November

6, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 50

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we get to the routine proceedings I want to deal with

a point of order that was raised by the hon. Member for Mount Pearl on Friday in

which he suggested that the comments by the Premier were unparliamentary,

because as he stated, they accused the Leader of the Opposition of presenting

deliberately falsified information to this House by the way of deliberately

falsified documents.

Let me point out, of course, to all members that to say that

a member deliberately falsified a document and presented it to this House or to

accuse another member of fabricating a document is indeed unparliamentary and

certainly out of order. However, I checked Hansard and read the comments that

were made by the Premier and I see nothing in the Premier's comments that would

indicate that the Premier was implying or accusing the hon. Leader of the

Opposition, or any member of this House for that matter, of making a falsified

statement or presenting a falsified document concocted by or fabricated by that

particular member. Really, the comments were in order and certainly not

unparliamentary.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: On Thursday and Friday of last week the

Leader of the Opposition tabled photocopies of two facsimiles sent out of the

Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture which solicited advertising for a

booklet being published in support of a fundraising barbecue in the Minister's

district. While, because of double numbering of pages and different placement of

facsimile identification printing, the facsimiles actually tabled do not appear

to be exactly as sent out, nevertheless, further investigation has determined

that a total of nine facsimiles were sent out dealing with the same matter from

the departmental office.

I have been advised that one of the two facsimiles tabled in

the House was sent to Mr. Karl Sullivan of SeaFreeze and the other to Mr. Martin

Hammond of the Milk Marketing Board. Over the weekend I attempted to contact

representatives of firms to which facsimiles were sent, that could otherwise

have dealings with the Minister's department. I was successful in reaching

senior representatives of five of those firms.

All to whom I spoke assured me that they felt in no way

pressured or inappropriately deal with in the terms of the solicitation of

advertising. All said they treated this as normal political solicitation that

they receive from a variety of representatives of all parties. I have spoken

with two other individuals involved in industries regulated by Dr. Hulan's

department and one individual did indicate that, while he had a concern about

such a request, he never felt any kind of threat or pressure and he just assumed

it was normal activity getting ready for the next election.

I have discussed the matter in detail with Dr. Hulan and his

Executive Assistant, Mr. Gerry Reid and have told them clearly that whether

there was any intention of influencing a recipient or not, such a process for

political fundraising is inappropriate and unacceptable. Dr. Hulan has tendered

his resignation and I table herewith a copy with this Statement.

Neither actual pressure nor the perception of pressure is an

acceptable situation and ministers must be vigilant to ensure that neither they,

nor their staff, cause or permit such situations to occur. In all of the

circumstances however, accepting Dr. Hulan's resignation at this time would be a

response in excess of what is necessary to deal effectively with the

transgression.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: As his letter indicates, there was clearly

no intent on Dr. Hulan's part to influence or pressure anybody and so far as is

known no influence or pressure was felt by anybody. I have therefore advised Dr.

Hulan that I do not intend to accept his resignation, but that does not mean

condoning such action or inattention on his part, or on the part of any minister

for that matter. Hopefully this embarrassing circumstance will serve as an

effective lesson to all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier of the Province has compounded the abuse of power

by his Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture by personally phoning

businesses that are regulated and licensed and financed by the provincial

government, by the Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. Now, Mr.

Speaker, this is a Premier who has always had a double standard.

Previously, it was one standard for himself and another for

his Cabinet and his caucus. One standard he applied to himself when, as Leader

of the Opposition, he took a salary supplement of $50,000 a year without

disclosing the donors and later, when he twisted government tendering practice

to give major hospital construction contracts to Tom Hickman and Trans City;

another that he applied to the Minister of Public Works and the Member for Mount

Scio - Bell Island when he fired them from his Cabinet.

Well now, he is simply applying his own personal standard to

his Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture and he has now personally

associated himself with the abuse of power. This is shocking and ridiculous. It

is a product of a Premier who has lost the authority to govern and should resign

for the sake of the country and who should take his Minister of Fisheries, Food

and Agriculture with him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise that government and Hotel

Buildings Limited have completed the tender process with the sale of the five

hotel properties owned by Hotel Buildings Limited, namely, the Holiday Inns, St.

John's, Clarenville, Gander, Corner Brook and the Hotel Port aux Basques. The

successful tender bids were as follows; Fortis Properties Corporation for

Holiday Inns, Mr. Hubert Chalk, Hotel Port aux Basques. The total selling price

for the five hotel properties was approximately $6.5 million before normal sales

adjustments including the purchase of inventories. We intend to commence the due

diligence process immediately with a view to completing the sales transactions

as quickly as possible. This will allow the prospective owners to take

possession of the properties on a timely basis, thereby enabling them to

implement their operating plans for the coming year.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to also note that government was

pleased with the level of interest in the sale of the hotels and, on behalf of

government, I would like to thank all parties who participated in the tender

process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

First of all, I express surprise at the length of the

statement and obviously a complex process, I say to the minister, and I feel

that this House should have more information. There should at least be some

back-up documentation to this. I would like to ask the minister what plans does

Fortis have for the four hotels, Holiday Inns that they have brought? How much

did Fortis pay for their four and how much did Mr. Chalk pay for his Hotel Port

aux Basques? My first reaction was that this was an incredibly low amount of

money for these hotels. I know there was a bid for Clarenville at $1.3 million

and I am sure the St. John's hotel must be worth $2.5 million to $3.5 million.

So it seems like an incredibly low amount of money for those hotels. One would

think, on the surface, that perhaps we are better off keeping them; but, having

said that, I realize the book value is about $25 million to $29 million. In 1988

I think the book value was $25 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I was just wondering if the minister

would undertake to provide documentation outlining the whole process, Mr.

Speaker. It seems like an incredibly low amount of money for those hotels.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier about the Cabot 500th

Anniversary. Three-and-a-half years ago, in April of 1992, the Premier and his

Government established the John Cabot 1997 Corporation and appointed members of

the Board of Directors, including a representative of the provincial tourism

department. Earlier this year, the Premier and his Government reconstituted the

board as a Crown corporation and continued the previous directors.

Why, last week, did the government high-handedly and abruptly

axe the government's own creation? Why, instead, did the government not deal

with particular concerns about lack of accountability and excessive spending

over the last three-and-a-half years as these incidents occurred? Why did the

government not trim the Crown corporation instead of axing it at a critical late

date, three-and-a-half years after the government set it up, and only a year

before the start of the anniversary?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly

appreciate the question.

Mr. Speaker, I hope people wouldn't mind if I registered a

little bit of surprise at the approach taken by the Leader of the Opposition,

because in fact while this particular government has supported the Cabot 500

Corporation from its inception, and did everything we possibly could to try to

garner the necessary public support for the corporation, it was largely because

of the questions and criticisms raised by members in her own caucus that caused

some people in the public to lose some confidence in the corporation, and caused

the media to continually question the corporation.

In fact, we stated quite clearly our intention on Friday that

if, in fact, we had gotten to the point where we could have secured continuing

federal commitments to the Crown corporation to run the major celebration in

1997, which will continue to be a tremendous opportunity for the Province, then

we think we had already made the corrections in terms of a Crown corporation

that was accountable to the House of Assembly, to the people of the Province

through a minister of the Crown, and also that the corporation itself was

beginning to take the in-house actions that were required to trim its own

budgetary spending by, just in the last week before we decided to discontinue

the corporation completely, changing the make-up of the administrative staff so

that they could, in fact, respond to the types of planning and the types of

events that we are trying now to continue on with for 1997.

So I am a little surprised, because I find it difficult that

an Opposition would sort of want to have it both ways, that while we were

defending and promoting and encouraging the public to buy into and encourage -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - the work of the corporation, that now we

have unfortunately had to let the corporation go but continue on with the

celebration, that the Leader of the Opposition would suggest there is something

wrong with that action as well.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation. I say to the minister, he and his government created the

corporation; he and his government killed the corporation. They have been in

charge all along.

Did the government do a cost benefit analysis of the option

of keeping a scaled-down corporation versus the option the government chose? If

they did a cost benefit analysis, will the minister table the analysis?

Specifically, will the minister reveal how much the government will have to pay

for killing the corporation in penalties and severance pay for employees,

consultants, contractors and leases?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad that the Leader of the Opposition listened to the

news reports of the last three or four days so she could get a question to ask.

Those questions have been asked starting last Friday. They have been put forward

through various forms in the media.

We have given a commitment that over the next five or six

days, leading into maybe this time next week, we would need to go through a

process. We are very serious about making sure that the people of the Province

have confidence that the celebration will continue, and that it will be a great

success and a great event in the Province, despite the fact that it won't be

spearheaded by a separate corporation, albeit in the last instance a Crown

corporation. We have every confidence that by looking at what kind of

supplementary staff we might need to bring in to work with some people in the

Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, we will have a very good

celebration that we can go forward with. We will be announcing, probably this

time next week, exactly what the costs were of winding down some of the things

with respect to the administrative trappings of the corporation, and also, what

we will be doing in terms of continuing on with some commitments that the

corporation had made that the department, on behalf of the government, will

continue on with. Because they did a lot of very good planning with respect to a

number of events that will still proceed in 1997 but will be managed by a staff

in the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation instead of a corporation.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Words, words, words, no answer, big bluff minister. Isn't

this another example of the government operating blind? Isn't it true that the

government axed the Cabot Corporation for petty parochial partisan reasons

without having an alternate plan? Isn't it true that there is no plan B?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate, as

well, that the Leader of the Opposition is at least consistent even in her

personal condemnation of me. I think if you check Hansard from last year

sometime, I was answering some questions at that point and I heard this thing

about words, words, words, no answers, and all that kind of stuff. At least, the

Leader of the Opposition is consistent.

