December

5, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 75

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the

House of Assembly fifty-five students from E.J. Pratt High School in Brownsdale

and Holy Trinity High in Heart's Content, along with their teachers Richard

Knapman, Jess Bown and Maureen Robinson.

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. AYLWARD: The purpose of my statement today, Mr.

Speaker, is to outline government's new policy with respect to waste

importation.

Responsible waste management goes far beyond simply placing

garbage at the curbside and having it transported to a landfill or incinerator.

Waste management involves finding the best possible solution to waste problems

from both an environmental and economic perspective. Some of these problems are

not easily solved due largely to the nature of the waste involved. Certain types

of wastes require special handling and must be disposed of using the most

environmentally friendly technology available.

Hazardous and special wastes are regularly exported from

Newfoundland and Labrador to other provinces which have the capacity to dispose

of the material in an environmentally appropriate manner. In some cases, the

waste is recycled and in other cases, it is destroyed. The following materials

are presently being exported from the Province: vehicle wrecks, PCB wastes,

chemicals from laboratories, and so on.

Where local solutions to our hazardous waste disposal

problems are not possible, the Province has committed to work cooperatively with

the other Atlantic Provinces to explore regional solutions.

In 1991, the Province signed the Atlantic Environmental

Accord which states that the four Atlantic Provinces "are committed to

cooperative approaches of addressing environmental issues and have endorsed the

development of operating protocols and interprovincial agreements".

Schedule 11

of the Accord lists priorities for action among which is the development of a

regional strategy for the management of hazardous waste.

At the present, this Province relies on other jurisdictions

to ensure that some of the special and hazardous wastes that we produced are

disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner. It is the intention of this

government to ensure that all of our wastes are managed in the most

environmentally and cost effective manner.

The Province does not import large quantities of wastes from

other jurisdictions. However, in most cases, waste coming into the Province is

being reused or recycled. For example, waste paper is imported for recycling.

Government's new policy on waste importation is firmly based

on principles of sound environmental stewardship and recognizes that we must

work cooperatively with other provinces to find solutions to our waste problems.

Accordingly, the following will provide the basis for a waste

importation policy for Newfoundland and Labrador.

A) Waste can be imported for purposes of reuse, recycling,

reprocessing and recovery;

B) The importation of waste for final disposal is banned with

the exception of waste imported under the following conditions and subject to

the requirements of the environmental assessment legislation and government

approval:

In accordance with the Atlantic Environmental Accord, waste

originating from the other Atlantic Provinces can be imported for final disposal

if it is most appropriate for this Province to manage the waste for the Atlantic

Region.

Waste imported for final disposal from other provinces

outside Atlantic Canada will only be accepted subject to limited reciprocal

agreements which would have, as a condition, that these provinces accept

specified Newfoundland wastes. These would be offset agreements and restricted

to those products jointly agreed to as offsets. Any other projects involving

waste importation for final disposal, including incineration, would be banned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. AYLWARD: Local companies would be encouraged to

develop the capability to deal with local special wastes that would otherwise be

exported. Recognizing that this might not be possible for the near future,

arrangements may be necessary with other provinces to allow for wastes to be

exported and imported.

Government is currently pursuing a comprehensive waste

management strategy for the Province. Because government believes that we must

take responsibility for managing our own wastes, the issue of waste importation

will be further addressed in this strategy. In this regard, waste importation

will be examined in the full context of economic, social and environmental

impacts on the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that this new policy is

an effective response to the widespread concerns of our fellow Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians that this Province might become a `dumping ground' for foreign

garbage. This new policy demonstrates clearly government's commitment to

responsible waste management and protection of the environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. AYLWARD: I just want to add, Mr. Speaker, that I want

to thank the government for responding. Government has responded, and it is very

clear that it has done so today.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I just want to begin by saying to the minister: I don't think

your government has gone far enough. It is good to see that the public pressure

and the pressure from within the Liberal caucus has paid off small dividends,

but certainly has not caused enough pressure to be put on the Premier and the

rest of the Cabinet to fully address this matter.

Really what it is is window dressing. You really have to pull

back the veil to see what is really behind it all, I say to the Minister of

Environment, and we have some very big concerns about what the minister is

proposing here.

First of all, in his first condition that waste can be

imported for the purpose of reuse, recycling, reprocessing and recovery, I say

to the minister that even that should be subjected to the environmental review

process, that nothing should happen without going through the environmental

review process which -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would appreciate the minister of

frozen roads to be quiet, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, how will this be monitored? We still will not

know from where it will originate. We are talking the Atlantic Provinces, it is

a big coastline; we were concerned about the Eastern Seaboard before, we should

still be concerned. Where will the waste originate? How will it be policed?

There are still some very, very serious concerns that we have about the

minister's statement and what really will happen here with waste coming into

this Province and where will it come from.

We cannot properly police the importation of tobacco and

liquor now; this is going to be another case where we won't be able to properly

monitor and police and God knows what will be sent into this Province through

this process, so these are some of the concerns that we have.

Mr. Speaker, what does this new policy do for the Long

Harbour and Baie Verte proposals, I ask the minister? Perhaps he could comment

on that for us when he gets a chance or when he addresses it publicly. These are

some of the concerns we have, Mr. Speaker. I still don't think that it is going

to alleviate the concerns of the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. You are

bringing it down to the Atlantic Provinces but really, the big question is, Mr.

Speaker, how will we monitor, how will we police and how will we really know

where the garbage comes from?

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

have leave to address the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to inform hon.

members that National Safe-Driving Week is currently underway.

This year's theme: "The Hidden Faces -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) get you off the road then.

MR. EFFORD: Can you protect me, Mr. Speaker, from these

horrible people?

MR. SPEAKER: I offer the minister the protection of the

Chair.

MR. EFFORD: This year's theme, "The Hidden Faces Of

Impaired Driving", focuses on the issues and concerns of repeat, impaired

drivers; the major traffic offenders of the Criminal Code of Canada. Impaired

driving in Canada continues to be a serious social problem and one of the most

serious public health issues our population must face.

Mr. Speaker, although the incidence of impaired driving has

reduced slightly in the past few years, we still have a long way to go. The

current death toll of approximately 3,600 on Canadian roads could be reduced by

almost 48 per cent if there were no alcohol-related fatalities occurring. These

numbers alone should justify the reason why I have introduced new legislation

under the Highway Traffic Act allowing for twenty-four hour license suspensions

for drivers who register 50 milligrams of blood alcohol concentration.

In 1992, drinking and driving was a contributing factor in

1,800 motor vehicle deaths and 60,000 injuries. These statistics are accompanied

by a cost to society of more than $20 billion in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we all share in the responsibility of ensuring

the safety of all Canadians. I encourage everyone to join in the fight to reduce

injuries and fatalities due to impaired driving. Please, Don't Drink and Drive!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take pleasure today in rising to support the Ministerial

Statement and National Safe Driving Week from December 1 - 7. For responsible

drivers it covers the whole year, but this year, as the minister said, "The

Hidden Faces of Impaired Driving" focuses and the concerns of repeat impaired

drivers. They are the people, we have been saying over the last couple of weeks,

who should be getting it in the neck. The minister talks about his new

legislation for twenty-four hour licence suspensions; yes, probably it would

catch more offenders, but what it is going to do, Sir - if you are saying,

`Don't Drink and Drive', you should have reduced alcohol intake to zero but your

new legislation, Sir, is only going - it is a money-grabbing deal to get more

money out of poor Newfoundlanders.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to a

favourite topic of mine dealing with the Trans City Holdings contracts. I have

some questions for the Minister of Finance, to begin with, related to the

appendix to Works, Services and Transportation paper 91-91. Now, we have been

told by the minister that this paper was not sent to Cabinet. I thought he told

me on Friday that it wasn't sent to the Executive Council but we will explore

that. We know, however, that the minister and the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir have seen it. I would like to ask him, just for clarification, can we

assume that the other three ministers on that committee with him, in other

words, the Minister of Education and Training, now I think it is, the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Member for Humber West - did they see

the Cabinet paper?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I'm not sure if the question he asked was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Okay.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this is an event that happened

some three years ago. Memory of specific dates and events and what happened to

what is rather hazy, so I hesitate to make definitive statements. I indicated

that this presentation was prepared for consideration by the committee. All I

can say is that the committee considered these facts and I wrote a

recommendation to Cabinet, which the hon. gentleman asked for yesterday and I

said I would table today. I would like to table now the recommendation to

Cabinet from that committee. But, yes, the factors were discussed. Now, as to

whether pieces of paper are in existence, as far as I know they are not.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is very important now. The

Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir saw the document; the minister saw it, because

he dug it out of his files and brought it down to the courthouse suddenly a day

before or a day or so ago, whenever it was. What I'm asking is, did the Member

for Strait of Bell Isle, the Member for St. Barbe and the Member for Humber West

also have access and see that draft - you are calling it a draft - appendix

91-91? We assume they did, because they are on the committee with the minister,

but we would just like him to confirm it.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as far as I can recall, we

discussed the contents of that particular memorandum and developed a different

memorandum, which I ultimately presented to Cabinet.

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

MR. SIMMS: Would the minister - I don't know if the

Speaker would allow me to ask; I certainly couldn't ask him. I don't know if I

can ask the other two ministers because it is not within their jurisdiction. I

would like to know if the other ministers saw this document. It is a pretty

straightforward question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Can do what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Can find out and tell me? Is that what the

Premier is saying? Okay. Would the minister do that then? Would he check with

the other three members I am referring to?

On the specific point in that appendix that we have a seen a

copy of now and has become public - on the specific point, and I quote: `It is

quite clear that if we award to Trans City Holdings we would not be acting

within the spirit of the Public Tender Act' - end of quote. He knows the quote.

We now know that he and the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir

knew of this - I'm assuming the other three ministers did. In this House on

Thursday or Friday the Premier told me that he was not aware of this. Can the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board tell me or tell the House why the Premier

was not told of this fairly significant point?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is again doing

what he does well and is adding to the confusion. He is indicating that the

Premier, in answer to a question about whether he had seen that particular draft

memorandum, indicated that he had not seen it or could not recall seeing it.

Since that time we've had a full Question Period on that point. I've indicated

that as far as I'm prepared to go is to say that all relevant facts were

discussed in Cabinet, and Cabinet made a decision, knowing full well that there

were certain perception problems with this new process that we tried. I am not

prepared to go further than that, so there is no conflict here. The member is

simply using an answer given to one question to pose a totally different

question.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, that is not accurate at all. I asked the

Premier specifically, was he aware of that point that was contained in your

Cabinet document, or this appendix of 91-91 when you said, and I quote: "It is

quite clear that if we award to Trans City Holdings we would not be acting

within the spirit of the Public Tender Act."

