April 18,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 32

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This brief

announcement would be of particular interest to my colleague the hon. Member for

Torngat Mountains. As he is undergoing a period of bereavement at the moment we

will make absolutely certain that he has all the full details related to the

statement as soon as propriety permits me to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce today that there will

be an open season for hunting polar bears in the portion of Labrador North of

Anakalik Brook. A total of four licenses will be made available and only one

bear my be taken on each license. Only residents of the Torngat Mountains

electoral district will be permitted to utilize the licenses which will be

available from the Labrador Inuit Association office in Nain, Labrador. Persons

in that zone who wish to be considered for this hunting opportunity should

contact the LIA office in Nain.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the management of

polar bears in Canada is closely monitored, co-operatively by all jurisdictions

responsible for the species. A polar bear hunting season has been opened in

Labrador because the population is considered capable of withstanding a harvest.

The results of the hunt will be analyzed by wildlife division biologists who

will be updating and expanding their data base for this species in Newfoundland

and Labrador. We will allow hunting of the species to be permitted until

November 1991, or until the four licenses have been utilized.

Thank you.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I would like to thank the Minister for a copy of

his statement well in advance of the opening of the House. I am doing this

today, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my friend and colleague the Member for Torngat

Mountains. I am sure that I express the sentiments that he would in saying that

it is a good thing, it is a step in the right direction, and again I am sure he

would be quite pleased that only residents of Torngat Mountains are eligible. In

saying that, Mr. Speaker, I again know that I am expressing the wishes of the

hon. Member in saying that I would like to see this hunt only available for

native people,

whereas now the Minister leaves the door open a little, I think,

and mounties, teachers, or anyone else can apply on a first come, first served

basis. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I think it is good, and I think the people

of Labrador will be responsive to it, and I hope that native people will get the

first crack at it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I missed the House the last day

or two, so I have been trying to catch up on some of the allegations and

responses being given to a certain issue that has arisen. In order to help me do

a complete assessment of it, as one of the critics on this side of House, I

wonder if the Minister of Social Services can tell me, or first of all perhaps,

can he confirm to the House that he promised his campaign manager in the last

election that he would find him a position in the public service of the

Province? Could he confirm that? I know that has been one of the allegations.

Secondly, and perhaps even more interestingly, I understand

that the individual, I will not name the individual, but the individual

concerned had in his possession or had provided to him somehow, somewhere, a

list of questions that the Public Service Commission uses during interview

processes. That is the way I understand it. Perhaps I am incorrect, but if it

is, can the Minister tell me if he has had a chance to find out exactly how the

individual in question came into possession of those interview questions?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, I know the immunity of the House of

Assembly gives hon. Members certain rights over there to make false accusations

and go on with the political garbage that they are going on with, and it is my

responsibility as Minister of the Crown and as a Minister of the House of

Assembly to answer these questions to the best of my ability. As far as the

individual was my campaign manager during the last election and the campaign

manager during the election in 1985, I only pray to God that I will be alive for

the next election because I will be running again, and he will be my campaign

manager then. He is now my executive assistant. He is not, has not, and I cannot

say will never, but up to this date has never applied for a position with the

Public Service Commission.

As far as the other allegations, made by the looniest

individual who has made all these allegations this week, that matter is under

investigation by the Public Service Commission and they will tell their findings

when the investigation is completed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: I thank hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps in a supplementary the Minister can tell

us this instead of playing games. I mean the individual concerned is one Mr.

Stoyles, I believe, so perhaps he is not his campaign manager, but obviously I

think he has admitted that he certainly has been a campaign worker for him. Can

he still answer the question? Can he tell us how that individual came into

possession of interview questions used by the Public Service Commission? Has he

had a chance to get an answer to that?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is far from the truth and

it proves quite clearly, as the hon. Member just said, he does not even know the

answers. The allegation he used about my campaign manager is as far from the

truth as the other allegations.

The matter of a list of questions I have absolutely no

knowledge of, except the fact that it was made by an individual for some reason

or other. And you can make the allegation that the Minister of Social Services

sold drugs last week, that the Minister of Social Services robbed a bank last

week, that the Minister of Social Services travelled to Cuba or to Kuwait and

was part of Saddam Hussein's war. This allegation is just as foolish.

An internal investigation is being carried out by the Public

Service Commission and when the Commission comes out with its findings, it will

be released to the House of Assembly and to whomever else is concerned about it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, thank you. As much as this

Minister wants this issue to go away, it will not go away. And flippant answers,

I can assure him, will not help his situation. May I ask the Premier a question?

Yesterday and now today apparently the Minister has given some fairly flippant

answers I think to pretty serious questions. We are asking the questions, and I

think we are entitled to some serious answers.

Specifically, the Premier is aware of the allegations which

have been made. The allegation as I understood it is that the Minister's

Executive Assistant somehow provided this information, or this questionaire, or

these questions at least, to this particular individual who was to be

interviewed, as I understand it, through a Public Service competition for a

position at the Whitbourne detention centre.

Now that is the allegation and that is the question we are

trying to get answered, but the Minister does not intend to answer it. So I am

asking the Premier if, in fact, he has included this latest allegation then in

his most recent investigations of the actions of the Minister and his staff,

which he indicated to us some time ago he was investigating and would further

investigate, and is he at all concerned about this latest allegation and whether

or not that might compromise the Public Service Commission?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me state at the outset, the hon.

Member is incorrect. I at no time said I am investigating the Minister and his

staff. I said I am investigating the allegations which have been made. Bearing

in mind the source of the allegations, I also expressed grave doubt that there

was any validity to them, but if there was and the investigation demonstrated

any validity, I would of course, take whatever action was appropriate. Now the

Opposition House Leader wants to convert it into something else and I will not

let him do that.

With respect to the other question about the Public Service

Commission and the delivery of questions - I heard delivery of answers to

somebody who was applying - I, like the Opposition House Leader, was away

yesterday; I just arrived back about forty minutes ago now, so I am not totally

up to speed on every nuance and detail that occurred. But I have been advised of

the event and I have also been advised that as the Minister indicated, the

Public Service Commission acting under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act has the

authority - and not only the authority, the responsibility - to investigate and

carry out any of these events, or carry out investigations into any such

allegations.

And, Mr. Speaker, I will not sit here and allow the hon. the

Opposition House Leader or any Member Opposite to turn this into a political

charade in the way in which they are doing, I will wait for the Public Service

Commission to conduct its investigation as it does in the normal course. If as a

result of that investigation there is any necessity whatsoever for me to take

any action, action will be taken. But I will not allow the Opposition to turn

this into the political witch-hunt they want to in the present circumstances.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This matter is much

too serious and important I think to be swept under the rug or to be

whitewashed. Now if the Premier is as certain as he pretends to be here today

that this is nothing more than a charade, will he then order an independent

enquiry into this allegation and all the other allegations, take it out from

under his own wing and give it to somebody independent as he did one time

before? Will he do that? We can then all be certain as to whether or not it is a

charade.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. And let me correct him

again. I did not say that that was a charade. Maybe the allegation is totally

accurate. It may well be. But that is what the Public Service Commission is

given the power and responsibility under Sections 16 and 17 to correct. It is

the charade that is going on right now in the House by the Opposition Leader

that I call a charade - that is the charade!

Now if he wants me to appoint an independent person to

determine whether or not those actions are a political charade, I think it is a

waste of public funds to do so. I think it is obvious to everybody who looks at

and hears the actions and comments that they will know it is a political

charade.

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

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

a question for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The Minister

will recall that some time ago he requested proposals on engineering design work

for several hospitals around the Province. Can the Minister confirm that two

engineering consulting contracts have been awarded to a consortium consisting of

Newlab Engineering Limited of South River and William Nycum and Associates of

Nova Scotia for the design of hospitals at Burgeo and Port

Saunders?

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, that is

correct. The consultant's contract was given to Newlab and Nycum, a consortium

of these companies, and it was given because both hospitals are of the same

design and it was thought it would be cheaper to give the contract to the one

consultant firm, which was recommended by officials in my department.

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

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

Minister confirm that at least in the case of Port Saunders, Newlab Engineering

was not even on the recommended list, a list prepared by the committee from his

department which assesses these proposals?

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, that is correct. They were

recommended to do the Burgeo Hospital, but the method by which we do business in

this Government is to try to save money for the taxpayers and in view of the

fact that both hospitals were of exactly the same design, it was thought more

prudent to give the contract to the one company and save the taxpayers' money.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to see

the Minister is interested in saving the taxpayers' money. But can the Minister

tell us why it was necessary to award design contracts to a consortium where

much of the design work will be done outside the Province, in Nova Scotia? And

does the Minister not think there is architectural and engineering competence

within this Province to be able to do such work?

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, the reason the contract was

awarded to a consortium of a Newfoundland and an outside company was that we

wanted to broaden the base of the expertise in Newfoundland. It was the

recommendation made by the group of officials from my department and the

Department of Health. They said there was indeed expertise in Newfoundland to do

it, but they felt in order not to have a monopoly situation develop, it would be

much better if we broadened the base to another company to have a pool of

expertise available to do this type of design.

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

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

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I see the

Minister is not interested in saving money and spending the money we have within

the Province. Is it not true that Newlab Engineering Limited of South River was

awarded this design contract at the insistence of the Minister of Social

Services who was determined to see that another of his campaign workers, Mr. Max

Mercer, who is owner of Newlab Engineering was given this extra work, which was

not recommended by the staff from his department, the Department of Health, or

other departments, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, not again!

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Services

had no input into it whatsoever. The recommendation was made by officials in my

Department, and a decision was made to extend the contract to save money for the

taxpayers.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Premier. Last year when the Premier was trying to defend the Government's

disbanding the Ombudsman's office he said the Ombudsman's function could be

discharged by open line radio hosts, fifty-two MHAs and, he stressed, by appeal

boards such as the Social Services Appeals Board. With no Ombudsman, would the

Premier not agree it is now imperative that quasi-judicial boards such as the

Social Services Appeals Board be composed of qualified people who are

independent of the Minister and the Cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge

the boards which are in place are basically qualified. It may well be that there

are some members on boards who were appointed by the former government who may

or may not have had qualifications and we have not taken any steps to remove

them. That is entirely possible. And it may well be -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: And it may well be that we have made some

appointments that were less than the best possible appointments. I do not say we

are perfect and I do not claim to be perfect, but I would like to think, Mr.

