Volume XL Wednesday Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Second Session VERBATIM REPORT (Hansard} Speaker: Honourable Patrick McNicholas Number 51 11 June 1986

The House met at 3:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! Statements by Ministers MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, included in my department's estimates for the current fiscal year, were repairs to our marine haulout facility at Port Au Choix. This facility has been heavily damaged during recent years. Public tenders were called recently for the fabrication of a new boat cradle, since the existing one was too extensively damaged to be economically repaired.

The new cradle will be of heavier construction which will mean it will be better .suited to handle the majority of boats in the area. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that the Department of Fisheries is now in the process of awarding this contract to Steelfab Limited of St. John's, the lowest of five bidders, at their tendered price of $120,960. In addition to the new cradle, Mr. Speaker, my department will be carrying out extensive repairs to the slipway portion of the haulout which will facilitate the use of the new cradle.

Tenders for this second contract have already been called and will close on June 12. INe anticipate that all repairs will be completed by early Fall, at a combined cost for the cradle and slipway of approximately $200,000. L2980 June 11, 1986 Vol XL Mr. Speaker, the upgraded haul out at Port au Choix will be used to complement our marine service center at Port Saunders, until such time as that facility can be upgraded to accommodate all the longliners in the area. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr.

Speaker, we on this side ·welcome the minister's announcement of the spending of this amount of money to upgrade facilities · at Port au Choix. Of course it ties in very we 11 with the $7 million expenditure that took place in that area by the previous federal government for the construction of certain fishery-related buildings. Mr.

Speaker, this concept, which was started some years ago, I think is probably one of the great innovations in the fishery in this Province in a number of years, but unfortunately, in some cases the facilities are not capable now of .handling the type vessels that are being used in the respective areas. For example, in the Twillingate area, in Durrell, we have a marine haulout but, again, unfortunately, the lift is not capable of handling the size vessels that are being used in that area.

Consequently, a person now wishing to remove his boat from the water must take it to another part of the Province, and this situation, I am told, exists in a large number of such centers. We, again, Mr. Speaker, welcome the announcement. It is a good programme and we are glad to see No. 51 R2980

that Port au Choix will benefit from it. Again, I would strongly suggest to the minister that serious thought be given to taking a hard look at the o.ther centers, for example, Twillingate, and I think there is one in Wesleyville, one up in St. Joseph's, McCallum, Admiral's Beach. A lot these centers, as I said, are incapable of handling certainly a large number of the vessels that are fishing in the areas. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): At this stage I would like to welcome to the gallery Sean Power, Mayor of Buchans. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Oral Questions MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Premiers and the Minister of Public Works and Services is in Ottawa for meetings with his federal counterpart, and to attend meetings of the Canadian Committee on Procurement Standards, and he is also attending the conference of the Purchase Management Association of Canada. So the hon. gentlemen will not be back this week. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Leader Mr. Speaker, will - HR. PEACH: of the Say it out. Members of your caucus · have left. Tell us · about that. Tell us about that. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the Leader of the MR.

BARRY: Opposition . MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) could indicate to us whether the Premier and/or the Minister of Public T..Jorks and Services (Mr. Young) is going to be back into this House during this week or early next week? ·MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. · 'MR . MARSHALL: Mr . Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, I believe the hon. the Premier is gone to attend the Conference of the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian L2981 June 11, 1986 Vol XL It must have been a different caucus from the one I was at. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SP EA KER : Order, please! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. member for Carbonear (Mr. Peach) being upset because we went down to a new Board Room today and he could he could no longer eavesdrop through the wall. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: I understand his frustration. No. 51 R2981

MR. TULK: He got his ears beat to pieces on the wall this morning. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would answer the full question. I asked would they be back this week or early next week, so that we can plan. This will help the Government House Leader in expediting the legislative programme, which I know he wants to see completed and we would like to see expedited, Mr. Speaker. There is legislation on the Order Paper - SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Threats. MR. BARRY: No, it is not threats. It is just simply a matter of - MR. J. CARTER: Threats are unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, there legislation, there bills on the Order unless the Government is enough are enough Paper that House Leader wants to cut and run and leave the Order Paper in tatters as they did the last sesssion, we could continue this well into July, Mr. Speaker. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Good! Good! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: Now will the whether the Minister of minister indicate Premier and the Public Works and L2982 June 11, 1986 Vol XL Services will be back early next week? In that case .we can move on to other business.

If they are not going to be back early next week, will the minister indicate whether he will obtain from the Department of Public Works and Services, and table in this House, the information we requested from the Premier? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am neither impressed nor shaking· at the hon. gentleman's telling me that we may be here until July or we may be here until August. The longer this House sits the more ineffective the Opposition appears to the people of this Province, so this government looks forward to it. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, h:ear! MR.

MARSHALL: Under the leadership of the bon. member we will not even have to wage a campaign because he is waging it for us here in the House. I told the hon. gentleman that the Minister of Public Works would be away this week, so presumably, if he is going to be away this week, he will be back here next week. MR. TULK: What? MR. MARSHALL: I told the hon. gentleman that the Premier is away for the balance of this week, so I would presume he will be back next week. 1\low if the bon. gentleman wants to ask any questions with respect to the matters that he brought up, try me. No. 51 R2982

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to unduly delay any legislation. We are somewhat amazed that the Premier has not taken the opportunity of speaking in the Atlantic Accord debate except for I think it was eight minutes in February and was so shamed, Mr. Speaker, by what has occurred since then - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: - he would not even participate in the debate yesterday. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The bon. the Leader of the Oppositi.C>n was beginning to make a speech. MR.

BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister to answer my previous question. Will he see that we are supplied . with the information which we requested of the Premier and the Minister of Public Works before they left? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Council. MR. MARSHALL: Hr. Speaker, should know the that hon. the gentleman bon. the the hon. Premier gentleman demolished many times. He L2983 June 11, 1986 Vol XL demolished him in that eight minutes last February so he need not be in the House yesterday.

As far as the Atlantic Accord is concerned, we are still scratching our heads when we saw the look on the bon. gentleman's face when he · had to stand up and vote for it, after all he said with respect to the Atlantic Accord, and more importantly what he did against the vi tal interests of the people of the Province of Newfoundland. After all that he stood up and voted for it. The only thing that was wrong was he did not hang his head in shame yesterday, · Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that the bon. gentleman wants some recitation of facts. Now I can give the bon. gentleman a recitation of facts.

If he wants to ask. and pose questions I will respond. My understanding was that one of the questions was when were these temporary jobs filled fot" the fit"st time. That was the question and the answer is the Spdng of 1985. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. MARSHALL: If the hon. gentlemen want the answers I will give the answet"s. What happened then was there was a competition held, undet"

Section 14 of the Public Service Commission Act, which closed on August 16, 1985. Now, as the bon gentlemen will know,

Section 14 of the Act is a provision which allows the Public Service Commission to delegate to a committee in the department the right to select. That is what was done then, and the competition was held under that delegation and there were interviews held in early October No. 51 R2983

with respect to it. And, lo and behold, when the results of the interviews came in there were eight people recommended. Four of these who were recommended were not the people who had filled the positions before, who had already been working in them, so the hon. the Minister of Public Works and Services, being the faithful public servant that he . is, being the best Public Works Minister in the history of this Province, scratched his head and said, how could this possibly come about? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shameful! MR. MARSHALL: It was not shameful.

So what the hon. gentleman did when he saw that four people who already had the jobs were recommended to be replaced without any good and · sufficient reason, the hon.

Minister of Public Works on November 7, 1985, wrote to his deputy and he clearly said to his deputy that he was inclined, because there was going to be a disruption of jobs that people · already held, and because it was inconsistent with the status quo at the time and people were going to be dislodged, he said, before they are dislodged they have to be dislodged with reason and I would not presume to dislodge them so what I think we should do, because we want this government to continue as clean as it has been all the time, is refer it to the .independent Public Service Commission itself for assessment, and that is what happened.

He also instructed, at that particular time, the two people on the board who had done the interviews because he is in charge of the department and was dissatisfied with the way in which they had conducted their duties, L2984 June 11, 1986 Vol XL displacing people who already had jobs without giving any good and sufficient reasons, that they should be reviewed as far as future interviews are concerned. In the meantime his instruction was it was to go to the Public Service Commission, and so it did. Hon. gentlemen should copy this down now: November 20, 1985, the competition was cancelled.

The matter has been referred to Public Service Commission - MR. BARRY: November 28th? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: No. November 20, 1985. The matter was then referred to the Public Service Commission. It was instructed to be referred to the Public Service Commission by the minister, who gave instructions to his public servants, and it will be, in due course, very shortly, referred to the Pubiic Service Commission. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ha, ha! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR.

BARRY: 1 would like to ask the President of the Council, whom I thank for supplying this information after much pressure, whether he thinks that November 20, 1985 to June 11, 1986 is a reasonable period to see action taken to refer this matter to the Public Service Commission? No. 51 R2984

MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, sometimes, admittedly, the wheels of government turn slowly. All I can say to the bon. gentleman is that the Minister of Public Works and Services, in a written memorandum to his deputy minister on November 7, 1985, issued the instructions and made the comments to which I referred, and that was then given to the public servants to carry out and refer.

Now the wheels of sometimes move slowly, but the slowness of of the wheels had no government admittedly, the moving relationship indirectly in Minister of directly or any way to the good Public Works and Services, who, I repeat again, has been a faithful steward of the people of Newfoundland in seeing that we have the most honest and direct operation in the fields of contracts and hiring for which he is responsible in this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, h~ar! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the minister would agree to table this memorandum of the minister, dated November 20, 1985? Would the minister table this memorandum and any other memoranda from the minister relating to this decision? Would he table the response of Would the whether any the deputy minister? minister indicate enquiries have been L2985 June 11, 1986 Vol XL carried out to determine whether of the four temporary employees some or all have been political supporters of the Minister of Public Works and Services~ MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, first of all, will I table the memorandum? Normally I would have no hesitation but I will take that under advisement. One of the reasons why I have some hesitation about tabling the memorandum is that in the course of the memorandum the minister mentioned the names of two public servants who conducted the interviews, whom the minister did not feel at · that particular time were sui table to car'r'Y out those par'ticular duties, and I do not necessarily want their names bandied about.

So what I can tell the hon. gentleman, having almost appr'oached the great and gigantic intelligence of the Leader' of the Opposition, that I have half a photogr'aphic memor'y and since I cannot table my memory, I can just quote to the hon. gentleman what the memorandum says as I r'emember' it. He said, "I am concerned about the recommendations of the board in these selections of candidates for the MED Center and why none of the four' were not recommended." These are the four that were already in the · job.

"I am inclined," he said, .. to place it on hold and maybe go to the Public Service Commission to fill them,'' being the minister he is. "In the meantime, I would like to have Mr. Blank and Mr. Blank'' - now I have already revealed they are from one half of the population; they are mister's, they ar'e not missuses, No. 51 R2985

they are two men - "removed from all interviewing boards in the future as I discussed with you previously." The reason why he did it was he did not feel comfortable with those recommendations because he did not think it was fair and he wanted it put to the Public Service Commission. Now, as to the other part of his question, Mr. Speaker, I made enquiries on this. I do not believe that one single one of them resided in the district of .the bon. gentleman. As a matter of fact, one of the people who was employed resides and works and lives in the blessed district of St. John's East.