That was in the document that you signed. Now I asked the

Premier on Thursday or Friday if he was aware of that point, and he said, no, he

was not. The Premier remembers that, I presume.

Now I am asking the minister: Why did the minister not advise

the Premier of that point? It is a pretty significant one.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the document in question was

prepared for me for discussion by the committee. When we considered the matters

in that particular memorandum and developed a position for Cabinet, Cabinet

fully discussed the concerns that this, perhaps, was a little different from the

normal process and that there were perception problems.

The legal opinion that we were basing this on indicated that

Cabinet does have the authority to award these contracts under

section 8 of the

act, even though it is not the lowest or preferred bidder; however, this will

require tabling of the reasons for the contract award in the House of Assembly,

and there were certain concerns in the legal opinion about the process and the

difficulty of evaluating the process. So, Mr. Speaker, Cabinet was aware of all

of this, was aware that this would fit within, and according to the legal

opinion,

section 8 of the act of the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: It says here under

section 8 of the act, yes,

so they were aware that it fit under

section 8 of the act. The legal opinion was

that this was okay according to the Public Tender Act, and that there were

perception problems with it.

I don't know how I can be more full with the hon. gentleman

than I have without actually getting into specific opinions expressed in Cabinet

by specific ministers.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am greatly disappointed in the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. He knows what my question was. It had

nothing to do with all this old gibberish that he was going on about. We have

read the comments and the statement. My question was a very specific one. The

Premier said he was not aware of this point that he had in his paper that if you

awarded the contract to Trans City Holdings you would not be acting within the

spirit of the Public Tender Act.

I am asking the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board: Why

was the Premier not made aware of that? Can he answer that question directly and

straightforwardly?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon.

gentleman, these events happened three years ago. I cannot recall the specific

details of every single discussion that happened in Cabinet, and I would suggest

to the hon. gentleman if he stops to think about it he will realize that is an

impossible task. All I can indicate to him is that Cabinet was aware of the

general concerns and discussed them. I cannot recall specific comments by

individuals. I cannot recall whether an individual in Cabinet was specifically

aware of a particular wording in a document. I am sorry, but it's three years

ago and it is rather difficult to recall these details. It would be difficult

enough to recall something that happened a month ago as specifically as that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I could understand the Minister

of Finance and Treasury Board trying to divert attention away from the question,

but a point as significant as that, you were saying yourself in your appendix,

in the paper that you drafted, that if you acted to award the contract to Trans

City Holdings you would not be acting under the spirit of the Public Tender Act.

Now that is not just some simple little comment that you can't recall. We have

been talking about it for weeks.

Let me ask him this question, since he is obviously not going

to answer my other question directly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, I mean he is not going to answer it

directly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Why he didn't tell the Premier is what I asked

him.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask him this. He knew, because he saw the

paper. The Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir had the paper. We are assuming the

other three ministers saw the paper and saw that specific point contained in the

paper and were aware of it. Let me ask him directly: Did the rest of the

Cabinet, the remaining eight or nine members of the Cabinet - for example, the

Members for Twillingate, Windsor - Buchans, Bonavista North, Conception Bay

South, St. John's Centre - did they all know about that specific point? That if

you approved this contract to Trans City Holdings you would not be acting within

the spirit of the public tendering act. Did they all know it?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I don't know where the hon. gentleman is

getting the assumption that this was a strongly held opinion in terms of the

spirit of the Public Tender Act. As I indicated, this was a paper that was

prepared for me for consideration by the committee. The committee considered it

and submitted to Cabinet the document which I've just tabled a moment ago and

which the hon. gentleman and everybody can get and read. The points were

considered by Cabinet and a decision was made based on, as I've pointed out so

many times, the fact that to do anything else would mean a delay of another year

or so in the projects, would mean tremendously escalated costs, and would mean

that the taxpayers of this Province would end up losing, and the people of the

Province who needed these jobs would end up losing. Mr. Speaker, these were the

bases on which Cabinet made the decision.

As I indicated, right when we started the process there was

an awareness that we were doing something different, that there may be

perception problems right from Day 1. But to ensure that we got the projects

started, to ensure that we got the best financial deal possible for the

Province, we were determined to go ahead with it. We did, and we got the best

deal for the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is like pulling teeth, I

guess. Let me ask the Premier on a supplementary, if I may. Last Thursday the

Premier said that he had never seen this legal opinion or the Cabinet paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Don't look surprised. That is what he said. He

didn't say that? Could he clarify it then?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I said I didn't see the paper that the

hon. member was waving around the House. He alternatively called it a Cabinet

paper, an appendix to a Cabinet paper, and a legal opinion. I can't keep track

of what he keeps calling it. I can only reaffirm the position is I had not until

a day or two before seen the paper that the hon. member was waving around the

House at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Just so we are certain, Mr. Speaker, because

it isn't always clear, I have to confess to the Premier, when he gives answers.

He is saying that he didn't see that appendix. Do you know what we are talking

about when we say the appendix to 91-91? The Premier knows what we are talking

about. He said he didn't see that for at least a day or two before he gave me

the answer in the House. Is that what he is saying?

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: It was pretty straightforward. It shouldn't be

hard to answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I gather this two-sheet paper is the one

the hon. member was waving around.

MR. SIMMS: What does it say on top?

PREMIER WELLS: It is called: Subject - Build/Lease

proposal for health care facilities, appendix to WST 91-91.

I told him I hadn't seen that before. I've stated it five or

six times. I hadn't seen that before until a couple of days before it was

mentioned in the House.

MR. SIMMS: Can I ask the Premier then -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary. Can I ask the Premier; Was he

aware of the paper even though he hadn't seen it? Was he aware of it prior to

that point in time, or the contents in the paper?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The member asked me before if I was aware

of some of the points. All I can say to him is I don't remember the detail of

everything that was discussed in Cabinet on every topic over the last five

years. It would be impossible. Whether some of those items that were in that

were discussed in Cabinet, I would say it may well be that they were. I can't

say with absolute certainty that those individual items were discussed in any

detail. I can't say. I was not aware of the paper itself until I told the

member. Whether any of the items that are in it were mentioned in Cabinet at the

time, which would give me an awareness, I don't remember the detail of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Can I ask the Premier was he aware of the

legal opinion that John Cummings had drafted?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know, I would have to see the

legal opinion and take a look at it. I don't remember the specific details.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour will know, and

as hon. members opposite know, if they want to admit so that people can judge

issues fairly, hundreds of papers, some of them that thick or that thick come

before Cabinet and I try to read most of it, I must confess I don't get to read

every single word of it but I try to read most of what comes before Cabinet so

that I can be reasonably well informed on the issues. I don't remember from day

to day, I don't remember the detail of what I saw last week in Cabinet let alone

one three years ago.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is not, I say to the

Premier, just any old issue. This is an issue and a matter that has been pretty

strongly covered by the press and the media; it has been in the House of

Assembly for the last three weeks, court cases and everything else, so I don't

think he can get away with just sloughing it off in that way, but if that is the

way he chooses to defend his actions and his government's actions, then that is

up to the people to judge as he says.

Let me ask him this supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Is

it true that the Premier was not in fact present at the Cabinet meeting held on

October 22, '91, that asked for a further consideration by a committee of

ministers, and sought and asked for this legal opinion?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me correct a misstatement

by the hon. member.

To start with, there is nothing special about this, this was

a routine matter that was coming before Cabinet. There was nothing special about

it at the time; it happens to be special in the hon. member's mind now because

he is trying to make something of it when nothing exists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: He is trying to create an issue so it is

special, Mr. Speaker, in his context.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: You can tell how special it is by the

gaggle that you hear there, now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I cannot hear the hon. Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the second question was:

Was I present at a Cabinet meeting on October 22? I will enquire and find out.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Are you trying to tell us you don't know if

you were at that Cabinet meeting, which has been discussed for the last three

weeks in this House?

PREMIER WELLS: At this moment, I don't know. I will look

at the record and find out and let the hon. members know, there is nothing to

hide. I was either present or I wasn't and the record is clear.

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

MR. SIMMS: To the hon, Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board, a supplementary question then, Mr. Speaker?

Can he tell the House, who wrote this Cabinet appendix,

Cabinet paper or whatever you want to call it, who wrote the appendix, I call

it, that was supposed to be attached to 91 - 91?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I don't know, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Pardon?

MR. BAKER: I don't know who specifically put it together.

I can only assume that it is either someone in Treasury Board, one of the public

servants of Treasury Board, or in Works, Services. The quote that the hon.

gentleman keeps using about `the spirit of the Public Tender Act' and so on, is

a quote from that particular document that was put in there by whoever wrote the

document and is not in the final recommendation of the committee, it is not in

the legal opinion obtained from the Department of Justice; it is simply an

interpretation of the legal opinion that does not come from the legal opinion

that I do not agree with, and, Mr. Speaker, to correct another misstatement by

the hon. gentleman, in the Cabinet meeting to which he referred, the 22nd, when

he asked the Premier about whether he was present or not, that is not the time

at which the legal opinion was asked for. The legal opinion was asked for ahead

of that meeting but was not available for the meeting.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to find out

the answer to my question: Who wrote the Cabinet paper? Whose words were these -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

The minister did sign the paper, so could he tell us who gave

him the paper to sign? Maybe we can try it that way, who actually gave you the

paper to sign?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Tom Hickman?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, again, I don't know where that

came from. I know that it exists, had I remembered that this existed it would

have been turned over in the first instance to the courts, and was not turned

over to the courts in the first instance because I had forgotten about it, it

was simply a working paper that was done up for the consideration of the

committee. I have many thousands of these things prepared and cannot remember

them from time to time. I can remember my recommendations to Cabinet, I can

remember that quite clearly, but I cannot remember working documents that

various committees I serve on see from time to time and cannot remember who

developed them.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple, these are things that you

cannot expect to know at this point in time.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is not very simple, but I hope

the minister will get me the answer: Who drafted the Cabinet paper, and how did

the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir get the paper? I asked him that the other

day, he is supposed to get me answers to that.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance that

what was contained in the paper, which he signed, was precisely what you and

your colleagues on the Cabinet committee wanted to recommend to the Cabinet.