Speaker, that basically the appointments we have made to the boards since we

have been there are competent, able people. If anybody has demonstrated, or if

there is any demonstration of incompetence or incapability, I would have no

hesitation in removing anybody who is incapable from any such boards - none

whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the

Premier to direct himself to the composition of quasi-judicial boards, and to

the makeup of the Social Services Appeals Board in question. I am talking about

the need to have people who are not only qualified but also impartial and seen

to be impartial. Now surely the Premier has to admit that since the revelation

that the present members of the Social Services Appeals Board appointed by his

Government are political cronies of the Minister, and since the Minister was on

television crowing that he would not appoint Tories to boards, that Board has no

credibility. Will the Premier not take charge and reconstitute the Social

Services Appeals Board by instructing the Public Service Commission to recruit

and recommend candidates for appointment to that Board who are both qualified

and independent, candidates who are the most meritorious?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Maybe we could get Ida Reid back. Mr.

Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: So far I have gotten as far as "Mr.

Speaker". Mr. Speaker, to be honest with you, in the last few days since this

matter has arisen I have done some enquiry as to the nature of the Board. I

would be hesitant to go quite so far as to call it quasi-judicial, although I

would have to agree with the hon. Member that the Board makes decisions as to

legal rights or entitlement under statutes and has to interpret statutes and

regulations. Perhaps quasi-judicial is going a bit far, but it does have to do

that kind of thing and I acknowledge that. And there has to be a certain level

of competence in the Board. I do acknowledge that as well.

I am told that all members who are appointed to such boards

either have the training beforehand or go through a process of training which

equips them to do it. I will check and see whether or not these individuals had

any particular training or qualification, and let the House know whether or not

they had that particular training.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it embarrasses me but it concerns

me a little to say that when you have quasi-judicial boards, ideally perhaps you

should have legally trained people, lawyers, but to be honest, Mr. Speaker, the

people of this Province cannot afford to hire lawyers to go on all these boards

because they are too darn expensive, so instead we appoint independent,

competent, capable people to do it and provide whatever training is necessary to

give them the legal background to carry out the function, and this is a way of

reducing the cost.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier asked: maybe we could get Ida Reid back. Maybe we

could get the Ombudsman back, maybe we could have real change, maybe we can

reform our ways of governing the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Maybe the standards of the past are no longer

good enough.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary but it appears to me

she is making a speech rather than asking a supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I am asking rhetorical questions.

I say to the Premier: when social assistance recipients believe they have been

shortchanged by the Department of Social Services, and remember it is their

livelihood at stake, normally they exhaust all recourses. They go to senior

officials of the Department, they go to their MHAs, they go to their Minister's

offices, and it is only when they are refused all the way up to the Minister

that they go to the Appeal Board. How can the Premier expect any of these

appellants, particularly any of the 48 per cent of the population who voted PC

in the last election, or any of the people who are represented by Members on

this side of the House, to have any faith in this Appeal Board made up of

cronies of the Minister for whom the Minister got thousands of dollars of

retroactive pay, and how can they expect these people, these appellants, to

trust the board after seeing the Minister on television declaring that he has a

vendetta against Tories?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand the

hon. Member's reference to the 48 per cent who voted Tory and how they do not

have confidence. I would advise the hon. Member that if you pay any attention to

the polls, virtually all of them have switched since anyway, so it is no major

problem so I do not think they have any great concern. But, Mr. Speaker, in

terms of competence and confidence, if there is any basis for the allegation

that the individuals who constitute that board are not properly discharging

their duties, or not properly assessing the appeals by individual applicants,

and making correct decisions, or in any way making prejudiced decisions, then

steps will be taken to correct that immediately, to remove them from the board

and put in place a board that will award proper decisions. But I am not about to

castigate every board in sight merely because the hon. Member points out that 48

per cent of the people voted Tory in the last election and some people may be

apprehensive that now persons appointed under the Liberal Administration might

somehow be prejudiced against Tories. It is utter nonsense, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Premier that

the polls have changed so drastically that he is now on the Mainland again

trying to build up his image.

I have a question for the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, Mr. Speaker, the Minister who last year said he had so much

faith in the early tendering system in this Province for councils to get their

work done throughout Newfoundland, and for contractors to be able to start, let

me ask the Minister why he is procrastinating and when can we expect the capital

works program for his Department to be announced?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as I answered this question

almost identically a few days ago, I will answer it again. We are now in the

process of finalizing the municipal capital works for this year. It was delayed

because we added a fiscal capacity as a component to the criteria, which I think

is a very important component, dealing with the ability of towns and cities

throughout the Province to take on more municipal debt for water and sewer and

roads. That component has now been substantially finalized. When it is we will

assess the priorities as they have been established. The recommended list is in

from the regional offices, so the work is substantially done and will be

finalized very shortly and will be announced.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister refers to the rating

system. I would like to ask the Minister: will it be rated in the same manner

which the transportation projects were rated based on how people voted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the rating system has been

completely changed in the sense that we now have put substantially more detail

into the criteria, because we have for the first time, I believe the first time,

fiscal capacity as a component that is going to play a very vital role in

deciding which communities are able to handle the additional debt. But the

factors of health and environment, the two key factors, will still be the most

important factors in deciding the appropriation of municipal capital works,

particularly of course, water and sewer. Those factors will still be in place

and will continue to be the most important, but we have added fiscal capacity,

and indeed we do priorize it on the basis of submissions from our regional

offices and they do it in very detailed consultation with the towns and cities

that are in their regions.

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

West, a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister places great

emphasis on fiscal capacity. Will he come clean with the House now and tell us

how much money will be allocated this year for capital funding for his

Department - water, sewer and roads?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as the Member knows, of course,

as one Member of Cabinet I do not decide the capital works allocation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What? What?

MR. GULLAGE: First of all let me explain, Mr. Speaker,

that it is not a budget item in the current year. The funding in question and

the work gets done in the upcoming and forthcoming year. But the financing

itself is moved from the banks over to the financing corporation in the next

fiscal year or in some cases the fiscal year beyond that. So it is not a current

budget item and, therefore, it did not need to appear in the Budget, and this

particular year it did not appear. The actual amount of capital works, Mr.

Speaker, will be decided ultimately by Government based on a submission made by

me as the Minister and that will be forthcoming.

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

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

for the Minister of Environment and Lands. The disposal of fish waste or offal

as we commonly refer to it is becoming increasingly a big problem around the

Province as some fish companies have been fined recently for it. I see a number

of applications for permits in the paper in the last few days. I am wondering if

the Minister of Environment and Lands realizing that the issuance of permits is

a Federal matter, I am wondering if this concern has been brought to the

attention of the Minister of Environment to address the problem? And I am

wondering if it has, has he given any consideration to holding discussions with

his Federal counterpart to come up with some means of controlling this obviously

environmental damaging process?

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, indeed it is a

matter of concern with our Department. What I can report to the hon. Member at

this point in time is that there have been ongoing considerations as it involves

our Department and the Federal people with respect to finding a solution. But we

at this point in time are only in a consultative stage with the Federal

Government, but we have expressed our concerns on a continuing basis, and there

is ongoing discussion with us and the Federal authorities and, in fact, those

polluters who are involved to see if we can find a solution.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Fisheries. I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries is he aware

that a number of smaller, medium-sized fish companies are having problems with

fish waste disposal? A number of smaller sized fish meal plants are not viable,

consequently companies are faced with trucking for long distances and so on. Is

the Minister aware of this problem that some small fish companies are

experiencing, and is he doing anything to address this matter?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, yes, we are very much aware of

the problem, and we have had discussions - and I suppose they have been ongoing

now for the past six or eight months - with various groups that have expressed

an interest in developing a fish meal manufacturing type operation in the

Province, and that seems to be the most practical way of solving the problem. I

know it can be taken, I suppose, and dumped, and that can cause problems too,

but if some of the interest that I have seen in recent weeks and months come to

pass I expect that maybe there will be a number of fish meal operations around

the Province. That would certainly then go a long ways towards solving the

problem.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister - I was going to

say to the Minister of Development, but the Minister of Fisheries has partially

answered. My next supplementary was to ask the Minister would he undertake to

look at the possibility of establishing regional fish meal plants? It seems that

if they were located regionally they would service a number of companies and

that, then, would reduce the financial strain on those companies, address the

environmental concerns as addressed to the Minister of Environment, and at the

same time maybe employ some people in the process. As we know, fish meal is very

high protein and has been used in fertilizer and some animal food. So I am

wondering if the Government is giving serious consideration to the establishment

of regional fish meal plants for that reason?

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

MR. CARTER: I do not think it would be fair to say that

Government will be establishing fish meal plants. Certainly Government will

encourage in every way possible. And I can tell the hon. Member in the House

that at the present time there is a company that is investigating the

feasibility, I suppose, of developing some kind of mobile, floating type of

operation that would go around to various parts of the Province where there is a

problem, in some kind of a vessel. It is very much in the planning stage. I do

not want to give the impression that it is about to happen tomorrow, but

certainly there is some thought being given to that kind of an approach to the

problem. From all accounts, from what I have heard, it may be that that kind of

an operation may be economically viable.

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

final supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: A final supplementary to the Minister of

Development. I am wondering if the Minister of Development would give serious

consideration to this matter and undertake to discuss this matter with the

Economic Recovery Commission. For two reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think the

potential for regional industries exist. With the natural waste products that

come from fish, it might do two things. The environmental issue, the waste

disposal issue, the employment issue, it would give the Economic Recovery

Commission something to do as well as hopefully create some jobs for

Newfoundlanders.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed. When hon. Members

want to hate and attack the Recovery Commission they do it daily, but when they

need the Recovery Commission they are as gentle as lambs and they love the

Recovery Commission, the wonderful Recovery Commission. I will undertake, Mr.

Speaker, in fact -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MR. FUREY: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Member

for his question. I think already the Economic Recovery Commission, along with

the Minister of Fisheries and my own department, are examining this very problem

right now to see what we can come up with. Government cannot put these

facilities all over the Province, but what we can do is try to facilitate,

enhance and use whatever fiscal instruments we have to encourage companies to do

just that. I think that is already underway, and I thank the hon. Member for

commending the Economic Recovery Commission.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago, I

undertook in the House to do a review of all the correspondence, everything

relating to the re-arrangement, the providing of new levels of payment for

appeals boards and the reclassification of the Social Services Appeals Board.