I can tell the bon. gentleman that neither the member for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) nor the member for Harbour Grace had anything to do with the appointment because they came from St. John's East or Harbour Grace or what have you.

All the Minister of Public Works was doing, as he has done assiduously with respect to the awarding of contracts - compare that to the record of the hon. gentlemen there opposite when their government was in corrupting the institutions of this Province was adhering to his usual practice of maintaining honesty and integrity in the government, a mark · that neither the hon. gentlemen nor some of our friends in a certain media are going to be able to take away from us. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

L2986 June 11, 1986 Vol XL MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, would the Government House Leader indicate whether it is now the policy of the Department of Public Works, and of the administration generally, to give preference to those temporary employees who have been working in a position, who have been hired without going through the Public Service Commission, and who have, on the minister's own admission, been hired regularly on the basis of political patronage?

Is the minister saying that it is the policy of the administration in any subsequent hiring to give preference to those individuals because they have been doing the particular job, filling that position on a temporary basis? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the President of Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, how he tries to beat a dead horse. The policy of this government was, is and will remain, for the next thirty or forty years it is in office, to appoint people to positions in the Public Service on the basls of merit. It is on the basis of merit that this administration appoints people.

I do not know whether the hon. gentleman, but one of the members of the Opposition - I think the bon. jealous Tory would never make any concession of this nature one of his bench mates I believe conceded the fact that the Public Service Commission operates and operates very effectively, very well, has delivered a public service that this Province can be proud of, where promotions and appointments are on the basis of merit. That is the basic criterion of this government in the appointment of anyone, either No. 51 R2986

fuL peLrnanent OL foL tempoLaLy positions, and it will Lemain so. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the membeL for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. SpeakeL, I have a question foL the Govet"Tlment House LeadeL. He has just told us that the Minister of Public Works did issue a memoLandum in which he asked that the two people, Mr. Blank and ML. Blank, as the GoveLnment House LeadeL says, not be allowed to sit on any other selection boaLd in the department.

Now I want to LefeL the GoveLnment House Leader to a question that was put to the Minister of Public Works by the Leader of the Opposition, in which the minister was asked had he issued a memoLandum Legarding who should or should not sit on future selection boards - a direct question. The Leply of the MinisteL of Public WaLks and Services was, "No, ML. Speaker. " How do you explain that contradiction? MR. SP EAKER : The han. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the question was obviously asked in context.

Because this is the picture that the bon. gentlemen aLe tLying to paint in . this House, that the Minister of Public WaLks and SeLvices sits on the public chest like a ceLtain LibeLal membeL said in FerLyland many yeaLs ago and he was always diLecting that ceLtain people shall not- SOME HON. MEMBERS: Answer the question. L2987 June 11, 1986 Vol XL MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: and he should sit was determining who on inteLview boards. The ministeL's answer was perfectly and completely correct, because he was asked the question in the context, does the minister do this? And the answer - SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Answer the question. MR. MARSHALL: Wait now! I mean, the bon. gentlemen want to put imputations on the context of the way the minister has responded. The minister's answer was perfectly and absolutely consistent. This was one particular case where be was dissatisfied with the performance of two people who were executing a duty in the public service, and he said in the future they should be Lemoved from interviewing because he did not think that they weLe capable. That is a far cry from the insinuation of the bon . gentleman that this is a practice of the Minister of Public Works and Services.

I repeat once again: The Minister of Public Works and Services action taken in this matter was completely honourable and aboveboard because he wanted the independent Public Service Commission to be the arbiters of who got these jobs. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, member for Fogo. No. 51 the bon. the R2987

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the bon. gentleman again to page L2751 in Hansard - MR. BARRY: On June 5. MR. TULK: - of June 5. I would also· tell the bon. gentleman that I asked the Minister of Public Works and Services the same question, the member for St. Barbe (Mr. Furey) asked him the same question, the Leader of the Opposition asked him twice, on two separate occasions, the same question. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: Read the question there. MR. TULK: I would ask how he explains the contradiction, and this was the question put: 'Will the minister answer the question? Let us break it down.

First of all, did the' - and this was the third time 'minister issue a memorandum regarding who should or should not sit on future selection boards?' And the answer of the Minister of Public Works and Services was clearly, 'no' . Now I would ask the· Government House Leader to, first of all, table the memorandum. MR. BARRY: No, that is not allowed. MR. TULK: That is not allowed in this House. and then ask the Minister of Public Works and Services for his resignation. SOME HON. MEMBERS: L2988 June 11, 1986 Vol XL Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the President of the Council. MR.

MARSHALL: A sad day it would be in this Province if the Minister of Public Works and Services in this government resigned.

The Minister of Public Works and Services in this government, as I say, has given admirable service, has been the protector of The Public Service Commission Act, and if the bon. gentleman wants to take things, as they like to, out of context, if he examines the whole line of questioning during that Question Period, the bon. gentleman will see quite clearly that the nature and import of that question was put to the bon. gentleman on the basis of, does he as a normal course interfere with selection boards and remove people from selection boards in the public service?

In this particular case, he was exercising a duty that was perfectly reasonable and responsible for him to do, and he was executing his duties properly. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the bon. the member for Fogo. MR .. TULK: Let me again ask the Government House Leader will he do the honourable thing that has to be done? In view of the fact that the ·Minister of Public Works and Services on at least three, really four occasions in this House denied that he has said the things that he had said in this memo, No. 51 R2988

namely, that those two people were not to sit on any future selection boards - and the Government House Leader knows full well what it means when you say no in answer to a question that requires yes, the Government House Leader knows what that is, that it is a word that you are not really allowed to use in this House as a parliamentarian. He knows that it is against anything that a minister should do in this House, and he knows full well that ministers have been required to resign for less - so let me ask him again will he now do the honourable thing and advise the Premier, even though he is away - Mr.

Mulroney, I think called for a resignation when he was in Asia - contact the Premier down in the New England States, or wherever he is, and ask him to ask the Minister of Public Works and Services for his resignation so that the public morality of politics in this Province can be upheld? Is he just going to sit there? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Listen who, Mr. Speaker, has the gall and who is bare-faced enough to talk about public morality in politics in this Province. It would make you laugh if you did not get sick first when you heard it.

Now, the fact of the matter is if anyone examines the Question Period in the House on the whole basis of what the hon. the Minister of Public Works and Services said, what I have given L2989 June 11, 1986 Vol XL today is entirely and completely consistent with . the hon. gentleman's answers.

The way in which the hon. gentlemen were trying to pose questions of the Minister of Public Works and Services and attack this whole issue was to attempt to try to show in , this House that the Minister of Public Works and Services was continually interfering in interview boards which the hon. gentleman was not doing, he never did and the action which he took was that he was dissatisfied in the way in which the interview board had conducted its interview and wanted it referred to the Public Service Commission. I ask you, what more reasonable action could the hon. gentleman have taken? MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to whomever will answer it, and I am not sure .who will. I want an answer on the salary, indemnities and expense allowances for members of this House. I am not sure which of the ministers of the Crown is willing to answer for that. MR. BAIRD: We are all responsible. MR. PEACH: Mr. Speaker, boy. MR. FENWICK: Well, somebody must be responsible for the amount of money going out here, so I will ask the question of the House Leader. Back at the end of December an Order-in-Council was passed ruling No. 51 R2989

on the report of the Select Committee on Accommodations and Benefits. Virtually everything in that committee report was rejected. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the -hon. member please pose his question? MR. FENWICK: My question is · this.

Since _the Order-in-Council passed in December called for an increase for members of this House on expenses and on salaries that corresponds with increases given the General Service on April 1, can the Government House Leader explain to me why a 6 per cent increase is being put through for the members of the House on both expenses and salary, and perhaps for Cabinet ministers as well for all I know, without the authorization of an Order-in­ Council? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader. the Government Hous·e MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of that question.

I am really not aware of the fact that any such increase has been approved, so before I could respond I will have to take notice of the hon. gentleman's question. MR. FENWICK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the · member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: That raises a problem. SOME HON. MEMBERS: L2990 June 11, 1986 Vol XL Did you get yours? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: I was wondering if the bon. member might restate his question. The Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) might be more familiar with that. MR. FENWICK: Well, can Minister question repeated?

I just assume that the of Finance heard the or do you want it DR. COLLINS: Could you repeat it? MR. FENWICK: The question is this. I have been informed that there will be a 6 per cent increase on basic indemnity· for the members, on the expense allowance and, for all I know, on .Cabinet ministers' salaries as well. I would like to know if the Minister of Finance has passed a separate Order-in­ Council or are we still working on the previous Order-in- Council that said that the increase would correspond to the increase given the General Service on April 1, 1986? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR.

COLLINS: I am not aware that I pass Orders-in-Council, Mr. Speaker. I think Cabinet passes Orders-in-Council. I usually follow Orders In Council but to my knowledge Cabinet did not pass another Order-in-Council on that matter, nor can I see any ·need why it should want to pass another Order-in-council. MR. FENWICK: No. 51 R2990

Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: The question then is are the members of this House getting a 6 per cent increase upon the adj ourrunent of this particular period of the House? Are we getting a 6 per cent increase, are our expenses being increased by 6 per cent and are the Cabinet ministers $30,000 indemnities also being increased by 6 per cent? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Speaker, in regard to the sessional indemnity, the Department of Finance follows an instruction that it received from time to time from the Speaker's office, the Speaker being the Chairman of the Internal Economy Commission. As far as I recall, The House of Assembly Act empowers the Internal Economy Commission to set from time to time sessional indemnity. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Port de Grave. MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had questions to ask of some other ministers, but since what has happened here in the House this afternoon has greatly shocked me, the way in which the President of the Council answered questions, I want to direct my question to the President of the Council, Mr. Speaker. L2991 June 11, 1986 Vol XL The Premier on public television on Thursday night last said that regardless of what Mr. Young has said with respect to government's hiring practices, the government's official policy is to hire on the basis of merit, competence, experience and so on .

I would like to ask the President of .the Council will he not admit that in tradition and in the practice of British parliamentary democracy, neither a Cabinet minister nor the Premier can publicly pursue policies which are diametrically opposed? Does the minister and the government not subscribe to the principle of Cabinet solidarity and collective Cabinet responsibility? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. KR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, my response to that is that it is quite clear that this government has always abided by the principle of appointing on the basis of merit.

Indeed, the actions taken by the Minister of Public Works, which the hall. gentlemen are trying to make such a great issue of, reflect exactly that. I repeat once again, he himself did not interfer in any way in the appointments. He did not interfer in the selection. He did not wish to substitute his own judgement, Mr.

Speaker, so what he did was he wanted to put it over to the independent Public Service Commission because he was afraid that the results of that interview would have detracted from the basic policy of this government and he wished to assure, through the Public Service Commission, that it was on the basis of merit. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker. No. 51 R2991

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. member for Port de Grave. MR. EFFORD: the Would the minister not admit that in this particular case we have a serious conflict between the Premier, the Minister of Publ-ic Works and, indeed, the minister himself in the statements he has made, and the statements that the Minister of Public Works himself made on public television? I would like to ask the minister this: How are the people of this Province to know with any degree of trust and confidence which is the correct and practiced policy of the government? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR.

MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, there is no inconsistency between the Minister of Public Works and the Premier, and the policy of this government is perfectly clear. Now you can get inconsistency any time you wish to · if you want to pick things out of context, which is really what happened in that particular interview itself. And if anyone knows the Minister of Public Works in this Province, and his dedication to the job, and his determination to protect the integrity of this government and the Public Service Commission, they wpuld know that and they would know that full well.

I mean, you can pick things out of context either in interviews, in the public media, or you can pick thing .s out of context in Hansard. If you read on the Hansard that was quoted today, you will see the hon. gentleman answered, "Yes" and "No", and all the rest of it, but L2992 June 11, 1986 Vol XL if you read the whole thing in its total context I challenge any reasonable fair-minded person to come up with the

interpretation the hon. gentelman carne up with. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The time for Oral Questions has elapsed. We started Or~l Questions at 3:07 and actually, we have gone over the half-hour. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speake ·r, privilege. MR. SPEAKER: on a point of On a matter of privilege, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, we have had vari-ous forms of parliamentary process in this Province. I think everybody here in this House of Assembly has believed in a Question Period in this House as being important.

I think not just 'here, but in otber parts of Canada and, I suppose, in every part 'of the British parliamentary system, if we only look at where the media focus and where the general public show their interest, Mr. Speaker, it is Question Period. And it is a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, not just because members on this side are upset if the truth is not stated by a minister, it is because it goes to the integrity of the legislative proc~ss. It goes to the integrity of the parliamentary process if ministers of the Crown 'do not answer truthfully when they are asked questions by the Opp~sition. AN HON.

KEMBER: It is nobody's business. No. 51 R2992

MR. BARRY: Well, you interesting. of the press legislature, assume that listening. see, that is very Now, because members have gone out of the members opposite there is nobody SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, if the Government House Leader (Hr. Marshall) today accepts that it is proper for a minister of the Crown to stand in this House in response to questions, not just one question, four different questions by four different members, if the minister acknowledges or accepts that it is proper for the Minister of Public Works to answer these untruthfully, then, Mr.

Speaker, the whole system breaks down, because what is the point of Question Period? If ministers can get up and answer whatever they want, even though it bears no relationship to the truth, what is the point of asking questions? And, Mr. Speaker, how can the Opposition hold ministers of the Crown accountable if ministers of the Crown are not expected to give the truth to this House? Now, time after time in this House and in other Parliaments, we have seen ministers resign for this very thing, whether it be Mr.

Profumo in Great Britain, that Your Honour has had the opportunity to refer to, which was a completely different type of case, Mr. Speaker, but the principle upon which that gentleman resigned was because he had lied to the British House of Commons. L2993 June 11, 1986 Vol XL Mr. Speaker, in our own House we have members with honour and members who are back in this House after having done the honourable thing, resigned their position as minister because they did not answer a question truthfully. Even though they subsequently gave the truth to the House, Mr.

Speaker, in order to protect the integrity of the system and the integrity of the process, they resigned and they have subsequently been invited back into Cabinet. MR. J. CARTER: That is a speech. MR. BARRY: Yes, and it is a very serious matter and a point of privilege that the member for St. John's North knows is important. MR. J. CARTER: Do not be so foolish. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. 'BARRY: Because what we are involved in here, Mr. Speaker, is not just the issue of patronage in appointments.

That was how the issue started, but it has moved on from there to the question of whether ministers of the Crown should give a truthful answer when they are questioned in this House. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Servies has not given a truthful answer. And there is no ambiguity about the question. I broke the question down because the minister was hedging and stonewalling and playing games and saying yes and no. I said, 'Will the minister answer the question'? Let us break it down. First of all, did No. 51 R2993

the minister issue a memorandum regarding who should or should not sit on future selection boards? ~ow, I would submit to Your Honour that what the Government House Leader has done today, what he has stated, even though he will not table that memorandum - we will deal with that subsequently, because that is a very surprising approach for the minister to take and we would accept his deletion, Mr.

Speaker, of the names. of the public employees blank those out - we do not want to know the names of the .members who the minister referred to, but we would ask that the minister . reconsider and table that memorandum with those names blanked out. Let us get back to the question just briefly before I close. I asked, 'Did the minister issue a memorandum regarding who should or who should not sit on future selection boards'.

The minister today - and again I thank him for finally giving the information - has confirmed that the minister did issue a memorandum regarding who should or should not s'i t on future selection boards. The Minister of Public Works, this is his answer, and it was not hedging, it was not in context with something else, he said, 'No, Mr. Speaker,' and he sat down. AH HON. MEMBER: That is not correct. MR. TULK: It is correct. Read Hansard. It is exactly what he said. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: Now, Mr.

Speaker, I have copied that page for the press and I will L2994 June 11, 1986 Vol XL be happy to copy this page for other members of the House. Members do not have to stick to that page, they can go on and they can look at the three other occasions where the member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk), the member for St. Barbe (Mr. Furey), asked the same question. · The minister, if he had made a mistake the first time, was given time to reconsider it. He said, 'No, Mr. Speaker. • 'No, Mr. Speaker. • 'No, Mr. Speaker. ' Deliberately, · with malice aforethought, Mr.

Speaker, he did not give a truthful answer· to a question put by the Opposition on a matter of public importance and I submit to Your Honour that it is a matter that goes to the privileges of every member of this House. The whole process becomes a farce if Ministers of the Crown are not to be held accountable, if Ministers of the Crown are allowed to say otherwise than the truth in response to questions. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. KR. MARSHALL: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) has been grossly out of order in this House himself in raising that point of privilege, imputing that the Minister of Public Works and Services did not tell the truth, but I will let that go for the moment. It is equally, Mr. Speaker, a breach of privilege for somebody to get up and distort the proceedings of the House. Now, I do not say that the hon. gentleman deliberately does No. 51 R2994

it, because the hon. gentleman cannot, in effect, help himself. He sees things as he interprets them, as we all do, but more times than not with the hon. gentleman they are not in accordance with the general

interpretation of most people. He sits in a group, whether it is an Assembly or a Cabinet, or whatever, and it is his ' way or no way. That is the way the han. gentleman has operated. Now, if the bon. gentleman also, if he wants to quote, does not quote in context. There is a question here in this very proceeding and when the Minister of Public Works and Services was asked that question he used the words, 'yes and no' . You have to take the whole tenor of the Question Period, not one specific, particular question, and you have to judge it within the entire context. In the final analysis, Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Services, who has discharged his duties admirably in this particular case, as in others, was taking steps to see that the policy and the procedure used was the one which follows the policies of this government and the determination of this government, that appointments be on the basis of merit and that be the prime criterion, no matter what one takes out of context. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, to that point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of privilege, the bon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr.

Speaker, if the bon. gentleman who is supposed to be the author of all public morality in this L299~ June 11, 1986 Vol XL Province did not go through this whole case in his own mind, let me take him through it again. We will contend that there is a breach of privilege here because the Minister of Public Works has impeded every member of the Opposition, in particular, from doing their job.

There is a difference in being given false information on one occasion and having somebody come back and say, 'Well, I was off on that one occasion.' But, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, this happened on four separate occasions that day. As a matter of fact, Your Honour ruled, I believe it was on that day, that we were asking the same question over and over. It has been pointed out now why we asked that question over and over, because we knew we were getting information that was untrue.

First ·of all, I can read from Hansard, page L2747, where I asked the Minister of Public Works and Services two separate questions, and I will just read the second one for Your Honour: "Would he confirm for this House whether or not it is correct that he was in such a rage that the four people had not been employed permanently, had not been selected by the Selection Committee, that he circulated a memo saying that those two public employees were never again to sit on a public Selection Committee?" The Speaker recognizes the Minister of Public Works and, of course, the Minister of Public Works says specifically, 'No, Mr.

Speaker. ' Let me go to the member for St. Barbe: "Will the Minister of Public Works and Services confirm that he was in such a rage after receiving these recommendations concerning the Kelligrews Marine Centre, which No. 51 R2995

did not include his four temporary appointments for those permanent jobs, that he issued a memorandum barring two of his departmental civil servants from ever sitting on a Public Service Selection Committee again? Was there a memo circulated from the minister respecting this matter?" The Minister of Public Works and Services stands up and he says, "I have already answered that question, Mt'. Speaker. " In other words, no again.

The Leader of the Opposition, page L2 7 50, the same day, June 5 , "Would the minister confirm whether he issued a memorandum, following receipt of the recommendations of this Selection Board, to the effect that the representatives of his department who had sat on the board should never again be allowed to sit on a Selection Board?" The bon. the Minister of Public Works, "Yes and no, Mr. Speaker. •• Then it goes on, the Leader of the Opposition again, who breaks down the question for the Minister of Public Works because he was stonewalling: "Will the minister answer the question?

Let us break it down" - this is the member for Mount Scio - first of all, did the minister issue a memorandum regarding who should or should not sit on future Selection Boards?" Now, _Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time the minister has been asked the question. And what was his answer? Unequivocally, Mr. Speaker, the answer that came from the Minister of Public Works was, no. The President of the Council, the Government House Leader, got up in this House today and he has said L2996 June 11, 1986 Vol XL that that was not the truth.

He admitted that by saying that there was a memo circulated and that the Minister of Public Works did say that those two public servants were never to sit on a Public Selection Board again. He did say that. Now, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot stand in this House one day and say 'no' on four separate occasions and then allow somebody else to walk into the House on another day and say yes, this happened. One statement, Mr. Speaker, has to be untrue.

And I would submit to Your Honour, with all due respect to the Chair and to the Minister of Public Works and Services, that the statement given by the Minister of Public Works and Services was untrue. Those four separate answers were untrue. I am not allowed to say what I regard it as, Mr. Speaker, and I do not intend to. Leader the the If the Government House refuses to do what is honourable thing to do, advise Premier to· ask the Minister Public Works and Services for of his resignation, then Your Honour has to take this matter into his own hands.

Because if this is allowed to continue, I can stand up tomorrow and ask the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) a question, I can ask the Minister of Health (Dr. Twomey) a question, I can ask the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands (Mr. Simms) a question, and so on down the line, and the answers they come back with each time I ask a question can be untrue. Now, how am I to function as a member of this House if that kind of thing is allowed to continue? MR. BARRY: No. 51 R2996

Is that democracy? ·MR. TULK: So I would submit to Your Honour that it is as clear as can be that the Minister of Public Works and Services has misused his office as a minister of the Crown and that he should be asked to do the honourable thing? Failing that, I would .ask Your Honour to deal with him? MR. J. CARTER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for St. John's North. MR. J. CARTER: I do think that some general remarks here would help to clarify this situation. The Minister of Public Works and Services (Mr.

Young) is a very conscientious person, who would not willingly see government funds wasted or useless people hired. You know, the analogy I would use is you would not hire a firebug to work in a fireworks factory. The Liberals, generally in this Province, pillaged and practically destroyed the government for twenty-three years and, I must say, if I were Minister of Public Works and Services, I would be very, very careful and I would screen applicants for a job very carefully if they were known active Liberals looking for a job. Now, the minister would not go as far as myself, I must say.