There is no question about that, Mr. Speaker, all you have to do is read the

document.

Let me ask the minister this: continues to say that the

Premier and the other Cabinet ministers never saw this paper, this appendix, it

was never sent to them. On Friday I asked him specifically if this paper, this

Appendix 91-91, was sent to the Executive Council. Your response was very

evasive at the time. I would like to ask him one more time; was this appendix,

Works, Services and Transportation Appendix 91-91, sent to the Executive Council

for distribution at all?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall having been asked

that question before. The hon. gentleman claims I did but he should go back to

Hansard and look, to ask questions and so on - and when you go back and check

you will find out that that did not happen. So I cannot recall that question

being asked or an answer given but the hon. gentleman can check Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, the copy of this opinion that I tabled in the

House and sent to the court and so on, has an Executive Council stamp on it but

that was not given to Executive Council for distribution. I don't know how the

Executive Council stamp got on it but it was not given to Executive Council for

distribution to Cabinet. The document that was distributed to Cabinet, in the

Cabinet meeting, is the one that I tabled today. It is the one that is in the

file of the Cabinet regarding this particular recommendation and it is self

explanatory. I am sure the hon. gentleman has read it a couple of times.

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

MR. SIMMS: I am not sure what the minister said I asked

him. He told me to check Hansard, I did. The question was right there from

Friday's Question Period, it is not that long ago. It is the last sitting -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, it is Hansard. Mr. Simms: `Was it sent to

the Executive Council, can he tell us that?' The Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board: `As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, it was not distributed.' I mean

a very evasive answer. `Well, was it sent to Executive Council?' He said, `No,

it was not as I understand.' He is nodding. Is that correct?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: My answer was, Mr. Speaker, that no, it was

not sent to Executive Council for distribution. However, my copy does have an

Executive Council stamp on it. How that stamp got there, I don't know.

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

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the plot thickens. He does

not know how the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir got a copy of the paper, the

Premier can't recollect this, can't recollect that, he doesn't know who wrote

the paper for him, Mr. Speaker, and now he tells me - I was about to table this

document, which I will table, because the one that he tabled didn't have the

stamp on it. It didn't have the stamp of Executive Council on it but this one

does. Received by Executive Council October 31, Mr. Speaker, the day after you

signed the Cabinet paper or this appendix paper. Now, Mr. Speaker, he says he

doesn't know why the Executive Council stamp was on it. Well I can tell the

minister why the Executive Council stamp was on it, it is because it was sent to

the Executive Council for distribution like every other Cabinet paper was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now, what I want to know from the minister,

since the Executive Council had it, they had it, it's stamped `received,

Executive Council, October 31, 1991', received, you cannot dispute that. Now the

question is this, why then - because any paper that is sent up from any minster

that goes to the Executive Council, the Cabinet secretary, is distributed to

ministers - the question is: Why was this not submitted after it went to

Executive Council? Who gave the instructions to stop it and what were those

instructions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same, exactly

the same, as I gave the hon. gentleman. There is no record that that was ever

sent to Executive Council for distribution. If it had been, copies of that would

have been attached to every single Cabinet paper, WST 91-91, would have been

distributed to all the ministers, would have been in files of all of the

minsters, would have been in the Executive Council file and so on. Now, the

copies of that memo do not exist in ministers files, as far as I know, do not

exist in the Executive Council files, yet that one copy has an Executive Council

stamp on it. I do not know how it got on that one copy. How come it did not get

on the other copy? There are some questions here that I have been trying to find

the answers to, and all I can do is make assumptions because the people in the

Executive Council cannot remember that document coming to the Executive Council.

It was not distributed to the ministers otherwise there would have been copies

in filing cabinets all around the building.

All I can assume is that there were at least the two copies,

Mr. Gilbert's and mine, and one of them got stamped with an Executive Council

stamp, but it was not in the normal process for distribution to Cabinet. All I

can do is tell the truth. That is exactly what I find before me and I can find

no other explanation.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With all due respect to the Minister of Finance I do not know

if he is being made out to be the scapegoat in this thing right now. Originally

it was the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir who was being hung out and now it

looks like the Minister of Finance is being hung out. His answer, Mr. Speaker,

does not jive.

If you read the paper you can see clearly, in fact, that it

was a recommendation by the Cabinet committee. It was your recommendation not to

proceed, to recommend to the Cabinet to re-tender the project. That was your

recommendation contained in that appendix. You signed the document, but now you

tell us here today that you do not know who wrote it for you, who drafted it for

you, who sent it to Executive Council, why it was stamped by Executive Council,

why the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir had a copy, why he had a copy, why the

Premier did not know anything about it. How can the minister expect us to

believe anything he is saying any longer?

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

MR. BAKER: Because, Mr. Speaker, the answer to all these

questions lie in the explanation I have given, the answers to all of these

questions. Mr. Speaker, a paper was prepared for a committee to examine

internally by someone else. It was examined by the Committee and the result was

a paper that was obviously written by me which was a note to Cabinet and was

attached to WST 91-91 in the Executive Council files. It was simply a

recommendation and a discussion of the WST 91-91, the process, and the

recommendation to Cabinet that we go ahead with it, so, Mr. Speaker, for all the

reasons I have given before, this is the document that was the recommendation of

the committee to Cabinet.

Now, the other matter is what happened to a working document

within the Committee. I simply cannot recall. It is three years ago. If this

happened last week I could probably give an answer. It happened three years ago.

The paper I had forgotten even existed. I did not recognize its existence until

finally it showed up. Mr. Speaker, this was an internal document that the

Committee had and it was never intended to go any further. It was simply for the

consideration of the Committee. The Committee did not agree that was the

recommendation they should make.

MR. SIMMS: Why did you respond to it?

MR. BAKER: Well, maybe that is a mistake I made. We are

not all perfect. However, the Committee decided to go with a different

recommendation for the reasons I have outlined. If we were to re-tender it would

mean a delay of a year, two years, however long, and it would result in a

tremendous escalation of prices as we knew would happen. We felt that would not

be in the best interest of the people of this Province, the taxpayers of this

Province, so we went ahead with the deal that was the best financial deal that

this Province could ever do.

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

MR. SIMMS: I guarantee you that is subject to debate,

that last statement the minister made, Mr. Speaker. In any event, not to get off

track on this because I am trying to pursue a specific line of questioning. He

has already raised himself, all kinds of questions in his own mind, and he is

going to get answers for me, he tells me. I hope he does soon.

Let me ask him this question. He just tabled a document. It

was just brought to my attention. This is suppose to be the alternative or the

next note to Cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: The one that went?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, the one that went. The Premier's

recommendations, no doubt I say, contained in this one, the note to Cabinet. Let

me ask him this, since he just tabled it. It is rather interesting. What was the

date on this note? Who signed it, and where is the Executive Council stamp? Can

he answer those three short questions related to this document?

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

MR. BAKER: This note was brought into Cabinet. It was

distributed in Cabinet. It was done up by me, distributed in Cabinet, and I

think the people in the Executive Council, written, attach to Works, Services

and Transportation 91-91 at the time, and it was attached to WST 91-91 and was

in the files of Executive Council. So this was a note to Cabinet that I brought

in as an individual and presented to Cabinet. It did not go through the

distribution process. That is the reason there wasn't a stamp on it.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'

Espoir on a point of order.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In Question Period today, the Leader of the Opposition asked

questions as to how I became aware of the appendage to Works, Services and

Transportation 91-91, subject: Build/lease proposals for the health care

facilities.

I would like to clarify for the House how I became aware of

it. When this case which is now before the court came up, the Justice department

decided to release the paper 91-91 to which certain appendages were attached. As

I was preparing for a witness, eventually I was given the paper 91-91. On

November 19, I took the paper that had been released by the Justice department

and Executive Council and compared it to the one that - the members over there

will realize as a Cabinet minister that I had access to the papers that went

through my department while I was there. This one had started to go through and

wasn't quite completed. Anyhow, it was sent home with my papers.

When I checked the one that had been released with the

attachments on it, I found, the one that was sent home to me had three more

attachments: one, a note to Cabinet from a committee meeting that we had on

October 15 recommending paper 91-91; two, a legal opinion by Mr. Cummings; and

three, this appendage right here. When I discovered they were there and hadn't

been released to the court and the Justice department had made a decision that

they were going to release all the papers, I then contacted my lawyer. We came

and saw Mr. Baker on Tuesday, November 22, advised him of these documents, and

then released them to the court.

Now, that is how I became involved. I was not involved in it.

I was out of Cabinet when this thing happened; it was attached to my Cabinet

paper in error, I would expect, but I'm glad that they were.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The point raised by the hon. member is not a point of order.

He is just taking the opportunity, I guess, to give an explanation as to what

has transpired during Question Period. There is really no point of order.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting the report of

the financial statements of the Newfoundland Legal Aid Commission for the year

ended March 31 1993. I also want to present the annual report of the Board of

Commissioners of Public Utilities on the operations carried out under the

automobile insurance act.

Notices of Motion

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act (No. 3)". (Bill

No. 59) Thank you.

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Recording

Of Evidence Act". (Bill No. 60)

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

Treasury Board.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Reductions

Of Pension Contributions By Employees In The Public Sector." (Bill No. 58)

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will

on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The

Hospital Insurance Agreement Act, The Insurance Companies Act, And The Medical

Care Insurance Act". (Bill No. 61)

Petitions

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me pleasure

today to rise to present a petition from the district. The gist of the petition

is that it asks for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

`We, the undersigned, do hereby request the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to

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

your petitioners will ever pray.'

For the last thirteen working days of this House it has been

echoed back and forth - because we've heard it a couple of times echoed on the

other side of the House - the need for an emergency job creation project. Today,

we have fifty-eight names from the small community of Fair Haven, a community

with people who work in construction, who don't have any income, some fishermen,

fisherwomen, plant workers, some who will be turfed off TAGS program by the end

of December, others who are caught up - and not through their fault - in a UIC

investigation that is covering some 1,400 people, a large net that is going on

since last year, but the innocent people are caught up in a net as well. These

people are working people, like so many other people in so many other districts

throughout this Province.

I told you before about the Placentia district, one end to

the other, 70 per cent unemployment in the Placentia area alone, and Southern

Harbour, Fair Haven, Little Harbour, Mount Arlington Heights and Long Harbour

are not much better off. There are other places in this Province facing the same

issues. Work is good for your pocketbook, we all know, but it is also good for

your soul, and good for your mind.