I am not going to read this material, Mr. Speaker, I am just

going to table it all. But I will summarize essentially what is in it. It is all

correspondence we have been able to find relating to the whole issue, and there

is a

summary of events, including a note to me which was done by the President

of Treasury Board who carried out this assessment. I am tabling that note to me

as he has provided it to me. It also includes an assessment of the scales which

were paid before and the scales which were paid after. Basically what we did was

cut the maximum per day down from $300 to $200; the minimum has gone up in some

cases from fifty dollars to seventy-five dollars, and in some cases the minimums

have been cut down as well.

Now what I do not have yet and it may take some weeks to

finalize, is an assessment of the savings we have achieved by doing this. I

undertook to also provide that to the House, but that will come later. But I did

not want to delay with this information.

Mr. Speaker, in

summary what it shows is that when this

assessment was done and the new pay scales for the three different levels were

made, each Department put in recommendations with respect to the boards for

which that Department was responsible.

The Department of Social Services, over the signature of the

Deputy Minister, argued that this Social Services Appeals Board should be level

2. The President advises me -

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, answers are (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I will just be another minute or so, Mr.

Speaker. The President of Treasury Board advises me that there was a difference

of opinion on Treasury Board on this; some did not think it was quasi-judicial

as the hon. Member for Humber East argues, and in the end it was classed in

level 1. But they came back and appealed, along with two or three others, and

the Minister made the appeal, presented an appeal, the Minister of Finance and a

couple of others, and the President of Treasury Board took these appeals orally

back to the board. This information contains the exchange of correspondence, the

Minister's statement and should also include the guidelines, Mr. Speaker, and it

demonstrates that along with at least two other boards, the Social Services

Appeals Board was classified as level 2, and that is the basis on which it has

been done.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I should also say that we are taking a

particular look at the amounts paid to the individuals on this Appeals Board,

because there appears to be something out of whack, that at least needs

explanation, and we are taking a look at that, too. Here are two copies of it.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was asked by the

Member for Grand Falls to place upon the Table a list of trips taken by the

Minister and claimed from Government during the fiscal year April 1 1990 to

March 31 1991. I will do so, but I would like to have a word or two to explain

some of the points.

I was asked to give the destination and date of trip. That is

not too difficult to do. I was asked for the length of the trip. That is a

little difficult, because I did not know if he meant the length in time or the

length in kilometres. I decided I would give the length in time. Then he asked

the purpose of the trip. That was alright. Then he asked me for the names of

personal, political and Departmental staff accompanying the Minister. Now,

Departmental staff, that was pretty easy, the political staff was easy, but

personal staff - I do not know what he meant by that. I do not have any valet or

butler or anything like that, or bodyguard. Maybe he meant my family. But then I

cannot very well classify my wife as `personal staff'.

AN HON. MEMBER: You had better not!

DR. KITCHEN: My rod and staff they comfort me. But I took

it they did mean the family, and I am glad none of my family accompanied me on

any trips, Mr. Speaker. I took seventeen trips: five of them for conferences of

Ministers of Finance, two of them were for bond closures, several were to

Chambers of Commerce in Grand Falls and Corner Brook and Millertown and others,

and two were trips to Clarenville in connection with the possible closure of the

Clarenville taxation office, which we had to review.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) after the (inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: No, it was before, long before. That is

about it, Mr. Speaker. If there are any further questions I would be glad to

answer them, providing they are properly asked.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise and

present a petition from the residents of the District of Gander. This is the

district of the hon. the President of Treasury Board who, I understand, was

unwilling to present this petition on behalf of his constituents.

This petition is of the undersigned Friends of MUN Extension

who state that

whereas MUN Extension has provided and continues to provide an

essential service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

whereas no

other agency is capable of providing that service, MUN Extension should be

reinstated. Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House take such

action as may be necessary to ensure that Memorial University reinstates its

Extension Service and that it be funded and equipped to provide the services it

has traditionally provided. Mr. Speaker, this is signed by seventy-eight

residents of the town of Gander, and the area of Glenwood and Glovertown, one of

whom is the Deputy Major of the town of Gander who signs herself as such. Mr.

Speaker, I understand, as I said, the Minister was unwilling to present this

petition. I understand he actually visited the town of Gander in the last

twenty-four hours and while there received a hearty greeting from a number of

residents who wished to demonstrate their concern about this Government's

policies in another area, that of layoffs. However, this is an extension of the

layoffs, Mr. Speaker, by extending their layoffs not only to hospitals, not only

to schools and nursing homes and Government services in general, but they have

extended their layoffs to Memorial University and in particular MUN Extension.

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that this Government appears to be stonewalling

this issue for many, many days now in this House, and yesterday to a person hon.

Members opposite refused to support a resolution which would have the effect of

opposing the shutdown of MUN Extension. They have been stonewalling this issue

but, Mr. Speaker, it will not go away because the people of Newfoundland who

depended upon MUN Extension, and who still have respect for MUN Extension,

although the Minister of Education appears not to anymore, despite some of his

sophisticated platitudes in the House over the last several weeks. It appears,

Mr. Speaker, that this Government has given up on MUN Extension and is not

prepared to do anything to help save this service which people have come to

regard as an important part of their lives. One only needs to reflect upon the

events that took place in Placentia last Friday when university officials,

through various means, were trying to empty the offices of MUN Extension by

having trucks outside the door to collect the furniture. During this period of

time, from eight o'clock in the morning on, numerous people from the community,

community leaders, town councillors, the Mayor of Placentia, the Mayors of

various surrounding communities, and ordinary individuals without any particular

position in the community who had respect for, and who needed and wanted to

continue the service of MUN Extension, came out and stayed at those offices that

day to support the work of MUN Extension and to attempt to demonstrate to the

public and to the media, and to the university officials in general, that they

regard MUN Extension as a vital part of their communities's life. This not only

took place in Placentia, Mr. Speaker, it also took place in other centres where

Memorial University Extension Services have field services or field offices. I

guess I should say, had, as they tried to close them as of last Friday. Mr.

Speaker, what has happened in that particular office in Placentia is that once

the furniture was removed by Memorial University officials, or their trucking

company, the people from the community came in and brought in other furniture,

other equipment, makeshift equipment to try and continue to keep that office

open. Now, Mr. Speaker, in the face of this kind of community support where an

institution which for thirty years has provided a vital service to rural

Newfoundland, in the face of that, and in the face of the attacks on rural

Newfoundland by this Government in terms of the reduction of services - and they

may not call them attacks, but let me tell you, when the people in rural

Newfoundland say they are being attacked by this Government I believe them. When

the people of Newfoundland say that they need Memorial University Extension

Service to help them in their community development efforts to build their

communities and to take on whatever battles they need to take on, whether it be

with this Government or with other Governments, or whether it be self-help

projects which have been so much the history of work being performed by and

through the efforts of MUN Extension, no matter what those projects are, Mr.

Speaker, when the people of rural Newfoundland say they want this service and

they want it continued, I think they are right and this Government by turning

its back on them is turning its back on the people. Mr. Speaker, the Government

still has a chance, despite this resolution yesterday, the Government still has

a chance to change its mind. They can still take action to save MUN Extension

and save particularly the field services of MUN Extension, and I urge them,

despite the actions they took yesterday, that they reconsider and listen to what

the people of Newfoundland are saying, and in this particular case the Minister

of Treasury Board should listen to his people in the district of Gander.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to give my support to the seventy-eight residents of

the Town of Gander, who are petitioning the House to have the Government

reinstate Memorial University Extension Service.

I agree with the comments made by the Member for St. John's

East, in presenting the petition.

It is obvious, now, a month or six weeks after the Budget,

that Memorial University Extension Service is cherished by thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We are hearing that through letters, through

petitions that we have presented day after day in this Assembly, and through

speeches at demonstrations.

Perhaps, the Minister, who, for many years was cloistered in

the faculty of education at the university, failed to keep track of what

Memorial University Extension Service was doing. Perhaps, the Premier, who

carried on a law practice serving the interests of corporations, failed to

notice what Memorial University Extension Service was doing. Perhaps Art May,

the new President of the university, has not been in his position long enough to

understand the importance of Memorial University Extension Service. People make

mistakes, but citizens of the Province will respect decision-makers more when

they acknowledge their mistakes, when they respond to representations, when they

reconsider decisions and indicate a willingness to change their minds.

Mr. Speaker, Memorial University received from this

Government, inadequate funding. The absolute increase was a drop in the bucket

and has fallen far short of the rising cost of carrying on the university

operation. So the Government squeezed the university.

There are people who would argue with the choices made by the

university administrators and regents, but it is a fact that the university

administrators were left with impossible choices because of the inadequate level

of funding provided by this Government. The Education Minister's own staff have

admitted to educators that post-secondary education has been short-changed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the alternative for providing Memorial

University Extension Service programmes have been talked about, have been

examined, and have been found wanting. Even the Minister, himself, has admitted

that community colleges that have had to scale down their operations, cannot

replace MUN Extension.

The Minister responsible for Culture has not been able to

come up with any substitute for MUN Extension Arts. The Economic Recovery

Commission, in the meantime, is a burgeoning new bureaucracy; it is a new empire

under the personal thumb of the Premier. The Minister of Finance bragged in his

Budget Speech that Government was increasing the budget of the ERC with its

subordinate ENL, to $44 million this year. So, Mr. Speaker, there are places for

the Government to get the money to reinstate Memorial University Extension

Service, and the number one possibility is the ERC. The Government can halt the

increase in funding to the ERC, an agency operating under the thumb of the

Premier, and shift some of that money to Memorial University, so they can resume

their tried-and-true extension service which operates independently from the

Cabinet.

Now, Mr. Speaker, many, many people involved with MUN

Extension operations have paid tribute to the significance of MUN Extension's

contribution to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. And, right now, the rural parts

of our Province are under attack by this Government and by the economy. The

fishery has been in decline because of the state of the fish stocks, some of our

mines have closed because of depletion of minerals, we have been plagued by high

interest rates which, thankfully, are just starting to come down. There is an

economic recession hurting our rural areas; but, on top of that, this `real

change' administration is closing hospitals, down scaling other hospitals,

including the hospital in Placentia and rural Newfoundland needs MUN Extension.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to spend

a few minutes speaking to the petition presented by the Member for St. John's

East. I would like to quote from a letter from the Minister concerning Memorial

University's decision with regards to Extension Services in the Province and it

says: It is my understanding that the University, prior to making the recent

announcements regarding Extension Services, reviewed all of its services and

programs and based their decision on a priorization of services. It is

Government's view that the University has the right and the responsibility to

make these decisions without Government interference. To do otherwise would

seriously jeopardize the academic freedom and right which is so essential to the

existence and operation of a university. I think that generally most people

subscribe to this principle.