In fact, what we are doing is taking the time that is

necessary throughout these next four or five days. It is clear that we have a

little bit of work yet to do and we have indicated to everybody, that by this

time next week we expect, Mr. Speaker, to be in a position, and I hope with the

help of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, to restore confidence and faith in the

celebration for 1997, and that the members opposite will come on side with us

and show everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador that their interests are in the

Province and the success of the celebration, and not some kind of political

games that they are trying to play again today.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the minister: How can the minister expect

the people of the Province to have confidence in planning for the Cabot 500th

Anniversary when, a year before the start of the anniversary, the minister can't

tell anybody, can't answer a straightforward question about how he is going to

replace the corporation that he and his government axed last week? How many

additional staff does the minister expect his department to now hire, and will

the additional staff be hired on a temporary basis instead of through the Public

Service Commission, so the minister and his colleagues can hand-pick Liberals,

will this be more smoke and mirrors?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again, while I

appreciate the sincerity of the questions, I can only answer again that we are

going through the process in the next few days; we will indicate as I indicated

in answers to an earlier question, probably by this time next week the component

of staff that will be required in the Department of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation to go ahead, because, Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of good planning

and a lot of work done by the corporation, and we plan to follow through and

utilize that and carry on with many of the events that were there.

We are doing that assessment now, in a prudent fashion and

with respect to the issue of the public service, Mr. Speaker, it is clear, one

thing is quite clear, and I make sure you set the record straight in Hansard for

that today, that because this is a time-limited project that will end at the end

of 1997, we will not be going, I don't expect, through the Public Service

Commission, with respect to the same way that we would for jobs in the public

service that are here on a permanent basis; that contracts will be offered to

people, to supplement the staff, Mr. Speaker, of the Department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation and that's a normal procedure when there is a job that is

time-limited and has to be done and that's nothing out of the ordinary

whatsoever, and shouldn't be implied to be so by the Leader of the Opposition

because again, Mr. Speaker, it only shows I think, that the concern is there and

starting again today, to try and show that there is something wrong with this,

and that it is obvious that the Opposition do not care about this celebration

and they should tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that. They

shouldn't get up trying to say that we are concerned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: They are trying to suggest now that in our

best efforts of making sure that we have a good celebration minus a corporation,

that they won't play the political games -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - but let it ensue over the next week or so.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Social Services,

as it relates to the Perlin Pre-Vocational Training Centre.

The minister stated in the House on October 25, 1995 that the

Vera Perlin Society requested two-thirds of a million dollars. Does the minister

realize this request is for one-quarter of the amount for this fiscal year,

January to March, and that the federal government could cost-share 50 per cent

of this funding hence causing this government about $90,000 for this fiscal

year, not two-thirds of a million as the minister has stated?

With this in mind, will the minister now commit to funding

this small amount for this very worthwhile cause?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform the hon. member that I will be meeting

with the Vera Perlin Society along with the Premier this afternoon, and we will

discuss the matter further.

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

Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: I am very pleased to hear that the minister

and the Premier are meeting with the Vera Perlin Society this afternoon to try

to straighten out some of the problems that are there.

I would like to ask the minister, could she confirm, or deny,

that the Pre-Vocational Training and Assessment Centre, located on Topsail Road,

operated by her department serves approximately forty-five individuals with

developmental delay at a cost to the taxpayers of this Province of approximately

$1 million? I would like to ask the minister, how can she justify not helping

the Vera Perlin Society when her own department's program cost much more?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform the hon. member that, yes, I indeed do

know that that facility is costing a high amount of dollars to my department,

and the whole matter is being under review as are all the programs.

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

Capes on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the minister

realizes, or recognizes, that this is not just a small group of people wanting

these services but a large number of taxpayers who totally support the idea that

we must have centres so that people can be properly served in our communities.

As a matter of fact today I will be presenting a petition with almost 3000 names

on it of people who support the Vera Perlin Society, and I also have another one

coming with the same number.

I would like to ask the minister if she would tell the House

of Assembly today what government's position is with respect to the Perlin

Pre-vocational Training Centre and does she support or not support their

activities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS YOUNG: I would like to take the opportunity to inform

the hon. member, and all members present, that indeed I do recognize the

tremendous responsibility we have for all of the disabled people in our

communities, not only in the St. John's area but throughout Newfoundland. We

certainly have not turned our backs on the Vera Perlin Society. We are

contributing a little over $1.2 million to the Vera Perlin Society and we have

not cut any funding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture. A few days ago I asked the minister what method his department was

using in trying to collect money from fisherpersons who owed money to the

Fisheries and Farm Loan Board. The minister in his answer said they were only

accessing money from fishermen who could afford to make such payments. I ask the

minister if there is an investigation being carried out to determine which

fishers can or cannot afford to pay?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: As I have already indicated to this hon.

Chamber, every case is looked at on its own merit and if an individual has the

ability to pay the payment is expected, and if the individual does not have the

ability to pay there is a mechanism in place to defer.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South on a

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, as the minister is no doubt

aware the federal government is now financing a license buy back from

approximately 160 Newfoundland fishers ranging in price from $121,000 to

$204,000. I ask the minister if his department will be intercepting any of this

license buy back money in order to pay outstanding accounts to the Fisheries and

Farm Loan Board?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as hon. member know the Farm Loan

Board and the Fisheries Loan Board were amalgamated under Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador to build inefficiencies both from the collection side

and from the administrative side. Under the Financial Administration Act the

Department of Finance is bound to intervene where there are debtors to the

Province. We have intervened with respect to school tax and intercepted refunds.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's cruel.

MR. FUREY: It is not cruel, it is

an act that the former

government brought in and we are bound by it. This government has inherited it

and we are bound by it. Anytime there is an advance from the Department of

Finance with respect to refunds the Financial Administration Act automatically

kicks in where there is a debtor and it is looked at.

I think in the case that the hon. member raised last week, if

my memory serves me correctly with respect to the Fisheries Loan Board I think

we have intercepted two, maybe three, so far, and they were valued at less than

$200. The particular case that he raised last week, I should inform the House,

that particular loan was restructured, that particular fisherperson was in need,

and we waived the RST right through to that particular fisherman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) brought forward.

MR. FUREY: No. I should tell the hon. member that from

time to time we review loans at the Fisheries Loan Boar and the Farm Loan Board

to restructure -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the hon. minister has answered a question asked by the

hon. Member for Bonavista South; however, he continued to respond to questions

from other people on that side and that is clearly out of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South on a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, or the

Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture - I do not know who will stand - the

federal minister, Mr. Tobin, has been on record as saying that fishermen will be

allowed out of the fishery if they participate in licence buy back debt free.

The federal minister has been on record as saying this, so I ask the minister:

Who are the fishermen to believe? Are they to believe the federal minister, Mr.

Tobin, or are they to believe the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology? I

ask the minister if he would clearly state today, or put out a news release or

something, so that those people may make a wise choice in determining what will

happen financially to the rest of their lives.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, we are

bound by the laws of this Province. The Financial Administration Act quite

clearly states that wherever a debt is owed to the Province the Department of

Finance, where it is in a refund position, must check with the various Crowns to

see whether, in fact, these debtors have paid up.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I cannot magically wave a wand and erase

all debt for fishermen. I can tell you that a lot of these loans are in good

stead, as are the farm loans. When and if each case comes forward, if in fact

there is a buy back position, the Financial Administration Act automatically

kicks in. We have to recover these taxes for the taxpayers of all of the

Province, and I think we would be negligent if we did not.

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

West.

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

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Since Newfoundland became a Province we have probably never

seen such a sick economy as we now have. With the failure of the fishery, with

this government's cutbacks, they have basically brought the construction

industry of this Province to its knees. Many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

have not and will not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. I would like

to ask the minister: Can he tell me what plans he has to deal with that?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: I want to thank the member for his question.

I am really, really glad to see that he realizes the state of the situation, and

I totally agree with him. It is very, very difficult, I say to the member, that

we are facing cutbacks and trying to adjust at the provincial level, municipal

level and, of course, because of the federal deficit that has been passed down.

So the member is correct; it is an extremely tough time for all of us. We are

trying to adjust within all the social programs, as he is very much aware. We

have negotiated over just about the last year with ministers in the federal

government to try and reinstate in their minds the position of the people in our

Province, but let me say to the member that even in that, in all the negativity,

the member should try and be aware and understand that over the last year our

industry outside the fishery, our employment picture outside the fishery, has

grown some 2.5 per cent. If you look at the fishery also, you will see a growth

of over 4 per cent.

Even though we have tough times, and we are going to have

very serious situations to deal with, let me say to the member that this

government is trying exceptionally hard. He knows the impact that the loss of

the groundfish had. He knows the impact, as the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes said the other day, of the spin-off jobs that were lost because of the

groundfish. So, all in all, I say to the member, yes, it is very difficult for

this government, for all levels of government, to address the situation, but it

is not all negative.

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

West on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the minister how

difficult it was for him or the government. I asked him: What was the government

going to do about the numbers of people who do not qualify for U.I.?

Now we all know that during the past couple of years, after

considerable pressure by the Opposition and other groups in this Province, after

countless hours of petitions being presented in this Legislature, the minister

finally acted and implemented an Emergency Response Program. I would like to ask

the minister, Mr. Speaker, if he is going to do that and will he announce today

he will do it immediately?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the member also needs to realize is that the provincial

government last year went into negotiations and subsequently found $10 million

in conjunction on a 50/50 cost sharing for seven different programs to deal with

the severe unemployment situation in our Province for a total of $20 million.

Those were seven different strategies. I am sure all members of the House,

members opposite as well as members on this side who have dealt with the

department, who have dealt with me personally, know how hard we tried to make

sure that we did whatever we could throughout the Province to help those people

who are less fortunate. The member also needs to know, over the last four years

the Emergency Response Program or Employment Creation Program - call it whatever

name you want to put on it - was never a budgeted item. It was an item that was

always a special warrant item.