We are told that the hon. minister has laboriously tried to

get Ottawa to side with him on such an emergency response, but I have gotten up

here before and said that this Province should take the initiative to look after

its own, and what Ottawa comes in with after the fact is gravy. What is needed

is not for next month - it would be nice next month, or the month after - but it

is desperately needed now. How can you tell a person who is hungry that you have

to wait?

Abraham Maslow's theory on the hierarchy of needs, the first

one, is a full stomach. There is some disagreement on Maslow's theory, that they

also say that shelter is number one; but, let me tell you, regardless of whose

theory, a full stomach and shelter are very important for us poor human beings,

and it gives me pleasure today to rise and not only support the people in Fair

Haven, who have a talent for work, and who want work, not only for the district

of Placentia, but for every other district in this Province.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of the petition by the Member for

Placentia. It is the first time, I must say, that I heard Maslow's theory of

hierarchy of needs discussed in the House of Assembly. While I am impressed with

the member for his knowledge of it, mine goes back to the 1960s and early 1970s

when I studied psychology. I think in discussing the hierarchy of needs,

obviously, the need for food and shelter is very important, but the top need in

Maslow's theory of needs is for self-actualization.

What they talk about these days is very similar to that. It

is called empowerment, having some control over your destiny, and that is what

the people of Placentia want. They want to have a job so that they can look

after their own families, so that they can provide the food and shelter and

sustenance, and the kinds of things that their children need, and that is as

important today as food and shelter is to the people of this Province, because

we are, for many people, in a survival mode.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I did, indeed.

We are in a survival mode in this Province. So many of our

people are not given and don't have an opportunity to fully participate in the

society around us, the society that we joined in 1949 so that we might become

part of a great nation that was capable of sharing the wealth and generating

sufficient employment and employment opportunities for people. This government

seems to be ignoring its own role in that field.

I see the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations shaking

his head. Well, he might. The people of this Province are shaking their heads at

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and wonder what he has been

doing since he has been minister back in August. Well, he might, shake his head.

We are all shaking our heads over here and wondering when the minister is going

to come forth with his government's proposals to deal with the very serious

unemployment problem in this Province.

I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying I fully support the

petition presented by the Member for Placentia and I look forward to the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations getting on his feet and telling us

when we can expect to have some response.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, just a few words on

the petition. Of course, I spoke to many of the other petitions on the same

subject. I did have meetings with federal counterparts, both the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Human Resource Development, Mr.

Axworthy and I am very hopeful that we will have some kind of answer from our

federal counterparts before the week has ended. I understand the need better

than does the Member for St. John's East. I had twenty-one calls this weekend

from all across the Province and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, they were at Tors Cove, I say to the hon.

member, and they were collect, I might add. However, I responded to them and

talked to the people of the Province, the development associations and other

people who took the time to call.

I understand the need, I understand the concern and you can

be sure that this government and this minister will continue to work on behalf

of the people of the Province.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

present a petition from 296 concerned individuals from fifteen communities in

the district of Bonavista South. The prayer of the petition reads:

`We, the undersigned, as residents of the communities from

Sweet Bay to Knights Cove in the electoral district of Bonavista South, petition

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to come forward with funding to

create much needed employment for people who are not clients of the Atlantic

Groundfish Strategy Program, also known as TAGS, and have no recourse for work

and a decent income.'

Mr. Speaker, here is another example of fifteen communities

recognizing the need to bring forward emergency funding so they may go forward

and have some form of gainful employment to provide food and shelter for their

families this coming winter.

Mr. Speaker, the year before last there was $12 million

brought forward in a make-work program emergency funding and last year there was

$6 million to try to address the need. Mr. Speaker, those were dollars brought

forward by the Provincial Government. This year, for some unknown reason, for

people out there, we seem to be shirking our responsibility and saying that it

must rest with Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. The government of

the day was elected to represent Newfoundlanders and represent Newfoundland

needs, and if we can convince Ottawa to come forward with extra funding, then so

much the better, because I am certain we will never address the needs of 100 per

cent of the people out there today who are unemployed. Mr. Speaker, we are all

aware of the intentions of Ottawa and this government, and that is to do away

with unemployment insurance, to do away with some of the social programs. But

let me tell you, Mr. Minister, before we can arrange to do that and before we

are allowed to do it, we have to create some jobs, an atmosphere to create

employment, have jobs out there so that people then will have a choice. Until we

give people choices we can't take away their only hope and their only source of

income which, for many people up until now, has been make-work projects,

emergency response to get them through the winter months, in order to support

their families.

Mr. Speaker, if Ottawa is not willing to share its wealth

with Eastern Canada, then it must be willing to share its jobs. And I can assure

you that for many, many people in rural Newfoundland today it is not an option

for them, Mr. Speaker, to pack up the car or load up the truck and take off to

Ontario somewhere or take off to the West Coast. Work is no more plentiful in

Toronto today than it probably is in many areas of our own island province here.

Mr. Speaker, when you talk with people who are fifty-five and sixty years old,

many people would find that a real dilemma, Mr. Speaker, it would be a real fear

to even have to consider moving to another province to find employment,

notwithstanding how they would ever find the $2,000 or $3,000 to provide funding

for them to even get there in the first place.

So, Mr. Speaker, I call on the government of the day, I call

on the minister of the day to go forward, and if it means convincing Ottawa or

convincing his own Cabinet to bring emergency funding forward so that those

needs might be addressed, I ask him to do it immediately, so those people can go

forward, find a job - there are all kinds of things that need to be done out

there, Mr. Speaker, it isn't hard to find work that needs to be done, and

meaningful work, along with that - so they would be able to support and feed

their families in a decent way. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie-Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise and support another in a long list of

petitions that have been presented for, I think the fourteenth straight day in

this House. Recently, we stood to support petitions, Mr. Speaker - and I can

tell you, there wasn't a lot of comfort from the minister when he stood today to

respond again to this cry that started out just over two weeks ago. Mr. Speaker,

I say to the minister, that I commend him, as does everybody in this hon. House,

for his efforts in travelling back and forth to Ottawa trying to come up with

the appropriate message for the people, that `We are going to respond to your

needs.' I commend the minister for doing that, as I have done since day one,

but, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough, I say to the minister.

I am sorry, but you know, it is not something - and when he

says wait - Mr. Speaker, I would like to know, I would like to have a statistic,

if we could only come up with it, of how many people have gone to Social

Services for the first time, since fourteen days ago, when we first asked the

question in the House: Is there going to be an emergency response program? I

wonder how many have gone there, Mr. Speaker. Every time I go back to my

district on weekends, I find very quickly that I have another person coming to

me to say: `I'm sorry, but I had to go to Social Services for the first time.

That is another person added to the list, Mr. Speaker.

The whole point of all this, I say to the minister, is that,

time is crucial and it is just not good enough to hear him say, `We hopefully

will get an answer by the end of the week.'

Mr. Speaker, I say, and I am sure all hon. members who get

the calls on this particular issue, say the same things to their constituents, I

hope and pray that soon we will be able to have an announcement. I hope the

minister is going to stand today and say: Yes, there is an emergency response

program coming.

Mr. Speaker, I mean, time after time we say to the people who

ask us these questions - they say to us, `We know this is not the answer to our

problems.' We know that the social reform debate will be going on and on, it has

started already - Soundings , the other night on television - I mean, the

debate is going on and on and will be going on for a long time. And, hopefully,

we can all pull on the same oar to get some good answers to those questions of

social reform; but I say to the minister, that while that is ongoing, this is

called an emergency response program. It is now December, we are heading into

the last two weeks before Christmas, and people don't have an answer. and as of

this morning again - I know the minister has had them again today, I had them

again this morning. They ask: `Mr. Shelley, when is there going to be an answer

to this? We need to know now.' I say: `Well, hopefully, there is going to be

something this week,' as the minister just said to me.

Now, I wonder how much comfort that is to those people.

Because I know, Mr. Speaker, from being in my district again the weekend and

bumping into those same people - they say: Listen, we can't wait for you to say

- you said last week it is going to be another week, and then you say it is

going to be ten days. This is December, we need a response to that.' Now, the

minister said here today that it is going to be within the week - is that right

minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You should hopefully know by the end of the

week, that's what the minister is saying. Now, if I have to say that to all the

constituents I am getting calls from - and by the way, I want to do something

else here today, and that is, commend the Members for Twillingate and Windsor -

Buchans, for getting up and supporting me at one time when I presented these

petitions. At the same time, I would like to note to the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation, that if there is one time you are dead wrong, it is when

you say that we stand up to make political points on petitions.

There is no media here, there are no people in the galleries,

and when I stand to present a petition on emergency response programs, political

stripe doesn't cross my mind. I was glad to see the two members stand up and

support me, and in my own district, and whenever I spoke to the media, I said

they did. If it were the Hydro debate, and we presented petitions, and you said

we were using political propaganda, well, maybe I could agree with the minister

on that, but I will never agree with him on this one.

When we stand to present on these petitions, if the minister

had a bit of gall and gumption, he would stand up, especially a former Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations, who understands this situation probably

better than the new minister. You understand it because I remember seeing your

picture next to the $13.5 million announced for 1991. I am proud to say that we

understand the immediate situation. The minister did a good job. He stood up and

said, `Yes, we understand the situation, $13.5 million this year,' and I

applauded him. Now, he stands to say we are going for political points on these

petitions. I say to you, Minister, if you believe that - this is one time you

can say it about Hydro petitions or anything else, but you can't make it on this

petition.

I speak for every Newfoundlander who finds himself looking

into a Social Services office for the first time with their hands out. I have

had calls from very emotional people, very upset and very distraught. I had one

particular case where the wife called because the man was too embarrassed to

talk to me and ask for an emergency project. For the first time, a

forty-four-year-old man with four kids had eight unemployment stamps and for the

first time he was going to the welfare office.

Mr. Speaker, that is not an exaggeration or a fabrication.

That is reality and I wish the former Minister of Labour would sometime in the

House, stand up and support those petitions, as he should.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, could we begin, please, by

calling Motions 3 through 7. Those are all bills which we are asking leave to

introduce, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Motions 3 to 7.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act,"

carried. (Bill No. 56)

Motion, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act (No 2),"

carried. (Bill No. 54)

Motion, the Minister of Finance to introduce the following

bills, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act," "An Act To Amend The Public

Service Pension Act 1991," "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland And Labrador

Computer Services Limited Amendment Act". (Bills Nos. 45, 44, and 55)

On motion Bills Nos. 56, 54, 45, 44, and 55 read a first

time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, we will ask the House to begin

today by picking up at second reading, the adjourned debate on Bill 47, which is

Order 22. I believe my friend, the Member for Ferryland adjourned debate Friday

morning when the House last sat. If we get through that, as we hope we shall, we

will then ask the House to deal with Order 23, which is the Liquor Control Act.