As you know Memorial University operates under its own act,

and the administrative responsibilities for its operation rests with the Board

of Regents. Therefore, any adjustments to programs and services of the

University are the sole responsibility of the Board of Regents. And it has been

the policy of Governments not to interfere with the internal operations of the

University but to maintain an arm's - length relationship on such matters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, that explains the situation

perfectly. I would like to point out to hon. Members that if they thought this

was a letter from the present Minister of Education concerning cuts to Mun

Extension, they are wrong. This was a letter from a previous Minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No! No!

MR. BAKER: - of Career Development, Hon. Charles J.

Power, expressing the view of these Members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: What hypocrisy! Get up and take a bow! What

hypocrisy!

MR. BAKER: So when the Member for Humber East gets up and

goes on with her pious platitudes about what she would do if she were in

Cabinet, about what she would do with this situation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we have to take these statements

with a grain of salt.

MR. FUREY: A big grain!

MR. BAKER: A big, big grain of salt.

Mow, Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Member for St. John's

East getting up and presenting this petition and making the plea to save the

Extension Services of Memorial University. I can really understand that.

As a matter of fact I knew this petition was coming and

Members indicated to me, well, would you want to present it? And I said, no, one

of the Opposition Members normally presents petitions and I suggested they go,

and I am very pleased they went to the hon. Member. I am happy about that. I can

understand him presenting the petition. But what I cannot understand is the

hypocrisy of Members directly opposite. In this particular instance Mun closed

the Extension Services at Stephenville and in Marystown -

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! Shame!

MR. BAKER: -and the Member for Marystown did not say a

word in the House about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: And the Member for Humber East was sitting in

the Cabinet. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think we have had enough of this hypocrisy. I

think everybody should recognize these pious platitudes for what they are, sheer

hypocrisy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I have recognized the hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a

petition on behalf of approximately 100 people from the district of Conception

Bay South and there are also some people on here from the district of Harbour

Main as well. The prayer of the petition reads as follows: The petition of the

undersigned, The Friends of MUN Extension, state that

whereas MUN Extension has

provided and continues to provide an essential service to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and

whereas no other agency is capable of providing

that service - MUN Extension Service should be re-instated. Your petitioners

respectfully request that the hon. House take such action as may be necessary to

ensure that Memorial University re-instates the Extension Service and that it be

funded and equipped to provide the service it has traditionally provided.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present this petition

today on behalf of approximately 100 people in the district of Conception Bay

South, and I am pleased to lend my support to the petition as well. I have

informed the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that I would be

presenting this petition today because it is from her area and my area as well.

We have adjoining districts. I informed the Minister as a matter of courtesy so

that she would be prepared to get up today and support the petition when I am

finished presenting it.

Now we have seen several petitions, Mr. Speaker, presented by

Members here on this side of the House regarding MUN Extension, and we have

received little or absolutely no support to have that service re-instated by

Members opposite. I think, Mr. Speaker, a prime example of the Government's lack

of concern for this particular Extension Service was seen yesterday when the

Opposition Leader presented a resolution to the House of Assembly calling on

Government to continue that service and to re-instate that service and to put

more money into that service, and what did we see? We saw every single

Government Member on that side of the House, including the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, whose constituents are presenting that petition

today, even the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations voted against that

resolution to have extra money given to the university to re-instate MUN

Extension. All the Members in whose area MUN Extension operates, including the

Member for Eagle River, and the Member for Placentia, and Fortune - Hermitage,

and Bonavista in particular, who received a lot of service from MUN Extension,

yesterday in the House voted against the re-instatement of MUN Extension. The

consistent reply from Government, Mr. Speaker, has been that it cannot afford to

give more money for that purpose. If it gives money to one body then it has to

give money to every other body who might be looking to have their programs

re-instated.

But still we find out yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that the

President of Treasury Board, since the Budget came down, has given extra money

to a transition house out in Gander. Now that is a very, very important thing

too, and we do not begrudge the transition house in Gander from receiving extra

funding. As a matter of fact, we are very pleased, we are very glad that the

transition house in Gander has been given five and a half extra units, five and

half extra people to help operate that facility out there, which is badly

needed. But still, all in all, when it comes to an essential service like MUN

Extension, the President of Treasury Board cannot seem to find the few paltry

dollars that are necessary to keep that particular service going.

So, Mr. Speaker, if the Government has the will to keep MUN

Extension going then it can do so. If the Government has the commitment to rural

Newfoundland and Labrador then it can find the money to re-instate MUN

Extension, and if it feels that MUN Extension is carrying out any kind of an

essential service here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, then it can

find the money to do that. But we saw the Minister of Education yesterday

speaking to the resolution that the Leader of the Opposition put on the floor of

the House, and not once did the Minister of Education make any reference to the

fact that MUN Extension was providing a very, very good service for the people

in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, maybe it is the opinion of the Government that

MUN Extension is not providing any kind of a good service and it is not worth

preserving. That is the impression we get from the Government, and the

Government keeps trying to deflect its responsibility off on the university.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is the Government which has the responsibility here to

keep MUN Extension funded and going; it is the Government which cut back on the

funding to the University. And the President of Treasury Board can talk until

the cows come home about academic freedom, but it is the Government which cut

the funding to the University and forced the University to abolish MUN

Extension.

MS. VERGE: That is right. That is right!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Sorry, the hon. gentleman's time is up.

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

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

anticipated the Member for Conception Bay South would rise to support the

petition presented by my colleague for Harbour Main. I suppose after listening

to the President of Treasury Board in that eloquent reply he made to the

petition, she might be afraid to get up to address it because she might say

something that would be contrary to what the Minister said.

What the President of Treasury Board should know, though, is

that while there were obviously difficulties with MUN Extension financing

throughout the years, the thing that should be remembered is that when we were

in power we always gave MUN enough money, enough of an increase each year so

that they would be able to carry on with the work and MUN Extension was able to

be saved. It was this administration, this Minister of Education who chose to

give some $5.5 million less than he had originally told the University, and that

is the real reason that MUN Extension was cut out.

It is interesting that today we would have another petition.

Because I think today is the provincial day of protest from development

associations throughout the Province with respect to MUN Extension. I just

happened to get a copy of a letter -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, if you can silence the people on

the other side, this is another letter which came in a brown envelope but this

one came on a fax machine. I think it is quite poignant and interesting what

this letter has to say. It is from the Development Association of Fogo Island

and it says: `On this Provincial day of protest Fogo Islanders join in with the

rest of rural Newfoundland and Labrador in voicing our deep regrets over your

unforgivable decision to abolish MUN Extension.'

Now I do not know about the rest of the Members opposite who

come from districts which are rural by the nature of them, but I, too, share in

the concern. The people in my district said, `Back in the 1960s, during the

infamous resettlement programme - we will always remember what administration

headed up that resettlement programme - our island was faced with a real threat

of having to uproot our families and belongings to move to large populated

centres. But stubbornness and determination prevailed, and with the assistance

and guidance of MUN Extension a systematic approach was formulated through which

new life was given to our people. During the Fogo process birth, Fogo Island

shipbuilders and the Producers Co-op Society, MUN Extension has remained at our

side through thick and thin over the years, through infancy and to our teens,

and most recently in a community t.v. production as we went into our adult

years, now boasting to be twenty-three old.'

That is what the people of Fogo Island think of MUN

Extension. They watched them grow from a community that was slated to be wiped

out into the strong, viable community it is today. In fact, I was out there last

year to a t.v. forum in which MUN Extension was again involved in helping Fogo

Islanders look at themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: I should go out more often? If I go out more

often I might find more information. The Minister of Social Services might be

relieved if I would go out there. At least my phone would not be ringing day and

night.

Now MUN Extension has provided a valuable service to the

people of Newfoundland. The Minister can stand there and sanctimoniously and

piously say look, it is up to the University. We give them money and they decide

how it is spent. But we just do not buy that. This administration has numerous

ways in which it can save MUN Extension and it has chosen not to do so. The

President of Treasury Board talks about the need to operate at arm's length. How

come that same formula did not apply -

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not believe in that? Do you

believe in that or not?

MR. WINSOR: Do you want to get up and debate? Then you go

back and sit in your seat and speak after. Now why did the same procedure not

apply when the Minister went through a list in Bill 16 and included MUN

Extension for a budgetary freeze? How come? Rollbacks and freezes. How can you

have two sets of standards, the Minister wants to know? You tell us on one hand

to deal at arm's length, on the other hand you are saying to get involved. Well,

that is exactly what the Minister did. Yes, it is exactly what the Minister did.

On the one hand he said I cannot do anything; on the other hand he reached out

and clawed back the wages that had been given.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in closing again I want to support the

people of Conception Bay South in their attempt to reinstate MUN Extension. I

ask the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Education, that great

champion of the rights of rural Newfoundland -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker. I really

wish I had heard that speech the first session of the House. I was naive then

and I would have been naive much less quicker. I cannot believe the political

grandstanding that just went on. I have never seen an hon. Member of this House

of Assembly who is more interested in going into my constituency to dig around

and find 100 people who are going to support something he can bring into the

House and get himself known in the House for presenting. He managed to get

eighty in his own district, if that does not tell you something. I am absolutely

appalled that somebody is more interested in making political points with my

constituents than serving his own constituents. Now I must say, I suppose, that

I should not be surprised at this, since a very large part of my day and my two

constituency people's day is spent dealing with the day-to-day problems of the

hon. Member's constituents. Some of them, when they call the office, do not know

that the hon. Member is indeed their Member.

MR. HEARN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour will remember quite

clearly yesterday during the presentation of a petition Your Honour ruled that

the person presenting the petition must stick to the contents of the petition.

