in the petition, and that the Joint Councils of Labrador, not to be confused with the Combined Councils of Labrador, had taken a unanimous decision to start on the Westward end and work towards Happy Valley-Goose Bay. That is not entirely correct, Mr.

Speaker, and he should check his chronological sequence to make sure when he and I were both on the council, when I got off the council, and when any particular decisions were taken. I can assure this House now that there was never a resolution passed, to my knowledge, in my presence, in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay town council chambers, while I was presiding as mayor, saying that we will start on the West end and come towards Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Now, .I want to make that point.

However, having criticized me in what he believed was my wish to see the road start on both ends, he then went on to say himself, "I believe too that we should start at both ends." I find that somewhat confusing, that he would criticize me for what he believed was my wish to start on both ends and then, a few minutes later, Mr. Speaker, say he also believes the No. 6 R285

road should start on both ends. It is unfortunate that the minister is not here at the moment. He is up in Naskaupi district to experience the hospitality of the heart of Labrador. He is not here to hear my . comments, but perhaps he will read them. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The bon. member's time has elapsed. MR. KELLAND: May I have leave for just a couple of comments? MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave? SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave. MR. KELLAND: Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: By leave. MR. KELLAND: I want to say, I suppose, in wrapping up, Mr.

Speaker, a sort of geographical comment to the Minister Responsible for Northern Development that he should be aware, of course, having lived in Labrador quite a few years and having represented one of the districts for quite a few years, that the Lake Melville area is certainly not on one end of what will eventually become, hopefully, the transportation network in Labrador, the Trans . Labrador Highway. Indeed, Naskaupi district is the center of Labrador, geographically, I guess, and virtually, and if the member for L286 March 21, 1988 Vol XL Torngat Mountains (Mr.

Warren) was really concerned about whether or not the road should start here or there, he should be concerned that if you want to start on one end, he could start in his own district, and perhaps start at Makkovik, which is only ninety miles from Northwest River, which rests in my district. So, when he is talking about starting on both ends, I have never participated in a resolution which said that, and he should be fully aware when you start on both ends, that phrase does not talk about the middle. To reiterate, Mr.

Speaker, I was talking about what is called the Freedom Road f~om Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Churchill Falls, which in inadequately maintained and not nearly enough dollars are put into it to upgrade. I am looking for some support from the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Doyle). Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. MR. GILBERT: Mr.

Speaker, I thought it was customary that the members opposite would address this, but in view of the fact that they are not, I would like to support my colleague as he presented this petition from the sixty-seven people of Happy Valley Goose Bay. It is not surpr-ising to me or any members opposite that there are problems with the Freedom Road, as there are with so many other roads in Newfoundland. I No. 6 R286

guess it was pointed out in the Auditor General's Report when he said there was a lack of policies and procedures and guidelines for paving, any kind of maintenance or upgrading to highways in Newfoundland and Labrador. I can understand why the minister would be a bit reluctant to get up and address this because of the fact that there is really not a policy in place by members opposite to do anything about the highway system in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have heard of a study that was done for the construction industry of Canada. It says 80 per cent of the highways in Newfoundland and Labrador are defective.

I would submit that the Freedom Road would possibly be more defective than 80 per cent. There does not seem to be any plan in place. This is an example again of a government that is tired and has outlived its usefulness. Everything we seem to point out when it comes to the operation and maintenance of a highway system in Newfoundland, the government members opposite do not seem to have a plan that is able to set a priority and follow it through with any kind of a follow-up for doing the proper maintenance or proper upgrading and construction on the roads in the Province of Newfoundland.

We have heard the Newfoundland construction industry say that $180 million a year would be required to do proper maintenance on the highway system in Newfoundland. Yet about three years ago at this time we heard the han. the Premier and his ministers out there was an election on at that time - telling people they were just in the process of signing a highways L287 March 21, 1988 Vol XL agreement that was going to be an agreement to end all agreements.

Around the 27 or the 29 of March, 1985, I think, it was going to be signed and at that time they were talking about highways in Labrador; they were talking about highways in the Province of Newfoundland proper; they were talking about Trans-Canada Highways, and they were talking about a secondary roads agreement.

We find out that when it was signed it was a five year agreement for $180 million, when the construction industry has maintained that amount of $180 million is needed on an annual basis for about ten years to bring our highways in Newfoundland anywhere near the standard that we have in the rest of Canada. As I pointed out to the minister before or his predecessor, every year when the budget comes down I ask the question to the Minister of Transportation concerning the number of kilometers of gravel roads in this Province, I am told that there is 3, 300 kilometers of gravel roads in this Province.

Up until last year the answer was 'Yes, there was still 3,300 kilometers of gravel road.' So this would point out to me, to make a point my colleague made when he talked about the Happy Valley - Goose Bay petition, there has been no progress made by this government. It is a government that stands still and the Auditor General points out that it has no policy in place to deal with roads on a regular basis. I think it is only fair that the Minister should respond to petitions when they are made to the Department of Transportation.

The Premier made promises during that election, as did the members Opposite, about what they were No. 6 R287

going to do to the highways and what they were going to do when the agreement was signed. Nothing was done and we still find ourselves in the position that the Freedom road is now the same as it was in 1985, as is the Burgeo road and as are many other roads in the province, or all the roads in the province. There has not been any progress made and again, it is an example of a government who is tired and have outlived its usefulness. It has not got a policy in place for the maintenance of the Province's roads. MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the minister of transportation. MR.

DOYLE: to stand to speak petition Mr. Speaker, I am pleased for a moment or two and generally to the presented by the hon. Naskaupi (Mr. Kelland). member for As I indicated to the hon. gentlemen a couple of days ago, Mr. Speaker, when he presented a similar petition in the House, it is the intention of the Department of Transportation, and I think that intention is clear, to pave every road in the province that we can over time, but it has to be realized as well, Mr.

Speaker, that there is not enough funding in any one particular year to address all the problems that we have in the province and all of the roads that need to be upgraded and paved. With respect to the Trans-Labrador Highway, Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the hon. member for Burgeo - L288 March 21, 1988 Vol XL Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Gilbert) would say that absolutely no progress has been made since we started on the Trans-Labrador Highway since nothing could be further from the truth in that statement. On the Trans-Labrador Highway, Mr. Speaker, we have 138 km of road under tender to date.

I do not know if that can be construed as no progress or not, but I think that is a great deal of progress, Mr. Speaker, that we are making on the Trans-Labrador Highway - 138 km to date have gone under tender. Government recognizes the need to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway. It is a very, very important link and the people of Labrador are very, very anxious to see that road completed. As I indicated the other day, such an undertaking is certainly beyond the province's financial capabilities to do alone.