Now he heard the hon. Minister of Finance stand to his feet

the other day. So what I am saying to the member is that we have negotiated all

summer long with Minister Axworthy and other federal ministers, this particular

initiative over the last few years, though it did help people, it flies in the

face of the UI system as we know it. To purposely, for a government, to put

funding out for people to do nothing more than qualify for UI is totally

inappropriate in the minds of our federal colleagues. At this time, I say to the

hon. member, no, there is no Emergency Response Program.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I find that almost incredible for

the minister to get up and make the statements that he just made. Mr. Speaker, I

am concerned about the people in this Province who are going hungry today and

children who are going to school without something to eat more so than I am

concerned about what the Minister of Finance has to say or not say. We all know

where this government has wasted millions of dollars. There was no great

concern, Mr. Speaker, about what the Minister of Finance had to say when you

awarded the hospital contracts last year, there was no concern then.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. TOBIN: There was no concern, Mr. Speaker, when you

spent millions of dollars on a referendum recently. I ask the minister, what

happened to the committee of ministers they had in place, is that still active,

that were meeting last year with the federal minister? Mr. Speaker, we all know

the federal minister is about as compassionate towards social needs as the

Minister of Health is in this Province. Now I ask the minister, what is he going

to tell the people of this Province? What does he suggest that we, as

legislators, tell the people of this Province who are calling us by the minute,

Mr. Speaker, crying out for help because they are hungry and have no work

because of this government's inaction?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

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

Let me say to the hon. member that he gets no more phone

calls or members opposite get no more phone calls about situations of hardship

then hon. members on this side of the House, he can be assured of that, and this

minister. Let me say to the hon. member that Mr. Axworthy understands exactly -

well the hon. member's can pass opinions - let me say that Minister Axworthy

understands the position of this government. We have addressed all the

situations that we have been involved with, as the government, in supporting

employment throughout the Province and I hope within the next two weeks that Mr.

Axworthy will also, as he deals with the UI system, will also deal with other

scenarios related to those who are less fortunate and cannot find employment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. MACKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of

Environment and it is related to the Hydro development project in North West

River. North West River, as you know, begins in the Bay du Nord wilderness and

flows through Terra Nova National Park. In April, 1992, Newfoundland Hydro

issued a request for additional hydro electric generation to meet projected

requirements. However, Mr. Speaker, in its annual report, 1994, the Hydro report

states that the Northwest River hydroelectric project, along with three other

small hydro projects of Newfoundland rivers, have been given formal approval and

will generate a total of 38 megawatts to go into service in late 1998. My

question to the minister is: Can he advise why government's Strategic Economic

Plan and Hydro's 1994 annual report both refer to this project as if it had

already been approved despite the requirements of the environmental legislation?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the government's Strategic

Economic Plan highlights the fact that we are promoting alternative development.

It doesn't highlight a specific project, or doesn't highlight which projects are

going to be approved. It highlights the idea of alternative energy, of

developing small hydro and other types of alternative energy for the Province.

The Environmental Assessment Act is working just as it

should. Any project that applies and is rendered to have to go through an

environmental assessments process does so. In this case, the Northwest River

small hydro project is going through an environmental assessment, very detailed,

as a matter of fact. It is very extensive. It has public participation from a

whole variety of groups including the development of the terms of reference, the

guidelines for evaluation. All of this is done in a public process. The

Environmental Assessment Act is working as it should. Government will make a

decision on it in the near future.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls, on a

supplementary.

MR. MACKEY: My next question, Mr. Speaker, is in relation

to the need for the project. It is a known fact that the rate of consumption has

been reduced. Last year's hydro sales on the Island system declined by 3.4 per

cent - that is nine times the power from Northwest River. Because of declining

population, idle fish plants, more energy-efficient homes and reduced industrial

demand, all have reduced the rate of consumption and made the introduction of

this new capacity questionable. My question to the minister is: Why is

government letting this project go ahead while hydro sales on the Island are in

decline?

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

MR. AYLWARD: First off, Mr. Speaker, the government is

not letting this project go ahead. The government is having the project reviewed

under the Environmental Assessment Act. There is no decision made. It is going

through the environmental assessment process, which is a very extensive process,

which is there for a proponent or a company wanting to undertake a project in

this Province which may have some environmental impact. That is why the act

works the way it does.

When it comes to the power source and the reason for power in

the Province, I could give an answer, but I think maybe the Minister of Natural

Resources may be a better one to answer that, though I have become well-versed

lately in the idea of how much power we need in this Province. The fact is that

I'm dealing with the environmental assessment process. It is working quite well,

I will tell you. The act works quite well. This project is going through that

process. Right now it is out for public consumption, the EIS. We are getting all

kinds of public discussion about the project. We encourage it. We encourage more

of it, as a matter of fact. That is why the act works the way it does, Mr.

Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

West.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

Whereas many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have failed to

qualify for unemployment insurance benefits;

And

whereas federal and provincial government cutbacks have

been a contributing factor to this economic situation;

Therefore

be it resolved this House call upon government to

implement an emergency employment program to help alleviate the economic

hardships facing many families in this Province.

Petitions

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 2,917 people

who support the efforts of the Vera Perlin Society as it relates to the Perlin

Pre-Vocational Training Centre here in St. John's. This is the first of several

petitions I will be presenting on behalf of those people. I would like to read

the prayer of the petition for the House.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland

in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asks for the House of Assembly to accept

the following prayer: We, the undersigned, respectfully request the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador to fund another centre to provide services to our

citizens who have a mental disability. In an effort to ensure the continued

success of the Vera Perlin Society and our programs, we request your support. As

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of weeks, we have raised

some concerns as it relates to future funding and continued funding for the Vera

Perlin Society and as it relates to the Perlin Pre-Vocational Training Centre.

Again, I asked questions of the minister today and I found out that there is a

meeting this afternoon with the minister and the Premier and people from the

Society. I hope that the issues that we have raised and the concerns that we

have brought to the floor of the House of Assembly on behalf of those people

will be addressed. The history of the Vera Perlin Society, which began in this

Province in 1954, as I said before, is a success story that speaks for itself.

I have had, over the past couple of weeks, calls from parents

who have children participating in the pre-vocational training at the Centre. I

have had calls from citizens throughout the Province concerning the future of

the Centre, and definitely, calls from people who are going to be disturbed at

the end of this year when the Centre can no longer handle the number of people

that it has due to the shortage of funding. There will be more than thirty

people who will be asked to leave the Training Centre as of December 31, due to

the fact that there is no funding. There is well in excess of 100 people already

on a waiting list who are not receiving the training they need to try to

integrate into the community.

We all know that the purpose of the Training Centre is to

prepare people for the work force and to give them an opportunity to live normal

and happy lives. The problem the Society has been facing over the past couple of

years is a problem that isn't new to anybody in this Province, and that is, that

the jobs are not there for the population generally, now, as they were five or

six years ago even. What we have are a lot of people who are being trained who

can't avail of job opportunities because the jobs are not there. Mr. Speaker,

what is the alternative? We keep them in the Training Centre trying to upgrade

them, or we send them back home.

I've talked to parents who have told me how much their

children have grown because of their activities at the Centre, about how much

they want to get up in the morning and go and participate in something that is

considered, i.e., normal, I say. These parents speak straight from the heart, I

say to the minister. I've talked to several people who have participated over

the past number of years in training at the Centre. One person told me in a

letter, it is her reason for living that she can get up in the morning and go to

her training at the Centre. A reason for living - I think that, itself, sends a

message.

My concern is that a fair number of the people who are going

to be displaced as of December 31 are going to be from outside the St. John's

area. Again, Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves, is the only way you can

partake of this training is if you come inside the overpass? I say again, Mr.

Speaker, there are people outside the overpass who also have disabilities, and I

think this should be addressed by this government and not shuffled aside for the

sake of $90,000 the Society is looking for to carry themselves on until next

March. This is a very serious issue that has come to light over the past couple

of weeks and will continue to be in the news, and I am sure, in the minister's

concerns over the next few days. I plead with the minister, on behalf of those

people, not only on behalf of the people who partake in the training, but on

behalf of the parents and the taxpayers of this Province that have been part of

this centre, as I said, since 1954. It is not human, I believe, what is

happening to these people who are going to be shuffled out on December 31st.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: I ask the minister to accept these petitions

on behalf of, as I said, 2917 people who want this Vera Perlin Pre-vocational

Training Centre to continue, and I hope that after the meeting today the news

she reports to the House over the next couple of days will be very pleasant

indeed.

Thank you.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I paused, hoping the Minister of Social Services would

respond to the petition. I wholeheartedly support the petition of over 2900

citizens and endorse the remarks of the presenter, my colleague the Member for

St. Mary's - The Capes.

Mr. Speaker, the situation addressed by the petition

highlights the lack of planning on the part of this government, the

inconsistencies of their approach to serving people with mental disabilities. In

Question Period today my colleague asked the minister about a program her

department operates directly, a program operated on Topsail Road in St. John's

costing over $1 million a year, serving approximately 45 mentally challenged

adults.

Mr. Speaker, the cost of that program is far greater than the

programs operated by the Vera Perlin Society. I am told the effectiveness of the

departmental program is nowhere near the level of the Vera Perlin Society

program. If the minister does not meet the request of the Society for a

relatively small amount of additional funding, some twenty-nine individuals who

are now being served by the Vera Perlin Society will be sent home. Now, these

are people who are benefiting from the day program offered by the Vera Perlin

Society. These are people who are making a useful contribution to society

through their participation in the Vera Perlin Society day program. Without a

continuation of that program, without the small amount of additional provincial

funding, these people will have to go home where they will not have the

opportunity to participate in useful activity.

There is a serious shortage of jobs in the Province and

people with disabilities, people who are challenged have a harder time than

other citizens in finding jobs. The sad reality is that there are not enough

jobs to go around and mentally challenged people are unemployed in greater

numbers and to a greater extent than others in the population, and that is why

we need the continuation and expansion of the programs provided by the Vera

Perlin Society.

I would suggest to the minister that after her meeting with

representatives of the Vera Perlin Society today - and I know it will not be her

first contact with them, I understand she has visited their pre-vocational

training centre - that she will immediately address the request, grant the

money, and allow the twenty-nine individuals to have the benefit of an ongoing

uninterrupted program, and then look at shifting resources away from the program

her department now operates directly and into, either the Vera Perlin Society or

other comparable community organizations which have proven their ability to

provide these services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS YOUNG: I would like to advise the hon. Leader of the

Opposition that I was giving opportunity to anybody else from the opposite side

to speak to the petition before I rose to speak to it.

I certainly accept the petition that the hon. Member for St.

Mary's - The Capes has presented to the House this afternoon, and I would like

to reiterate that yes, I have had ongoing meetings with the Vera Perlin Society.

I have visited the centre several times over the past year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Several times?

MS YOUNG: Yes, I have visited it several times. As well,

I have met with the executive of the Vera Perlin Society on two occasions, and I

certainly understand their concern about the Topsail Road centre. Again I feel,

as they do, that is a considerable amount of money that we are investing into

that centre. It is under review, and maybe some of our dollars can be spent more

wisely.