If the members opposite think the minister is being a little overcautious in his screening of applicants, I can assure them that I would be much blunter about it and I would not knowingly hire active, hot-to-trot Liberals. I just would not do it. Because the record of the first twenty-three L2997 June 11, 1986 Vol XL years of Confederation speaks for itself.

Now, I think the minister has been extremely sensible and sensitive to the feelings of all political parties, far more sensitive than I would have been and, I would suggest, far more sensitive than members opposite would be, because when the government was in the possession, God help us, · of members opposite, or of their predecessors, there was no way that a person could get a job working for the government or working for a firm that had contracts with the government unless they were an active, participating, contributing Liberal. That is a fact. That is an absolute fact. The record speaks for itself. So, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is the ·height or the depth, or both, of hypocrisy for members opposite to even comment, I think it is the height of hypocrisy for any member to even comment upon anything resembling the comments of the Minister of Public Works and Services. I think, in fact, that it is unfortunate that there is not a system of promotions in this House. I think the Minister of Public Works and Services should be promoted, not demoted. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, member to 'hypocrisy' . MR. SPEAKER: could you ask the withdraw the word Maybe the bon. member would like to rephrase that. MR. J. CARTER: Mr.

Speaker, if I say it is the height of hypocrisy to say such and such a thing, I do not think that this is the use of that word No. 51 R2997

in an unparliamentary manner. Obviously I am . in your hands, but this was the sense in which I used it. · In other words, to say something or other is the height or depth of hypocrisy I do not think is using the word 'hypocrisy' in an unparliamentary fashion, and, unless Your Honour directs me to do otherwise, I will let it stand. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): To that point of privilege, I am going to take that under advisement. I will just study what the bon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry), the bon. the member for Fogo (Mr.

Tulk), and the two bon. gentlemen to my left said and I will rule tomorrow or the next day if there is a prima facie case. I will also take the opportunity of studying what the bon. member for St. John's North (Mr. J. Carter) said and I will deal with that, if necessary. MR. BARRY: On another matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Leader of the Maybe the Government House Leader did this inadvertently but he gave the impression, Mr. Speaker, that delegation to the Minister of Public Works and Service~ took place under the Newfoundland Public Service Commission Act.

I refer the minister to

Section 14 of that Act which says: "Subject to the regulations the Commission may, in writing, and subject to such regulations" - maybe there are regulations that have been done but we have not seen them - " delegate to a chief executive L2998 June 11, 1986 Vol XL officer the authority to exercise any of the powers of the Commission." Now, the chief executive officer means,

Section 2, 'deputy minister.' It does .not mean the Minister of Public Works and Services. MR. DINN: That is right. MR. TULK: That is right? Thanks! MR. BARRY: That is right! So what was the Minister of Public Works and Services doing giving orders as to who should be hired and who should not be? MR. FUREY: So haul your foot out of your mouth, 'Dinn •. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! . MR. DINN: There is nothing wrong with that. That answered your question. You are totally wrong. MR. TULK: Prove it. MR. BARRY: No.

If the minister is prepared to indicate that that was an inadvertent misleading of the House, is the minister prepared to set up a public enquiry to determine why it was that the Minister of Public Works and Services, in breach of this statute, in breach of the Newfoundland Public Service Commission Act took over this function from the Deputy Minister of the Department? HR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the No. 51 R2998

Council . MR. MARSHALL: Mr . Speaker, he used to be, when he was over on this side, called the school boy debater. He gets tied up in all of these technicalities and thinks he has made a great find which is going to shake the government. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure, I will check Hansard, whether I said the minister or whether I said the department. DR. COLLINS: The department, you said. MR. MARSHALL: In any event, in case the hon. gentleman does not understand it, the deputy minister is the deputy minister, and 'deputy' means underneath the minister himself.

A department of · government is not conducted by just a deputy minister, but under the aegis of a minister himself. The hon. gentleman wants to make mountains out of mole hills. What he cannot get over, Mr. Speaker, is the unassailable fact that the Minister o·f Public Works and Services acted properly in this case and referred it to the Public Service Commission because he was concerned it be determined on the basis of merit. I told the bon. gentleman that on November 20 the Deputy Minister cancelled the competition. It was the Deputy Minister who cancelled the competition.

What else can you ·expect but inconsistency from a man who talked the way he did about the Atlantic Accord and then yesterday got up and voted for it? MR. BARRY: To that matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker. That is not adequate, Mr. Speaker. That is not an adequate explanation. L2999 June 11, 1986 Vol XL MR. DINN: Too aboveboard for you, is it? MR. BARRY: Well, let us aboveboard now. see what is

Section 14, sub-section 1 , says: "Recommendations for appointments to and promotions within the Public Service shall be based on merit principles and made by the Commission." Then sub-section 2 says, "The Commission may delegate to the Deputy Minister", and it is done very deliberately to the Deputy Minister so that there will be no political patronage by the politician, the minister of the department. When the Minister of Public Works and Services takes it upon himself to tell the Deputy Minister, 'I do not like the four people you recommend to be hired', he is in breach of this

section of the Public Service Commission Act. MR. DINN: Come off it, boy. Come off it! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, apart from the fact that it has not yet been sent back to anybody, the minister had no business, there was no authority because the statutory authority, a statute passed by this Legislature gave the authority to the Publ'ic Service Commission and then to the Deputy Minister, not to the minister. MR. DINN: Do it your way, like in Marystown. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! HR. BARRY: I kept a few mines open, unlike the minister. I kept a few mines No. 51 R2999

open in this province. MR. DINN: What did you visit the (inaudible). MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, Clause 2 of the Tory Procurement Policy, which presumably the minister is now elaborating at his conference, 'presumably now says that a minister of the Crown can overrule the deputy minister. That is what the Governmen .t House Leader is now saying, can overrule the chief executive ·officer, the deputy minister, who has been .given the statutory authority by legislation. Would the minister care to explain that? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, we enjoy it, we can go on all afternoon, if Your Honour wants to suspend the business of the House and · extend Question Period. Now, I tell . the bon. gentleman~ he does not need to quote me 'the Public Service Commission Act. That· particular act was drafted by me personally. If memory serves me correct, Mr. Speaker, as the bon. the Premier has indicated, when the hon. gentleman was over here he was not too fussy about the compliance with that particular act. He certainly was not as fussy as the Minister of Public Works is with respect to that act.

The fact of the matter is, he can quote all the laws he wants to. The chief executive office is there, and he is ~ef ined in there as the deputy minister. But it is also a fact that the deputy minister is under the minister himself, and it is also a fact, as L3000 June 11, 1986 Vol XL I indicated, Mr. Speaker, that it was the deputy minister, on November 20, who clearly cancelled the competition. So there you go. That is the situation. The bon. purile Leader, why does he not get down to substance and start debating the issues instead of making the public fool of himself that he continues to do.

Make no wonder we want the House to remain open all Summer. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): To that point of privilege, I will be quite happy to look into that. My impression now is that it is not in my jurisdiction at all, that this is a matter of interpreting

an act. But I will certainly look into it when I am looking at the others, and rule on it tomorrow or the next day. MR. BARRY: Another point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. J. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, this is absurd! MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege, the han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: I realize it may be becoming a little tedious for members opposite to listen to the fact that the Public Service Commission Act, as drafted by the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall), is now being put into tatters by the Government House Leader's

interpretation of that act, but I refer the Speaker to page 2747 of Hansard, the right hand column, of June 5 , 1986 , Mr. Speaker, where the member for St. Barbe (Mr. Furey) asked the following question. "Did the minister cancel, nullify or in any way interfere with the recommendations No. 51 R3000

of the Public Service Commission for- four- jobs at the Kelligrews Marine Center? Did the minister interfere in any way whatsoever?" · Now, under the act, when this decision is made by the chief executive officer on the recommendations of his selection board, is that not the decision of the Public Service Commission and is the minister not inter-fering in that decision? And is that not, in fact, what he did? Do you know what the minister's answer was? MR. MATTHEWS: You cannot even read now. MR. BARRY: Is the minister interested in the answer?

The Minister of Public Works, a very lengthy ambiguous answer which there was a great risk of taking out of context, "No, Mr. Speaker." MR. TULK: That is not right. did he? MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. ' MR. SPEAKER: He did not, The bon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in everything the han. gentleman says. Just as his world revolves around everything he says , my world revolves around everything he says and everybody' s world revolves around everything the Leader- of the Opposition says. Look, let us make it understood what we are doing now.

We are not in privilege or points of order or anything like that, we are continuing Question Period. What L3001 June 11, 1986 Vol XL in fact the actions of ~he Minister of Public Works constituted was to perfect the rights of the Public Service Commission. He wanted to be sure that the people who were employed were people who were selected by the independent Public Service Commission sa that there would be no doubt whatsoever that the appointment was on the basis of merit. He had an unsettled feeling, Mr. Speaker, as sometimes you get, that the recommendations were not entirely on the basis of merit.

And I may, Mr. Speaker, although it is not relevant, indicate, and maybe this is why the bon. gentleman is getting het up under the collar, that I do not know whether one of them recommended was a constituent of Mount Scio or nat. It may or may not have been, but the fact of the matter is, that had nothing to do with it. It may have something to do with the bon. gentleman's attack, but nothing to do with the minister's actions. What the minister was doing was preserving the integrity of the act, the policy of this government to have appointment on the basis of merit. That is precisely what he was doing.

Instead of criticizing the minister, the hon. gentleman should be up on his feet pr-aising the minister for his very competent and honest stewardship of his portfolio. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of privilege, the han. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. gentleman is interested in the media, he is afraid the truth will get out to the public. This No. 51 R3001

afternoon, the first point of privilege raised was raised on the basis that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Young) - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The han. member is speaking to this one now. MR. TULK: I am referring to 'the third one, as well. MR. MARSHALL: The bon. leader is going down for more books. He is going to consult Rex, to get Rex to interpret the Statute for him. MR. TULK: When the han. gentleman is finished, I will continue. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.. MARSHALL: He and Rex want to be Premier. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. TULK: Mr.

Speaker, this afternoon, referring to the first point of privilege, it was pointed out that the Minister of Public Works had given information to this House which was untrue and which opposed and impeded members from doing their duty. Now, Mr. Speaker, here is another example of where the Minister of Public Works and Services - on this particular point of privilege - has again given untrue information and, I would submit to Your Honour, has impeded the progress of members of this House.

He was asked the question, •oid the minister cancel, nullify or in any way L3002 June 11, 1986 Vol XL interfere with the recommendations of the Public Service Commission for four jobs at the Kelligrews Marine Service Center?' His answer was, 'No.' MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! The bon. member is not giving me any new information. I have heard that. MR.

TULK: I want to say to Your Honour that in view of what has just been read from the Public Service Commission Act by the Leader of the Opposition, it is obvious that not only has he contradicted that act but, in this particular case, by replying, •No', to that question, he has again, by giving untrue information to this House, impeded and stopped members from being able to do their jobs. As a result of that, I would say to the President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) that that it is one thing to write the Public Service Commission Act, which he is so proud of, but it is another thing to implement it.