It does need extensive federal participation, and to date the province has extended approximately $30 million on the Trans-Labrador Highway. ERDA, to date we have spent $15 and $9 will be spent in 1989-90, and this is in addition to the $16 million in an earlier agreement to construct the

section of the Tolt Road from Wabush to Ross Bay Junction. Mr. Speaker, while $24. 5 mill ion, $25 million might fall far short of the required funding to complete the road, which will cost roughly about another $19 million, while it falls far short, we are committed to acquiring or getting as much funding as we possible can for that particular road. As the hon. gentlemen is aware as well, already a construction contract has been awarded for a kilometer 112 to kilometer 138 to Western No. 6 R288

Construction. That is another indication, Mr. Speaker, of the government's commitment to this particular project and we will do all we can in the future to acquire as many dollars as we can for it. MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A new petition? MR. FUREY: A new petition, Mr. Speaker, yes. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for st. Barbe. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to present a petition from four hundred and fifty people in the Northern

section of the district of St. Barbe with respect to the conditions of the roads in that particular area of this district. Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition says: "We, the undersigned, do hereby make a petition to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to request that the Branch Road leading from main Highway 430 to New Ferolle, a distance of roughly ten miles, be paved in the very near future. "We feel we have every right to ask that funds be made available this present year for this purpose. Other areas of the Province have been getting their roads paved and we feel our turn has now come.

L289 March 21, 1988 Vol XL "Our children have to travel over this rough gravel road to attend high school. Fish trucks and other transport trucks travel over this road every day and the general public use it continuously for everyday work. "We ask that careful consideration be given to this petition and that you do your utmost to grant our request. "Also, we, the people Bartletts Harbour, Castor River North, Reefs Harbour, Shoal Cove West, and New Ferolle now call upon the Premier of this Province to live up to its 1985 campaign promise to upgrade and pave the branch roads to these communities.

"This promise was made nearly three years ago and we believe now is the time for the Premier to leave up to this promise." Mr. Speaker, I asked the Premier about that very promise which he made in St. Barbe before 250 partisan supporters on April 1, 1985, the day before the last election. I asked it in this House last year in May. I said to the Premier, 'What happened to those promises that you made to those people to pave their road?' He promised to get back to me, Mr. Speaker. But then what did he do.

He shut down the legislature for nearly ten months, still no response, still no answer, still no living up to the commitment made by this Premier to those people. Mr. Speaker, it is not a Liberal member standing here voicing the concerns of those people alone. It was 250 partisan supporters, conservative supporters, who stood there, 250 witnesses who heard the Premier say, and let me quote, Mr. No. 6 R289

Speaker, for the record from the press clippings from that day: "Before a crowd of 250 partisan supporters at the St. Barbe Motel, Mr. Peckford announced a $900,000 project which would pave the roads to the communities of New Ferolle, Shoal Cove West, Reefs Harbour, Bartletts Harbour and Castor North this summer," this summer meaning the summer of 1985. Mr.

Speaker, it is pretty sad when nearly three years later I, as a member, have to come before this legislature, before my peers, and tell the legislature, all 51 members, that the Premier did not live up his promise, did not live up to his commitment and did not live up to getting back to me with answers that I asked on this question ten months ago. Mr. Speaker, he did not say I will try to pave the roads; he did not say I might pave the roads; he did not say I will try to find some money to pave the roads. He stated specifically, Mr . Speaker, he named the communi ties , the Premier did himself.

He said, • I will pave Bartletts -Harbour; I will pave New Ferolle; I will pave Shoal Cove West; I will pave Reefs Harbour and I will pave Castor River North. Not only that, I will now commit nearly a million dollars,' nine hundred and some odd thousand dollars he committed, Mr-. Speaker to paving it. Mr. Speaker, that money was on the books of the budget of this Province prior to the election. Now the real question is: Where did that $1 million disappear to? We have the Minister of Transportation (Mr.

Doyle) going to stand in his place in a minute and he is going to talk about this L290 March 21, 1988 Vol XL petition. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, just to clue up, he is going to be asking, the Minister of Finance is, for $125 million. He wants us to approve $125 million in Interim Supply before March 31, over the next couple of weeks. Now, I ask the minister to stand in his place and to tell this hon.

House where did the $1 million go that was promised on April 1, 1985 and when is he, as the Premier's emissary in that ministry, going to live up to that shocking negligence and broken promise that this Premier uttered in St. Barbe before his own supporters? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon . member for the Strait of Belle Isle, I would like to welcome to the gallery, Mayor Sam Hoddinott and a delegation from Hawke's Bay. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Transportation. MR. DOYLE: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased again to speak to the petition presented by the bon. member for St. Barbe, and to say, as well, I am familiar with the problems in that particular area, having travelled those roads personally over the last couple of years. The comments that I made a few No. 6 R290

minutes ago with respect to the previous petition at'e no less applicable to the hon. gentleman's petition in that it is the intention of the Depat'tment of Transportation to pave every single road in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I know I have said that before, but it bears repeating. The hon. gentleman gives the impression that we are not concerned, as a government, about certain projects in his particular distt'ict, but I can assure the hon. member that we are very concerned.

As I said a moment ago, the depat'tment just does not have enough money in any one given year to address all the problems that come along. Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out as well that since 1979 the department has built 2,200 kilometers of t'Oad costing the taxpayers of this Province $234 million, and a lot of those projects have been undertaken in the districts of hon. members opposite. Mr . Speaker, the hon. gentleman stands and he gives the impt"ession that none of these projects have been undertaken in his district or in hon. members' districts opposite and nothing can be further from the truth. Mr.

Speaker, we will continue to do the very best we can with the limited resources available. Hopefully over time all the problems can be addressed. MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. L291 March 21, 1988 Vol XL SOME HON. MEMBERS: Heat', hear! MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of this petition so ably presented by my colleague from St. Barbe. I suppose, Yout' Honour, it would be in ot'det' to pt'aise the hon. the Premiet' for making that flying visit into Bartletts Harbour and Reefs Harbour and Castor River Not'th and New Ferolle.

Quick as a flash, he recognized the problem that school children were having when they are bused - I should say trucked, it would probably be a more appropriate word, Mr. Speaker over these roads in the Spring when the frost is coming out of the ground, in the Fall when the Fall rains make the roads practically impassable, and in the Winter when the few maintenance employees of the Department of Highways try to keep that road open . The Premier, in his wisdom, recognized that quick as a flash and he needs to be praised. Mr.