I think it is a time in our history, too, that we have to

look at all of the programs that our department funds, and make sure that we are

providing the best opportunities to the people that we serve through these

programs. Again, I am sure that after this afternoon we will have an opportunity

to again discuss what we can do.

I mentioned as well, I think it was late last month, that we

are undergoing a review of all of the dollars that we provide for training to

developmentally challenged groups out there, and while one option may serve one

group, it may be the way they wish to go, other groups may wish to go in another

direction, and we have to be sensitive to the needs of all of the people who we

serve, because I am sure that if we went out with six programs there would be at

least ten more programs that might be of more benefit to these people.

So I want to again reiterate that at no point in time have

we, in the last number of years, sat down and deliberately cut funds from the

Vera Perlin Society or any of the organizations that we serve. We have continued

to be able to meet the dollars that we put in last year. We were able to do that

in our budget this year, and again the whole issue of the people we are serving

out there, we have to do a review. Otherwise, we are not being a responsible

department if we do not conduct a review. As the hon. member indicated, yes,

maybe some programs are receiving too much money, and that will all be part of

the review that we are undertaking within the department.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

As we announced on Friday, we will be asking the House to

deal with the Regulatory Reform Bill. It is called, "An Act Respecting The

Revision And Consolidation Of Subordinate Legislation". It is Order 11 on

today's Order Paper, Bill No. 7, the Premier's bill, Sir.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The

Revision And Consolidation Of Subordinate Legislation." (Bill No. 7)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am touched by

the overwhelming expression of support, unanimity, but I think I probably need

to address a couple of comments before the members opposite should vote

unanimously in support of the legislation, although I expect they will

unanimously support it. I certainly hope so.

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit to a small degree of pride in

moving second reading of this piece of legislation because I think it is the

culmination of a reform that has been long overdue. For at least forty-five

years, and probably for 100 years now, we have been building regulations. I

expect some of the regulations that were assessed in this process were in effect

long before Confederation occurred in 1949, and we have been adding to those

regulations endlessly since that time. I think of this as a significant

achievement, and I am happy to be associated with it.

The genesis for this action was really in the Strategic

Economic Plan. If you look at the action items spelled out there, I think it is

action item 2, specifically provides that government is determined to remove

barriers to entrepreneurship and implement changes to programs, policies and

regulations under its control in order to promote and attract investment of

small to large scale enterprises. That is the objective. In pursuit of that

objective, Mr. Speaker, we have been taking steps in a variety of ways to make

this a more economically friendly climate for the increase in business activity.

Mr. Speaker, we have done a number of things that the House is familiar with so

I don't need to detail them and they are starting to work. As a matter of fact,

I was looking on Friday at the labour force statistics. Now as all hon. members

know I have not followed the same practice as the former government. I don't

comment on the labour force statistics every time they show a positive but for

the last twelve to fifteen months they have been showing a slow but steady

improvement. We now can say that there are 5,000 more people employed in this

Province, in October of this year then there was in October of last year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before hon. members - the hon. member

rushed to say well that is because they are all driven out, that is not true.

The labour force number is exactly the same with 241,000 last year and 241,000

this year. There was 192,000 employed last year, there is 197,000 this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: So there is a significant and steady

improvement, Mr. Speaker. That comes about largely as a result of the slow but

steady changes that we have been making. One of these changes, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: When you take the fisheries out of it the

number of people in the broader economy working is considerably more then when

we took office, considerably more -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - and I will get the figures and provide

them. I will provide the figures the next day in the House. Now let's not divert

now, let's deal with this issue. I will provide these figures.

Now, Mr. Speaker, amongst all of the other things that we

have been doing to try and rebuild the economy of this Province, a significant

factor in what we are about is the elimination of the unnecessary regulatory

burden. The first step in carrying this out was the establishment of a joint

committee of the government and the private sector under the supervision of The

Economic Recovery Commission. This was put in place, Mr. Speaker, and they set

about putting in place a process that would address this problem. There was

extensive consultation and as a result of that a joint business government

working group, under the auspices of the ERC, was identified and a focus for

regulatory review was put in place. That focus had these four key

characteristics to ensure a client centered approach, to promote coordination of

regulatory activities across departments and governments, to improve efficiency

and to facilitate the reduction of regulations overall, maintaining only those

required to safeguard the public interest. Mr. Speaker, that is the approach

that we took. The second step was to constitute the regulatory reform project.

That was put in place and the -

MR. TOBIN: You are not allowed to say that word

'constituted.'

PREMIER WELLS: The second step was to constitute a

regulatory reform process and they had key aspects. They were to take into

account all of the regulations to determine first whether the regulations were

necessary. Secondly, if they are necessary are they appropriate, effective and

efficient? So to take a look at not only whether we need regulations in that

area but whether or not we need them to the extent that we have them and whether

or not they are effective to achieve the legitimate public purpose.

The overall objective, Mr. Speaker, besides reducing

regulation to the minimum necessary to protect the public interest was to

establish a climate which will ensure that businesses, citizens and

municipalities are free to pursue their own agendas, economic and otherwise,

without undue interference from government. The terms of the project assume an

acceptance of a greater role for the marketplace and competition in ensuring the

effective running of the economy. The criteria also explicitly questions the

legitimate role of government in society and its relation to business, other

levels of government and the general public.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the process was put in place and what we

are dealing with here today, this act, is one stage of the process. It is really

one of three elements. The first of those three elements, was the appointment of

a committee; the second, was the setting of objective criteria by the Cabinet, a

standard by which the committee was to judge the acceptability of the existing

regulation, and we are now at the third and final stage and that's this bill and

the implementation following this bill.

Our first step was to appoint a commissioner, an outside

commissioner who would look at it objectively and would not have his or her

judgement clouded by a connection with the public sector, so we asked for the

appointment of a judge of the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Noel undertook the

task, and he and the team who worked with him have done a superb job and I must

say, Mr. Speaker, I give all of them the highest possible marks for the activity

that they carried out in a relatively short period of time; and here, it would

be unfair of me not to also say, that the senior levels of the public service

generally, embrace this with enthusiasm and contributed greatly to the measure

of success that has been achieved.

Too often, we are critical of the public service; too often

we are saying that they are just preserving their position in office and so on

and they use the regulatory process to do that. Well, they didn't. The senior

levels of the public service responded with enthusiasm and I give them the full

credit that they are entitled to. The public service team generally, was headed

by Mr. Faour, Fonse Faour, the Deputy Clerk of the Executive Council and he, and

all who worked with him, did a superb job.

Let me tell the House something else. We had estimated a

total cost for the full team to complete their report of about $500,000, and

that's what we budgeted. They did the work for less than $360,000 saving

$140,000 of the $500,000 that we budgeted, so they worked effectively, they

worked efficiently, they worked very well and they addressed the problem in an

effective way.

The objective criteria, Mr. Speaker - I should draw the

House's attention to it and spell out the basis on which we put it forward. Mr.

Speaker, I draw the House's attention to the components of the objective

criteria and I will just read them for the House so you will know the standard

by which we judge these regulations. Here was the direction to the commissioner

and the team: The review shall have as its objective, the reduction of

regulation by government to the minimum level required to protect the public

interest. The commissioner shall recommend for repeal, any regulation which does

not have as its objective, the protection of the public interest, so there was a

clear direction, recommend for repeal any regulation that doesn't have as its

objective, protection of the public interest.

Then it goes on to say: A regulation shall be deemed to be

one which protects the public interest, if it (

a) is necessary for the

maintenance or enhancement of public health, order or safety, (

b) is necessary

for the maintenance or enhancement of the environment or contributes to the goal

of sustainable development, (

c) as a positive effect on the competitiveness of

the private sector in the Province including a positive effect on innovation and

the encouragement of efficiency in the conduct of business in the Province or,

(

d) is necessary for the effective administration of the government of the

Province.

Unless it fell within one of those four categories, the

commissioner was directed to specifically recommend it for repeal and that's

what the commissioner's report says he did. He recommended it for repeal but he

was careful and cautious, and in cases even where he recommended for repeal on

the basis of these criteria, he also pointed out, the department may have had a

different recommendation, that notwithstanding that it didn't meet any one of

these criteria, the department recommended that it be kept or adjusted and he

put forward that advice as well. So, the Cabinet, in considering this, has all

of this information before it.

The criteria went on to say: If the regulation meets the test

under paragraph 4, then the commissioner shall make recommendations to maintain,

amend, delete, replace or modify the regulation or its administration, following

an analysis for its consistency with an appropriateness to its objective, its

impact on the competitiveness of business, the level of burden on those

regulated when compared with the benefit to society, and its efficiency of

implementation and operation as determined by the commissioner; and the sixth

point - Well, I can table that order yes.

The report, no. We hadn't intended to. I will take a look at

it; most of it is detailed. I will take a look at it and see whether or not we

can table or table most of it. It is a report to Cabinet so it does not, in the

ordinary course, get tabled but I will take a look at it and see if we can table

it; because I think hon. members might well be very interested in it.

I mention also the sixth point, Mr. Speaker. The commissioner

shall make recommendation for the purpose of eliminating formal and systemic

gender discrimination in the regulatory process of government. There was other

detail but it is really administrative detail and I don't need to take the time

of the House to highlight that today.

Let me say that all of the legislation, all of the

regulations were looked at in that context. Let me give the House an idea of the

results. The project examined 441 acts, statutes of this House, and 2,358

separate sets of regulations. Can you imagine? Two thousand three hundred and

fifty-eight separate sets of regulations. In fairness, some of those were pretty

routine and simple, but some of them were pretty burdensome and clumsy and

unnecessary, and extensive as well.

Of the 2,358 separate sets of regulations, here is the

disposition: less than a half - 49 per cent to be precise - were kept as they

are. Less than one-half of them met the criteria. That is the extent to which we

were unnecessarily burdening the running of society and the economy. Another 5

per cent were judged to be necessary but needed some substantial reduction or

change in order to make them more effective and more efficient to achieve the

objective. A full 46 per cent were judged, on the basis of that criteria, to be

unnecessary. We are going to eliminate 1,088 regulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it might be a little too much

to say that. There may be a few, but very, very few, where the commissioner

said: Based on the criteria they should be repealed, where we had to look at

maybe some other impact or possible cause of that we may have to keep for a

brief period of time. But basically, we will be totally eliminating nearly 50

per cent of the regulatory burden that we have.