And I would also say to the bon. gentleman right now, I presume he is one of the Premier's chief advisors, to ask that han. gentleman to preserve the Public Service Commission Act, of which he is so proud, by asking the Minister ·of Public Works and Services to do the hon. thing, as was asked before, at one particular point, when a member gave untrue information to. this House, and submit his resignation. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I have to respond j~st quickly to that. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the President of the Council. No. 51 R3002

MR. MARSHALL: In the same way, Mr. Speaker, all the points of order are matters of

interpretation, differences of opinion as to the importance - MR. TULK: No, Sir. MR. MARSHALL: Yes. The han. gentlemen over there are so childish, they almost look at Your Honour as being the teacher and putting up their hands they say, Mr. Speaker, 'Mr. Young' lied to the House. He did not tell the truth in the House.' No wonder the hon. gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, are looked upon as being consummately ineffective in this House as an Opposition. Why do you not deal with the issues that are at hand? Mr.

Speaker, I repeat again, his leader wants to be Premier, Rex wants to be Premier and he wants to be Premier, and that is what it is all about. Mr. Speaker, that is what it is all about. I repeat once again for the House that we are very proud, in this case, of the actions taken by the Minister of Public Works and Services because each and every act of the Minister of Public Works and Services is indicative of the fact that he wanted to preserve that priceless Public Service Commission Act which provides for the impartial appointment and promotion of public servants in this Province.

All of the actions that the Minister of Public Works and Services took were purely and simply for this purpose, and he acted completely and absolutely properly. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of privilege, I will look into that matter and rule with the other ones in the next L3003 June 11, 1986 Vol XL day or two. Today is Private Members • Day and the motion is in the name of the han. the member for Windsor Buchans. The han. the member for Windsor - Buchans. MR. FLIG HT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, this resolution was tabled in the first place, and it will become obvious why a resolution such as this is needed ·and needs to be debated and needs to be considered. Every other Province in Canada, including the federal government, has an Auditor General's Act, has

an act of the Legislature that sets out the terms and conditions under which the Auditor General operates. We are the only province in Canada, Mr. Speaker, who do not have, and one has to ask why. This is the only province that treats its Auditor General as a department of government. The only legislation existing in Newfoundland, under which the Audilor General can operate, is the Financial Administration Act.

Well, every other department of government in Newfoundland operates under the Financial Administration Act and, because they operate under the Financial Administration Act, they are responsible for their actions to the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins). The Auditor General in Newfoundland today is responsible to the Minister of Finance in the same sense, Mr. Speaker, as any other government agency or any other government department and one has got to ask why. Why does Newfoundland not have

an act governing the Auditor General? No. 51 R3003

Why do we not peLmit the Auditor­ General to act independently? Why must the Auditor Gener-al be always cognizant of the fact that the President of the Council, Mr. Speaker, can criticize him under­ the Financial Administration Act? Why, Mr-. Speaker, can we not have in this Province, as in the other ten provinces and the federal goverrunent,

an act of the Legislature that makes the Auditor General independent, allows him to operate independently of the wishes of government? The Auditor General answers to the House of Assembly, Mr.

Speaker, yet, the Minister of Finance has categorically refused to peLmi t legislation that takes the Auditor­ General away fr-om the purview of the minister and lets him operate independently so that he can report on the accounts of this Province without fear of repercussions or without concerns that the Minister of Finance or the Premier or any other government department or any other minister may question whether or not he is within the purview of an Auditor General. The only act, Kr. Speaker, that he operates under is the Financial Administration Act. We have an ombudsman .in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

It was only a week ago the ombudsman tabled his report and everybody got up in this House and said what a great job the ombudsman is doing. Well, the ombudsman, Mr. Speaker, operates under his own act. There is a statute in this Province that sets out the teLms of reference, sets out the jurisdiction under which the ombudsman can act. He is completely independent. As long as he follows the guidelines of that legislation, he is completely L3004 June 11, 1986 Vol XL independent of the government and the ministers.

When one compares the role of the Ombudsman with the role of the Auditor General in this Province, one would have to say that people look to the Auditor General. Mr. Speaker, there has been a debate ongoing here this past hour that would tell one who heard the debate that if ever there has been an administration that needs the Auditor GEmeral ··unincumbered by the whims of the Premier or the President of the Council, then it is this government that needs. that kind of a watch-dog, Mr. Speaker.

He does not have the freedom that the Auditor General needs in this Province to audit the accounts of this Province, to report to this Legislature and report to the people of Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. He does not have that · ' r-ight. He always has to be looking over his shoulder wondering, I suppose, if he is within the purview of what is acceptable for an Auditor General. Mr. Speaker, I do not know why. Former Premier Moores, Hansard will show, in this House recommended that this Legislature should consider legislation, Mr. Speaker. Yes, the President of the Council shakes his head.

But the record will show that ·the former Premier said in this House that a bill should be enacted in this House that would set up legislation under which the Auditor General operates. Why, Mr. Speaker-? I· am sure the President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) will speak. in this debate, as will the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins), and as will the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands (Mr. Simms). Why are we No. 51 R3004

different from the other nine provinces of Canada? Why should we feel that the Auditor General in Newfoundland does not need legislation, does not need terms of reference, does not need legislative guidelines to operate under? Mr. Speaker, the government will indicate and it has been indicated that the Auditor General of Newfoundland is doing a good job. Undoubtedly he is doing a good job, but he is doing it under a very restricted mandate, Mr. Speaker. He is doing it possibly wondering in lots of cases as to whether or not it is his jurisdiction.

There is nothing stating how far he can go and how far he should not go. Just imagine the job he would do, Mr. Speaker, if he were operating independently; if he had no concerns about the attitude or the responses of the government that he is auditing and, in lots of cases, forced to criticize. Why should the Auditor General be in that position in Newfoundland? Imagine the job he would do if he were mandated and had legislation under which to operate, legislation that would put him in a position not to worry as long as he stayed within the realm and confines of that legislation.

I want to hear the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Windsor), if he takes

part in the debate, tell us why. He is always talking about the various legislation he is going to bring in, like the Elections Act, that we have not seen yet. MR. MARSHALL: The Atlantic Accord. MR. FLIGHT: The Atlantic Accord. Look at L3005 June 11, 1986 Vol XL this. Here is legislation. This legislation is still waiting to be debated. Why would not one of these be an Auditor General's Act? Why would there not be legislation setting out the terms of reference and the jurisdictions of the Auditor General? Is the President of Council not to make him independent?

President of the Council keep the Auditor General thumb? There can be reason, Mr. Speaker. prepared Does the want to under his no other Mr. Speaker, back in February the Auditor General in last year's Auditor General's report pointed out that the Province had paid a premium of $5 million in negotiating bond issues, $5 million that was lost and paid out by this Province in order to borrow money on the money markets. The Auditor General questioned it, said it was, in effect, unnecessary; that it was a waste. It was a $5 million cost to the people of this Province by the incompetence of the Minister of Finance (Dr.

Collins) and the government in general. Mr. Speaker, weeks, and for the a couple of members will remember, we were wondering whether or not the present Auditor General was going . 'to survive. The minister was going on TV and criticizing the Auditor General. The minister was standing up in the House and saying the Auditor General had no business to r"efer to this particular issue. The general public were wondering. We could alleviate all that, Mr. Speaker, by having

an act and then every member of the House - MR. SIMMS: Send us all a copy of your speech. MR. FLIGHT: No. 51 R3005

- :~ Mr. Speaker, the member for Grand Falls (Mr . Simms) will be tabled one of these days. As a matter of fact, he is pretty well tabled in Grand Falls right now. If floored means tabled, then he is pretty well tabled in Grand Falls right now. MR. SIMMS: How would you know? You have not been out there for about two months. MR. FLIGHT: Is that right? Do you want to check the latest ·edition of The Grand Falls Advertiser? MR. SIMMS: My. God, he has one story. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Grand Falls is touchy. MR. TULK: He should be touchy. MR.

FLIGHT: You see, he is not used to having somebody looking over his shoulder. MR. SIMMS: I was bored by the Leader of the Opposition when he was speaking. MR. FLIGHT: The member for Grand Falls for three or four years could say anything he wanted, or say nothing, like he usually did on anything, - MR. SIMMS: Boring. MR. FLIGHT: and he did not have to worry about some one in his own district raising the issue. Now, the minister is edgy. L3006 June 11, 1986 Vol XL MR. SIMMS: How boring! MR.

FLIGHT: He looks around, there is an issue that concerns forestry in Grand Falls, there is a issue that concerns bridges in Grand Falls and the member -for Windsor Buchans (Mr. Flight) is prone to raise these issues you see. So what the member for Grand Falls is doing is after the member for Windsor - Buchans, who is doing his job on behalf of his constituents and, in lots of cases, doing the minister's job, - MR. SIMMS: How about telling us (inaudible.) MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order please! Order •. please! MR. FLIGHT: - doing the ministet-•s job, like the member for Windsor - Buchans is prone to do. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. FLIGHT: He raises issues that are the concerns of the people of Central Newfoundland. What I find the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands doing is going back to the media two days after the member for Windsor - Buchans has raised an issue, that was never raised before, the member for Grand Falls goes back and makes a press release and he says, • I think the member for Windsor - Buchans is playing politics with this.' MR. SIMMS: Precisely what you were doing. MR. FLIGHT: The fact that it has never been raised before does not matter and, No. 51 R3006

Mr. Speaker, as a result of those press releases - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. FLIGHT: - he has blown his credibility. It was bad enough as it was but that tactic is going to blow him out of the water in Grand Falls. MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible.) MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. FLIGHT: So, Mr. Speaker, the member for Grand Falls should sit there qui tely and get used to his new glasses and read his correspondence. It is probably another press release showing everybody how hurt he is when somebody questions something that was his preview and did not open his mouth on for five years. MR.

SIMMS: If the member for Windsor was (inaudible.) MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPE AKER (M cNicho las) : Order, please! MR. FLIGHT: No, Sir, I concede . MR. BAIRD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. FLIGHT: L3007 June 11, 1986 Vol XL The member for Windsor is not all! You have to worry about your constituents. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. FLIGHT: The member has to worry about - MR. SPEAI<ER: Order, please! MR. FLIGHT: all the people going around Grand Falls today. MR. SPEAI<ER: Order, please! Order, please! On a point of order, the han. the member for Humber West. MR.

BAIRD: Mr. Speaker, we have the Auditor General's report. Whether we should have an Auditor General's act, I think, is what the private members' resolution was for today. For the past five minutes, all I have heard about is the member for Grand Falls (Mr. Simms). I suggest the member for Windsor - Buchans has strayed a long way from the topic we are discussing this afternoon. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order, there is no point of order, but I must say, I am finding it very difficult to hear because there is far too much heckling going on. The hon. the member for Windsor - Buchans. MR.

FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate your protection No. 51 R3007

from the han. the member for Grand Falls . Mr. Speaker, if the people in Grand Falls had heard the minister for the past three minutes, they would have heard more from him than they have ever heard from him in five years on any issue. So, Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful for the protection of the Chair from the member for Grand Falls while I try to wind up my few comments and make a very sensible request to the President of the Council (Mr. Marshall), the writer of all legislation in this Province, or so he indicates.

If he would entertain in the better interest of the House of Assembly, in the better interest of the Auditor General being able to do a competent job, a job that all Newfoundlanders want done, if he would entertain bringing into this House legislation setting out the terms of reference and creating an independent Auditor General - there is no purpose served by keeping the Auditor General under the thumb of the government. It was not meant to be so. The other nine provinces and the federal government have recognized that the Auditor General cannot operate unless he is independent.

He can only be independent if the government is prepared to make him independent. Mr. Speaker, listen to quotations coming from a very knowledgeable source as far as Auditors General are concerned: "A number of conditions must be satisfied if Auditors are to serve their legislatures effectively. They must have sufficient powers and resources to perform an appropriate audit.

They must have sufficient stature to give them credibility." L3008 June 11, 1986 Vol XL What credibility does the Auditor General in Newfoundland have, the only Auditor in Canada who does not have legislation saying that he is an Auditor General? He is at the whim of the government, Mr. Speaker, and God knows, it is not a safe position to be in to be at the whim of this particular government. But the Auditor General is, Mr. Speaker. He must be sufficiently independent of government and the public.

Why will this administration not bring in the legislation required to make the Auditor General of this Province independent? "They must discharge their duty in a responsible and effective manner." Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the present Auditor General will do as past Auditors General have done, discharge his duties in a responsible and an effective manner.

Auditor Generals have the right to have the dignity that goes with legislation, that sets them free from the attitude we saw from the Minister of Finance when the Auditor General dared question a $5 million waste, a $5 million faux pas, $5 million spent unnecessarily by this administration. When the Auditor General dared to point that fact out to the Newfoundland public through this Legislation in the PAC, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) came within a hair of firing him. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance should not be able to fire the Auditor General.

The Minister of Finance should not be able to threaten the Auditor General. No. 51 R3008

MR. BAIRD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order, the hon. the member for Humber West. MR. BAIRD: An allegation was just made by the member for Windsor - Buchans that this was a waste and a fraud and whatever else that goes with it. Mr. Speaker, the Public Accounts Committee, to which this matter has been referred, has not met yet and I think the hon. gentleman, being a member of the Public Accounts Committee, certainly I think now has disqualified himself or certainly should be disqualified from sitting on that Commit tee because it seems to me that he has his mind made up.

He has a preconceived idea. I would suggest that the hon. member resign from the Committee if we are going to have fair hearings in this Province. MR. FLIGHT: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What a stupid, frivilous point of order, Mr. Speaker! MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The hon. the member for Windsor - Buchans. MR . FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report has been tabled in this House. If the member was .doing his work as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, he would have been on his feet himself, Mr.

Speaker, and asking questions about things reported in the Auditor General's report. The PAC will :decide what in the · Auditor L3009 June 11, 1986 Vol XL General's report they want to look at. The Auditor General's report is the property of every member of this House. It just goes to show how unconcerned the member for Humber West or Humber wherever is - he will not be Humber anywhere after the next election. MR. BAIRD: I have never been defeated. MR. FLIGHT: Mr.

Speaker, in closing this part of the debate, as far as I am concerned, I have suggested that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain if we bring in legislation that creates an independent Auditor General. I appeal, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance and to the administration to look at bringing into this House of Assembly

an act that sets out, as I said, the terms of reference or the legislative parameters under which the Auditor General will operate so that from thence on he can operate totally independently, as it was intended that he operate, and not operate on the basis, as he knows, Mr. Speaker, of being under the thumb of the administration. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another clause - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. elapsed. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: member's time The hon, the President of Council. MR. MARSHALL: has the No. 51 R3009

Mr. ~peaker, I will respond for:' just a few minutes. on behalf of the goveLnment. The fit"st thing is, Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the hon. gentleman and hi's advisot"s could get. up in this House and talk about the need for:' an Auditor General's Act as if there is no act that covers the Auditor:' Genet"al. I do not believe that thet"e was one mention made by the hon. gentleman of the Financial Administt"ation Act. That act, Mr.

Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, governs the duties of the Auditor General and it sets forth the duties of the Auditor Genet"al in the normal, tt"aditional manner that Auditor Genet"als have possessed. It sets forth the powers and the duties that the Auditor:' General has possessed over the yeat"s. When the hon. gentleman talks about an independent Auditor General, he obviously has not read the act. He does not know

Section 58 (5) of the Act or:' 58 (3) provides that the Auditor General was appointed by this House and appointed ft"om the time of good behavior until age 65. I believe that was in the 1973 act and I believe it was amended subsequently to give him a ten year term. But dut"ing his tenure, Mr. Speaker, he has complete and absolute independence. MR. FLIGHT: That is not so. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: His independence is guarded by this goveLnment.

This goveLnment and this party has done more to enhance the Office of the Auditor General than any other goveLnment L3010 June 11, 1986 Vol XL in the history of this Province. Prior to 19 71 there was no such animal as the Public Accounts Committee in this Province. It just did not exist. It was never formed and members were not given the opportunity to call in the Auditor General and, at the same time, give the Auditor General the opportunity to speak before the Committee publicly and to give his views with respect to the state of accounts of the Province. Now that was brought in. It was not only brought in, Mr.

Speaker, and it was put in the Standing Orders of this Assembly so that there is now a Standing Committee of the House of Assembly appointed which each year goes over the accounts of the Auditor General, which has the Auditor General in and has power to call any witnesses that it wishes in connection with observations that the Auditor General has made. We have very, very much enhanced the Office of the Auditor General. Every year now the Auditor General's Report is tabled in the House. It is a matter of public information and it also is a matter of public debate, as it should be.

Now that is the way in any democratic society or any democratic province or state that the Auditor General should function but I would point out to the han. gentlemen that it was this party that brought that about and continues to protect the Auditor General's independence. So, when he says that the Auditor General has no independence - and he has no act under which to operate, he is completely and absolutely incorrect. There is

an act, it is the Financial Administration Act, and there is independence and that No. 51 R3010

has been government. guarded by this The main part of this resolution relates to comprehensive auditing or value-for-money auditing. What the Auditor General's functions are, which are normal ·functions for an Auditor General, is to determine whether or not monies have been spent as they were appropriated by the Legislature. Every year the Legislature passes a budget. The estimates are put out and there are expenditures earmarked for certain purposes. It is the Auditor General's appropriate duty to report to this House in such instances where expenditures have, in his view, been made incorrectly.

That is the purpose of the Auditor General. What the Auditor General wishes to do is to expand that duty to allow the Auditor General to do comprehensive auditing or value-for-money auditing. In other words, to determine not whether monies were spent in accordance with the directions of this Chamber, but whether or not value have been gained for money. Mr.

Speaker, I am categorically against that and I am against that mainly because, ineffective as the present Opposition is, I wish to preserve the rights of the Opposition because it in not an unelected person like the Auditor General, no matter how competent that person may be, who should be the person to determine whether or not value for money has been obtained. That is solely the purview of the elected members, and it should be and it ought to be the basis of examination of any government by an Opposition. Unfortunately and sadly in this House, Mr.

Speaker, we see very, L3011 June 11, 1986 Vol XL very little of that. Instead we see the Opposition going off on the train that leads to, as I say, its own disaster and is one of the reasons why this government hopes the House of Assembly will stay open continuously, year after year, because, as I said this morning, Mr. Speaker, we would not have to wage a campaign. The only thing is there would be no Opposition left in the House after the next election. It is, Mr.

Speaker, the basic right of parliamentary government that it is the right and, indeed, it is the duty of elected members to determine whether value has been obtained for money and to criticize the government accordingly, and for the government to justify and respond. It is not, I would suggest to you, appropriate that a non-elected person, not responsible to the electorate of this Province, should exercise that office. MR. FLIGHT: What should he do? MR.

MARSHALL: Well, what the Auditor General should do is what he and his predecessor over the years have very competently done in this Province, determine whether monies have been spent in accordance with the way that the Legislature authorizes. As to the value for money, whether money · should be expended, say X millions of dollars should be spent on health services or some of that should be transferred over to another department, indeed whether in the Health Department, to take an example, whether more money should be put in the hospitals, or more money put into medical services, No. 51 R3011

or more money put into old age citizens homes or what have you, and what is obtained from what is spent, that is entirely within ' the purview of this House. This government has taken steps to see what i.t can do to enhance · these particular powers by, in a very timely fashion every year, tabling the Auditor General' s Report with its legitimate comments with respect to it, and also assembling and seeing that the Public A.ccounts Committee functions as the Public Accounts Committee does. Mr. Speaker, so that is really the basic response.

The hon. gentleman referred to the Auditor General here and let me also say this: Every year in his report the Auditor General, not only this one but others - it is understandable because everybody needs money, money is in short supply in this Province - always has a note that he would like to have more conduct money in order to his duties. This government has given a substantial vote, a very generous vote in relation to the resources of this Province to the Auditor General.

The staff of the Auditor General happens to be in this Province, much bigger than the staff provided in our neighbouring Province in Nova Scotia, notwithstanding the fact that Nova S~otia has a population base almost twice the size of the Province of Newfoundland. So we make no excuses for what we have done to ~nhance the office of the Auditor General. Now what the Auditor General has said in this report as well, as he does again - this is where the hon. gentleman got his resolution - he had a

section in there on Canadian comprehensive auditing and he mentions the Canadian L3012 June 11, 1986 Vol XL Comprehensive Auditing Foundation and, what have you. The present Auditor General feels, · and there is no doubt about it, he holds this view reasonably and logically and I am not quibbling with the view he holds, but reasonable men can differ I would hope, the Auditor General of this Province feels, in my understanding, that he should be empowered by this Assembly to comment upon whether value is received for money and to do comprehensive reporting. MR. FLIGHT: And why not? MR.

MARSHALL: Because it is the function of the members of this House. It is the function of a member like the hon. member for Windsor - Buchans (Mr. Flight), hopefully much more informed than the hon. the member for Windsor - Buchans was when he got up and introduced this resolution. MR. FLIGHT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Greening): A point of order, the hon. the member for Windsor - Buchans. MR.

FLIGHT: Perhaps the President of Council would indicate how a member of this House of Assembly would have picked up $5 million premium paid by the Newfoundland Government when they went .out to borrow money in the money markets? By what mechanism? What way is there for members of the House of Assembly to be aware of that kind of incompetence? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. No. 51 R3012

MR. MARSHALL: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all the bon. gentleman - this is the problem and this is probably why, the remedy is not to give the Auditor General the opportunity to enquire into whether value is achieved for money. The remedy really is for the electorate to elect people other than the bon. gentleman there opposite, because if the bon. gentleman were informed at all - MR. FLIGHT: Your time is up. MR. MARSHALL: No, the media want me to go up and talk about the hon. gentleman again, which I will do. I will be delighted. MR. FLIGHT: They want to take about 'Haig.' MR. SPEAKER (Greening): Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: I tell the media I will be delighted to do it as soon as I am through with the bon. gentleman. But let me get back to it. This is why the remedy is really to have somebody elected who understands things. Now, on that $5 million, he picked an unfortunate example, you see, because he does not understand. That observation of the $5 million by the Auditor General was refuted as observations will be by the Auditor General. I do not wish to criticize the gentleman. I mean, he is human, like the bon. gentleman might be human.