Speaker, unfortunately, as soon as the Premier left he forgot immediately what he had promised to the people of Reefs Harbour and the people of New Ferole and the people of Shoal Cove West. Therefore I cannot maintain my praise beyond a few fleeting minutes. Mr. Speaker, belief you me, he was slapping it out, as Alan Bock says here: "And," says the Premier, "if we have money left over," Peckford declared, "we wi 11 do the Loop Road as well , " a reference to the gravel roads through the communities of Forresters Point and Black Duck Cove. Not only, Mr. Speaker, did he see No. 6 R291

the need of doing this road, but was slapping the money over. I am surprised with such vehemence on the part of the Premier that the whole Northern Peninsula, roads and non-roads, and bogs and ponds, that the whole thing is not buried in asphalt, synonymous with Pompei, Mr. Speaker, obviou.sly. MR. SIMMS: That was the Liberal style. MR. DECKER: Obviously we know what the Premier was up to, political nonsense which he is so famous for, political foolishness which he had no intention whatsoever of delivering, Mr. Speaker. He is known for that. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

DECKER: He can · try every way to slither out from in under it, the fact to the matter is he made a promise of $1 million. The issue here is not what the Transportation Minister gets up and talks about, whether or not we have the money. That is not the issue. The money was committed, $1 million by the Premier himself. No 'maybe' or 'if we have the money,' it was an absolute commitment. So it is silliness. The Minister of Transportation is begging the issue when he tries to get up and say 'Oh, we do not have the money' or 'We have $160 million requirement,' and all this silliness that is totally irrelevant.

The fact is, as I heard my colleague so many times in this House get up and point out, there was $1 million allocated to that particular road L292 March 21, 1988 Vol XL network. Where did it go, Mr. Speaker? Is that some of that money is gone to the Sprung project? Is that why the people on the Northern Peninsula must truck their children over the worst road in the country to get them to school, because the million dollars was wasted in the Sprung project? Was the money taken for the Round Pond Road, Mr. Speaker? Is that where it went?

Was this the money that was used to send practically all of Cabinet over to China for a trip, Mr. Speaker, after which we were going to see great things? Is that where this money went? Is this money gone to pay for stretch limousines? Is this money gone to pay for $1,000 a night motel rooms? Is this where the money is gone? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. YOUNG: He is not petition. MR. DECKER: speaking to this Look, Mr. up with longer. Speaker, we cannot put this foolishness any As for the people of New Ferole, my colleague refers to 250 partisan supporters. He could well have said 250 former - SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DECKER: former partisan supporters, because that is what is happening on the Northern Peninsula today. My friend and colleague for St. Barbe (Mr. Furey) barely squeaked in with fourteen votes. No. 6 R292

MR. FUREY: Sixteen. MR. DECKER: Sixteen votes. In the next election, Mr. Speaker, it will be more like 1, 600 votes of a sweep. That is what is going to happen up there - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DECKER: - because those bon. gentlemen are making big, sweeping promises which they have no intention of keeping. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. DECKER: The jig is up, Mr. Speaker.

They can talk out of both sides of their mouth all they like, the fact of the matter is they have let down the people of New Ferole, they have let down the people of Castor River North and they should be ashamed of themselves if they were capable of showing shame. But I say to them, enough is enough, and I say to Castor River, hang in there a little bit longer because it is not going to be much longer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Orders of the Day MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we will be doing L293 March 21, 1988 Vol XL Motion 1, Interim Supply. MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Finance. MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant Governor. MR. SPEAKER: This is to the hon. Minister of Finance, dated March 20, 1988. "I, the Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending the 31st. day of March, 1989, by way of Interim Supply and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly. Signed, J. McGrath, Lieutenant Governor." The bon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together with the bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! It is moved and seconded that the message, together with the bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply. All those in favour, 'Aye' . Those against, 'Nay'. Carried. On motion, that the House resolve No. 6 R293

itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair. Committee of the Whole on Supply MR. CHAIRMAN (Greening) : Order, please! MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. SIMMS: Just for the edification of members, so everybody is aware of the practice we use in this particular debate, the general practice that has been accepted for some time now is that the Minister of Finance would lay down the resolution and speak for fifteen minutes, and the member opposite who will be speaking on behalf of the Opposition would have the same amount of time.

From then on, the debate would go on ten minutes, alternating, or whichever way Your Honour decides to recognize then. Perhaps the Opposition Leader could confirm that understanding. MR. TULK: House is his That is exactly the procedure, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The han. the Minister of Finance. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to introduce this L294 March 21, 1988 Vol XL motion to grant Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

The amount that is being requested is a paltry sum of $787,892,900, which is just slightly above the Interim Supply request for the fiscal year 1987 - 1988. Mr. Speaker, it is really quite a routine procedure, in that obviously funds are required to carry on the ongoing programmes of government for the first number of weeks or months of the year until the annual budget, which I have already indicated to the House I will be introducing on Tuesday, March 29, is . introduced to the House and debated thoroughly and given final approval.

Until that time, of course, the Province needs funds to pay salaries and pay ongoing costs of operating services to the people of our Province and other responsibilities of government. The figure that you are seeing requested, of course, represents approximately one-quarter of the annual amount that is required to operate the Province. Basically it covers a three-month period, to take us up to July 1, 1988. Again I indicate that it is primarily for ongoing p~ogrammes and does not normally provide any new funding for new programmes.

There are some exceptions, primarily of capital projects that are required to begin, or at least to have funding allocated to them prior to 1 July, specifically, so that, in fact, construction projects can be tendered and awarded. Under the Financial Administration Act, of course, government does not have authority to award contracts unless funding actually is in place. So unless we provide No. 6 R294

funding now, if you assume that the budget was not to be approved until sometime in June or July, then we could not even award any tenders for a construction programme and, of course, that would be a serious difficulty for the construction industry in our Province which.

Due to the very short construction season, that would very seriously set back the construction industry so this House has adopted in the past as a matter of course that Interim Supply does provide funding for certain capital programmes and certain programmes that are ongoing, committed, or carry-over projects, particularly capital projects from last year, those funds that are required to complete programmes that were committed last year and work that is carried over to this year. So we obviously have to have funding available so that work can continue. I will just list some of the special items, Mr.