That should enable us to run a more efficient, a more

effective government, should enable us to save money, and should enable us to

reduce greatly the burden on people generally, whether they are applying for a

piece of Crown land to build a service station, or applying for a piece of Crown

land for a summer cabin, or they are going to operate a newsprint manufacturing

plant, or whatever. To greatly reduce the burden on society in general of

excessive government regulation.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today with a small measure of

pride, stick out my chest just a little bit, because I think that this was an

innovative idea to eliminate this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: No, I will keep a bit of a control on me.

But I don't mind confessing to a small measure of pride.

The bill that is before the House has a technique for doing

this. I ask hon. members not to get too excited about what is in it. This was

the method that the Legislative Counsel and others have advised us as to how it

is to be achieved. The process by which it is going to be achieved is that all

subordinate legislation with the exception of the rules of the Supreme Court -

and there are four different categories there - and the lottery regulations -

which are made under the Criminal Code, so we can't treat them the same way as

made under a federal statute -, so with those exemptions only, all regulations

are repealed as of the effective date, and there is re-enacted at the same point

in time those regulations that are going to continue.

That is a technique to cause it to happen. Because so many

different bodies and agencies - not just the Cabinet - had the power to make

these regulations. So we had to take the statutory power to repeal them all and

re-enact only those that were appropriate to continue. That is just a technique.

There is nothing special in it, and I thought I should point that out.

I do have to say to you, however, that because of the extent

of the work the commissioner asked that we extend the time for completion of his

report from July 31 to September 30, and we did. That is going to cause a

consequent delay of a couple of months or so in implementation. I think you are

going to find the Government House Leader moving an amendment: Instead of

December 31, 1995 to March 31, 1996, to just extend to a slight period in the

future the timing for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I will seriously consider that, I say to

the hon. member. I will have a look at it, and I will consider tabling the

report.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). How can anybody be expected

to (inaudible) if they don't know what regulations are going to be thrown out,

if they don't know (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: This is just a process.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, most of the regulations can be

thrown out by government order, anyway.

MR. ROBERTS: Sure, all of them can.

PREMIER WELLS: All of them can. All this legislation does

is provide a convenient and orderly way of doing it. There are only a couple of

pages to this statute. It is just a convenient - we can do this anyway, for the

most part.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, yes, we are going to do that anyway.

MR. ROBERTS: Anything we do we can undo (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the whole world will know

what and how many regulations we are getting rid of. It doesn't, in a sense,

depend on this legislation. All this legislation does is provide for a

convenient mechanism. The Cabinet can repeal every regulation that it ever made.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, yes, and here is another benefit of

it. For the first time, we will have put all of the regulations together in a

single book, and everybody knows they are indexed and they are there in an

orderly way; here is the regulatory law of the Province, and anybody can just

pick it up and look at it and see what it is. So it really is a marvellous step

forward, and I invite the support of all members of the House, and I will try

this week to see if I can get that report cleared. I will have to wait until

Thursday when Cabinet meets to consider it, and see if we can get that report

cleared for presentation to the House. I would like to release it, to be honest

with you, because I like to boast a little about it. I think it was a superb

process. I think it is an example to all of the rest of the country to follow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: With respect to the process itself, if

you had a committee in place looking at all of the different regulations in the

particular departments, how did the committee themselves determine which

regulations should be dropped and which should be kept?

PREMIER WELLS: By the criteria. The criteria was set out,

I think -

AN HON. MEMBER: I know that. I know what you (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, that is the criteria.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, that's not factual, either. There

would have to be a lot of grey areas.

PREMIER WELLS: No, no, it is pretty black and white.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I will tell hon. members now who was on

the committee that did the work. The Commissioner was Mr. Justice Noel, and he

had the final decision, but his work, of course, would have been made much

easier if all of the committee were of one opinion that they should be

eliminated, then there is not a whole lot for him to argue about or judge. If

there were differences on the committee, then he would have to make the final

decision.

Here is the make-up of the committee: The Chair of the

working committee was Mr. Faour, who is the Deputy Clerk of the Executive

Council. Sheree MacDonald was the project manager. Mr. Calvin Lake, who is the

legislative draftsman, was a member of the working committee. Mr. John Abbott, a

senior official in Treasury Board, was a member. Mr. Michael Dwyer - and,

incidentally, this ties into the government services centre project to make for

a more efficient delivery of government services - he was on it. Ms. Susan

Sherk, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister in Tourism, was on it. Mr. David

Jones was the legal counsel to the commissioner. Mr. Lise Noseworthy was a

researcher. Wayne Loveys was a researcher. Kimberley Hawley was a legal

researcher, and Darlene Neville was a legal researcher. Virginia Prozesky was

the administrative support officer. Mary Donovan was secretary. Cynthia Wade,

Yvonne Parsley, Janice Fudge and Emily Squires were word processing operators,

and Cynthia Walsh was clerk-stenographer in relation to it.

I should say to you that all of the people received the

highest commendation of the commissioner. He spoke extremely highly of the full

team, and I have acknowledged and passed on to them his compliments.

The process was, they did a full examination of everything,

and then they met with all the departmental officials and had the input from the

departments as well, the deputies and the assistant deputies and directors who

were involved with it, so there was a very thorough discussion of it. Anywhere

where there was a different opinion, the Commissioner has provided a detailed

report to the Cabinet of the opinion of the department, so that the Cabinet's

attention could be drawn to the fact whether or not the matter should be

repealed as the Commissioner had recommended. We are getting rid of a massive

quantity of regulations that are really unnecessary. I can't think of any other

public purpose that needed to be addressed other than those outlined in the

criteria. I think that said it all. Anything that did not meet those objectives

was clearly not in the public interest to have us hidebound by those

regulations, and that was the objective.

So I invite the support of all hon. members. Thank you very

much for giving me your attention today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I appreciate it. I will endeavour to have

that report. It only came out just a short time ago. I will endeavour to have

that report available for members. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As is obvious, members of the Official Opposition believe

that the Province is overregulated. We feel that the many, many sets of

regulations which successive Cabinets have enacted constitute needless

interference in the lives of citizens and businesses. We wholeheartedly agree

with the objective of the exercise the Premier and his government have carried

out. We support weeding and pruning and trimming. We agree with getting rid of

obsolete regulations with eliminating regulations that serve no legitimate

public purpose. However, I have serious concerns about the technique - to use

the Premier's word - that he and his government have chosen. Now, as the Premier

has indicated, regulations are entirely within the control of the Cabinet.

Regulations are made under legislation by Cabinet without the need to come to

the House of Assembly. Cabinet meeting every Thursday morning, Cabinet meeting

irregularly at the call of the Premier may enact regulations, may revise old

regulations, may amend regulations, Cabinet may weed, Cabinet may prune. What

the Premier's technique involves is something quite different. It involves

killing all the regulations, killing all 2,358 sets of regulations and then

reseeding.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a government that bungled the

uniform municipal utilities tax legislation. Now, that was a high profile

initiative of the government that required legislation that involved the House

of Assembly. Did the government get it right? In its first try, no, Mr. Speaker.

The government botched the draft of the bill. Did the government get it right

the second time, Mr. Speaker? No. After two attempts at a simple legislative

change, the government had to come back to the House of Assembly the third time

to get it right. Now, Mr. Speaker, while the stacks and stacks of government

regulations include many provisions that have no useful purpose, many sections

that are archaic, many rules that have no known purpose in 1995, in the myriad

of regulations there are also needed protections for public health and safety.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier why he doesn't carry out the

objective of sorting through government regulations and continuing only those

regulations that have a public purpose now acknowledged by him and his

colleagues through the usual Cabinet process? Why does the Premier want to take

the extraordinary measure of legislating the end of all the regulations with the

risk that some needed regulations will not be continued, will not be

reintroduced, whether in the original form or in a modified form?

Mr. Speaker, as one member of this House of Assembly, I don't

want to be part of passing this bill with a result that on March 31, 1996 all

regulations are wiped out and only the ones that Judge Noel and a committee of

civil servants deem to be in the public interest are continued. I don't want to

wake up some morning in June and hear on the radio news that there has been a

fire in a licensed boarding home with a loss of life, and discover later that

day that the regulations setting health and safety standards for licensed

boarding homes were inadvertently discontinued because they were killed with the

sunset legislation back on March 31 and the civil servants forgot to re-enact

them.

I support the objective of weeding regulations, and I can

believe that half the regulations on the books have no useful purpose in 1995. I

would urge the Premier and his colleagues in Cabinet who are politically

accountable to take responsibility themselves in the usual way for regulations,

and by all means repeal regulations they decide have no useful purpose now, but

continue the ones that have a purpose and amend others which can better serve

the public interest in a modified form.

Mr. Speaker, when the Spring sitting of the House of Assembly

was coming to an end, after the House Leaders had agreed to conclude Spring

business on a certain day, the Government House Leader, panic-fashion, came to

our House Leader and me saying that he had forgotten Bill No. 7. He really

wanted Bill No. 7 to pass in the spring but he forgot. He asked us to give

special leave to waive the usual debating time so it could be whipped through

before the summer. I was rather startled by that request and I asked his purpose

for wanting to get this through in such an unusual haste. He arranged for me to

meet with a couple of the senior civil servants guiding the review of

regulations. When I talked to them I asked them: Why do you need this

legislation? Cabinet already has the power to rescind regulations or amend them.

Just have Cabinet do it in the regular way. The reply was that the legislation

was needed to impose discipline on ministers and their departments, because some

departments weren't taking the exercise seriously.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if there is a lack of discipline, I

suggest that the Premier deal with it and impose discipline, but please don't

associate Members of the House of Assembly who haven't been privy to the

process, who don't even know what regulations are slated for repeal, or the ones

that are to be modified, or the third category, ones that are to be continued,

to be made partly responsible for some inadvertent omission or oversight.

I would encourage the Premier to carry out his objectives but

change his technique and use the usual technique of having the ministers in

Cabinet discriminate, examine the recommendations of the commissioner and the

civil servants, look at the regulations and decide which ones are needed and

which ones are not. But don't expect members of the House of Assembly, blind,

without being privy to any of the proposals, without knowing which regulations

will be killed, to be responsible for ending all 2,358 sets of regulations as of

March 31, 1996.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak to

this -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier is going to respond to Lynn's

question.

