December

18, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 78

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, I gave notice that I

might, upon receiving Hansard and pursuing it, raise a point of privilege

arising from the speech and the actions of the Member for Kilbride in this House

on Thursday, December 14, 1995, and Friday, December 15, 1995. On completing

that review, I am now raising a point of privilege concerning his actions and

speech during the time in question.

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Member for Kilbride that the

raising of this point of privilege should not in any way be taken personally by

him, rather it arises from conviction that if our parliamentary democracy is to

function, there are certain rules of procedure in debate that have to be clearly

adhered to and enforced. There may be those who do not care whether

parliamentary democracy functions or not. I do not believe the Member for

Kilbride is such a person, but rather, would probably agree with Sir Winston

Churchill who once proclaimed parliamentary democracy to be a terrible form of

government but yet the best so far known to mankind.

Mr. Speaker, in order to carry out its functions and duties,

Parliament collectively, and its members individually, operate under what is

known as parliamentary privilege. The extent and the importance of parliamentary

privilege is clearly stated by Beauchesne,

section 24, page 11, and more

particularly by Sir Erskine May, page 69, when he states, and I will read it

into the record: `Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights

enjoyed by each House collectively as the constituent part of the High Court of

Parliament and by members of each House individually without which they could

not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies

or individuals. This privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a

certain extent an exemption from the general law. Certain rights and immunities

such as freedom from arrest or freedom of speech belong primarily to individual

members of each House and exist because the House cannot perform its functions

without unimpeded use of the service of its members.

Other such rights and immunities such as the power to punish

for contempt and the power to regulate its own constitution belong primarily to

each House as a collective body for the protection of its members and the

vindication of its own authority and dignity. Fundamentally, however, it is only

as a means to the effective discharge of the collective functions of the House

that the individual privileges are enjoyed by members.'

He goes on to say: `When any of these rights and immunities

are disregarded or attacked, the offence is called a breach of privilege and is

punishable under the law of Parliament. Each House also claims the right to

punish as contempt actions which will not breach us of any specific privilege,

obstruct or impede in the performance of its functions or offenses against its

authority or dignity such as disobedience through its legitimate commands or

libels upon itself, its members or its officers. The power to punish for

contempt has been judicially considered to be inherent in each House of

Parliament.'

Mr. Speaker, to summarize, individual and collective rights

and privileges constituting Parliament and the right of Parliament to protect

them and punish for contempt is clearly established. Beauchesne,

section 26(2)

page 12, states, `A question of privilege, is a question partially of fact and

partially of law - the law of contempt of Parliament - and is a matter for the

House to determine.'

Mr. Speaker, the facts in this point of privilege can clearly

be ascertained by a perusal of Hansard and I would suggest that they are

indisputable. Before looking at these facts, Mr. Speaker, it may be helpful to

look at what is meant by contempt, again, Sir Erskine May, 21st Edition, page

115, says: `Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes

either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions or which

obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his

duty or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results

may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.'

Mr. Speaker, the act or omission does not even have to be proven concretely or

beyond the shadow of a doubt to impede a member's ability to do his job but

could be

an act which direct or indirectly is just a tendency to impede the

member in the performance in his or her duties in order to be classified as a

contempt.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House and perhaps refer to

the case of the former Member for Bonavista South, Mr. Jim Morgan, who claimed

in this Legislature that his privileges had been breached because a set of

ministerial files had been shredded. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on

Privileges and Elections at the time felt indeed its privileges had been

breached, not necessarily because of destruction of its files proved beyond the

shadow of a doubt that his ability to do his job was impeded or obstructed but

because there was a tendency in the act itself to impede or obstruct.

Mr. Speaker, Sir Erskine May, in the same edition from which

I quoted before, page 129, gives us a further example of contempt and the

tendency of certain actions when he states, and I do this, Mr. Speaker, to find

out the place and what it means to act in contempt in regard to the officers of

this House: `It is a contempt to obstruct those employed by or entrusted with

the execution of the Orders of either House while in the execution of their

duty.