Chairman, that we do not normally consider as simple ongoing programmes, including, of course, an amount for inflation and so forth. There will be a road construction programme. The total, Mr. Chairman, under capital account would be $6 7, 821,000: Improvement and Construction to Roads would be $15,580,000. Again, these are programmes and construction projects that would be tendered and awarded prior to 1 July.

Road and Bridge Rehabilitation would be $12,890,000; Bridges and Causeways $1,800,000; Highways under Transport Canada, this is the federal/provincial highway agreement, $26 million; Forest Resource Roads $2,181,600; Airstrips, which are 100 per cent federal, and these are primarily contracts which are being carried L295 March 21, 1988 Vol XL over, $3,419,400; Fisheries Initiatives under ERDA approximately $5 million; Forestry Nursery Buildings, under the Forest Research Development Agreement $588,000; Labrador Depot Buildings for Native peoples $362,800, for a total of $6 7, 821,800.

These are capital programmes. There will be two items under current account, Mr. Chairman, which are new initiatives which cannot be considered as simply ongoing of existing programmes.

First of all, the SERC committee, that is the Special Expenditure Review Committee, we advised when we set up that committee that we would be using efficiency experts in certain areas and recently it was advised, I think, that the Department of Public Works and the Department of Social Services, both, will be undergoing some progranune evaluations using these committees, and we have allocated $755,000 so that contracts can be entered into with a finn of efficiency experts to carry on with that necessary work.

Then, with the Department of Fisheries, under ERDA there will be $2,414,000, and that is primarily in the harvesting operations, aquaculture, processing operations, marketing and further planning required for 1988-89. Of course it is important to start those initiatives so that the results of them are in place prior to the fishing season. Mr. Chairman, those are the bones of the Interim Supply Bill.

As I have indicated, other than these items that I have just listed down, there is really nothing new in here other than the ongoing programmes, and these are programmes and expenditures merely relating to salaries and other No. 6 R295

items of normal expenditure for government. There is really nothing in there other than the seven or eight items that I listed which are merely capital and which allows us to move ahead and do that necessary work. So perhaps, I will stop there, Mr. Chairman. We can respond to quesitons from opposite. All ministers, no doubt, are prepared to deal with items on their particular departments as questions arise and we will try to provide as much information as we can, recognizing, of course, that without getting into details of what may be contained in the - AN HON. MEMBER: The member for Gander is not back. MR.

WINDSOR: He is not back? And you want me to keep going until he gets back. AN HOM. MEMBER: Give him time to get back. MR. WINDSOR: Time to get back! Well, Mr. Chairman, I will say, recognizing that there is limitations obviously in the types of information that we can put forward, that I am sure the first question that will come up will be, Well, what is all this money for roads and where are you going to spend it? And the answer to that is very clear, Mr. Chairman, that those decisions have not been made yet.

It is during the months of April and May, generally, that the Province goes through that process of deciding where road expenditures will be made for this coming year, so it is impossible for us to answer that type of question. L296 March 21, 1988 Vol XL I am looking forward to bringing down my first budget next week. I guess it is eight days away before we come down with a budget, and we will see how the economy of the Province performed over the past year, what our predictions are for next year, and all the other exciting things that are normally contained in a budget speech.

No doubt hon.gentlemen opposite are looking forward to that with great anticipation. We can do away with all of this, of course, if the Opposition are prepared to accept my budget next week and pass it without debate on the 29th so that we can carry on with normal expenditure programmes. But I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that they are not going to want to do that. I know they have great confidence in me, but I would not go quite that far, to expect them to approve that amount of funding.

So we will have to go through Interim Supply and have some funds voted to Her Majesty before the end of the fiscal year so that the ongoing requirements of government can be met. So I will leave it at that, Mr. Chairman, and allow my friends opposite to perhaps ask questions. MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member from Gander. MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear! MR. BAKER: I also look forward to the minister's budget and I can assure him that we will do our best to see if he is being straightforward No. 6 R296

and complete in his analysis of the situation in the province today. What we are seeing here, Mr. • Chairman, and I should explain this in some detail, is an exercise that shows the contempt with which this government holds the House of Assembly. That is what we are seeing here, nothing short of that. The government is trying to set the stage for a little game that they tend to go through every year at this time. The Minister of Finance is asking the House now to approve almost $800 million of Interim Supply, which is one-quarter of his total budget, and he is asking us to do this in three sitting days.

According to the programme for this House outlined previously, we have today and Tuesday for Interim Supply, Wednesday is Private Members' day, Thursday and Friday for the Meech Lake Accord, and when we come back the next Monday, Interim Supply, if it is not passed by that time, and then Tuesday the budget. By that time we are into Easter, and by that time we are at year's end. So you see what a position that puts us in. We have approximately six hours of debate on an Interim Supply Bill, and this is the key, Mr. Chairman, that is being put forward before we even know what the minister's budget is like.

We are being asked to approve one-quarter of the expenditures for the whole year simply - MR. J. CARTER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. the member for St. John's North. L297 March 21, 1988 Vol XL MR. J. CARTER: Mr. Chairman, the bon. the member for Gander is misleading this House. Now, I am sure it is not deliberate, so I am not accusing him of any wrongdoing, but he is misleading the House; he is suggesting that there is not enough time for proper scrutiny of the Interim Supply Bill.

His side is guilty of wasting a great deal of the time of the House with repetitious petitions. Now, if they can keep the petitions down to a normal level, then there will be lots of time for the Interim Supply Bill. MR. WELLS: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The bon. the Opposition. Leader of the MR. WELLS: I have watched particularly that bon. gentleman and others abuse the rules flagrantly and rise on points of order when there is no point of order, knowing there is no point of order, to interrupt bon. members opposite, and that is wrong.

We are going to be here forever if we continue on that way. Talk about delaying and time required! Unless there is a real point of order, bon. members should not do that. If there is a difference it is his address it. the time of MR. SIMMS: of opinion, then when turn to speak he can This is a waste of the House. Mr. Chairman, to that point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. No. 6 R297

MR. SIMMS: The bon. the Leader of the Opposition may think he is God, but I wi 11 guarantee you one thing, Mr. Chairman, he is not the Chairman, he is not the Speaker of the House. It is up to the Chairman to determine what is and what is not a point of order, not up to the Leader of the Opposition. MR. CHAIRMAN: To the point of order, there is no point of order. The bon. the member for Gander. MR. BAKER: Good ruling, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Finance is asking this House to approve one-quarter of his total budget before we even see the budget and before we have ample time to debate that budget. Now, Mr.