PREMIER WELLS: With the House's permission, I would like

to (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I have a few concerns, too. Maybe he

can respond to both of them at once when I'm finished.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: If he isn't going to be here to listen to my

concerns, well, that's fine.

I want to raise a few points on this legislation, Mr.

Speaker, because I think the Premier has misconstrued what this is really all

about. He keeps talking about regulations as if they were some minor items that

by virtue of using the word `regulation', he is using a term that seems to be

considered a negative term, that regulation in and of itself is a bad or

negative thing. What we are really talking about here is not regulations per se,

it is actually legislation. It is called subordinate legislation, and the modern

theory of government is that the Legislature only deals in the legislation, in

the acts that come before the House, with broad principles and some certain

specifics, and the details of a legislative enactment are left to regulation.

Regulation is passed by the Cabinet. They are called

regulations but it is actually, in fact, subordinate legislation. It is of the

same force and effect as the act itself. As long as the subordinate legislation

does not contradict the act, the subordinate legislation is of the same force

and effect, and same legal effect. It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that there

be some 2000 so-called regulations for 441 acts. We are really not talking about

a large body of law, rules, and sections that deal with that for a Province the

size of Newfoundland which has been enacting legislation and subordinate

legislation for the last number of years.

Now, I don't have any difficulty with the principle of

reviewing legislation, whether it is legislation passed in this House or whether

it is subordinate legislation, but what we have here is a massive project,

undertaken at the request of government, with a report sitting on the

government's desk that is not more than a month or so old, and nobody here has

seen it. Perhaps the Cabinet has seen it, I don't know, but nobody here has seen

it, and the recommendation of the bill before us now says we are going to wipe

out everyone of those 2000-some-odd pieces of subordinate legislation except

those that the Cabinet passes again, between now and the end of the year.

We have no idea, to date, what the government plans, what the

report recommends, what government's response to that report is going to be, and

while it may well be within the power of government to do all this, once piece

at a time, what the government is undertaking here is a massive project that is

subject to not just the criteria that are laid out - and the criteria

themselves, I haven't examined them in detail. But I don't have any major

objection to the criteria in that subordinate legislation, or regulations, as

they are called, should be efficient and should be necessary, and should meet

the criteria of sustainable development, and that there should be absence of

gender bias, systemic or formal.

I don't have any problem with that, but I have a lot of

problems with very general kinds of things like that when someone's judgement

has to be exercised as to whether it was appropriate or not for a particular

piece of subordinate legislation to be repealed, and what kind of wholesale

changes are taking place under the guise of this particular legislation. We

don't know. There is no transparency here at all. We have a set of subordinate

legislation - they are called regulations but that is only the terminology. It

is actually of legislative force, and all the detail of legislation is contained

in this subordinate legislation or regulations. And, as some people once said,

the devil is in the details, Mr. Speaker.

This House passes legislation and gives broad guidelines, and

sets out aims and goals of legislation, and then the officials of the

department, through their processes, set out the details by which the

legislation is to be carried out. It is a very important process and as any of

you who have read Eugene Forsey's memoirs would know, he devotes a whole series

of his memoirs to dealing with subordinate legislation in Ottawa. He talks about

this theory of government where the Legislature can only do so much; it is only

so much that could be debated here, but that all the detailed work of government

is contained in subordinate legislation, so this is a big project and if anyone

on this side of the House or on the other side of the House wants to really know

what the government is doing here, are they going to have to conduct the same

kind or research that Judge Noel and his committee took months and months and

had to get an extension to do it, to find out what's going on? When are we going

to have this report, not just a censored version of it which the Premier seems

to be talking about today? The whole report on the table of the House so that we

can have a look at it and if the government wants to make these wholesale

changes, let us examine them.

Is a Committee of the House going to have a look at them to

see what the government plans? It is not transparent, I say to the Premier; it

is not transparent what's going on. If Judge Noel has made certain

recommendations based on his judgement of what's appropriate and what's not, and

the department doesn't agree with him and the government is going to do one

thing or the order, then we should know what choices the government plans to

make, so that if there is a problem it can be at least, aired publicly and

criticized, if not convince the government or the Premier to change his mind.

There are a lot of people worried about this particular piece

of legislation, I say to the Premier, and I have had calls on it on numerous

occasions. There are people afraid, that the government has somehow adopted an

ideology of so-called deregulations, they are going to wipe out every regulation

on the books in the interest of no government, like the Reform Party talks about

or the Newt Gingriches in the States, the Republican ideal that there should be

less and less if not no government if possible. There are people worried that,

as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, that there are safety

regulations, that there are nursing-home regulations that there are provisions

that are important for public safety or individual safety that are going to be

thrown out with the dirty bathwater.

Now, I don't have a problem. The principle of reviewing

legislative enactments, reviewing subordinate legislation and finding out

whether there is dross that needs to be gotten rid of, I don't think anybody in

this Province has a problem with that. There is nobody in this Province who will

say we don't believe in efficient government and we don't need to have rules and

regulations that are unnecessary, that are only causing a burden, but it is not

enough for the government to say, Mr. Speaker, well, we always act in the public

interest. Well, as defined by whom, Mr. Speaker?

Obviously, the government is going to act in the public

interest as defined by itself, but if the public doesn't know what the

government is doing, until after the fact, until next March sometime, well this

is what we did last year, here are the new rules. If we get at the end of the

day, Mr. Speaker - and this is something I think the Premier should answer - if

at the end of the day, next March, the Premier stands in this House and says:

Well, here is the published volume, this is what's left. Now we have it all in

one place, this is what's left of government's subordinate legislation.

My question to the Premier is: Well, what did you take out?

Do I have to go and do six months of research to find out what was removed, or

are we going to have this report? Are we going to have this report and be able

to say: Okay, well you are removing, a, b, c, d and e, 50 per cent of the

subordinate legislation, we have to know what's being removed, Mr. Speaker,

before we can know what the effect of it is, and it is not good enough to say we

are doing this in the public interest. It is not good enough to say people are

going to know, for the first time because there is going to be a book. What we

need to know is, what's left out? Where is all the rest of it, what are they?

Are we in agreement or is the public in agreement that the other 50 per cent

should go? People have different opinions, I say as to what may be in the public

interest or not, and if the government is doing something as such a large

project as this, then it should be transparent.

I know the Premier has hinted at, you know, making this

report public and I urge him to make the full report public, not a censored

version of it, the full report so that when this one book is left, here is the

book of subordinate legislation in this Province, we will know not only what's

in the book, but we will know what this government has taken off the books

without having to do a six-month research project such as Judge Noel did. So

these are important considerations, Mr. Speaker, and if hon. members would

yield, I would hope the Premier would address them and I have finished and have

concluded my remarks at this stage.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me address a couple of questions that

were raised. First, by the Leader of the Opposition.

Why not do each one individually? Well now, we can kill this

project right now by going through all of this and have public debate and public

discussion on each one of them and that will be an end of it, and we will still

be left with the same amount of regulations we had forty years from now. So the

answer is: Don't try and bog down the system. Of all of the people in the

Province who shouldn't try and constrain what we are doing, it is this House.

You should be trying to get us to get the thing cleaned up.

The Leader of the Opposition said: What about if we eliminate

a regulation that we shouldn't and it causes a fire? We suddenly discover that

the fire was caused because that regulation fell through the cracks and weren't

enforced. I have no basis for a concern in that area. Surely our fire fighting

regulations were the very regulation necessary for public safety and order. They

don't get repealed on that basis. They are essential for public safety and

order, so they are not repealed on that basis.

Much of what is eliminated, by the way, is duplication. There

is substantial duplication in our regulations. Much of what the commissioner

said - and you will see much of his report say - it is unnecessary to have this

set of regulations because the matter is already dealt with under this

regulation. Here we have two different departments enforcing essentially

regulations to achieve essentially the same objective.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) five and six.

PREMIER WELLS: There may well be five and six in some

cases. The hon. member may well be right. So there is no concern, I don't have a

major concern along those lines. If we find at any time that we have eliminated

a regulation that should not have been eliminated, then either the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, if it is the Lieutenant-Governor in Council that

has the authority, or the body having authority can re-enact the regulation at

any time.

If you look at the bill there is one provision in it that

specifically provides that the body - it is

section 6(1): "Notwithstanding that

subordinate legislation has been re-enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council under this Act, the subordinate legislation, as re-enacted, may be

amended, revised, repealed or otherwise dealt with by the minister, board,

commission or other body on which the power to make the subordinate legislation

was first conferred...." So if something has been done, we suddenly decide or

discover: Gee, look, we shouldn't have wiped out that piece of regulation, we

need it, then the body having authority can put it back in place, or a revision

of it, very easy and very quickly. There is no reason to be greatly concerned.

The hon. Member for St. John's East wants to have a committee

of the House and have this transparent discussion of it. That will kill it. That

will leave us with regulations in place for decades to come if we try and put

that kind of a process in place.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Because it will go on forever and ever.

There will be debate and discussion about it. Everybody will be wanting to hold

this up and to add to this, and add some more to it, and we will have even more

regulation than we ever thought of having.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Everybody has got an idea that they can

run government better than government. The hon. member effectively wants to be a

member of the Cabinet and he wants this House to decide what regulations are

going to continue or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: The Member for St. John's East. This is

his suggestion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, maybe it is the only way he is going

to get there, but he wants this House to be able to make the - well, this House

doesn't make the regulations, this House passes the statutes. We can't effect

any change in a statute, and many changes are recommended, without coming to

this House to do it. Only this House can address it. For the most part the

regulations are made by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, but in some other

cases there are some different entities and agencies that make the regulation.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the reason for choosing this technique.

If they were all regulations that were made by the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council could do it without coming to the

House. But in some other cases other bodies have been given the authority to

make the regulations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: There is a variety. There is a -

MR. ROBERTS: Ministers can do it.

PREMIER WELLS: Workers' Compensation Board, a variety of

others. All the boards and agencies in the Province make regulations, a variety

of them. The only body that can effect all of them is the House. The

Lieutenant-Governor in Council can't supersede a regulation made by another

agency or body. We can't repeal it. So this technique was necessary in order to

deal effectively with all of the regulations. That answers that question.