He may be, but I know the Auditor General is human and he can make mistakes, like all of us, and he made a mistake. L3013 June 11, 1986 Vol XL The Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) pointed out in his statement, in response to that, that the bon. gentleman was completely and absolutely wrong. This was a normal procedure taken when one borrows in large bond markets. There followed, Mr.

Speaker, if the bon. gentleman will recall, a series ·of signed letters as well to the paper, not anonymous letters that are sometimes put in by the supporters of the gentleman opposite, but by people who have a very strong and real reputation in the financial community in this Province. They wrote to the paper themselves, and with no political connection at all, but they were so disturbed that the Auditor General could make an observation like that, that they wrote to the press and refuted it.

Besides that, even if the bon. gentleman says that is my point of view or that is the writer's point of view or it is the ministers' point of view, the fact of the matter is that that report has been referred to the Committee of the Auditor General. I have no doubt that the Committee will deal with it. By the way, we have appointed a member of the Opposition as its Chairman. This is how determined we are to see that the basic institutions of democratic government and parliamentary secure - AN HON. MEMBER: government A rookie Chairman this year. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

MARSHALL: are I understand it is the member for Gander. He and his colleagues on the Committee can call in the No. 51 R3013

Auditor General - this is wholesome - and I hope he will be forthcoming in his questions. I hope he will go in with an unbias mind, hopefully to get at the truth. He can look up the letters that appeared in the paper .. They have the right to call in those citizens. We will have it out with the Auditor General and ask the Auditor General if he made a mistake. I believe the Auditor General made a mistake there. That is no criticism of the Auditor General. As I say, unlike the bon. gentlemen there opposite, Auditor Generals are human beings and they do make mistakes from time to time.

But the bon. gentleman was very wrong and he made a mistake and it is unfortunate that the Opposition member who got up and led this in was not more informed. This is where he is wrong: First of all, there is no act. He wants

an act. The Auditor General is already in

an act, the Financial Administration Act. But, of course, for the bon. gentleman, unless it is called the Auditor General's Act, he does not think it can be anywhere else. The next thing, Mr. Speaker, if you can imagine, he said that ·the Auditor General was not independent. The Auditor General is a servant of this House who can only be removed during his term on an address of this House by His Honour. MR. FLIGHT: At the whim of the minister. MR. MARSHALL ·: No, not by . the whim of the minister. He is given as much independence as any other public servant is given. There are only three.

There is the Auditor L3014 June 11, 1986 Vol XL General, the Comptroller Ombudsman and General ~ho servants of this House. MR. FLIGHT: the are They have acts. The Ombudsman has

an act. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: You know, honestly! I grieve for the bon. gentleman. I really grieve for the bon. gentleman. I really do. I do not know what the bon. gentleman is going to do in his old age but I dearly hope - MR. FLIGHT: I will not be riding bicycles. MR. MARSHALL: I will tell you, if the hon. gentleman goes senile in his old age, he will be confined to a zoo, Mr.

Speaker, because the hon. gentleman 'at the present time, in his young and tender years, obviously does not understand the nature and importance of the resolution which was - resolution I hope the bon. gentleman notes - obviously drafted by a member, probably the executive assistant to the Leader of the Opposition and given to the hon. gentleman. He introduced it but he did not research it. MR. FLIGHT: Address the last resolve. MR. MARSHALL: Okay. I gather that the hon. gentleman feels now that I have adequately answered all the other paragraphs.

So if the bon. gentleman is fully satisfied with that, we will be as well. "BE IT RESOLVED that this Act contain a provision enabling the Auditor-General to conduct direct No. 51 R3014

audits on all Cor-porations." are we here? provincial Crown Mr. Speaker, where One of the complaints of the Auditor General in his report, one of the reasons why the Auditor General wanted staff - listen to this. The hon. gentleman should do his homework really. Paragraph 10, Crown Corporations and other audits. "In addition to ·auditing the public accounts," he says, "of the Province of Newfoundland" - now get this - "I am responsible for numerous other audits." This is why he wanted more money.

"These include certain Crown Cor-porations, Boards, Authorities, Sundry Funds administered by the Province, the City of St. John's and certain School Tax Authorities and Municipalities. These addi tiona! audits, some of which are perfoi:"med from the Corner Brook office of my Department, are listed in Appendix II." He goes on, "In the case of Crown Cor-porations, Boards," etc. - Oh look! The bon. gentleman brings in a resolution that says he wants the Auditor General to look at the auditing of Crown Corporations as if he does not. Guess what the Auditor General says when he is looking for more money.

This is the type of representation we are getting from the Liberal Party in this Province. He says - MR. FLIGHT: Who audits Hydro? MR. BAIRD: Open your ears, shut your mouth, and learn. MR. MARSHALL: Wait now! - "In the case of Crown Cor-porations, Boards, Authorities and Sundry· Funds administered by L3015 June 11, 1986 Vol XL the Province, my audits include" - now, get this, the bon. gentleman, who says he does not look at Crown cor-porations - "13 Crown Corporations, 19 Boards, 16 Building Cor-porations, 3 Colleges and the University." MR. FLIGHT: He does not audit the university. MR.

MARSHALL: Yes, he does, he audits. MR. FLIGHT: No, he does not. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, it is a Crown Cor-poration. MR. FLIGHT: Audited by Peat Harwick Kitchell. MR. MARSHALL: It is audited by Peat Marwick Mitchell, which is a quite independent body. I know the bon. gentleman thinks we have control of everybody but surely he does not think that we control the intei:"national fir'ffi of Keats Peat Marwick Kitchell, because we do not. We do not control them at all. That f ir'ffi does the same audit as the Auditor General does. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR.

MARSHALL: No, because audit for value is the province of people like the bon. gentleman, people who have a competence that unfortunately, the bon. gentleman has not displayed in this debate. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! No. 51 R3015

MR. MARSHALL: That is · the right of the Opposition. The Opposition cannot protect itself, so what the government is doing is, in effect, protecting the Opposition. MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) we asked a question (inaudible) . MR. MARSHALL: Let us get back to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Mr. Speaker, that Keats Peat Marwick Mitchell audit. What happens then? Is that the end of it? The han. gentleman might say, 'Well, it does not go through the Public Accounts Conunittee.' No, it does not go through the Public Accounts Conunittee but, Mr.

Speaker, we have a separate conunission which has been struck to look at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and that is the Public Utilities Board of this Province, - MR. FLIGHT: God help us! MR. MARSHALL: - which very recently rolled back an increase that was applied for by a utility company in a decision that was written by Mr. Thomas Williams, Q.C., one of the conunissioners. MR. FLIGHT: What did Peat Harwick Mitchell have to say about the $8 million you gave Viking Sintra? MR. MARSHALL: The han. gentleman does not really understand. MR. FLIGHT: The Auditor General would have mentioned it. MR.

MARSHALL: L3016 June 11, 1986 Vol XL Yes, I am sure. MR. FLIGHT: But Peat Marwick Mitchell did not. MR. MARSHALL: But the hoQ. gentleman does not understand. The han. gentleman led a resolution into this House wanting first of all, independence for the Auditor General, which was there, wanting

an act for the Auditor General, which is there, wanting comprehensive auditing and an audit for value because the hon. gentleman realizes that he and his colleagues cannot do the job that is presented before them and utilize the tools that are there such as the Question Period, the Public Accounts Conunittee and the various other aids that are there. Then he wants the Auditor General to audit Crown Corporations and, the Auditor General, in the very report, now, and this is supposedly the critic, in his very report he is complaining about the workload he has as a result of having to audit Crown Corporations.

Now, I would suggest to the han. gentlemen opposite, -I do not know whether the bon. gentlemen - they may be embarrassed. If the han. gentleman wishes, we could adjourn the House right now. We could allow a recess for five minutes and we could come back after han. gentlemen have collected themselves and perhaps get on to some other resolution. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the bon. gentleman has brought in this resolution with all sorts of good intent and all the rest of it. I am surprised that his ·leader di-d not stop him but he has shown really how bereft the Opposition is that they would bring in a No. 51 R3016

Lesolution asking foL things which aLe alLeady pLovided foL in the statutes of this PLovince and which the bon. gentlemen knows aLe administeLed by a PC administLation, both of them, who pLovided the aids to the Opposition to caLLY out theiL jobs and now, because the bon. gentlemen have been so ineffective in caLLying out theiL jobs, they want the Auditor General to do it for them. MR. SPEAKER (GLeening): Order, please! The bon. minister's time is up. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: BefoLe recognizing the bon. the member for Eagle River (Mr.

Hiscock) , I would like to welcome to the visitor's gallery the executive director, Tony Collins, Mr. Calvin Day and other co-ordinatoLs of the Newfoundland and Labrador RuLal Development Council. SOME HON. ME MBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon.the member foL Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: Thank you, ML. SpeakeL. BefoLe the PLesident of the Council (ML. Marshall) goes out I would like to show him Bill 20. Bill 20 is titled

An Act To Revise and Reform The Law Respecting Corporations. This law has not being reformed or not being amended sinee 1898. The L3017 June 11, 1986 Vol XL corpoLations of this Province have been operating under that law ever since 1898 and the Auditor General is still under the Financial Administration Act which was also passed in 1898.

I am suLe, no matter how many points the President of the Council made, since this administration has seen fit to reform and revise the law respecting corporations that was set down in 1898, surely he was go as far as to say that another act in this Province needs to be revised and that is the Financial Administration Act, where the Auditor General's legislation presently is found. The President of the Council said the reason why the member for Windsor - Buchans (Mr. Flight) brought up this matter was because of what the Auditor General mentioned in his last report. This is not the case.

It reinforces what the Opposition has been saying for years. Since 1979, remembered Mr. former member Belle· Isle, I have always Edward Roberts, the for the Strait of who would almost always sponsor this private member's resolution. The idea, of course, was that Crown Corporations, with all the money that they were spending, should be responsible to the taxpayers of this Province. So, we believe that the Crown Corporations should be included. The Minister responsible for Energy, the President of the Council (Mr.

Marshall), whichever title he wants to take, is quite correct in saying all the different Crown Corporations, boards, the City of St. John's, as well as the other departments are No. 51 R3017

covered by the Auditor General. There is no question about that. That does not take away from the fact of what we point out as an . Opposition. The Auditor General should make su~e for the Newfoundland and Lab~ador taxpayer that all of the money that is spent to keep Marystown Shipya~d going is well spent. We should at least know if we are getting a fair ~eturn on that money and there is no wastage and no corruption and there are no other problems with the administration of that shipyard. Nobody is saying there are.

Alt we are saying is that the Auditor General should have access so as to audit the Marystown Shipyard. Also included should be the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities. They approve, in effect, millions and millions of dollars for Newfoundland Tel, Newfoundland Hydro, Terra Transport and various other f irrns in this Province. Also Workers' Compensation, which we went through the other day, have a fund of over $42 million. Again, if the Auditor General had access, and he does have access to their books, which is quite true, but he does not audit them because they are audited by another company.