Your Honour made that ruling quite clear, based upon an objection from the

President of Treasury Board. Consequently, I make the same objection. The Member

should be supporting the petition presented on behalf of people from her own

district. She is not speaking to the content of the petition, and I submit, Your

Honour, that she is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for St. Mary's - The Capes quotes me correctly and

I would certainly hope that hon. Members would abide my decision. I listen very

attentively, I should say, to what hon. Members say and when hon. Members

presenting a petition sort of drift away a little the Chair sort of tolerates a

little tit for tat. But having said that, that is only the Chair's tolerance.

The hon. Member makes a good point. When an hon. Member

raises a point, the job of the Chair is to enforce the rules and the job of the

Member is to follow them.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. He rose at a good

time, because I was finished that part anyway. As a former educator I have to

make a comment here. Obviously all Members on the Opposition realize that as a

Cabinet Minister I support the actions of the Government and feel that indeed it

is up to Memorial to make their own decisions. But as an educator I am just

going to make a point or two here. I would be appalled at a Government that

would step in and dictate to a university what it should teach. That happens,

Mr. Speaker, in totalitarian states not in a democratic situation. And I am

appalled to even suggest that. And if we should do it, if we should ever step in

and tell Memorial University what to do, then I hope the Opposition rises as one

to condemn us. Because it would be most, most inappropriate.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to fully utilize my ten minutes,

because I think -

MR. SPEAKER: Five.

MS. COWAN: Oh, only five? I must have it almost completed

then, so I will thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your attention and take my place.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that I do now leave the Chair

for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on said bill.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on said bill, Mr. Speaker, left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just on a point of

order very briefly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order.

MR. BAKER: The Money Bills, Loan Bills and so on are

treated differently from other bills in Committee stage. The Minister in

introducing the bill has an hour and the Member in the Opposition replying has

an hour. What I am asking for is beyond that. If we could have agreement on both

sides that we have ten minutes back and forth after that particular -

MR. WINDSOR: We have an hour in Committee, do we?

MR. BAKER: Yes, just for loan and tax bills. It says that

the resolution is debated in the Committee of the Whole in accordance with

Standing Order 49. But it is just for those bills. Standing Order 49 indicates

that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Would hon. Members curtail their private conversations. I am

having difficulty hearing the hon. Government House Leader, and I need to be

paying attention and listening to what he is saying. I am sure all hon. Members

would want to hear what he has to say, so I would ask hon. Members to refrain

from having noisy, private conversations.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you. I am asking if we can have leave,

that beyond the Minister introducing and the hon. Member responding if beyond

that we could limit it to ten minutes each back and forth so that the length of

speech can be shortened beyond those two. Because I understand the two Members

who are going to speak first do not mind speaking for an hour, or five hours for

that matter - no problem.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, for the sake of everybody

understanding the rules, yes, we agree with that. There is no problem. Ten

minutes, I think, is certainly adequate for anybody to make one point. They have

the opportunity of getting up time and time again, so they can make numerous

points. So ten minutes speaking time except for the Minister and the critic,

that is reasonable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The Chair will enforce the rules as

agreed to by both House Leaders.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure

to introduce Bill 18, which is

An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee

Act, 1957. Basically what we are doing here is adding to the

schedule of the

Local Authority Guarantee Act the loans which we have guaranteed to

municipalities for water and sewer and paving while they are in the process of

construction. As Members know, when the jobs are completed they are set up as

long-term loans from the NMFC, the Newfoundland Municipal Finance Corporation.

What we are doing here is listing in the

schedule quite a large number of loans

- the town of Arnold's Cover, Bay Roberts and so on. There is quite a number,

because many town councils need to borrow money to put in municipal services

they so greatly need. This is what we have done in the past several months, from

October 20, 1990 to February 21, 1991.

I would like to say that like the Province, municipalities

have heavy debts. This Province owes, as you know, $5.2 billion more at the end

of this year than now, and in addition we have unfunded liabilities in the

pension plan of $2.1 billion. We found out that Workers' Compensation has over

$100 million in unfunded liability, and included in this debt is the

considerable debt of municipalities. Members might be interested in knowing that

the total debt of municipalities to the NMFC is $385 million right now, and in

addition to that there are those interim bank loan guarantees such as I just

read out, totalling $37 million - $36.9 million.

The NMFC itself borrows money from the capital markets of

Canada, and NMFC now owes almost $500 million. In addition to that, the City of

St. John's owes $91 million which we have guaranteed, and as shown in the Budget

the total of all the municipal guaranteed debt is up to $627.9 million, a

considerable amount of money. I mention this because many municipalities, as the

Minister of Municipal Affairs has said time and time again, are in considerable

financial difficulty, trying to raise enough money to pay the bills and not go

in the hole to put in water and sewer and all the other services they need for

the citizens, and at the same time carry the debt or part of the debt. Because

as you know, the municipalities in general, rural municipalities particularly,

do not pay a large portion of their debt - it averages out I believe to

something like 20 per cent. Twenty-odd per cent of the debt charges are raised

by the municipalities and the rest is paid by the Provincial Government.

This year, for example, on water and sewer the Department of

Municipal Affairs is going to pay $29 million in interest and almost $12 million

capital for water and sewer; for paving $7 million in interest, and for capital

account $7 million, for a total of $14 million for paving. Our total debt charge

is $55 million, and that is what we are paying for the debt on municipal

services.

Now I link that to the desperate need we have in this

Province for development, for industrial and particularly rural development. I

want to link the two. We are burdened with debt and the only way we can escape

from the debt load as I see it, and to perhaps increase the debt load in order

to provide the necessary municipal services we need, is to first go about

developing the economy of the Province. Now I want to link these two points,

particularly in rural areas, because the cities ride on the backs of the rural

areas to a large extent; we work together and as the rural areas develop, the

services the city provides can increase and the two go together.

Our main thrust for rural development is and will continue to

be the development of the fishery. The development of the fish stocks, as the

Minister of Fisheries can expound on in greater detail than I, if we could build

up the fish stocks, build them up to the extent they are capable of being built

up, we will provide more jobs than Hibernia, more jobs than the Lower Churchill

development, more jobs than Terra Nova, more jobs than all these combined. And

not only that, but these jobs could be in perpetuity, forever, so the greatest

thrust for economic development in this Province in my view, has to be the

rebuilding of the fish stocks and the development of the fishing industry and

that will provide the underpinnings for rural communities to expand the level of

municipal services and to be able to handle the horrendous debt load that they

presently are under and which must increase in order for them to provide the

necessary services. So, fisheries development and the growth of the stocks is a

major component in rural development; there are other components which we must

not lose sight of and -

AN HON. MEMBER: MUN Extension.

DR. KITCHEN: I will come to that in a minute. One is

diversification; it is harsh to have to depend on a single industry, no matter

how well it is diversified, and this Government has launched out in an

industrial diversification programme which has been described here before in the

fishery, aquaculture and underutilized species.

The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture will shortly be

implementing, we think, some changes as a result of the task force on

agriculture, and we can look forward to developments in agriculture in the whole

agri-foods industry and that is important, it is important; we cannot throw the

agricultural industry in the garbage -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what they want.

DR. KITCHEN: - we cannot really do that. I do not know if

he meant that or not but we really cannot do that; the agricultural industry in

this Province, the agri-foods industry is important and should be developed and

there are suggestions in that report that are good ones, even though the Member

does not necessarily agree with all of them.

Forestry also, can be developed; there are portions of this

Province where the forest industry is not fully developed and it should be

developed, particularly in parts of Labrador, where we need a road from Goose

Bay, we need a road to link up the coastal communities, so we can get access to

the forests of Labrador, one of our major undeveloped areas. That too will help

rural communities along the Labrador coast to develop the municipal

infra-structure that they would like to have and need and the debts that must be

incurred in order to do it.

We must develop manufacturing industries. We must follow the

lead of the Minister of Development. I was going to call him the Minister of

Tourism, but that would not be right, but that is a major component of the

portfolio, to develop a tourist industry and great things are happening in the

Tourist industry. We have been discussing that over the past while and we must

continue with that, because as we develop the tourist industry, we develop the

ability of rural communities particularly, and urban communities too, to develop

the municipal infra-structure that they need in order to float the loans and pay

the interest on these loans to provide the water and the sewer and all the other

things which people need and the stadiums, whatever you want, and that $100

million industry, tourism -

AN HON. MEMBER: $400 million.

DR. KITCHEN: -$400 million industry of this Province will

help, but it still has a long way to go to be developed and we are working on

that; other former Governments had started that as well and that is why we have

put the Economic Recovery Commission in place, and that is why we strengthened

Enterprise Newfoundland, changed it from NLDC to Enterprise Newfoundland and

extended the network, whose main purpose is to help develop rural Newfoundland,

to help develop the Province, so that the lives of people in rural Newfoundland

and their life-style can be what people want it to be.

Rural Newfoundland is a wonderful place in the world to live.

I suppose there is no better part of the world left that can come close to

Newfoundland as a Province in which to live, and the rural lifestyles have to be

encouraged and they have to be developed, and the infrastructures have to be put

in place.

In addition to these industrial things there has to be an

appropriate climate for industry to develop and we are working at that. One of

the minor things we were able to do in the past few months was to eliminate that

requirement for businesses to have to put up a bond in order to collect retail

sales tax. I do not want to boast about that, but as I go and meet with various

business people, they say: that is a tremendous thing you did. What a nuisance

you took away. We do not have to fool with getting that old bond in place and

dealing with the various companies that put them up. All we have to do now is

pay our taxes. Before that they had to spend all this time getting the bond in

place, and our people up in the Department of Taxation were saying: do you have

your bond in place? We had people doing nothing else but tormenting people to

get their bond in place. I did not care if they had their bond in place or not,

I wanted to get the tax in, get the money in, so that we could spend it. We do

not want to build up the bond companies. There is nothing wrong with the bond

companies, but there is no point in providing a service that is not necessary.

And so business has reacted quite well to that point.

We are also looking at fair taxation, we are trying to change

the system of taxation, and in a few months we will be hearing more about that,

where we hope to be able to possibly bring in a fairer system of taxation than

we have at the moment. I do not want to get into too much of that at the moment,

but we will be, in the next several months, visiting and talking with various

groups so that we can implement this in such a way that people will not be too

adversely affected. And it will be a fairer system than it is at the present.

As I move around and listen to various groups - the Member

for Eagle River and I were in L'Anse-au-Clair this past week, and we were in Red

Bay - and we were talking to business people. And I said: are there any concerns

you have, is there anything that the Department of Finance can do to make life

better for businesses?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, lower taxes!