That is a companion piece, really, to the Tobacco Tax Act, and we will then go

on to Order 25, `An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act'.

Should we get through that one, then by that time my friend, the Member for

Grand Bank and I should have put our heads together and come up with the next

order of business. Could we begin, Sir, with Order 22, Bill 47.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 47, the adjourned debate.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Overall this government has endeavoured to use the control of

cigarettes and tobacco in general as a means of revenue for the Province. They

have taken in large amounts of money in terms of revenue. With reference to

controlling, I guess, the number of people smoking in the Province, restricting

it in the workplace has been probably effective in reducing the number of

cigarettes smoked by people in this Province.

Now, I had an opportunity to just glance through - I didn't

get into any depth there, but the minister provided it to me and I thank him for

that, a survey on smoking in Canada, cycle one and cycle two. It is a four cycle

thing that is now in progress there. In this Province we have seen some

improvement overall, but a few points to keep in mind, I think, when you

interpret results, are very important.

For example, Prince Edward Island had the highest percentage

at 33 per cent, 31 per cent in Quebec, which had the higher percentage of

smokers, but on the average, those provinces which have the highest percentage

of smokers, smoke fewer cigarettes than the Canadian average.

So I know there are things to keep in mind. It is not just

the number of smokers a province would have, of course, but the amount of

cigarettes a person would smoke as having an effect upon - the overall effect on

that individual.

Newfoundland hasn't done too badly at all compared to some

other provinces recently, but we have reached a point now where extra dollars

that we are getting in in taxation would have to be used to get a real result

and to effect a greater change. For example, in the 1970s up to the 1980s, 1986

to be exact, we saw a substantial decrease in the amount of smoking in Canada

overall. Between 1986 and 1992, over the next six, seven years, we saw very

little change over the last several years in decrease in the number of smokers

in this country. Over the past year there were very significant changes - one

per cent overall over the period, I think 1992 up into 1993. We didn't see much

improvement because we are not using sufficient resources.

When you accomplish a certain amount of progress you need to

have to spend more resources proportionately to get a result that you want. That

is something we have to do. Our tax dollars are increasing. We collected $65

million last year in tobacco tax revenue in this Province. We project that we

are going to collect $62 million this year, and I think it is up. The minister

said taxes are up overall and I would assume retail sales tax, and overall taxes

- I think in his statement he said our revenues are up. We are going to exceed

$65 million again this year, quite possibly, and maybe go higher.

I say to the minister, too, that we need to use funds,

resources that are obtained, to be able to get an increased result or effect. We

are probably at the point of diminishing returns now on our investment dollars

into advertising. Legislation, I think, in the workplace, yes, reduces the

amount of cigarettes that we smoke during the working day. Because

Newfoundlanders in the survey showed that they have more restrictions in the

workplace in terms of smoking than many other provinces. I say that is positive

and that is good.

We need to not just have a reduction during the working day

in smoking. We need to be concerned about the remaining sixteen or fifteen hours

of a day, or seventeen hours, whatever is left from the working day, to be able

to try to get a result in these areas.

Smoking is having a tremendous impact on our health care

system today. Most people associate smoking with cancer. That is only one

effect, that is only the small portion. Respiratory and associated diseases are

the greatest cause of disease resulting from smoking. I think we need to focus

in on those specific areas here.

We need to be concerned more with a result in improved health

care rather than with an increased method of taxation. We need to focus our

attention on the real problem, not the housewife who goes to Fermont and gets

two packs of cigarettes and $300 worth of groceries, and then who is crucified

by rules made by this Province, which is attacking the common person who is not

the real abuser or the real culprit.

Mr. Speaker, overall, we have seen some progress here.

Newfoundland has made some progress, but we must put forth a much greater effort

if the progress is going to continue. We are now at a stalemate almost, and at a

point of diminishing returns. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to take

a few minutes to speak on Bill 47, `An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act'. It is

an issue that has been discussed quite a bit in my district. Tobacco tax is a

subject that is talked about in practically every house in my district. I'm sure

my friend, the Member for Eagle River can verify that down in his district, in

the neighbouring communities and the border situation, it is pertinent to them.

I'm surprised he hasn't been up to speak on it. Maybe he has previously, and he

will be up after me, I'm sure.

It is an issue, when you live in a border situation, that the

adjacent taxes of products has a direct influence on what the people in the

other area, the neighbouring community, so to speak, will have to pay for

products. We all know, of course, during the first days of the imposition of the

GST, what occurred in the border situations between Canada and the U.S. with

regard to what we commonly refer to now as cross-border shopping. There was a

tremendous drain on the Canadian economy initially from the consumers in that,

in the border areas of the country, they were going across and saving the 7 per

cent GST. The GST, once it became imposed, added a 7 per cent tax to the

consumer,

whereas prior to the imposition of the GST we had a manufacturer's tax

of 13 per cent but it was hidden. And people immediately saw that they could go

across the border into the U.S. and not have to pay this 7 per cent plus the 8

per cent sales tax in Ontario, and 6.5 per cent in Quebec, or whatever the case

may be.

In these highly densely populated areas, the consumers seeing

that they could save money, or get a product at a cheaper price by avoiding

taxation, went across the border and bought it, and that created a tremendous

problem for the government of this country at that particular time.

Similarly, we have, in provincial jurisdictions in this

country, a difference in taxes on different products. We have different levels

of sales tax, different levels of gasoline tax, different levels of liquor tax.

And, of course, by different provinces having different levels of taxation, this

has created cross-border shopping within the country.

I live in a district that is adjacent to the Province of

Quebec, and they saw fit to convince the Federal Government of the day, last

year, to lower the level of the tobacco tax in the country, or the federal sales

excise tax. When the Federal Government did lower it, they matched it, and we

see a tremendous difference between the prices in neighbouring Quebec and the

prices down in my district, which has a graduated tax, in a sense, because we

have the people who sell tobacco products in Western Labrador getting a tax

rebate from the Provincial Government. But that rebate was comparable. That

created a level playing field.

Prior to the lowering of the federal excise tax and Quebec

matching the tobacco tax lowering, last February, this government had in place a

policy of a provincial tobacco tax rebate to businesses selling tobacco

products, so that presented a more level playing field for businesses to operate

in Western Labrador.

Then, when Quebec convinced the Federal Government to again

lower it, and they matched it, and I think even exceeded the matching value, we

saw that the price of a carton of cigarettes in Quebec was around $23

whereas it

was $54 in Newfoundland, so with that tremendous difference in the sale of a

carton of cigarettes we can see what could happen with regard to people going

cross-border shopping.

What did this government do? On one hand, they agreed with

the principle of creating a level playing field for businesses prior to the

lowering of the Federal Government excise tax on tobacco products. They agreed

with the principle, they said, yet they wouldn't lower it, when the Federal

Government lowered it even further, to allow businesses in Western Labrador to

compete. So what did they do? They beefed up the policing of the border. They

had these trained police officers with all the necessary tools - helicopters,

planes, skidoos, trucks, cars and all those things, putting people under

surveillance who were up buying groceries, and they would be searching through

the grocery bags, catching housewives with a couple of packages of cigarettes.

Now, this is not something that the average policeman who

goes to university for three or four years, Mr. Speaker, and then goes off to

police training. This is not what he is accustomed to doing, this is not what he

wants to be doing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, while the government suggests that they

want to allow businesses to develop, prosper and create employment and wealth

here in this Province, they would not continue with the idea that businesses in

Newfoundland should have the same opportunity to do business as they do in the

Province of Quebec, they would not. While they agreed with the principle of

lowering the taxes in border situations prior to February, they did not agree

with it after, Mr. Speaker. Now, I recognize, and we all recognize that the

government needs money to operate. Everybody knows that the government needs

money to operate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what we have to do is tax fairly and it is

not fair to attempt to make criminals out of housewives because they happen to

be up there buying groceries and if they have two packages of cigarettes they

are going to get locked up over it. That is crazy.

MR. EFFORD: That's exaggerating, that's silly.

MR. A. SNOW: It is silly. I agree with the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, that it is silly for this government to

instruct police officers to be up there doing that type of thing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is cross-border shopping that is the

problem in Western Labrador. What is occurring, Mr. Speaker, because of the

lower taxes in that province, people are going over and buying groceries. There

was a lineup in the grocery store in Fermont last Sunday, Mr. Speaker, in excess

of 100 people for sure.

MR. TOBIN: How long were you trying to get served?

MR. A. SNOW: I wasn't there but I was told there were

several hundred people lined up to purchase sale products. It wasn't tobacco

products, it was soft drink products.

Now, Mr. Speaker, people are going up to Fermont and spending

thousands and thousands of dollars and that's dollars that are lost out of our

economy. They are lost from our economy. It is creating more wealth and more

jobs in the Province of Quebec than in our Province. People are going up to

purchase these sale products because there is a tremendous difference in the

sales tax too, as the Minister of Finance knows, because he's had representation

from the Chamber of Commerce. This is not just me saying this, Mr. Speaker, the

Chamber of Commerce has sent letter after letter requesting meetings to the

Minister of Finance and they have offered solutions.

One of the solutions, Mr. Speaker, that has been offered is

that the government says what we are apprehensive about is that if we do lower

the tobacco tax at the border situation, that the tobacco products will then

come to other parts of the Province. What they are apprehensive about is that

people will purchase their tobacco products in Western Labrador or Southern

Labrador and then ship them off to other parts of the Province because they

would be allowed to have them there so they should be allowed to have them over

here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Chamber of Commerce has suggested a

method - and it is used in other parts of the country is my understanding - we

all know now that tobacco products have a tag on them, a coloured tag, in this

Province it is orange, in the Province of Quebec I believe it is grey. The

Province of Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories uses a black tag.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in a border situation all that is necessary to do is to use

the black tag cigarettes, that's all. There is only one distributor who

distributors the cigarettes in there. So they could carry the black tag

cigarettes and then, by regulation, this government could say you are allowed to

have the black tag cigarettes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: In a border situation, only in a border

situation - then that allows the business person in Western Labrador to compete

fairly, because of taxes, with the one in Quebec. Then the cigarettes cannot

leave there because if you get caught with black tag cigarettes in St. John's,

as an example, then that person could be charged with possessing illegal

cigarettes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No. Well, they could do that now, I suppose,

if they wanted to. Black tag cigarettes, or black tag - you understand what I'm

talking about, the ribbon on the package of cigarettes, the seal. Mr. Speaker,

that is a method of doing it and it is used in other jurisdictions. The method

of changing taxes in border situations goes on throughout this country. It is

already in this Province. It is in the Province of Quebec, used in gasoline, it

is used in liquor, it is used in tobacco. There is nothing wrong with doing it.