Why duplicate things? But if he did audit them, the taxpayers of this Province would feel more at ease because it would be done by an independent Auditor General who is the servant of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The President of the Council said the people in three positions are servants of this House.

He named them, the Auditor General, the Ombudsman and the Comptroller General, but I would go so far as to say that you could put the Lieutenant-Governor in there as L3018 June 11, 1986 Vol XL being impartial; you could put in the Speaker; and after the Speaker, you could put the Auditor General; then the Comptroller General and after the Comptroller General, the Ombudsman. Also, the Churchill Falls Corporation should be . included.

We found out three or four years ago with the Churchill Falls Corporation that all the cars that the supervisors and management were using over the years were put up fo~ sale and what happened? Did they put them on tender so everybody in Churchill Falls could tender on these vehicles? No, they sold them for a nominal fee to the supervisors and to the management, much like what the Health Science Complex or the General Hospital did the o.ther day by giving $100 to every one of their management people. If the Churchill Falls Corporatibn were audited, we would find out if there are other wastes.

Of course I also have to point out that when I say the Speaker goes after the Lieutenant-Governor, I · also put in that position of the Speaker the Deputy Speaker and the Assistant Deputy Speaker. I take the position in actual fact, Mr. Speaker, that when you are sitting in the Chair, . you are not the Deputy Speaker or the Assistant Deputy Speaker, you are His Honour, the Speaker himself. The Lower Churchill Development Corporation should also come under a new act, and, of course, the othe~ corporations that have been pointed out, especially Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Again, if the Crown Corporations were under the act, then the minister could, through his department, have an independent auditor outside · of government, No. 51 R3018

outsi _de of the Auditor · General, who would only be concerned with one thing and that is do the figures add up on the right side to the left and are they balanced? That is the only thing which an independent outside auditor - is concerned about,

whereas the Auditor General is concerned with whether we got fair value for our money and were things done right according to the Financial Administration Act. Peat Harwick and the other ones are not concerned with that. The President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) said the $5 million was an oversight; that the Auditor General was wrong in criticizing this; that he was ·making policy and he was entering into a gray area.

This has always been said about all Auditor Generals by all political parties of whatever political stipe because, again, when an Auditor Geneal, who is a servant of the people and a servant of this House, strikes an area that criticizes the government, obviously, the natural reaction of any government or any minister is to get their backs up and criticize the Auditor General and say that he is only human. Five independent sources that pointed out that what the Auditor General said about that $5 million was quite right. We do not have

an Act right now. All the other provinces in canada have

an Act. I would like to read from 'Improving Accountability, Canadian Accounts Committee and Legislative Audits.' This was published in 1981 and, of course, we have another one that was published which is called ' Camp re hens i ve Auditing in Canada, the Provincial Legislative Audit Perspective.' That was done in 1985. One of the people, and we L3019 June 11, 1986 Vol XL should be quite proud of this, one of the people who contributed to the latest book, "Comprehensive Auditing in Canada," was our own Auditor General, Mr. McGrath.

Going back to the other one, 'Improving Accountability,' this is titled 'Separate Statute for the Auditor, Why Should An Auditor General Have His Own Act?' The President of the council said we do not need it because he is already covered under the Financial Administration Act. I pointed out that that Act has not been reformed since 1898 and all the other provinces have their own Auditor General's Act. 'Separate Statute for the Auditor' states: "There · are certain advantages to having a separate Act for the auditor.

First, it emphasizes the importance of the office and its functions and recognizes that properly through statute. Second ·, it highlights the independence of the office from the rest of government and helps clarify the distinction between the financial administration and the audit function. Third, it insures that any amendments to the Auditor General's status, power and duties will be highlighted by specific reference to the Audit Act and should not be shrouded by other proposed legislative changes.

Finally, from the government's point of view, it allows beneficial changes effecting the auditor to be made without opening up the entire package of legislative provisions, rulings or the financial administration generally. "All auditors who have separate acts within the Province" - all other nine provinces - "have reported that they feel that there No. 51 R3019

is a distinct disadvantage to revert to having their legislation as part of a more general act. Those auditors who do not have a special separate look forward to having it." Of course, Quebec, just before the last election, passed such

an Act. Those are the main reasons why. Also, in Ontario, Nova Scotia and Canada, when the Auditor General does his report, where does it go? It goes to the Minister of Finance. In those other provinces, what happens? It goes to the Speaker. The reason why it goes to the Speaker, Kr. Speaker, is to point out, and, not only to point out, but to reinforce the faith that we have in the Chair and the impartiality that the Chair shows.

Therefore, the Auditor General, when he presents his report in Canada, in Nova Scotia and in Ontario, he does not give it to the Minister of Finance, he gives it to the Speaker thereby reinforcing the independence of that part of our ·government as a servant of the House. I believe, Mr.

Speaker, that is should be because I think we saw this Spring, when the Auditor General brought in his report, asked that it be tabled, and the Minister of Finance delayed tabling it and when he did, even before he tabled the report, he made a personal attack on the Auditor Genera~ about the $5 million that the Auditor General reported this Province lost because of not having guarantees. The Minister of Finance went on a personal attack and said the Auditor General was at fault and was in the wrong.

If we could have had this presented to the Speaker, we would L3020 June 11, 1986 Vol XL have not had a servant of the House criticized by a minister of the Crown. It would be okay if the Auditor General could answer back but, of course, servants of the House and public servants cannot answer back, Mr. Speaker. So I feel very, very strongly about this. The staff is okay. The Auditor General has no problem with the amount of staff that he has. The Auditor General of this Province is not concerned about the financial resources. He feels that this Province has treated him fairly in those two respects.

But when he goes to a conference anywhere in Canada, he cannot stand as tall as all the other Auditor Generals and say that he operates under his own act, that he has the confidence of all parties in this han. House and the confidence of the Chair.

I would go as far as to say that if we had the confidence in him - this side does and I assume I speak for the Leader of the NDP, the member for Menihek, that we have the confidence in the Auditor General but if the government had confidence in the Auditor General as such, they would make sure that the Auditor General would have his own act and thereby allow him to carry out his responsibilities. The other thing is if the Auditor General wants any improvement in his staff or resources, he has to go through the Treasury Board and the Planning and Priorities Commit tee,

whereas the Ombudsman, another servant of this House, has his own allocation of funds and has his own act. So I will say this to our provincial government: This is the government that said they No. 51 R3020

brought in democracy, this is the govei"nment that says they have an open and clean conscience, well, I would issue a challenge to them that if they are concerned about democracy, they will go one step further and revise the old Financial Administration Act of 1898 and bring in a new act for the Auditor General of this Province. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I must also point out that the criticism that people often have about Auditor Generals is that they 1nterfere with policy and they get into realms that are not included in their act.

The Minister of Finance made that criticism earlier this Spring in very, very strong terms. If there was an independent Auditor General's Act by this government, then the government could set in its parameters, setting down what they want and what they do not. Now, in the Financial Administration Act, it states - 'and others.' Until that is deleted and it is defined more, then the Auditor General of this Province has many t"ights. There were speculations in the press and in this House that the Minister of Finance (Dr.

Collins), during his personal attack in the House, would force himself or the Auditor General to resign. There was only one precedent in the history of democracies in the world and that was when Hitler took over Germany. One of the things that Hitler did was get rid of the Auditor General and he did away with that department. So with regards to the Minister of Finance mounting a personal attack on him, saying that he wandered over into the realm of policy, all I would say to the Minister of L3021 June 11, 1986 Vol XL Finance and to the President of the Council (Mr.

Marshall) and others is if you feel that the Auditor General is getting into policies, and these criticisms have always been given - they have always proven unfounded - then I would say one of the ways the minister and this government can tighten up the Auditor General's parameters is to lay down the parameters themselves. The other thing is that Auditor General does the audit of St. John's. He gets paid for the auditing the City of St. John's, but, again, it is very time consuming. I would ask the President of the Council and the Minister of Finance to look at this fact because it is in the statute.

All the other ones that he does, he does not have to do them. He can find some excuse for not doing them and under pressure, of course, there are priorities and the priorities are the servants of this House, especially the different departments. But I do believe that the Auditor General should not be required by a law of this House that was passed in 1898 to audit the City of St. John's, even though the City of St. John's pays him. I think that again should be done away with and the City of st. John's should have an independent auditor.

The other thing I would like to point out in all fairness is all the other provinces have an audit of the Auditor,

whereas now the Auditor of this Province audits himself, which is a little bit ridiculous. I again feel that the Auditor General of this Province has no questions whatsoever about allowing an independent chartered accountant outside of government to audit his own division. No. 51 R3021

So in concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight three things: Number one, the need for the Auditor General to have his own act; Two, to be able to cover more Crown Corporations, as was pointed out; · Three, that when the Auditor General's Act is brought into this House that it be presented to the Speaker; And four, that the Auditor General's report itself should be brought in four or five months after the fiscal year, and not later than the end of September. How can members of this House scLUtinize the spending of over $2 billion? How can we scLUtinize that when we do not get the report?

The spending stops March 31 and we do not get the report until sometime in May or June of the following year. So we are covering things that happened a year ago. So I think with our new printing technology and that, there will be no question, Mr. Speaker, that we should be able to have the Auditor General's and the Public Accounts Reports tabled no later than the end of September. Of course, they do not have to wait until the House opens for this. So those are the points, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to reiterate. I hope that Bill 20,

An Act To Revise And Reform The Law Respecting Crown Corporations, which had to wait until this year to be revised from its 1898 form, I hope we do not have to wait longer for the Auditor General to have his own 1898 act, which he is still operating under, revised. I believe that the City of St. John's now should find their own independent auditor and free the Auditor General to do more analysis of the provincial L3022 June 11, 1986 Vol XL spending money and happening with our own Crown corporations. Thank you. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Greening): what is money and The hon. the member for Bonavista South. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, I feel it important to say a few words on this resolution brought in by the Opposition and to point out the weakness of the Opposition in its role as Opposition. It seems to me now that they feel that the Auditor General is not being tough enough on government in the last few reports, simply because he has not found any wrongdoing in any departments. He has not found anything to criticize.

He has found one item this past report, one item - and I will deal with matter later on because I think it is utter nonsense, what he had to say - but he has found no problems in any one of my colleagues departments and all of government, no problems with regards to the accounting of the spending of dollars and that is his role. The role of the Auditor General is to account to the public of Newfoundland what took place with regards to the $2 billion spent by government this past year, $2 billion . Did the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) ensure he got fair value or good value for the dollars spent?

Did he spend it wise!y? The Auditor General No. 51 R3022

obviously feels, yes. Did the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Doyle) spend the money for water and sewer in a wise fashion across the Province, obviously yes. The Auditor General had no criticism. I can go on to the Department of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development and the Department of Fisheries and on and on. There was no criticism whatsoever of the spending of government dollars by this administration. Now, because the Opposition, as ineffective as they are as an Opposition, could not find anything wrong with the spending of government through scrutinizing the estimates through the committees, wel