Contempt of this character has included assaults, insulting

and abusive behaviour or threatening language, resistance to those actions in

execution of the Orders of either House, aiding the escape of an individual from

the order for his custody or committal; refusal of civil officers to assist in

executing the order of either House, and the discharge out of custody by a

magistrate of a prisoner arrested by order of either House. Both Houses will

treat as breaches of their privilege, not only acts directly tending to obstruct

their officers in the execution of their duty, but also, any conduct which may

tend to deter them from doing their duty in the future.'

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday afternoon, the Speaker asked the

Sergeant-at-Arms - and that is the reason I raised this particular paragraph -

to escort the Member for Kilbride from the Legislature.

The Member for Kilbride obstructed the Sergeant-at-Arms and

his officers from so doing and I would suggest to you, that a large number of

the Members of the Opposition did likewise.

Mr. Speaker, let us just review the facts. We have looked at

the

definitions of what constitutes contempt, let us look at the facts. On

Thursday, the Member for Kilbride accused a member of this House of lying. He

refused, upon direction of the Speaker, to withdraw the remark, as a consequence

he was named by the Speaker, and by a motion put by the Government House Leader

and voted on by the Legislature, was ordered suspended for the rest of the day.

He refused to leave the Legislature in spite of the fact that, you, Mr. Speaker,

adjourned the House for some considerable period of time to allow emotions to

subside, I suspect. He also refused to leave on the instruction of the

Sergeant-at-Arms and his officers.

Mr. Speaker, you, yourself, have been put in the unenviable

position of having to suspend the sitting of the House because, in the words of

yourself: There is some serious and grave disorder and until that is resolved,

the House is suspended. Mr. Speaker, fortunately, it was Thursday, and at 4:30

p.m., the Speaker used the rule of our Standing Orders to adjourn the House

until 9:00 a.m. on Friday.

Mr. Speaker, the question that has to be asked here is: Did

the actions of the hon. member impede members of the House or, did they have a

tendency to impede members of the House, or officers of the House, in the

performance of their parliamentary duties? That is the question.

Mr. Speaker, I will leave that decision to Your Honour, to

you, but I would suggest that there is not even a tendency, but the concrete

facts here cannot be explained in any other way than by way of a contempt of

Parliament and a breach of privilege of every member and officer of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I doubt the kind of actions that we witnessed on

Thursday and on Friday morning have ever been seen in this Legislature before,

certainly not in my time of some fourteen or fifteen years, and I doubt that it

was seen in the time of anybody in this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, they have to

be dealt with. It just cannot be allowed to stand the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I shortly want to conclude but before I do let

me again reference Beauchesne, 6th Edition, 33, page 14, where it says - and I

want to bring in particular these rules to Your Honour's attention, and hon

members of the House - "The most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole

is to establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them."

The most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to

establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them. So you see, Mr.

Speaker, there are two components of this very fundamental privilege. First, the

House itself establishes its rules. Secondly, the House itself has the power to

enforce the rules. Today, the point of privilege that I am putting forward is

based upon the importance and the primacy of enforcement.

To show you the power that the House has, I want to quote to

the Speaker 34, page 14 of Beauchesne, and 47 page

Section 34 states, "The

power of the House to enforce its rules extends not only to Members and others

admitted within the precincts of Parliament, but also to members of the general

public who may interfere with the orderly conduct of parliamentary business."

Section 47, page 16, "There is no question that the House has

the right to expel a Member for such reasons as it deems fit."

Again, 49, page 17, to show the primacy of this legislation

of Parliament, "It is not necessary for the courts to come to a decision before

the House acts." In other words, the House can act before the court.

Mr. Speaker, the citations that I give you, I think,

emphasize that the fundamental privilege to establish our own rules and to

enforce them is the very pivot, I say to you, on which the delicate balance of

parliamentary procedure swings.

Again, this is particularly true of enforcement of the rules.

It is why members are required to refrain from unparliamentary language when

referring to other members. We are largely masters of our own House. It is why

the Speaker has such authority. It is why his rulings are unquestioned and his

direction, as given on behalf of the House, sacrosanct. It is why the

Sergeant-at-Arms and his officers have to be able to exercise their authority.