Chairman, members opposite have said it is a normal thing, it happens every year. 'It is routine procedure' , I believe the Minister of Finance said. Well, it is about time, Mr. Chairman, we got away from this routine procedure. I referred in the beginning of my conunents to a little game that they start to play at this time of year and I think this is much more serious than a game. Hon. members opposite are admitting that what they have been doing is steamrolling through the House huge sums of money without debate on the expenditures. Now, this is not just a small amount.

This is not an amount of money to keep the government going for a couple of weeks, until we can finish a budget debate. That is not what it is. There are huge amounts of money involved here. We are into this little game again, Mr. Chairman; we will give L298 March 21, 1988 Vol XL the Opposition a little bit of time, we will put an Interim Supply Bill in and then, all of a sudden, we are going to be up against the end of the fiscal year. Meanwhile, the Opposition still has not had a chance to examine properly the expenditures that the minister is asking for.

Members opposite are going to say, 'Well, you have got to pass the Interim Supply Bill, because if you do not pass the Interim Supply Bill we are not going to be able to pay our teachers; the social service recipients are not going to be able to get their money on time. The nasty Opposition is now preventing these people from getting their proper due. It is the Opposition that is doing this. ' Mr. Chai man, I have played this game for two years and I am disappointed to see that we are into that same situation again. This could have been very easily avoided.

The House could have been called together a month earlier, very easily. We were out for eight months at that point. That is long enough. The minister could have had his budget ready. It could have been presented. We could have gone through a proper parliamentary procedure, Mr. Chairman, of examining the budget, suggesting changes, and then having the vote on the budget. We could have gone through that and everything could have been okay by the end of the fiscal year . That is what could have been done. But, no, once again we see this game being played out and it is about time, Mr. Chairman, that this changed.

I was hoping, with a new Minister of Finance, that it might. But, I suppose, the real reason, maybe, is a political one. As I pointed out in my speech on another No. 6 R298

occasion in this House, this government is making decisions purely on the basis of party politics. One of the reasons they did not want the House open was because there was a by-election coming, the Waterford/Kenmount by-election, and they did not want to face the embarrassment of Question Period. ~hey did not want to that while there was a by-election on, so they decided we will get the by-election over with, we will delay opening the House a month and then we will play our little game with the Interim Supply Bill. Well, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to point out that little trick obviously did not work in the case of the Waterford/Kenmount by-election. It did not work! They would have been much better calling the House together, getting the financial situation straight, presenting a budget, and then having a proper analysis of that budget. What the government is doing amounts to blackmail.- SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

BAKER: What the government is doing is saying to the Opposition, 'Pass this Supply Bill without adequate debate, pass this Supply Bill without adequate examination or we will go to the people of this Province and hang it over your heads.' That is what they are saying, and that is similar, Mr. Chairman, to blackmail. MR. J. CARTER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order, the hon. the member for St. John's North. L299 March 21, 1988 Vol XL MR. J.

CARTER: In keeping with what the Leader of the Opposition suggests as a raised level of debate, I think we should request either from the member that he take back that imputation of blackmail, or, I think, more importantly and more usefully, we request . that the Leader of the Opposition request his minion to take back that statement. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. member for Gander to withdraw that remark, please. That is unparliamentary. MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I think Hansard will show that I said it was similar to blackmail. However, under direction from the Chair, I will withdraw that remark. Now, Mr.

Chairman, what the government is doing is they are saying to the Opposition, 'Pass this or else. ' And that is not proper. That is not the way to proceed. In a parliamentary democracy, you should not use the power you have as government to try to force hugh expenditures through the House of Assembly without proper consideration. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned proper consideration and maybe I am being a little harsh here. Maybe the questions that we have concerning this Interim Supply Bill can be handled satifactorily by the Minister of Finance.

Because, I suppose, in all fairness to the minister, if we have no great concerns over any of the amounts here, then there should be no reason why we should not pass the Interim Supply Bill. In fairness to the Minister of Finance, if we do have concerns about some of these headings and he can satisfy No. 6 R299

these concerns, then there is no reason why the Interim Supply Bill cannot get through in three days • debate. And that may happen, Mr. Chairman. I do not know. But I say to the government, and I say to the Minister of Finance that if there are problems with any of these Headings, if there are questions tha~ will not be resolved by the Minister of Finance within these three sitting days, then that presents a different situation, then we are at the point where we play out the final moves in the little game that I referred to.

That is where we play it out; that is where we will see what the response of members opposite is going to be; then we will see things being held over the head of the official Opposition in this House. But, I am hoping, the Minister of Finance can very adequately deal with any questions that we might have concerning any of these Headings. Now, there are, obviously, a lot of concerns that we have. We are talking about $800 million and we have not yet seen the budget. We do not really know what the breakdown is.

The minister was a little bit helpful in his opening comments and he gave a brief breakdown of one of the headings. I believe, Mr. Chairman, it was under Transportation. MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible). MR. BAKER: Yes. So maybe this Minister of Finance will be a little bit more forthcoming than the previous Minister of Finance in terms of the Interim Supply debate. The amount that is most striking, and the minister recognizes this because he referred to it as the L300 March 21, 1988 Vol XL amount allocated for the Department of Transportation, $124 million.

I am sure that the Transportation critic from this side will have many questions about that amount of money, particularly as it deals with priorities. Obviously, if the minster wants $124 million to spend in the , Department of Transportation, and if it is in fact an emergency, then the minister must have the priori ties outlined as to where the expenditures will go. I am sure that our Transportation critic will get into quite some detail on that and I am sure he has some questions about it.

We heard in this House today that all of a sudden there is another $800,000 guaranteed to Sprung that nobody knew about before. On top of the other $2 million guarantee and on top of everything else that went into it, there is what looks like another $800,000 guaranteed loan. We do not know what is going on with regards to that project. There is money, $14 million, I believe, if I remember correctly, allocated to the Department of Development in here. Are there any amounts that are related to that project? We would like to see them.

We would, I am sure, like to ask questions in terms of Development and Tourism - $14 million of an emergency sum of money needed now. I can perhaps understand where the Department of Municipal Affairs needs its $30 million. I can understand that fairly well. The Department of Municipal Affairs, maybe, should have another $30 million or $40 million added on there, because if they are going to do one tenth of the things that need to be done in this Province, they should get No. 6 R300

started on them immediately. So in Municipal Affairs I can perhaps understand the $30 million. Social Services: If that is, in fact, one-tenth of their expenditure, and this is the difficulty, I say to the Finance Minister, in commenting on any of this, because we do not know at this point what percentage of the Head in that department it is. The $124 million is obviously more than 25 per cent of the Department of Transportation's amount. What about the $50 million in Social Services? Is that 20 per cent?