DR. KITCHEN: They said: yes you can. And what you can do,

he said: Look, in order to set up a business we need a permit from this one, a

permit from Environment, a permit from Health, and a permit from this one. Seven

or eight permits, every one of them with a great big old fee attached to it, and

it is enough to scare a person off. It is not a good enough climate. And last

year we announced that we were going to look at all those nuisances and nuisance

taxes and nuisance collections and fees and things like that - but it is very

difficult to get rid of them because we have built up a bureaucracy that exists

on collecting.

AN HON. MEMBER: They did.

DR. KITCHEN: Or they did, we did not, but somebody did. I

do not want to blame anybody but it has been built up over the years. I am not

interested in that point now. People whose life exists on giving out these

permits and travelling around and things like that. And what we have to do I

believe is to simplify the process. This is not a new idea. Frank Moores had

that idea and other people have had that too. To try to simplify the method by

which businesses can get established.

And not that they do not want to pay their fair share of

taxes. Because I believe every business wants to pay its fair share of taxes so

that it can get the services that are required. But we must make things easier

and set up the proper business climate. I believe that the fundamental

ingredient for Newfoundland rural development - so that we can develop the

Province and the infrastructure, so we can borrow the money to put the

infrastructure in place and pay the interest and handle it, because we do not

have great municipal infrastructure yet in this Province, not as good as we

would like - in order to do this I think the main ingredient has to be further

development of independent thought and self-help rather than the paternalistic

attitudes that have pervaded the past.

The history of Newfoundland is founded on paternalism. The

paternalism of the fishing admirals, of the fish merchants, of the paper

companies, of the company towns. Gosh, I lived in a company town. Paternalism.

You could not even sell your outdoor toilet unless you consulted the manager of

the company. That is the way it is, pretty well, this paternalism, where you

depended on government or on a company or clergyman or somebody in authority to

tell you what to do, that is rampant in historical Newfoundland society. And

that has to be changed, and it is changing.

I want to turn now to the beginning, I think, of that change

which I believe occurred in the 'sixties. In the 1960s things happened in

Newfoundland, particularly in the latter part of the 'sixties and one of the

things that happened was the establishment of MUN Extension. I remember very

well being that time, I remember when the Extension Department was established,

I remember when we used to go down to Fogo and other places, the northern

peninsula, and the Fogo process where the Extension Department asked people

their stories, what will we do?

I objected to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday when he

said that there would be no Fogo if there would be no Extension. Because he

exaggerated. That is not right. But I will say this: that MUN Extension did a

great deal for Fogo Island. And I will be the first to say it. Because you

cannot say that it is not so. And the Fogo process by which people were

interviewed on film, the film edited so that the main points came out, and then

showed back to the people, and showed to the government and other officials so

that points were made. And as a result of that Fogo process and people

discussing their future and what they might do about an economic situation,

cognition occurred, group thought occurred, and as a result of that group

thought things developed. And I believe that one of the main things that

developed in Fogo Island was the thought that people began to think of the

island rather than of the thirteen communities that were there, and so people

built a central school and they established a cooperative society that included

pretty well everybody, and away it went.

That Fogo process was exported to California, and to India,

Don Snowden worked in India. And I remember very well the vitality of Don

Snowden. I remember one time we went to Ottawa. We were both going to Ottawa, I

for one purpose, he for another. He was going up looking for grants for his

work. And we were stuck in Moncton. We had to both be in Ottawa the next

morning. The plane could not go, it was snowing too hard. So what are we going

to do? Boys, let's get a car and we will drive there. So he got this big car,

and everybody who was wanting to go to Ottawa on the plane, we jumped in the

car, five or six of us. We dropped three or four off in Montreal and we got to

Ottawa, seven o'clock in the morning we arrived. Drove all night, never stopped.

Now that is the type of vitality.

I remember another time when we went down to Fogo Island and

- not in the early, that was a sort of a follow up expedition - with people like

Harvey Best and Nels Squires and Randy Coffin. That was the television unit, the

film unit, and Joe Harvey. And we went in the back of a pickup. And when we got

down to the motel there was no room because they had a conference on, and all

the rooms were gone. So we went up and stayed at various houses and we had a

great time.

But I want to say this, that that was part of MUN Extension.

We had people like Fred Earle and George Billard and Tom O'Keefe and Dave Curran

and Tony Williamson and all these great rural developers, and others whose names

I am not mentioning.

Do you remember NRDA, the Northern Regional Development

Association on the northwest coast of the Province which met and was a very

powerful political entity? And prominent in that movement was Father McGrath. As

a result of all this community cognition and people determining to develop

themselves rather than be told what to do, there developed the development

associations of Newfoundland. And that is basically where they came from to a

large extent. From the encouragement - I am not going not give all the credit to

MUN Extension, but they helped. They were a catalyst that helped to organize and

get many things going, and it was good.

And I really believe that the Fishermen's Union, the NFFAWU,

was to a large extent part of that movement, that part of that movement where

people began to think we need to be organized, we need to take control of our

lives. And the Extension Department had a role in that as well. I cannot give

them credit for the whole thing, that would not be fair; I cannot give them

credit for NRDA, that would not be fair, nor for Fogo, that would not be fair.

But a fair amount of the credit for all that is due to that Extension

Department.

I remember being in the Faculty of Education when we used the

services of the Department to help organize a conference, to bring in various

community groups to tell us where the education system should be going in the

future: whether we should have regional colleges or community colleges; whether

we should have branches of Memorial all over the place, or whether we should

have community colleges. And we are still in the throes of that discussion.

But things changed. I remember, too, that that was not the

only grass roots movement in the Province at the time. Because I remember at

that time being a Member of the Party opposite here, the Progressive

Conservative Party, and at that time we were going around organizing district

associations. We used to have 500 people out to a meeting to organize a district

association. We would have twenty people running for four or five offices,

everybody trying to seize control of the district association. A very powerful

movement. Movements in Carbonear and the Bay de Verde peninsula, meetings in

places like Grand Falls, the Member's district, meetings in the Codroy Valley.

I remember once we were in the Codroy Valley to try to set up

a meeting. The Member will be interested in this. We called a meeting and we

went all around the Codroy Valley putting up notices. When we called the

meeting, nine people showed up. The only consolation we had from that was that

when Crosbie had gone through for the leadership a few years before, he got

five. But I was worried to death about nine: we did it the wrong way, we

communicated to the people in the incorrect way. What we did, we put it over the

radio and things like that. What we should have done was announce it in church.

But I want to say this. I mention these points to indicate

that there was a grass roots movement in Newfoundland for control of our

destiny, for control of a Progressive Conservative Party by the people rather

than the clique in St. John's who ran it for so many years, and that was part of

my falling out with the Tory Party. Because the movement was on, the grass roots

versus the Establishment, and the Establishment won.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)!

DR. KITCHEN: Now that has nothing to do with you. You

were not even in the Party at that time, so do not be talking. We are talking

about the way it was years ago. There have been changes since then. But the old

order changeth. It is not the same. In 1971 the government changed. All this

work that had been done by the Extension Department and by the Progressive

Conservative organizers paid off and the government fell. It is too bad I had

changed sides at the time but, anyway, that is no odds. But then the teeth went

out of the whole movement, everything quietened down: the teeth went out of the

Extension Department, the teeth went out of the organizing of the Parties. The

only party there was any life in after that was the Liberal Party.

And several things happened. Most of the development

associations were gradually put in place in a quiet way rather than in a loud

and rambunctious way, (inaudible) associations were put in place, Memorial

started offering courses by tele-conference, but I still believe we have to move

more than we are moving towards self-reliance - more than we are. Two years ago

I was urging Memorial University to put some teeth in the Extension Department,

because communities need a group where there is cognition, some group which gets

people together to talk about the future of their community.

Now rural development is good - that is good - but it has a

limited mandate; the municipalities have a limited mandate. I believe we need

some sort of a catalystic function, or I did believe that. But the problem is

this, and we are faced with it, we must have people in this Province - I believe

the people of the Province have to seize control of our destiny. We have to say

if we are not doing well economically, what are we going to do about it? Not

what is Government going to do about it? Government can help but Government

cannot take the lead, we cannot be fully responsible.

We cannot blame ACOA, we cannot blame Mulroney, we cannot

blame the present Government or the Leader of the Opposition, what we have to do

I believe is take control ourselves. And there are certain things happening from

which I believe we can take some good thought. Recently something good happened

in the Department of Finance. We are now regulating Credit Unions - the

Department of Finance is now regulating Credit Unions. And in my view it is good

for the Department of Finance that we are doing it. It is good for us, it may

not be good for the Credit Unions - but I hope it is.

But that has taken me to visit a number of credit unions at

their annual meetings. What happened here, and particularly I want to refer to

the Eagle River movement, the Credit Union there, where the Bank of Montreal had

a bank in L'Anse-a-Loup and decided they were going to close it for whatever

reason. So the people decided they were going to have their own bank - we will

start up our own bank and we will call it a Credit Union. And now instead of one

employee there are twelve in three branches. And, you know, right from the tip

of Labrador, right on down the Labrador Coast, right down through Quebec to the

end of the Quebec road there is not one bank, but there is the Eagle River

Credit Union and there is the Case Populaire - People's Banking. And I am very

encouraged not only by that particular Credit Union but by others, and I believe

the Credit Union movement can do for Newfoundland what the banks - to supplement

the work of the Banks.

I am not anti banker, banks have a useful function, but they

cannot provide the essential services to rural Newfoundland that are needed, or

they will not. And I believe we have to provide them ourselves rather than just

complain. And the Credit Union movement is a great movement for that.

Similarly, I am also very encouraged by the activities of an

organization in my district, The Hub, where handicapped people have gotten

together and said, `We will do it ourselves. We will need some Government

assistance, but we will do it. We will employ handicapped people, we will train

handicapped people, we will give them counselling or whatever is required.' We

were up there last night for a little draw and it was very, very encouraging to

see what the programme is, another form of self-help - two forms. And that is

what has to happen, I believe, in Newfoundland.