I hope the answers have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I told the House that I would address that

and I will. I will let the House know in a day or so. Thank you again very much,

and thank you for your accommodation of me. I do appreciate it. Thank you very

much.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

opportunity to stand and speak to this piece of legislation today dealing with

subordinate legislation.

Let me say that I as a member of this House support

deregulating and streamlining government to make it more effective, to make it

more open, to make it more useful to individual taxpayers, businessmen and women

in this Province, who want to see that when a good idea is launched by them,

individuals, or a group they are associated with, that they have the opportunity

to get it done and get it done quickly. We support that. I support it

wholeheartedly, but I do have some concerns.

Every rule and regulation, subordinate legislation, that

comes before Cabinet, that are made, as the Member for St. John's East alluded

to, is really where the details are found in legislation that we pass in this

House. What happens if A, B, C, D, or E happens? Then we know that F will follow

because of the rules and regulations associated with it, and often in this House

six months to a year after legislation is passed we find there is trouble with

the legislation, not what we passed here so much in the debate that took place.

The former minister of Workers' Compensation and I can have this debate, but

what rules and regulations apply to it.

An example of that is when this government passed, or changed

the appeal process for workers' compensation, made the appeal tribunal, put in

place an independent arbitrator, a single adjudicator system and it was not

until seven months later that we discovered in this House, through information

that was brought forward, that the minister, when we passed legislation said

there would be a specific amount of money per case, $500, and that was the

perception of each and every member in this House, it wasn't until later that a

rule and regulation was made that actually defined the case.

Now, while that may not be a huge issue it is an example of

what rules and regulations are about in the House of Assembly. I have a great

deal of concern in passing this government a blank cheque, to say that we will

take every piece of subordinate legislation that is before the House right now,

we will make them all null and void and than reintroduce all of them, the

January one or whatever the date is, or whatever ones we want.

Now, the Premier indicated in his opening remarks that there

would be 1048 regulations that would be deleted, and his opening remarks were

again convincing because the aims and objectives that he portrayed, that he

spoke about in the House here in introducing this legislation are ones that, I

think, most members support, but that is not where the problem lies. The problem

does not lie with the aims and objectives of legislatures. The problem does not

lie with what we all strive to do, or what we strive to bring in in terms of

legislation in the House. The problem occurs, Mr. Speaker, around the Cabinet

table where rules and regulations are passed. That is where the problems occur.

That is where the problems occur for each and every citizen of the Province.

Whether they are going to get a moose license, whether they are picking up a

rabbit license, whether they are going to look for permits to build municipally.

These are where the problems occur, at the rules and regulations level.

Now, the Member for St. John's East suggested that maybe we

could have a Committee of the House who could look at what rules and regulations

would be repealed so that we would know what the impact of it would be, either

positively or negatively. The Premier's response was this, if we put that before

a committee of the House, if we instigate or initiate public debate on this very

important piece of legislation, it could kill the project altogether.

Well, Mr. Speaker, very simply put that is a valuable

suggestion that can be handled with appropriate times given to any committee of

the House. Supposing it is all members of the back bench on the government side

given a specific amount of time, say December 1. They would conclude their

hearings; they would conclude their work on November 30 and pass their

recommendations forward to the House of Assembly ultimately for approval or

disapproval.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what would be the problem with that? Why is

it that this Premier has a problem with public debate? Why is it that this

Premier in introducing this legislation indicates that public debate would kill

this project? That does not need to be. If we are going to limit public debate

on a very serious piece of legislation, which not all of us know what the

implications will be, well, what am I doing here? What did the people of

Kilbride elect me for? Why don't we just turn it over to a benevolent dictator

like one Clyde K. Wells? Is that what we are about here? I don't think so and

that is not what we should be about here. I apologize to nobody for not

accepting this government's advice on this piece of legislation or others.

What are other examples, Mr. Speaker? We recently passed a

resolution in the House here that would effectively see this government changing

Term 17. When members of this side asked very basic questions on that piece of

legislation and the impact of what it would be in terms of viable schools, what

would make up a viable school, has the viability criteria been given? What was

the answer? There was none, Mr. Speaker, because this government either did not

know or were not forthcoming with the information when asked. That is why I have

a problem with some of this legislation. I support the objectives of the

government in trying to deregulate and make government more accessible and

easier to maintain, easier for people to get access to information, permits to

build homes, to build businesses or whatever the case may be but I as one member

cannot accept being requested to sign a blank cheque for this government, for

this specific government, to sit down over a Cabinet table, thirteen

individuals, and decide what the faith of the rest of us will be. I will not

accept that and I will not stand here and I don't think my constituents should

accept it.

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why the Member for St. John's

East suggestion could not be taking place. That we would look at the regulations

that are being repealed, we would see what is being replaced and what the impact

will be. What would it take? We are sending a committee around the Province

right now and indeed we have sent them around the country, a committee on

children's interest - why not? Why could we not do that? Why could we not set up

a small committee, with three or four members, that would look at the impact of

this particular piece of legislation in a sixty day, forty-five day or thirty

day period? We have the ability to put criteria and time limits in place to get

things done effectively here but not at the peril and not at the demise of

public debate and for members of the House to have a look at what is happening.

My God! If that is the standard and the principle that we are going to apply in

every decision that we make, no matter how big or how small, Mr. Speaker, then

we are in desperate trouble.

With that I will conclude by saying to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations - I don't know if I can get the minister's

attention for a moment. Could I have your attention for a moment? I suggest to

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that when you sit around the

Cabinet table and this piece of legislation is made law, that when all rules and

regulations of the Workers' Compensation Commission are repealed and you as

minister can influence in any way, shape or form what rules and regulations will

be put back in effect or in law, then I say that you have an opportunity right

there, minister, to clean up the Workers' Compensation Commission like no other

minister's had before you. I suggest that, if at all possible, you take that

avenue and take the window of opportunity that is presented to you, to have a

good look, a strong and in-depth look and an analysis of what the rules and

regulations are at the Workers' Compensation Commission to see if they work, not

for just injured workers, not just for employers and not just for government but

do they work for the concept of the Workers' Compensation Commission as they

should and if they do not, I suggest that you repeal them. With that, thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very supportive of any streamlining in regulations. With

government here, I think that we are overregulated. We have too many sets. There

are some concerns I want to express here. Maybe the Premier when he closes

debate might address these. He indicated, when he introduced the bill, that

there were 1,152 sets of regulations that are going to stay as they are. He

mentioned that 5 per cent were necessary to retain but they needed changes and

that amounts to about 118 sets of regulations which means there are 1,088

regulations now that are being dropped or repealed. I know the House here does

not set those regulations. It is done by Cabinet but in many of these

regulations, if we go back and look at the history of these regulations that

were set, they were done in response to a public need. In many of these

regulations there was public input. There were hearings at different forums

around the Province to set these regulations. It was not just the fourteen

people or fifteen people in Cabinet who had input into these, it was hundreds

and hundreds of people around the Province who raised concerns, who met with

ministers, who brought these regulations to Cabinet and had them enacted in the

best interest of serving the public need.

Now, I would like to see a copy. Prior to having this debated

here in the House, or maybe before it goes into a Committee of the Whole before

final reading, it would be good to have a copy of those 1,088 that are being

repealed, a copy of those that are amended now, the 5 per cent or so that are

amended, and also the ones being retained, because just as a smaller group of

people are making decisions on the repealing of these - and, granted, these

people are fairly expert in their area, and 99 per cent may be no problem, but

there could be certain particular ones there into which we might need some

public input.

Now, regulations arose out of a need to regulate and control

certain activities. A particular one comes to mind recently - and I am not sure

what category this is in - let's take the motorized vehicles and snowmobile

legislation, or ATV regulations as we have come to know it. This was enacted by

Cabinet, and they have every right, but they didn't have any public meetings on

this. It got enacted, and they admitted, and the Minister of Natural Resources

did admit that yes, there need to be changes now. After several months he

realized that maybe there should be more input, so he would set up a committee

and look into doing a revision and doing some amendments to these so they would

be in the best interest not only of protecting the environment, but also in the

best interest of people in some way that would permit continued use of those

vehicles there without adversely affecting the environment.

So I think it is important, even though we don't have any say

in repealing these, I think it is only fair that when we go through such an

extensive review, and I support that review, and I am delighted that we are down

to only half the number there, but I would like to have a copy. At least, each

member in their critic area here would be able to break those sets of

regulations down in their areas, take a look at them, become better informed, be

aware of what regulations are there, and be able to determine and do their own

follow-up, too, in case something needs to be brought to the attention of

government, in case they may need to include something there, or at least take

it under advisement and give it proper consideration, because no one individual

or no one group are really infallible. We all make mistakes. And I think it is

important to do it right. I know I want to support what is happening there -

very much so I want to support it - but I would like to see a copy of those

particular regulations there.

Now, I know the purpose overall, the objective, is that we

want to streamline the regulatory process, and we all know it is frustrating

enough to try to establish a business in this Province without, say, just

operating a business that is already established, with continuous regulation

changes we are being confronted with. I think it is important that the public,

and as elected members here in the House, that we should have the opportunity to

be able to scrutinize those regulations, not just to receive them and vote on

them the next day. Because, if it took so long to go back at committee to review

all of these, and to come back and pass this bill here in this House, we feel it

is important to be able to have input.

The Premier indicated, I think, that he would be providing,

if I heard him correctly there, a copy, and we would like to have it sooner

rather than later. We don't want to be voting on this and get a copy later. We

don't want to have it at the final moment. It would save a lot of unnecessary

debate and discussion here in the House. If we had it now, most of the debate on

this could be concluded on second reading, with very little debate in Committee,

and on third reading; it would just go through fairly automatically without much

discussion, and it would save time for the House in the long term. I say we

should be better prepared. I think if we want this bill, "An Act Respecting The

Revision And Consolidation Of Subordinate Legislation", I think we should be

better prepared in having our information here so we can look at that. I say to

the Premier, or to the Government House Leader in the Premier's absence, that I

think it would facilitate the process and it would greatly assist us in

scrutinizing, and hopefully the proper changes would be made.