If it is 20 per cent, it would seem to me to be reasonable - 10 per cent, 15 per cent, or 20 per cent - the budget will be through at some point in time. Enough money to allow the government to proceed until the budget gets passed is perhaps reasonable. But is $53 million reasonable? Maybe it is. If it is, as I say, a satisfactory percentage of the total budget of the department, then fine. But if it is 75 per cent of the budget of the department, as I expect the Transportation amount is, then there is no need for it, it is totally unnecessary. We need to know these things. It would be nice.

In one previous year, anyway, I remember the budget was brought in first and we debated Interim Supply with the knowledge of what was in the budget. Now, that seems, to me, to be a much more sensible way to proceed. Because we can then, at least, discuss these Headings in a much more knowledgeable manner if we, in fact, know the budget ahead of time.

That is what is so different about this year and what I find so abhorrent, that we are asked to approve $800 million L301 March 21, 1988 Vol XL before we even have the budget to have a look at, to compare the amounts with and see where the government stress is this year. Where is the stress on expenditure? What kind of expenditure is going to happen? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon member's time is up. MR. BAKER: I would, in conclusion, Mr.

Chairman, say to the government and to the Minister of Finance that I suppose there is a possibility that three days may be enough, providing the proper answers are forthcoming. But, I would say to him and to the government, that this is not a proper way to proceed, the proper way to proceed is as I outlined earlier. I was hoping that this year the government would proceed in a proper manner. Obviously, they have not. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WELLS: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. WELLS: Mr.

Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. the member for Gander. I will not repeat them; he has adequately stated the position. But there are a few things that I do want to say. We are dismayed and surprised to see the kinds of amounts that he is talking about, when you relate it to last year's No. 6 . R301

Budget under some of the Headings, and we need an explanation. We are not prepared to just accept it on face value, and we will want some explanation of the detail. Not only is it our right to do so, it is our responsibility to require that, and to the extent that we vote on it and approve of it without requiring that, we fail, I believe, in our duty to do so. Now, after what we heard today in the House, what I would consider to be a shameless attempt at cover-up, I am not sure that we will be able to support this motion for Interim Supply.

I will detail what I refer to: I refer to the Premier's remarks about the necessity to give an additional $825,000 guarantee in order to enable Newfoundland Enviroponics, the joint venture company, to pay out a portion or all of the holdback before it would otherwise be required. Now, with respect, Mr. Chairman, that is totally wrong. It cannot be. If the government and the Sprung companies put into Newfoundland Enviroponics the money the Premier says they did, or the financial resources the Premier says they did, all you have to do is take a look at it.

If, in fact, the government put in its equity, as I believe the government did, of $3.5 million, if, in fact, the government put in its guarantee, as I believe they did, of $7 million, and if, in fact, the Sprung Group put in their equity, as has been said has been done, of $3.5 million and they put in their guarantee of $500,000, then that totals $14.5 million. If that is done, that totals $14.5 million.

Now, if they are holding back 10 per cent under the construction contract L302 March 21, 1988 Vol XL and the construction contract was for $14.325 million, that is $1,432,500, which means of the $14.5 million resources the company only needed $12,892,500. That is all it needed, because $1.432 million was held back. Why then do they need the additional $825,000 guarantee? They have a surplus amount of $1.5 million nearly.

The explanation is obviously a complete cover-up to cover the fact that the government gave this guarantee in December for $825,000, for who knows what purpose, without explaining it, without advising the public, or without advising the House that it was done, and they come in today with this complete concoction of an explanation that it somehow related to $825,000 being necessary to pay the mechanics lien holdback ahead of the time when it was required to be paid under the contract. DR. COLLINS: You have not read it. MR. WELLS: I have read it. DR. COLLINS: No, you have not. MR. WELLS: I have read it. DR.

COLLINS: That is not what it says. MR. WELLS: That is exactly what it says. DR. COLLINS: Read it again. MR. WELLS: It says that • The intent was that the construction contract was to No. 6 R302

be a self-financing transaction.' DR. COLLINS: Holdback. MR. WELLS: Yes. 'However, because all of the contract was subject to a 10 per cent holdback under The Mechanics Lien Act, this intent was not being fulfilled. ' Holdback by whom? Holdback by Newfoundland Enviroponics. Newfoundland Enviroponics had to holdback from the Sprung Companies $1,432 million, which mean they should have had that in cash or cash resources available to them, surplus to th~r ordinary needs if they were holding it back.

Now, if they decided to pay out $825,000 of that holdback, why did they need an addi tiona! guarantee if the equity and the loans were already in place? It cannot be justified, Mr. Chairman. Now, maybe there is some proper explanation of the $825,000, I do not know. Maybe there is one. But what is put forward in this statement clearly cannot be proper if, as has been stated earlier, both the government and the Sprung Group of Companies put into Newfoundland Enviroponics the amount the government says was put there. That leads further to the be lief that these funds have not been advanced in that way.

Otherwise, the additional $825,000 could not be required. And frankly, Mr. Chairman, until there is a fuller explanation of just what the government is doing with the taxpayers' money, the members on this side of the House are not going to be too pleased to vote in favour of the member's motion to provide Interim Supply. L303 March 21, 1988 Vol XL In this Province we have hospital beds which have been closed, we have school children and school boards in difficulty, and we have people in need of help to provide access to fresh water because the government does not have the resources. I do not mind, Mr.

Chairman, acknowledging - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. WELLS: Mr. Chait'II\an, I would ask you to order that I be heard in silence. I insist on it. Now would you please ask that? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The bon. the Opposition. AN HON. MEMBER: Leader of the It · may be Romper Room over there, but it is not over here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! MR. WELLS: Mr .

Chait'II\an, the affairs of the people of this Province and their interest in health and welfare and education and municipal and other services are too important to be joked and laughed about the way members opposite do. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WELLS: It is too important to make fun and laugh at. If I am wrong, deal with it in issue, deal with it on merit, do not deal with me. You may think I am a clown or a fool, No. 6 R303

you are entitled to that opinion, but the affairs of the people of this Province are too important to be handled by entertainers or people who pretend to be entertainers.- SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! MR. WELLS: Mr. Chairman, I say again - AN HON. MEMBER: It is not Romper Room over here. MR. WELLS: Then do not behave like it. MR. MATTHEWS: You are not allowed to behave at all. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WELLS: Mr. Chairman, if the members do not remain quiet and allow me to be heard, I would ask that you name them, have them removed. MR.