I only wish that more people would listen. Because a lot of

people suggest that it is being held up for sheer political reasons over on the

other side. That would be tremendously unfair. I'm hoping that the Minister of

Finance is going to recognize that it is costing the business people in Western

Labrador business. It is also costing this Province a loss in revenue. The

Province itself, I will submit, loses money, loses taxes, loses employment

opportunity for people, loses income tax that would be generated because of the

increased employment levels that would be generated, because if people stayed

and bought their products at home that would create more wealth right here in

this Province.

You would not see the line-ups in the grocery store to

purchase products. You wouldn't see people lined up in the stores up there. We

should also be lowering the stores selling clothing articles, and also the

depenneur up there selling other products. We should lower our gasoline tax.

This government agrees with it in principle but they don't lower it enough. They

have a different rate in border situations in this Province. You agree with it

in principle, but when it comes down to doing it in fact you won't do it.

That is the hallmark of this Administration, to say one thing

and do another. Just do enough to make people think you are doing something. It

is perception, that is all. They don't want to do anything that is going to

actually do something, that is going to improve the opportunity of businesses

doing more business and creating more wealth and creating more opportunities for

employment. They don't want to do that, they just want to appear to be doing

something. That is unfortunate because that is what really hurts.

They talk about that they are going to pass the EDGE bill.

They are going to ask us to be passing the EDGE bill here in this House. Here is

something that they could do to promote more business opportunities in this

Province without having a new bill or a new piece of legislation. It wouldn't be

necessary if they were to do what they say they believe in. In other words,

lower the tobacco taxes. They should also look at the liquor taxes and the sales

tax in the border areas.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) increase the other taxes that

are lower here than in Quebec? What does the member say to that?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I imagine what the former

Minister of Justice -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) income tax.

MR. A. SNOW: Income tax is higher in this Province.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) higher in Quebec.

MR. A. SNOW: What is the payroll tax in Quebec?

MR. ROBERTS: Double what is in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SULLIVAN: The payroll tax is? What is it?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the sales tax in this Province

is double what it is in Quebec.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) both sides of the border. All

taxes, not just the ones where we are higher.

MR. A. SNOW: What I'm saying we should be doing is if we

agree in principle with the concept of a graduated tax - that is what we agree

with now. The former Minister of Justice agrees with a graduated tax. He agreed

with it because they agreed with it last year. As soon as it became a little

larger they would not agree. That is what is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is

fundamentally wrong to say: We will pay two cents, but if it becomes five cents

we don't agree with it. Out the window goes our principle. That is what

happened.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, some people suggest that

because of the representation in Eastern Labrador that is the reason why we

don't have it. Because they don't want -

MR. ROBERTS: You are just being unfair to Danny and

William.

MR. A. SNOW: Eastern Labrador, Central Labrador.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: That is what some people are suggesting.

Because there is a suggestion that the people are apprehensive about the tobacco

products going over to Central Labrador. That is why some people are saying that

is why it is not being done. Now we have offered a solution. The people of

Western Labrador have offered a solution.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is it?

MR. A. SNOW: With regard to taxation that the former

Minister of Justice has just spoken about, this Province has twice the level of

sales tax, 6.5 per cent sales tax in Quebec, and we have a 12 per cent sales

tax.

MR. SULLIVAN: 12.84 per cent; 13 per cent with the

piggyback.

MR. A. SNOW: So it almost more than twice -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that the government

will have a look at this. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has

suggested to me, and suggested to the members of the Chamber of Commerce, the

residents of Western Labrador, that they are going to be looking at it, that

they will consider increasing the tobacco tax rebate because this will allow

businesses in Western Labrador to compete on a level playing field. It will

allow the residents to stay at home and shop and support their local businesses

without being penalized, because that is exactly what is happening, and if this

government doesn't get off its high horse and do that, they are being

tremendously unfair to the residents of Western Labrador.

Thank you.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I opened debate on the bill, so

if I am heard now... I don't know if any other member wishes to...

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now, he

closes the debate.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, what I would say is simply to

thank members for their contributions, which will be dealt with in accordance

with the merits of those contributions.

I will make one other remark, and that is to say to my friend

from Menihek that the matter is still open insofar as we are concerned. We have

undertaken to look at it. My friend, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board,

was in Western Labrador two or three months ago, if memory serves me correctly,

and met with the Chamber of Commerce. I was there at the first part of last

month, at the Iron Ore Conference, and met with the executive of the Chamber.

The issue came up, and I repeated the undertaking. We have since then received a

brief from the Chamber, from Dr. Malek - I think it was signed by him, or the

covering letter was signed by him - and that is now being looked at by the

officials, so we shall see what we can do.

With that said, Sir, I move that the bill be read a second

time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 47)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board will be with us in a minute or two. He is doing a

scrum, I think it is called, outside. Perhaps, in the interest of not having me

move another of his bills, we might call Order 25. That is the Wilderness and

Ecological Reserves Act, which is a fairly minor matter. The gentleman from St.

Mary's - The Capes may want to speak on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I understand from my friend from Ferryland

that the gentleman from St. Mary's - The Capes is within the precincts of the

House, so he can come along. If that is agreed, then let's ask Your Honour if

you would be good enough to call Order 25. I understand my friend, the minister,

has a two hour speech by way of introduction given that the bill is, I think,

two lines long.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act." (Bill No. 50)

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

and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to make these few comments. It is the same

explanation that I provided to the Opposition critic, the hon. the Member for

St. Mary's - The Capes, when this bill appeared in the Legislature last week. He

had a particular interest in it because he, of course, monitors all of the

activities of the department, but also because there was a reference in this

particular bill to the reserve at St. Mary's.

Basically, by way of explanation and to allow for time for

the hon. member to return to the Legislature and make his comments, I just point

out, as I did last week, that currently there are five seabird ecological

reserves proclaimed and listed as part of the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves

Act, and all of these reserves were initially proclaimed in this way in 1983,

when this Act came into being. Because at the time when the act was established

all the seabird reserves, all five of them were formerly protected as wildlife

areas, and it was decided at that time to bring the five seabird reserves under

the act at that time so that they could in fact get the reserve status they

required and the protection they needed, rather than putting them through the

rigorous and time consuming public consultation process on an individual basis

that was deemed at the time to be the most appropriate way to ensure the

protection that was necessary in all five areas.

Presently, Mr. Speaker, some ten years later, two of these

reserves, namely Cape St. Mary's and Witless Bay, have now evolved to the point

where they have complete management plans and regulations on a stand-alone basis

but the other three have still not moved along to that level yet, and still

require protection under the Act. Considering that the boundaries of both these

reserves changed earlier in 1994, they no longer need to be protected this way

in the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act and therefore Bill 50 suggests

that they can be deleted from the appendix and therefore stand alone because

they have now moved along in development to this stage.

The two reserves, Cape St. Mary's and Witless Bay will then

be administered like the other reserves that have reached that status in the

Province, the other wildlife reserves such as Bay du Nord and others, with their

own separate regulations and their own management plans. This does not make

either of the reserves less secure but in fact they are more secure by virtue of

the fact that they have their own regulations and plans.

When the management plans are finalized for the remaining

three it is then intended that they, too, should be deleted from the Act, but

only when they have separate management plans that have gone through the

rigorous and time consuming public consolidation process and are decided upon at

that time. Therefore, what Bill 50 does is deletes Cape St. Mary's and Witless

Bay from a

schedule attached to the Act because they are now in a position to be

able to stand alone on their own basis with their own management plans. The

other three stay attached to the Act in that particular appendix to give them

the protection they need while the plans are further developed.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I introduce the bill for

second reading.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the position to remove these from the

schedule of the Wilderness and Ecological Reserve Act. Witless Bay Seabird

Sanctuary is a world renowned sanctuary, and to have a management plan to

address the concerns there, and to ensure that it will continue to be a seabird

sanctuary for many years to come, is very important, not only for the

preservation of this type of wildlife itself but also as an important tourism

attraction for the area.

In my district there are now three different companies

involved in boat tours that take people out, whale watching, and out to Witless

Bay to the Bird Islands, we call them, and there has been a tremendous amount of

interest shown over the past number of years in the number of tourists who are

utilizing those boat tours and who find them very fascinating. They are becoming

very professional and doing a tremendous job of promoting them right around the

world.

People are coming back on an ongoing basis. They have some

very professional and well run services there with a professional staff and an

historic approach to those boat tours explaining the nature and the different

species that are there. I was out on a trip last year, in fact. We had a tour of

these islands and an explanation of what is happening there. In fact it was the

day the cod jigging season opened on a recreational basis and we managed to jig

a few codfish on the way. It adds a little bit to the culture and the importance

it has in rural Newfoundland.

The very first day they announced it this year in August, the

recreation fishing, was the first time since the moratorium I stepped into a

fishing boat. We went out and in about a half hour we jugged, myself and my son,

about fifteen. He jugged ten and I got five as part of a tour boat. There were

tourists there from different parts of the United States and from Ontario, and

they were very intrigued with the opportunity to jig a cod fish on those tour

boats.

It is really a shame though that on those tour boats, for

somebody just to jig one cod fish over the side of a tour boat, that it had to

be banned because, you know, people did not take the responsibility of a

moratorium seriously and they had to bring in enforcement methods that denied

everybody the opportunity. It is unfortunate that for the sake of a small number

of the population, we deny others the benefit but the Witless Bay -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Food for the seals?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right because seals are more

important than humans, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Do you know one of the biggest

contributors to the Liberal party of Canada, that contributes $42,500?

International Fund for Animal Welfare, $42,500.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is what they contributed, one of

the largest contributors, to enable them to bring in favourable legislation I

guess. Gun control is one example now that they lobbied for; $42,500 helps,

really helps the cause but anyway -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Helping the Liberal party? Yes, I am

strongly opposed to that, but gun control? I don't need gun control, I don't own

a gun, I don't use a gun.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I didn't say - I said I favour gun control.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Very much so. I don't use one, don't own

one, don't intend to own one, hope I never have to use one, and hon. member,

hopefully I won't be provoked to that extent by the hon. minister and it is not

necessary, to be able to survive, to have a gun.