One thing we don't want to see is the repealing of a certain

regulation by Cabinet and the elimination of something that could have

detrimental effects, or there could be a void out there that is not being met,

because every regulation, I would assume, was brought in out of necessity to

meet a certain need. If 50 per cent don't meet a need right now, there must have

been some dramatic changes over the past number of years. We would like to know

what has changed in that time, if there has been consolidation of different

regulations into one set of regulations. I'm just wondering.

We would like to know, too, how much deregulation has

occurred. Have a lot of those regulations - I think he said 46 per cent are

unnecessary. Are some of these being combined with others? Are we almost as

regulated as we were before? Are we being regulated as much as we were before

but all the regulations are in now and they are just fewer in number, and almost

as many regulations?

These are some of the questions that we need to have

answered. I'm sure the Premier could address these probably on second reading

when he closes debate. It would save us some time then when we get into

Committee. That would conclude my remarks on this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I just want to have a few comments on this bill,

An Act

Respecting The Revision And Consolidation Of Subordinate Legislation.

The Premier talked about how important this piece of

legislation was and how proud he was of it, because he felt that it was very

necessary to streamline the operation of the regulatory process, if you will,

within government. I thoroughly agree with him.

I, as an individual, for most of my working life, have been

in the private sector operating a small, family business. I recognize how

sometimes you feel like tearing your telephone off the wall when you live in

Labrador and you are trying to talk to some technician or public employee,

whatever they are, here in St. John's or in Goose Bay. You get so frustrated at

times you would like to take that telephone and bring it down to St. John's or

to Goose Bay and want to push that telephone right down their throats, or

another opening in that person's body, probably. That is what you would want to

do. A lot of people in the Province feel the same way, especially people who

live further away from the so-called administration locations, the government

service centres, whether they are here in St. John's or Clarenville, Gander,

Grand Falls, Corner Brook, or Happy Valley - Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, what really concerns me is that I've seen the

product of what this government does when it takes the attitude: I know best.

I've been a victim of it, my constituents have been a victim of it, of its

saying: I know what is better for you than you do. A small example, if you will,

is the Motor Vehicle Registration office. This Administration decided to shut

down a Motor Vehicle Registration office in Wabush ostensibly to save money.

They had the computer systems and everything all installed previously. It was

all paid for, done. One employee lost his job. They shut down the office. There

have been hundreds, if not thousands of people for whom I've had to take their

documentation and bring it in to Mount Pearl to get it straightened out, since

that closure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: That was the only one shut down, I tell the

minister, and it was the furthest one away. They said they were going to do it

to improve the delivery of service. Now, I agree with the delivery of service,

and I can see how it could have been improved, using the bank procedures - but

that the idea should be to get the process up and running and then shut it down!

We are seeing another example here in what this Administration is proposing to

do with health care. It is going to shut down a couple of hospitals in St.

John's and then see what it will do with this process after. There is no plan.

That is what bothers me, that we are going to do away with

all these regulations and we are going to leave it up to this bunch in Cabinet

to see what they are going to do, what the new rules are going to be - that is

what really bothers me.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it wouldn't be necessary for the House to

debate every regulation. I can understand how - there has been some suggestion

that, well, that's our responsibility within Cabinet, you are in Opposition, you

don't have any rights to be doing any of this, you should leave that to us.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there has been too much left to `us'. There has been much too

much left to `us', there has been too much power put within Cabinet, I believe.

But, Mr. Speaker, that's what really bothers me about these regulations.

We can't see why it can't be public knowledge how these 2,358

sets of regulations are going to be repealed and only half of them are

necessary. Now, Mr. Speaker, three-quarters of them might be unnecessary, but I

would like to know which ones are going to be changed and how they are going to

be changed. It is fine for somebody to stand here in St. John's - and I have

heard it and seen it before - how this government is supposed to be promoting

and fostering the ideas of creating a climate for entrepreneurial development.

To put it simply, to be able to be entrepreneurial-friendly, Mr. Speaker, to be

friendly with business. I don't have a problem with that, but they say that on

one hand, and on the other hand, they go out and nail the person who is

operating a small business in this Province.

Whether you are a small garage-owner, who last year was

attacked by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - every small

garage-owner in this Province was attacked last year by the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, because he was accusing them all of doing excessive

work on their vehicles, calling them a bunch of crooks, basically, is what he

was doing. And that doesn't promote small business, all that does is provoke the

people, the ordinary citizens of this Province, to go out and mistrust the

person who is in small business - that's what that did. So, Mr. Speaker, they

say one thing, they do another, that's what this government is all about; that's

a hallmark of this government. They say one thing, appear that you are doing

something but do absolutely nothing.

We saw the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, last year,

come in with a Budget that was supposed to be a balanced Budget, and there was

more thumping going on over there, I tell you, you couldn't believe it. It was

unbelievable how proud they were to have this balanced Budget, and six months

later, they are back in with a new minister, who tells everybody in the Province

that it is all smoke and mirrors. We laid off the nurses, we have laid off the

front-line workers but we found that we have hired more bosses - that's what we

did.

MR. EFFORD: Did you take your `nasty pill' this morning?

MR. L. SNOW: Not this morning, it was lunch time.

MR. SULLIVAN: `John', the effects would be worn off by

now, if he did.

MR. A. SNOW: It was last night's `nasty pill', I guess.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I think we should have been more

concerned about the delivery of service; that's what we have to consider and we

have to think of what this government has been doing over the last couple of

years. And I am sincere about this. Some people think it may be funny but, Mr.

Speaker, it isn't. This attitude that father knows best and we will fix it all,

is fundamentally wrong. You have to listen to ordinary people, and you aren't

listening, and the most glaring example, as I said, Mr. Speaker - until I was

interrupted by an hon. member opposite - was the example of this government

bringing in a budget, a plan, that's what it was; they brought in a plan and

were talking proudly and boasting of this balanced Budget, only to find that

they were - and everybody in the Province knew, they couldn't figure it out,

they said: there has to be something going on here - you must have cooked the

books. You must have misled the people. You must have been over-exuberant in

your anticipation of the revenues.

AN HON. MEMBER: A balancing act.

MR. A. SNOW: It was a balancing act that just didn't

work. The high-wire act failed. What that tells us, the people of this Province,

is that you do not, in effect, have a plan. A budget is a plan. And this is a

colossal mistake, a $60 million mistake, including all of the creative

bookkeeping ones, the one-time funding ones that we had from the Federal

Government. But the ultimate one was when the new Finance Minister suggested

that smoke and mirrors was what it was all about. The previous plan was smoke

and mirrors; that is what he said, to use his words. Now, are we seeing more

smoke and mirrors?

Is this piece of legislation again another piece of

propaganda, another piece of smoke and mirrors to be perpetrated on the people

of this Province? that you appear to be doing something but, in effect, what you

are going to be doing is something completely opposite, which is nothing; or you

are going to be implementing more regulations that are going to be more

cumbersome, more unhealthy toward small businesses to operate, more detrimental

to ordinary people, ordinary residents in this Province? Is that what it is

going to be? I would like to have a look, as would a lot of other people in this

House I am sure, at the report itself. I think it is important that we should

see which sets of regulations are going to be scrapped, thrown away, dumped, and

how it will affect the ordinary people of this Province, people who work hard.

Or are they just being duped into thinking that what is going to happen is they

are going to clean up the regulations with regard to the cottage lot, as one

example the Premier mentioned? which is a common complaint that I get. Because

of the number of regulations and the hoops and the hurdles that a person has to

jump through to get a cottage in this Province, I am surprised there are any

cottages built.

Mr. Speaker, are they going to clean up these regulations, or

indeed set up more regulations, or a more cumbersome regulatory process that

will have the people totally frustrated?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like a few words on this particular bill with regard

to, I guess, the overhaul, the repeal of some, the amendment of some, government

regulations.

One thing we, as an Opposition, found somewhat surprising

today was that the government brought in this bill which covers a lot of ground

but really didn't lay out in any detail what sorts of regulations are being

re-enacted, what sorts are being done away with completely, and what regulations

will be amended to make them more effective in terms of serving our people.

Mr. Speaker, we had, earlier in the day in this Assembly and

last week, an instance of a minister breaking regulations that the Premier had

put down for the behaviour of his Cabinet ministers. You can make regulations, I

guess, until you are blue in the face, but one has to wonder, what good are

regulations if they are not enforced, and consistently enforced?

Since this government came to power some six years ago we

have seen some changes, one could argue some improvements, in regulations,

especially as they affect Cabinet ministers and their role within government and

our society as a whole. We have seen ministers of the Crown lose their seat

because of a breach of regulations as laid down by the hon. the Premier, and

here we have today, both in what the Premier said in the House of Assembly and

what I overheard him saying in a meeting with the press outside this Chamber a

few moments ago, a minister who the Premier acknowledges has broken the

regulations, but because he indicated the minister concerned brought certain

special skills and talents to the government, he did not think he could afford

to get rid of that minister. Also, he interpreted the regulations in favour of

the minister in this particular case because he said the minister is new.

Mr. Speaker, we had some regulations and there are some

regulations as well, dealing with what is legitimate behaviour on the part of

ministers. With this particular minister there was some considerable controversy

in his department some months ago relating to a function attended by him and

several of his senior officials. There was some question as to whether or not

the behaviour at a certain - how shall I put it - golf tournament or whatever,

was indeed in line with proper behaviour for ministers. We have been told that

certain hotel bills and expenses were taken back and redone a certain way so

that they would conform to the Premier's regulations. Now those are regulations

that were already in place and that minister did not conform to them. Now the

minister has not conformed to a new set of regulations and we have the Premier

saying the minister is new, he does not know the rules so I am going to forgive

him this time. Mr. Speaker, that is not sufficient, not at all.

Then we have the Premier in the enforcement of his

regulations, come into this hon. House and breath the names of two civilian

human beings into the record of this House, people that he telephoned with the

sole purpose of intimidation, Mr. Speaker, let's be honest about this. This

Premier has actually called up people before, who have signed petitions to this

hon. House, just to call up and lay the heavy hand of God on them and let them

know the big brother is indeed watching, that big brother is indeed marking down

your name for some future time.

We heard the names of two individuals repeated here in this

House today in response to a minister breaking the regulations. Not only was it

not good enough that the Premier forgave the minister for his breach of the

regulations but then he had to go on and basically say to all and sundry in the

general public: don't you dare complain to the Opposition or to the media about

a minister breaking regu