YOUNG: You might tell them what to do, but you are not telling me what to do. MR. WELLS: I am asking the Chairman to maintain order so that I can be properly heard in this House. The public of this Province do, and the hon. gentleman- SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WELLS: The people of do, and hon. Waterford/Kenmount members ought to L304 March 21, 1988 Vol XL remember that, too. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please! MR. WELLS: Now, Mr. Chairman, I would still like to deal with the issue of financial responsibility.

The government is responsible to answer to the taxpayers of this Province for what they do with their money and for the commitments they give, for the guarantees they give, and the government cannot come into this House and ask the House to vote $787 million in InteFim Supply SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, would you please name the bon. members who wi 11 not be quiet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! AN HON. MEMBER: We will name the whole House. We will all be saints. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. member's time is up. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WELLS: Mr.

Chairman, I remind hon. members that they have a responsibility to the taxpayers of this Province and we are going to see that they discharge it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. 6 R304

Hear, hear! MR. DINN: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Mines. MR. DINN: Mr. Chairman, what we just saw . in the House of Assembly was an example of what we are going to see. This is a House of Assembly not a courtroom, I tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition . SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DINN: We can act in here like politicians should act. We do not get rapped on the knuckles over here because we say a 'Hear, hear!' here, or a 'Hear, hear!' there'. That is not what it is all about. This is a debate that we carry on in here.

There is a cut and thrust of debate that we live and die for, freedom to speak, freedom to have an opinion. Not like we have over there. There is no freedom to have anything over there right now. SOME HOM . MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DINN: Last week, the hon. member for Naskaupi dared to say something in this House and he was nearly eaten by the Leader of the Opposition. Then he went out to the press and denied it when everybody in this House heard it, Mr. Chairman - the press gallery heard it, and he went out and denied it. MR. DOYLE: The member for St. Barbe, the same thing. L305 March 21, 1988 Vol xr. MR.

DINN: And the member for St. Barbe exactly the same thing. Mr. Chairman, this is a House of Assembly. There is nobody in this House going to be put down by the legalese from Duckworth Street - SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DINN: - the man who was bought and paid for to come in here - $126,000, bought and paid for, to come into this House. I have not been bought. MR. SIMMS: On the payroll. MR. DINN: On the payroll, that is right. First of all, he talks about Auditor Generals' reports.

This gentleman, this legalese, lawyer type over here, this learned gentleman, found a little loophole in the Conflict of Interest regulations so that he does not have to declare like I declare, like the hon. member for St. John' s East Extern dec lares, 1 ike the hon. member for Mount Pearl declares. He does not have to declare. Why? Because he is different . He has decided that he does not have to declare. The hon . the member for Port de Grave declared what he had. I declared what I had - not much, but I had to declare it anyway - but he is different somehow. MR. WINDSOR: He is above everybody else. MR.

DINN: That is right. MR. WELLS: A point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. No. 6 R305

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! A point of privilege, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. WELLS: This is the first time I have heard any suggestion that my statement of Conflict of ;rnterest somehow does not fully disclose, and it is utter nonsense! Everything that is required is disclosed, and anything that is not disclosed will be disclosed if it is required to be disclosed. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes? When? MR. WELLS: Now. Anytime, of course. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WELLS: Mr. Chairman, my privileges as a member of this House are being affected by these most improper statements. AN HON.

MEMBER: With your salary, they should be. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! MR. WELLS: I want to make the point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I have made cl e ar to this House, and this is the last time I I will speak on it, the last time I will address it. MR. MORGAN: You will speak on it. MR. WELLS: The member speaks on everything, but nobody pays any attention. L306 March 21, 1988 Vol XL Mr. Chairman, my salary as Leader of the Liberal Party, of $50,000 a year, is paid by the Liberal Party and I have no qualms whatsoever about accepting it and stating clearly - MR. MORGAN: (Inaudible). MR . CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Order, please! MR. WELLS: Would you, Mr. Speaker, name the hon. member for Bonavista South if he does not cease so that I can be heard. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have order, please? MR. DINN: There What time. is no he is MR. WELLS: point doing of privilege. is wasting my Mr. Chairman, these aspersions cast on my character by these improper remarks are unacceptable and I would ask you to order the hon. members to withdraw them. MR. SIMMS: To that point of privilege, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of privilege, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. SIMMS: Just for a moment to the point of privilege.

I think I have seen it all. I do not know if the Leader of the Opposition is caught up in what happened twenty-two years ago when he was a member of this Legislature, when there was very little time for debate, very little opportunity, when there was no Question Period allowed, and No. 6 R306

when nobody was allowed to speak. He is ver'Y touchy. What the bon. the Minister of Mines referred to in the debate is public knowledge, public information. He was certainly not casting aspersions on the bon. Leader of the Opposition. He, himself, has admitted to the charges and the comments that the Minister of Mines was making. He, himself, has admitted. He just got up a minute ago and said he was getting a $50,000 salary subsidy from the Liberal Party. That is all the Minister of Mines was saying. The Leader of the Opposition should not get too touchy. But above all else, Mr.

Chairman, clearly, as Beauchesne says in the Fifth Edition, paragraph 19 (1), "A dispute ar1s1ng between two bon. Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege." The Leader of the Opposition has by no means presented a case for privilege here in this House, on this particular occasion. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Chairman, to that point of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition. MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of bon. the member South. MR. MORGAN: privilege, the for Bonavista Mr.

Chairman, the fact is if the bon. gentleman feels that his rights as a member of the House of Assembly are being in any way stepped on or violated, he has brought it upon himself. Because the fact is, he is the only member of this House who is getting an extra salary from his own party to add to his salary as a member of L307 March 21, 1988 Vol XL the House of Assembly, in the Opposition. So, if a member is willing to accept payment from an unknown source, and I am saying unknown source, Mr. Chairman, because he says the Liberal Party.

The Liberal Party has to receive contributions from some sources, some more than others, and my information is that the Leader of the Opposition is receiving his salary from four, possibly six - there were six - prominent businessmen in this Province. Now, if that is the case, the Leader of the Opposition is leaving himself wide open to criticism from us in this House as well as from thousands of Newfoundlanders who are questioning it as well.