Now we are back to a tremendous tourism attraction, a

tremendous area for the breeding and a home to many sea birds in the Witless Bay

area. I think it is a tremendous asset and I am very proud to have it in my

district and to see such interest by people in preserving the integrity of that

seabird sanctuary in our area. So I think it is important now that Witless Bay -

they have developed a management plan to be able to set that out uniquely there

rather than come under the general framework of the Act under which it was

currently listed. I think I made reference here to The Wilderness And Ecological

Reserves Act I think that generally applied to it; now we have some specific

plans to apply and have this in a stand-alone area here, so I support that

cause, Mr. Speaker, and especially the efforts of the people who have been

concerned to bring this about.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand today and say a few words on Bill 50,

"An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act". It is an

opportunity I guess to say a few words on not only the management of these

ecological reserves, but indeed the need for some tighter control if we are to

reap the benefits that these reserves can bring to our Province.

Mr. Speaker, part of this amendment concerns the Cape St.

Mary's Seabird Sanctuary which happens to be in my district and I have to go

back to some of the comments that were passed on in the explanatory notes and

concerning the amendment to the Act, and basically, what the amendment brings is

the two reserves, Cape St. Mary's and Witless Bay have management plans now in

place, and regulations as a result of public consultations.

I think I will start my comments, Mr. Speaker, with some

words on the public consultation aspect of this plan, because, Mr. Speaker, a

fair number of people in my area were concerned about the management plans for

Cape St. Mary's, in relation to the effect it would have on other industries, as

at the time fisheries, and also in relation to the agriculture industry which is

pretty heavy in my area.

The management plans were put forward by the department in a

public consultation process but there was some concern about the processes, Mr.

Speaker, and how it was brought on to the people. What it really was, a plan was

put in place first and then it was brought out and given to the people saying:

this is our plan, this is what we are going to do. There was not as much

consultation as the government would have us believe in relation to the

consultation process, Mr. Speaker. More or less a plan was put in place and then

the people were told what the plan was.

There really was not a hell of a lot they could do in order

to change the plan and to have input into it. I hope that in the next three sea

bird ecological reserves that are now in the Province, that when the department

goes out to these communities to put these plans in place that they consult more

with the local people than they did in the case of Cape St. Mary's and that the

local people will have more say into it.

Mr. Speaker, Cape St. Mary's has a history, for a number of

years now, as being one of the major attractions for tourism in our area and

indeed for the whole Province but I will touch on the tourism aspect of it

after. I would like to touch on a couple of other things first, Mr. Speaker, but

the area around Cape St. Mary's has indeed been one of the richest fishing

grounds in Newfoundland for a number of years, not over the past couple of years

since the moratorium came into place but indeed for many, many years previous to

that. There were several families in my area, Mr. Speaker, that made a very good

living from the waters off Cape St. Mary's.

There was a fair amount of concern, when the management plan

was being put in place, as to what effect the management plans would have on the

fishing industry in the area. These plans came forward and there were many

concerns brought forward by the local fishermen in the area. Some were

addressed, Mr. Speaker, some were not addressed but some of those were addressed

through the consultation process. There are still some concerns - even today,

Mr. Speaker, as we have a new

interpretation centre being constructed at Cape

St. Mary's - from the local people in relation to what they will be allowed to

partake in at Cape St. Mary's or in the waters around Cape St. Mary's as it

relates to fishermen and indeed in the many, many areas of fields that are

around in relation to the agriculture industry, Mr. Speaker.

So I hope, as government goes on to put in place management

plans for the other three ecological reserves in the Province, that they will

certainly take the consultation process much more seriously, Mr. Speaker, than

they did in our area because I believe the people did not have the opportunity

to have input into the management plans until the plans were put in place by a

group of bureaucrats here within the department, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that

to be wrong.

Cape St. Mary's has been a beacon of hope, Mr. Speaker, for

fishermen and definitely safety was a major concern. The lighthouse at Cape St.

Mary's has provided that necessary beacon throughout the years in relation to

the many, many ships and many, many smaller boats that travel the area around

Cape St. Mary's. It has been a grave concern for a number of years in relation

to exactly what will happen now that there are several discussions ongoing

concerning automation of the Cape St. Mary's lighthouse and the fact that there

will be no personnel on hand to keep an eye on things. Apart from the loss of

jobs, Mr. Speaker, I think that there is something to be said for the historical

part of that.

Many people visited Cape St. Mary's through the years and

have very fond memories of dealing with the lighthouse keepers there and the

personnel who take care of the buildings at the cape. Apart from, like I say,

the job aspect of it, I think that it is very important as a part of our

culture, that the lighthouse keepers should be allowed to stay, at least to keep

some of these places open for our tourism and development, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on, for a minute - the

tourism development at Cape St. Mary's over the past number of years. As far as

I am concerned it has not reached one-quarter of its potential yet. For a number

of years, since 1983, when the management plan was put in place, some type of

management plan for Cape St. Mary's in tourism - what could be offered for the

tourism industry in the Province. Cape St. Mary's has been hailed as one of the

Meccas of tourism here in Newfoundland and Labrador and indeed, you can see over

the past number of years, many, many visitors, and an increase in visitors, Mr.

Speaker, who have been brought to Cape St. Mary's over the past number of years.

Thanks to our cousins in Ottawa, we see a few dollars coming

through in the last tourism agreement that see funds provided for the upgrading

and the paving of the road down to Cape St. Mary's, which was a major obstacle

in our way of future development, Mr. Speaker. That was done last summer. The

road was completely paved down to the bird sanctuary. I must say after talking

to several visitors who had visited Cape St. Mary's during the summer of 1994

that they were very pleased to see the road paved. Thanks to our cousins in

Ottawa that the money came forward under the last tourism agreement. I sure hope

that the present minister can work towards a new tourism agreement to see some

other tourism infrastructure put in place in the Province over the next couple

of years.

Also, part of that agreement that came forward there a few

years ago in relation to the tourism development provided dollars and very much

needed funding for the construction of an

interpretation centre at Cape St.

Mary's. Last year the plans were put in place for the design work and the

implementation of this building, and as we speak here today the construction is

ongoing. I visited the site as a matter of fact yesterday morning. I happened to

be at Cape St. Mary's and visited the site of the new

interpretation centre and

am very pleased with the construction so far. The building is almost completed

outside and they've begun work inside the building. The hope is to have the

building completely finished early in the new year, apart from some work that is

outside.

This will give us the opportunity at Cape St. Mary's to have

a class A facility to offer to the people. Not only to offer to the tourists,

but indeed something that the area can be proud of. It would also hopefully

offer a few extra much needed jobs. In just talking today to the minister, he is

going to get me some information on that in relation to what employment

opportunities are going to be available at the new centre. I look forward to as

many local people finding employment at the centre that we can put there at the

time.

I must say, back last year when the Minister of ITT, who

happened to be the acting Minister of Tourism and Culture at the time - he was

definitely an acting minister - I brought forward some concerns to him in

relation to the employment of students there at Cape St. Mary's during the

summertime. I must say that he acted quickly on my concerns and we see for the

first time in many years a couple of students finding some employment at Cape

St. Mary's during the past summer. I must say, it was not only pleasing to me

but indeed pleasing to many people in the area that our local people finally

found a niche at finding some work there at Cape St. Mary's. I talked to the

couple of the students who had found employment. As a matter of fact, I talked

to one late last night, one of the students who had worked at Cape St. Mary's

over the past summer. He was very pleased with the opportunity to work. He said

it was one of the most fulfilling jobs that he had the opportunity to partake

in.

I also talked to the other student from the area several

weeks ago concerning her employment at Cape St. Mary's this summer. She told me

she found it one of the most interesting jobs she has held, and I'm sure because

of the fact that she met people from all over the world, and had an opportunity

to experience something that many of our students indeed don't get the

opportunity to experience.

I have to say that when I brought those concerns to the

Minister of ITT, who happened to be the acting minister at that time, he acted

on those concerns. I'm sure that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation

today will see that as many local people in the area as possible will find work

at the new

interpretation centre that we hopefully will open up next spring some

time, ready for the 1995 tourism season.

I would like to get back for a minute to the management part

of it. The minister wasn't listening when I started off my comments so I will do

like some people opposite do, I will repeat. Part of the explanatory notes that

were passed on to me talked about the result of public consultation. I partook

in some of the public consultation that was in place for Cape St. Mary's and I

have to say it was definitely an opportunity for people to have their say. My

only concern at the time was that the management plan was pretty well put in

place by the time it came out to our area in relation to people having public

consultation. Most people agreed with what was in the plan. But there were some

concerns, and I think it would be advisable, when you go to talk to other parts

of the Province in relation to putting together their plans, that the input be

put into the consultation process early on. Local people will then have their

concerns voiced early, and it will be part of the management plan that will be

put in place - not something that will come in afterwards, but definitely part

of the plan itself.

Mr. Speaker, the impact that Cape St. Mary's has had on our

general area, the Cape Shore area, indeed, the whole of the southern Avalon, has

definitely been positive over the years. I believe, over 10,000 visitors visited

Cape St. Mary's this past summer, and in the years ahead, with the road paved

now, and the construction of the

interpretation centre, we will see much more

growth in the visitors to the area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Growth in the visitors, or growth in the

number of visitors?

MR. MANNING: We will see much increased growth in the

number of visitors to Cape St. Mary's over the next number of years, and I

believe that it is because of proper management of the ecological reserve - and

not only proper management, but most important of all, it has to go back to

proper planning.

I certainly congratulate some of the people who work in the

parks division. I would certainly throw a bouquet, if I could, to the hon. the

Minister of Social Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) bouquet.

MR. MANNING: No, indeed.

I give credit where credit is due. I would throw a bouquet to

some people in the parks division of the Department of Tourism and Culture who

have worked over the past number of years in the development and planning of

Cape St. Mary's. While I didn't agree with all their plans, I have to agree with

the fact that they did try their best and certainly came forward and talked to

the people in the area.

There were several concerns brought forward in relation to

the construction of the

interpretation centre, and I believe it resulted in some

minor changes being made, indeed, it resulted in the people having a chance to

have their say, and while everybody may not be pleased with the construction of

the centre, I am sure that most people are.