All of us need to get together and grab hold to what has to

be done. We need the Economic Recovery Commission, we need the banks, we need

the Credit Unions and we need to think about what we are doing. We have to get

away from paternalism, and I believe we have to get away from this rancour which

goes on in this House of Assembly. What we do need is grass roots involvement in

the economic development of this Province. That is what we need, because that is

the only way municipalities are going to be able to develop, that is the only

way municipalities are ever going to be able to provide the services. Not by

asking Government, because when you ask Government you are only asking the other

municipalities to pay; you can share it up a bit, but you cannot create wealth

by sharing. That is not how you do it. So we have to create and we have to build

up.

Everybody has to be conscious of economic development in this

Province. And I believe we need a form of education. I am not against formal

education but I will tell you this, that formal education, book learning, is not

enough to develop Newfoundland. You need will and determination and discussion.

Adult education, that is what you need, not just book learning. And one of the

problems in the education system in the Province has been that we put far too

much reliance on the book, and what we have been producing with the book is

bookkeepers, accountants, lawyers - not developers.

We have to develop. There is more common sense in my

grandfather building and developing things than there is in many of the people

present. People need a certain level of formal education; I am not against

formal education. It is important, but it is not enough. There has to be a

community development component in education; we need community cottage type

education, where people consider their communities, consider what has to be

done, consider their resources and take control and develop. And that is the way

we are going to be able to bring in other Local Authority Guarantee Acts, with

bigger schedules that the people can afford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, that exhibition, I have to

confess, has me a little concerned. The Minister did not address this piece of

legislation at all. What he did was basically give it the type of debate you

would get in debate on the Throne Speech. I am beginning to wonder if the

Government House Leader is going to call the Throne Speech any more. They gave

me a couple of days, but it sounds to me like the Minister of Finance just used

this piece of legislation to give his theory on the economic development in the

Province, which one would expect to hear from him speaking in the Throne Speech

debate. So, Mr. Chairman, I am beginning to wonder if that Budget is going to be

called again; I guess it has to be called some time.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister went on with a whole diatribe of

stuff totally unrelated to this bill. I do not question the fact that it is a

money bill and you have broad ranging debate on most money bills, but on this

particular bill, a Loan Guarantee Act, normally the debate is restricted to the

bill or to the financing of municipalities particularly. The Minister strayed

quite widely from that, but that is his right. I do not question the fact that

on this particular bill he can do that, but it is somewhat unusual.

Mr. Chairman, the bill itself is pretty straightforward. It

is simply guaranteeing money that was spent last year. There is nothing in the

bill that one can get too upset about. So you have to talk about the principles,

as the Minister did, of financing municipal capital works programs. A few

questions though that do arise, in that these loans were from October 20 until

February 21. Maybe the Minister could tell us at some point in time, when he

gets up again - I am curious. October 20 to February 21, does that happen to be

the period of time after the projects were completed? Because they do not go

into the Municipal Financing Corporation until after the projects are completed.

The money is borrowed by the municipalities and when the project is finalized,

then it is rolled over into NMFC. So I assume that is why those dates are there?

It is a serious question, I ask the Minister. I believe that is what it is. Or

are these additional ones that were not announced in the House last year by the

Minister when he announced his original program?

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible) amend the act every six months.

MR. WINDSOR: Amend the act every six months, yes.

So these are probably the ones that rolled into NMFC at

another period of time. I am just curious. Would the Minister give us detailed

information on that when he gets to his feet again?

The question I guess that comes from this, Mr. Chairman, and

we can talk forever on the distribution of funding in the various districts in

the Province, we can get into all kinds of political wrangles about that I

suppose, but nobody is going to question the funding requirement for any of

these municipalities. There is not a municipality in the Province which does not

need funding to put in water and sewer. The question, I guess, is priorities.

And I guess I would ask the question my colleague from Burin - Placentia West

asked during Question Period - when are we going to see this year's program? I

think that is a legitimate question. When are we going to get this year's water

and sewer and road program announced by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs so that we can get on with it? The weather is good now. The weather has

broken. The construction season is coming early in Newfoundland and Labrador

this year. We will have a real opportunity to get moving, but we have not yet

even announced the projects for this year. I say to Government generally, quite

seriously, let us get on with it.

Unemployment is at a seriously high level and here is an

opportunity to get moving this year to try to get some construction activity

going and so create some jobs in the early stages of the year. Let us do it

while the weather is good; it is too short a season in this Province. And the

Minister of Municipal Affairs I know supports that concept. Let us get into what

we are financing, the one area I think the Minister was valid in his debate on.

What are we financing here? This Minister said the Department is paying off some

$25 million in interest and $12 million in capital this year. Now I believe

these are all water and sewer loans. I do not believe any of these - the

Minister may correct me - are for roads. Roads are under the 60/40 roads

program, 60 per cent is a direct grant and 40 per cent is paid by the

municipality.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It may be. I may be wrong. But I would have

assumed that all of these were water and sewer because that is generally what we

provide loans for. There may be a guarantee given to a municipality, but

generally municipalities borrow directly for roads, in fact they have to have

their money before they can go ahead. So generally this is water and sewer

programmes here, and I would assume that the interest and capital that are being

paid by the Province are on the defaults. These are the municipalities that are

already paying 20 per cent of their gross revenue towards the cost of water and

sewer debt and the Province is picking up the balance.

And here is where we get in to the inequity and here is where

I think we really need to revise the financing for water and sewer programmes

here. Because there are inequalities across the Province in the cost of

providing water and sewer services. Some municipalities are very fortunate. Some

municipalities have a ready water supply very near to the border or the boundary

of the town and are able to tap in to that water supply relatively cheaply.

Others may well have to go five or ten miles back up in the country. And have -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. Member would allow me to interrupt him

to announce the questions for the Late Show?

There are three questions.

No.1 - I am not satisfied with the answer given by the

Minister of Municipal Affairs to my question on capital funding - the hon.

Member for Burin - Placentia West;

No.2 - I am not satisfied with the answer to my question on

design contracts awarded for Burgeo and Port Saunders hospitals - the hon.

Member for Kilbride;

No.3 - I am not satisfied with the Premier's response to my

question about the need for Government boards such as the Social Services Appeal

Board being composed of qualified and impartial people. I would like to debate

the question at greater length on the Late Show - the hon. Member for Humber

East.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying,

the inequity here is in the cost of providing services. There are two

inequities, I guess. One is the cost of providing services, one is the ability

of the municipality to pay. And in that regard - and I accept some of the points

that the Minister made when he was talking about the general strength of the

economy in rural Newfoundland generally. And we can talk about that. I do not

think this is the appropriate time but we might get into it.

But there are two key points. And the first one is the cost

of servicing. The cost within a municipality is to a large degree somewhat

consistent, depending on the layout of the municipality. If you have what we

call ribbon development, where the municipality is spread out over a highway,

like Dunville and Jerseyside, with which my friend for Placentia would be

familiar, the towns of Dunville and Jerseyside are really spread out. Jerseyside

has a little bit of a subdivision in it, but Dunville, more so than any of them,

is spread out, just basically it is just development along a highway, so you

have to run your trunk line, your water and your sewer, along the highway. And

you are picking up really only the properties on the side of the highway. And in

most rural municipalities - Dunville being as good an example as any - homes are

generally spread fairly far apart. So you are probably servicing maybe on the

average 500 or 600 feet per unit, is the cost of servicing. So you are providing

500 or 600 feet.

Let us say, for argument's sake, 500 feet. It would not

surprise me at all if it was double that on the average. A lot of vacant land

there. But on the average you are servicing 500 feet in order to service one

home. Now to compare that with a house in St. John's with a fifty foot building

lot, one on each side of the road, you are really only servicing twenty-five

feet per house. And so the cost of servicing just on that basis is twenty times

as great.

We have also made the mistake in the past - and I know

efforts are being made to change this, but it is not yet in the Act - that when

we service that 500 feet of road in Dunville we in effect created nine new fully

serviced building lots. In fact we created nineteen fully serviced building lots

at fifty feet each. Now standards for St. John's will not be acceptable in rural

Newfoundland. You have a different lifestyle. You are not going to tell

everybody in Dunville they have to live on a fifty foot building lot. The

lifestyle is different, the expectation is different, and they would not get

their boats, fishnets and skidoos and everything else on a fifty foot building

lot. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying everybody in Dunville should live on a

fifty foot lot.

But I am saying that by servicing that 500 feet of road you

have immeasurably increased the value of that lot. And so it would not be

unreasonable to expect the owner of that property to pay a capital improvement

assessment against the cost of providing water and sewer services. Now you have

to stop and say: well, that is great but where is he or she going to get that

money? Obviously it will have to be financed over a period of time, but there is

no reason in the world that an assessment could not be placed on that lot so if

and when the lot is developed, but before a building permit is issued, the

assessment then becomes part of the cost of building that home.

And that is no different than what is happening - the example

I have used before, I used Mount Pearl or St. John's or any other urban

development - is that a developer, be it NLHC or a private developer, in

servicing a piece of property, when the person buys that building lot they are

paying for not only the land, they are paying for the water and the sewer and

the sidewalk and the street lights and recreational facilities and other trunk

services, a fair share is assessed against that building lot. And so that person

is paying the full cost of the services.

And here is where the inequity comes in. When we look at $40

million or $50 million or $60 million this year being paid out by the Province

to cover debt on water and sewer services, they are basically providing those

same services to people in rural Newfoundland for free and/or increasing the

value of their property for free, unless there is a capital improvement

assessment of some sort. And it is not black and white.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It only affected value?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. But the hon. gentleman must agree that

you will get a lot more money for a fully serviced building lot in Dunville than

you will for the one down the road that is not serviced. I am not saying that

because we put water and sewer on a road in Dunville that for every fifty feet

we want $50,000, because that is not what the market is in Dunville, and that is

not the true cost. But the cost of providing water and sewer, or some reasonable

percentage of it, that could reasonably be expected to be recovered from the

market, and that could reasonably be expected to be affordable by the people of

that community, I think, could be expected to be paid toward it. Now, here is

one of the inequities there are between urban and rural Newfoundland. Now to get

back to where I started, there are other inequities in rural Newfoundland

between municipalities. The town of Lewisporte has a perfect water supply half a

mile, not even half a mile, away from the town so it did not cost a lot of

money, you have to protect that area, but it did not cost a lot of money to

develop a source of supply. We ran a canal down to an intake chamber, and a

tower to increase the pressure because unfortunately the pond is at much the

same level as the community, so you have to pump up to a tower to give you

consistent pressure which is not an unusual sort of thing. So, the cost of

developing that supply was not exorbitant, but you take another town, I am

trying to think of a good example, Bishop Falls is probably a good one. Bishop

Falls has a real problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: Placentia.