How dare he stand in the House and ask questions about budget expenditures, or contracts and projects, when, at the same time, he will not disclose to us, his peers in the House of Assembly, who is paying the extra money he is receiving! So, Mr. Chairman, if there is indeed any indication that the rights of this member are being stepped on in any way or form, it is because he brought about this violation on his own accord by agreeing to accept a special salary over and above the salary of his colleagues, on his own side, and any other member of this House. MR.

CHAIRMAN: To that point of privilege, I will have to refer that to the Speaker because we cannot deal with a point of privilege while in Committee. The hon. the Minister of Mines. MR. DINN: Mr. Chairman, now the hon. the No. 6 R307

Leader of the Opposition gets up and violates, really, my privileges as a member of this House by taking away from my time to speak. He has everyone over on his side muzzled, and now he wants to muzzle everyone on this side with spurious points of privilege and points of order. When he gets up, nobody else is allowed to speak; he looks for protection from the Chairman or from the Speaker. When I get up to say my few words in this House, which is my right, which is what the people of Pleasantville sent me here for, he gets up and tries to take my rights away. Now, Mr.

Chairman, at least there was a point of clarification; there was not a point of privilege. The Leader of the Opposition at least said, 'Well, I get $50,000 from the Liberal party. ' I do not know if he gets $50,000 from the Liberal Party or where he gets it. I do know he gets extra emoluments that are not entitlements as a member of the House of Assembly. I do not know what they are for. But I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, it would be wot"th our while to have a look at Standing Ordet" 77 and see how that sits. AN HON. MEMBER: Read it. MR. DINN: Standing Ot"der 77, the rules of order of this House, Mr.

Chairman, say: "The offer of any money or other advantage to any member of this House, for the pt"omoting of any mattet" whatsoever, depending or to be transacted in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanout"." Mr. Chairman, that is Standing Ot"der 77 of our House. I do not have to worry about what L308 Mat"ch 21, 1988 Vol XL I declare or what I do not declare. Mr. Chait"man, I do not have to wot"ry about who speaks and who does not speak in this House, or whether they interject across the float" of the House, because I really have nothing to hide.

I can stand here in this House and pretty well match wits Ot" anything else with anyone in this House - MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. member's time has elapsed. MR. DINN: and I have nothing to worry about or be scared about. SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave. MR. DINN: Obviously the Leadet" of the Opposition wants me to go on because . he realizes that he bt"oke into my time as a member. Mr. Chairman, obviously, by leave I can go on. AN HON. MEMBER: No leave. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ordet", please! The hon. member's time is up. MR. DINN: Oh, well, I will get back to it. I will have lots of time.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The bon. the member fot" Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. No. 6 R308

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Chairman, again we are being reminded of the level that members opposite want to put this debate in in Interim Supply. We heard the Leader of the Opposition get up to ask the question concerning the $825,000 more that was put in to the Sprung greenhouse affair without, we think, approval of the House or without notification. All of a sudden we are faced with the sort of debate that we have been used to in this House from members opposite. It must come as a sort of a surprise when they see that we have tried to change it.

We intend to carry on with the business that we were elected for and that is to ask the questions and provide the information to the people of Newfoundland. We do not have any reasons to have any smoke screens. Everytime we get up to ask some questions concerning the governing of the Province, all of a sudden there is a smoke screen brought up, so the honourable Minister, the last time I heard him make a speech, say that was six o'clock in the morning, one time a couple of years ago. I wonder if the same conditions prevail now or not.- MR. BAKER: We gave him leave that time. MR.

GILBERT: Yes, we gave him leave that time. But I assure you right now, Mr. Chairman,- MR. MORGAN: What is the real reason why you are in a front bench? MR. PATTERSON: All the rich men are in the front L309 March 21, 1988 Vol XL bench. MR. GILBERT: Because I am good. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. GILBERT: Anyhow, Mr.

Chairman, when we heard the Minister of Finance today talk about the Interim Supply Bill, which he was introducing, he said it was routine and my colleague from Gander questioned why it would be routine when they are asking to spend about a quarter of the proposed budget or a quarter of last year's budget without any explanations for the expenditure. As I understood it the first time I was here to debate Interim Supply, it was to be to carry the Province and I think the Minister of Finance said it today to carry the Province for the first few weeks until the budget is approved.

It usually gets down to the point when we are talking about salaries, · payments to social security recipients and the ordinary day to day running of the Province for a short period of time. We find that the Minister is going to bring out his budget on the 29th and he is going to then follow the normal course so by the middle of May the budget can be approved. The interesting thing for me, as the Transportation critic, is that I found that 75 percent of the total yearly budget is being asked to be approved in Interim Supply.

I know that the Minister of Finance alluded to the fact the roads contract had be given and let, if we wanted to get the work done early in the year and that No. 6 R309 ~ .::r.e.:

sort of stuff. What we are suspicious of over here is we find that 75 percent of that budget is asked to be approved on a carte blanche basis without any chance to question the headings or see where it is being spent. I notice we really do not know where this money is going. We know, as the Minister of Finance said, some of it is going to be spent on roads, and he gave some figures. I am going to ask the Minister if he would breakdown the $124, 958,300. We ask the Minister if he would give us a breakdown under the each of the headings showing where this is going to be spent.

The Minister said the reason that he must ask for Interium Supply for the highway bids is because the money has to be approved before he can accept bids. We are saying, Mr. Chairman, that there is lots of time to accept bids after the budget is presented on the 29th. As it is, we know there is going to be lots of time to accept bids. The point that we are making here, Mr.

Chairman, is are we going to get another repeat of the same way the minister and his department have acted before where the Auditor General said that there is no policy, or procedures, or guidelines relating to the upgrading or maintenance of roads in this province, through the Department of Highways? What he is asking us to do is, again, to condone a lack of policy on the part of his department for the funding of paving and maintenance of highways in this province. Mr .

Chairman, we are L310 March 21, 1988 Vol XL going to have some difficulty in approving this under these conditions this year because we have discovered that the priority system is just not there. I guess in the glaring example this year is the Round Pond road development. It is the one that sticks out in everybody's mind as to why we should not be giving approval for block funding. This is the reason that we on this side of the House are going to ask the minister if he would to break down the $124 mill-ion that he is asking for into under the Headings of the . Department of Transportation.

He is going to tell me that there is some amounts for contracts, and that is the one that we are going to be asking some further questions on because we feel that the people of Newfoundland deserve to know that the money that we are being asked to approve here now is going to be spent in a proper way and that the voters of Newfoundland are not going to be held up to have money spent in relation to the way they vote. We feel that this has been shown. The minister is gett