Over the past number of years, Cape St. Mary's has been, as

far as I am concerned, in its infant stages of development and its infant stages

of attracting tourists. Over the past summer, as I said earlier, there were over

10,000 visitors to Cape St. Mary's, but just a few miles away, down at the

Salmonier Nature Park, there were over 40,000 visitors. If we could add

one-quarter of those who attend the Salmonier Nature Park, you would see a major

increase in the tourism industry at Cape St. Mary's.

Also, the

interpretation centre - we are used to having a two

- or a maximum of three - months tourism season because of the weather and

because there are really no facilities at Cape St. Mary's. From my discussions

earlier with the acting minister at the time, now the present Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology, he hopes that through the construction of the

interpretation centre, we will be able to expand our tourism season from early

on in the Spring to maybe late in the Fall, and hopefully bring in school

groups, and indeed, bring in more local people, because there are many people

right in the area of the Cape Shore who have not visited Cape St. Mary's that

often, and I think the

interpretation centre will add to the importance of it.

I think I would be remiss if I didn't touch on some concerns

that have been brought before me over the years, even before I became an MHA,

but indeed, some of the concerns that have been brought forth when I worked with

the development association as co-ordinator. Some of these concerns relate to

the agriculture industry in the area, Mr. Speaker.

Out around Cape St. Mary's, for a number of years, people

have had animals such as sheep, cows, etcetera, that have been as much a part of

Cape St. Mary's as the birds, I would say. Many of the local farmers are

concerned about the grounds around Cape St. Mary's, very fertile grounds for a

number of years, that they may not have the opportunity in the future to use

this land as part of the feeding for their animals, Mr. Speaker, because of a

management plan being put in place, and the fact that we are making this an

ecological reserve with a three-kilometre boundary. Many tourists I have talked

to down through the years, have enjoyed the sheep that roam in the area.

The concern of the farmers in the area is a serious concern

because of the fact that they have used the grounds around Cape St. Mary's for a

number of years in their farming activities. I think that over the years there

really has been no law and order out at Cape St. Mary's and everything has

worked out fairly well in relation to industry growth. The population of the

birds at Cape St. Mary's has increased considerably over the past number of

years, and it has worked side-by-side with the farming industry in the area.

There have been no real problems.

When somebody comes in from government, with a book titled

`Management Plan,' people start having concerns. I think it is realistic that

people have concerns, because they have been returning to the land in our area

now over the past number of years and trying to make a living from the land as

they did many years ago. The fact that they used Cape St. Mary's for the past

century - I would allow it certainly didn't have any drastic effect on the Cape

St. Mary's seabird sanctuary itself. As far as I'm concerned, it only enhanced

it.

I hope that the minister in his wisdom with his officials in

his department make sure that all industries can work side-by-side together,

such as the agriculture industry, the fishing industry and indeed the tourism

industry. I believe that these industries can work together if we all put our

minds to it, everybody trying to work together.

I would like to touch on, if I could, the fact that over the

next couple of months there is going to be a process in place that will see the

automation of lighthouses. One of, I guess, the longest-told stories of interest

would be in relation to the lighthouse keepers at Cape St. Mary's over the past

number of years. It goes back to - as a matter of fact, my

great-great-grandfather was one of the lighthouse keepers at Cape St. Mary's

back in the late 1800s. There have been many stories told about it, and about

the families raised at Cape St. Mary's.

Over the next couple of years, the government is putting in

place a process of talking to people - a consultation process, they call it - in

relation to automation of the lighthouses. And, Mr. Speaker, when we see

`Consultation' written on the cover of the book, there are a couple of concerns

that come up. One is that the government has a plan, as far as I am concerned,

to automate those lighthouses, and indeed, automate the one at Cape St. Mary's.

The number one concern is for the safety of the area. It has been a known fact

in a lot of cases that the automation has worked well. But I'm very concerned

about the inshore fishermen when they are working in their industry. Many of the

boats now with the revitalization of Come-By-Chance down at the bottom of

Placentia Bay, and indeed, much work into our - hopefully, some work will be

provided to Argentia because of the Hibernia offshore. There is a possibility

there are several hundred boats that participate in shipping activities in the

Placentia Bay area.

I had some information here on the shipping activity in the

area, and I am very concerned about the automation of the lighthouses and indeed

for the safety of... I received this information from the Marine Traffic Centre.

There are 180 tanker trips that go in and out Placentia Bay every year, and it

is a concern that all those boats, with Cape St. Mary's - there is a safety

concern not only for the safety of the crews that are on those boats, but indeed

for the safety of Cape St. Mary's itself. Indeed, if there is an unfortunate

incident that a boat would end up on the rocks, so to speak, we would see not

only the destruction of what is left of the fishing industry in our area, but

indeed the destruction of a major tourism opportunity in relation to Cape St.

Mary's.

I believe that the Provincial Government should bring their

concerns forward in relation to the automation of lighthouses, not only from the

employment aspect but as well, from the safety aspect. Along with that, there is

an historical connection to lighthouse keepers. I watched a TV show last week

where a CBC weatherman was interviewing a lighthouse keeper up around the Gander

area somewhere - I am not sure - around one of the bays up there. There is a lot

of history with the lighthouse keepers, and I find that the people I talked to

who visited our Province who had the opportunity to talk to lighthouse keepers

are enthralled by the history of those men and women who have lived at those

sites for the past number of years. I think there is an opportunity there for

the Provincial Government to say to the Federal Government: Just hold off for a

minute now; let's reconsider this decision of automating all those lighthouses.

Because Placentia Bay is not only an area set for the tourist industry in the

Province, but indeed for the marine safety and the safety of those people who

are on those ships and on those small boats.

I would also like to touch on, in relation to the reserve

itself, that over the past number of years we have had some concerns that a lot

of people who visit the area do not have the opportunity to see the bird rock,

or the Bird Island, as it is locally referred to. A lot of people in our area

don't have the opportunity to see it due to the fact that they could be somewhat

disadvantaged, especially wheelchair people and the elderly.

I am very pleased that this new

interpretation centre will

have in it a room where the elderly, or anybody who doesn't want to take the

fifteen-minute walk out to Bird Island, will be able to sit, with some type of

spy glass or whatever, and view Cape St. Mary's from the new building. I believe

that is a major step forward on behalf of the people who put the plans in place.

I also think there should be some consideration given, even

though you will meet opposition, to the fact - and we have discussed it over

several years - the possibility of some type of boardwalk at Cape St. Mary's,

similar to the boardwalk up at Gros Morne and those places, the four-foot

boardwalks. Those boardwalks, I believe, would provide a great opportunity for

other people to partake in the wonder of Cape St. Mary's.

I discussed with both the provincial Department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation and indeed the Federal Government back a number of years

ago, the possibility of having some type of boardwalk at Cape St. Mary's, and

put forward the concern that many visitors wouldn't be able to see Cape St.

Mary's due to the fact that they couldn't get out to the Cape. I believe

government should think about putting some type of boardwalk in place out there

so that people can really enjoy the true splendour that is known as Cape St.

Mary's.

I encourage the minister, when he is talking about the future

development of Cape St. Mary's to look at putting in place some type of

boardwalk there. Not only will it create much needed employment in the area, Mr.

Speaker, but it would indeed address the safety concerns of many people who have

expressed that concern. Also, it would give the people the opportunity to see

Cape St. Mary's up close where now they don't have the opportunity, due to the

disadvantage of being in a wheelchair or being handicapped in some way.

I believe the government should look at putting a boardwalk

in place. I hope that the present minister takes that into consideration when he

goes out to cut the ribbon next spring for the new

interpretation centre. That

he will take a walk out to Cape St. Mary's and indeed see the necessary - now,

don't go too close to the edge of the cliff, I say to the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation, because I'm sure there could be a few people in the area

who might want to give you a nudge. I will be there to save you, I would say to

the minister, and keep you from falling over.

I say to the minister, I hope that he finds time when he goes

out to Cape St. Mary's next spring, to go out and open up his eyes to the

concerns of some type of boardwalk to be put in place. I'm sure he will agree

with me after he has seen it first-hand himself that there is something needed.

The former acting minister of tourism and culture, the hon. the Minister of ITT

now, has visited Cape St. Mary's on several occasions, many times, and he was

struck by the wonder of it, I say. He was looking for the birds. Indeed, that he

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not for the birds.

MR. MANNING: He is not for the birds, he was looking for

the birds I say, Mr. Speaker. He agreed with some of the concerns in relation to

local people finding employment at the site, and he addressed that concern when

I brought it to him last year. I have to give credit. I hope that the present

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation will find it necessary that local

people find employment there with the new

interpretation centre. I should get a

commitment from him before he goes out to visit the rock, and then we will see

who gets pushed if he doesn't give me a commitment on some local people finding

some work.

Indeed, this is an opportunity, not only for the people in

the Cape Shore area and the southern Avalon area, but I believe that the

management and the plans that have been put in place and the new

interpretation

centre will be beneficial only if we all work together on it. That includes the

local people as well as both levels of government. I think it is an opportunity

for not only our immediate area but indeed the whole Province to gain something

from Cape St. Mary's. I hope that the management plan that is put in place now

will be part of the future plans that come. Indeed I stress, as I touched on

earlier, that next time when they go having consultation processes throughout

the Province in relation to other seabird ecological reserves, that they bring

the people, the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What was that?

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the estimated population?

MR. MANNING: It is around 50,000 to 60,000 pairs of

birds.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, that is just the gannet. There are ten

or twelve different types of birds, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I can't handle questions, see,

at the one time.

MR. SIMMS: Any other large birds with large numbers

besides gannets?

MR. MANNING: There are turrs, they are called murres, and

all that. I will have to explain that to you after now, Mr. Speaker. There are

not very many puffins at Cape St. Mary's.

My main thing here in closing off my remarks, I say to the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and I repeat, that this new

interpretation centre that is going out at Cape St. Mary's is an opportunity

for: one, for the government to bring in many tourists into not only the area

but indeed to the Province, but it is also an opportunity to find some much

needed employment for the local people in the area. I hope he addresses that

when he is closing off debate on the bill in relation to what he can do for the

local area. I would like to know before he goes out there what he is going to do

so then if we can get him to give - not a commitment - I know it is very hard to

give a commitment. But I hope that he at least looks at the concerns that local

people have in relation to finding employment at Cape St. Mary's. Because it is

only by working together, government working together with the local people,

that we will see the benefits of Cape St. Mary's for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I close off my commen