MR. WINDSOR: Placentia. Okay. We will stick to the same

area we were talking about. In Placentia the water comes from -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) road.

MR. WINDSOR: The old one came from Argentia. The water

was pumped from the supply developed by the Americans in Argentia and the water

is still being bought today if I am not mistaken. It was suppose to be

transferred. There were some negotiations ongoing. Anyway, the point I want to

make is that the town of Placentia, or whatever town, may have to develop a

source of supply five or even ten miles away. It may have to build expensive

dams. It may require expensive treatment of water in order to improve the

quality of the water. There is a tremendous expense to get that water to the

boundary, just to get that trunk service into the community as compared to, for

example, the town of Lewisporte or a similar town, so there is an inequity that

maybe we could address. I have said, I think in this House before, that I would

see that as a good program, a legitimate role for the Province would be to

develop the source of supply. Now the overall message that comes from this piece

of legislation and from the Minister's remarks when he told us that $630 million

of debt is still on the books: that has to tell us that municipalities are not

in a position to fund such expensive systems and that there will have to be a

greater measure of provincial contribution toward the cost of water and sewer

systems. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing, what we are seeing is

Government moving in the other direction, but I suggest to them that they need

that level of funding but they need it in the right areas. Give it to those that

need the help because of the unusual cost of servicing, so if the cost of

providing services is ten times higher in one municipality than in the next,

then give that municipality that has the higher cost of services a greater level

of assistance, but not a level of assistance that provides free serviced

building lots to people so that they can make a windfall on it. I think we have

to be careful and there has to be a balance. There is nothing cut and dry, there

is no formula that will apply in every case. The other half of it is once you

finish using that water you have to dispose of it, and again we have some

municipalities that are located on a good water course, near the saltwater, with

good tidal action that can dispose, in an unacceptable manner, I suppose,

overall by today's standards, but can dispose of their sewage simply by

discharging into the Atlantic Ocean where it is not creating an environmental

problem. I would say to you that most municipalities in this Province are not

really creating a major environmental problem by discharging their sewage

properly into the Atlantic Ocean. Every municipality has a different problem.

The town of Gander is one that we have spoken about before. I mean, because they

are on a fresh water body, they are inland, therefore they do not have that

privilege of simply discharging their sewage,

whereas the City of St. John's can

discharge its sewage out into the harbour, it costs them absolutely nothing to

do so. The town of Gander invested $2.5 million just in a treatment system to

treat their sewage before they discharge it into a river which eventually flows

into Gander Lake. So here is a situation where, perhaps, the town of Gander will

be justified in receiving some special assistance because of the unique

circumstances. Grand Falls - Windsor is in the same situation. They are looking

at a very expensive treatment system now to clean up the Exploits River. There

is a serious pollution problem in the Exploits River, and a study is being done

now by the Province, I think paid for by the Province, a proper study to see

what needs to be done to resolve that problem. The solution will be very

expensive, I am sure. But that is an area where I think the Province could

legitimately give some special assistance, I say to the Member for Windsor -

Buchans, give some special assistance to those communities because if they have

to bear the cost, the estimate is $12 million to $15 million, that is the

preliminary estimate, Grand Falls - Windsor cannot absorb the cost of $12

million to $15 million, neither can we, as a Province, allow that sewage to flow

unchecked into the Exploits River, and so it is a provincial problem, I would

suggest.

The town of Buchans is one of the worst polluters in the

Province. One of the worst locations in the Province is the pollution from the

town of Buchans into the little creek that is now dried up because the water has

been diverted into the Hydro project. If the hon. Member for Buchans would go

down to the bridge that goes down across there, he will see one of the worst

polluted areas in the Province. The Department of Environment will identify it

as one of the worst areas. Small numbers with a serious pollution problem

because there is no flow in that brook; there is no dilution of the sewage.

There is an area, the town of Buchans, not only because they do not have the

financial capacity, but because again they are an inland water course and we

should be making special provisions to deal with those types of things and

removing that financial burden to some degree, at least, from the

municipalities. We would support such a program.

So there is where you can balance out the cost, because part

of the reason that municipalities here have such a debt that they are unable to

pay and the Province has to pick up the difference, part of it is because of the

difference in the cost of servicing. I think we could go a long way to

equalizing them if we provided programs that dealt with the cost, the unusual

cost in some cases, of providing water supply to the municipality and the

unusual cost of sewage out falls and in some cases sewage treatment systems that

might be required. I think it would be a legitimate thing for the Province to

do, and would then leave the burder of the cost of servicing a municipality in

the hands of the municipality, but you would be dealing on an equal playing

field; you would be talking about distribution within the municipality, which

would be relatively equal for most municipalities.

Mr. Chairman, I think the Province has to bear a greater

share of that not a lesser share, and I appreciate the Province's financial

problems, but now we are at a situation where the criteria is one on ability to

finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Fiscal capacity.

MR. WINDSOR: Now the Minister did say a moment ago - he

covered himself well but he did emphasize the fiscal capacity of the

municipality is a criteria. He did say health and environment are key factors. I

will give him that. He did say that, but I got the distinct impression from what

he was saying that the ability to pay is the key one. And I would say the

ability to pay is important, but we cannot allow people in this Province to live

with serious environmental problems, you know, health areas, health problems,

strictly because of the ability to pay. And I would suggest that part of the

problem is as I just said, the inequities between the cost of servicing various

municipalities. If we were to go strictly on ability to pay, then a place like

Burgeo would never have been serviced in the first place, I say to the Member

for Burgeo. Probably the most expensive water and sewer system ever built in

this Province, certainly among the most expensive was in the Town of Burgeo, and

I know it because I was involved in building part of it back when I was a

student. Nothing but solid rock, bog and stagnant water is what you dealt with

in the Town of Burgeo. A rugged piece of our country. A very pretty piece of

country, but a rugged piece of country to install water and sewer. If the Town

of Burgeo were to have to pay the full cost of that water and sewer they would

never get it.

Conception Bay South is an example, it is a poor example. Not

so much the cost of servicing per unit, but the fact that it is spread out,

16,000 or 18,000 people are spread out over such an immense area and here is a

prime example of where we are creating hundreds of fully serviced building lots

for people because we are servicing their land. I think Conception Bay South now

do have a small capital improvement assessment, perhaps not enough yet, I do not

have the details so I will not make such a statement. But I recall when I was

Minister of Municipal Affairs in 1979, I sat down with the Council of Conception

Bay South and suggested to them that they were going to have to impose a capital

improvement assessment if they expected to get any significant amounts of money,

and I just about got run out on the rails for making that suggestion. Well they

have changed their position and I know that the people of Conception Bay South

are now expected to bear their share of the debt.

But the problem with this is that so many municipalities were

given funding to do water and sewer systems, and any fool would have known that

they could never hope to pay for them, and that is why we are still paying for

them. But is it fair to put on the back of those municipalities this kind of a

burden for at least twenty years when we know that they could not possibly hope

to pay for it? Would it not have made more sense upfront to accept the

differences, to recognize the difficulties those municipalities would have and

to deal with them? Placentia is a good example, we spent a fortune trying to

deal with the problems in Placentia. Whitbourne, is a comedy of errors. There

were some engineering and construction mistakes made in Whitbourne that has cost

the Province dearly.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible) engineering community.

MR. WINDSOR: Not by me. The engineering community is

prone to making mistakes.

Let me make another statement since we are talking about the

engineering community. The engineering community is prone to designing cadillac

systems, because their fee is based on a percentage of what they design and

build. And I have no hesitation to say that, because I said that to the annual

convention three years ago. I said to the engineering convention - I was guest

speaker - I said, you have to stop designing systems that municipalities cannot

afford. And I have spoken in this House, I will not go into my speech about

levels of service to municipalities. The Member for Placentia will recall, I

have spoken several times on them, that the level of service needs to be looked

at. So we have to rationalize the whole thing. The problem is not here, the

problem is not in mere dollars and cents, it is in providing a style of system

that we perhaps do not need in some areas or that we cannot afford in some

areas, and in not providing a financing program that removes the inequities

between municipalities, because there are very serious inequities. Now what can

be afforded in the Town of Gander, cannot be afforded in the Town of Burgeo, yet

the cost of servicing in Burgeo was ten times what it is in the Town of Gander.

And until we recognize that - here comes the Assistant Deputy Speaker, I was

just giving a plug for the Town of Whitbourne in his District, and he missed it.

Having said that, you know, we need to design a system that

accommodates the differences, that makes it equal, that makes water and sewer

services attainable by basically all municipalities. I do not disagree with the

concept of saying you must pay your fair share. Municipalities must be willing

to bear a fair share of the costs of those services. If they are not prepared to

pay a level of municipal taxation that can support those services, then that is

their decision.

Now I temper that with saying let's look at the ability to

pay. There is no sense saying to the people of Buchans where there is about a 95

per cent unemployment rate - am I close? I do not think I am overly

exaggerating. It is close to 95 per cent. It is no use saying to the people of

Buchans, 'you have to pay $1,200 per household if you want water and sewage.'

The people of Buchans do not have $1,200 per household to pay, but they still

need the services. They still need the services, so the formula must accommodate

that. There is no sense saying to a community that has 30 per cent of the people

who are senior citizens, or on fixed incomes and are not able to pay, for

example, or 45 per cent are on social assistance. There is no sense saying to

those communities, you have to pay $1,200 per household, you know the property

tax, if you want us to approve funding for water and sewage because they cannot

afford it. So you have to balance off all of these things. There is no clear cut

formula. I do not think the computer can deal with that one. You have to get

back to fairness and balance and a bit of compassion. It is hard to find from

this Government in spite of their protesting. But that is the only basis under

which funding can be fairly distributed for this sort of program.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with some of the

comments that the Minister of Finance said about developing the Province. It is

not very often that I agree with the Minister of Finance, but yes, get back to

the grass roots. I would not want to follow his economic policies, the economic

program to develop our grass roots, but yes, we do have to get back to the grass

roots. We have to develop those industries that can generate activity in rural

Newfoundland.

I was shocked to hear the Minister talk about our tourism

industry. He said a $100 million industry. The Minister of Development quite

properly corrected him, it is around $430 million, if I recall. I think it is

the second largest employer in the Province today, and the third largest

contributor