It is why the civil authorities - in this case the police - have rarely had to

be used in enforcing parliamentary privileges.

On Thursday and Friday this fundamental privilege was

breached, and the fundamental privilege that I'm talking about is enforcement of

the rules. It was breached. The authority of this House was pushed to the brink;

I would submit it is still on the brink and threatening to go over the edge.

The Member for Kilbride has freedom of speech in this House.

It is one of the hallmarks of a democracy. In that regard I say to the Member

for Kilbride, he may even believe the accusation he directed at a member of this

House to be correct. He may believe that the invoking of closure by the

government was undemocratic and unworthy of a government. That is his choice,

and he can utter it outside these walls where it will be dealt with in another

manner. As for his actions in here, I would like to refer him to Beauchesne

again,

section 77, page 22, when he says: "Freedom of speech does not mean that

Members have an unlimited or unrestrained right to speak on every issue. The

rules of the House impose limits on the participation of Members and it is the

duty of the Speaker to restrain those who abuse the rules."

Not only did the member speak in an unrestrained manner on

Thursday, he stepped outside the limits of participation of members and refused

to be restrained by the Speaker and the officers of this House. Again, in a

manner I would suggest to you never witnessed in this Legislature before.

Further contempt of the parliamentary process was in my opinion conducted by the

member through what, Mr. Speaker, I've heard some people say amounted to

boasting outside the House that he would not withdraw his unparliamentary

accusation, and in some manner intimating that he had got away with something on

the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, you reviewed the events of Thursday.

In the interests of time it is not necessary for me to quote what the Speaker

had to say, except to point out that you, yourself, reiterated the actions of

the member could lead to the House, and I believe rightly so, being

"...paralysed and unable to carry out the people's business." Clearly, you

stated this was "...an affront to all the other members of the House and must

not be allowed to continue." You pointed out that you had few options, and your

feeling that it would be most undesirable to use your authority to resort to the

civil authorities.

To avoid that unpleasantry, you then asked the member to

apologize. Again, the member proceeded to accuse the - in this case, the member

of the House being the Premier - of not telling the truth, and again pushing the

authority of this House to the limit. You then asked the member to apologize to

the House and to the Chair. The member then refused to withdraw his comments,

and apologized for putting the Speaker in the position that you were in. You

then asked him to apologize for his actions unequivocally. The Member for

Kilbride concluded by saying: "Mr. Speaker, I apologize for putting you in the

position that you are in, and with that I will sit down."

In

summary, the Member for Kilbride called another member of

this House a liar; he consistently refused to follow the Speaker's directions;

he refused to follow a motion of suspension duly passed by his own colleagues,

did not serve that suspension but, by refusing to allow the Sergeant-at-Arms to

carry out his duty, impeded and obstructed debate in this House for the whole of

Thursday afternoon past; and on Friday morning past when the Speaker, showing

extreme tolerance and patience, practically begged the member for an unequivocal

apology to the House, the member refused, apologizing only for the position that

the Speaker was in.

Mr. Speaker, this is totally unsatisfactory. It represents an

affront to members, has a tendency to throw this House into anarchy and is

clearly a breach of privilege. Today, tomorrow, at any time, it has now been

established that unless this matter is addressed, any member can obstruct and,

after breaching all members' privileges, apologize only to the Speaker.

In accordance with established procedure of this Parliament,

I submit to you that a prima facie case of breach of privilege does exist and I

ask Your Honour so to find. In accordance with the rules of procedure outlined

in Beauchesne - and I believe our Standing Orders are silent on this issue -

Beauchesne,

section 114, subsection (2), page 29, states: and reads: `A

complaint of a breach of privilege must conclude with a motion providing the

House with an opportunity to take some action.'

I am prepared to put forward such a motion. Mr. Speaker, in

recognition of the esteem in which members of this House should be held, I move,

seconded by the Member for Windsor - Buchans, that having established a prima

facie case of breach of privilege, the Speaker again afford the hon. member the

opportunity to withdraw his unparliamentary remarks, serve a suspension imposed

by the House on December 14, 1995, and apologize to the Speaker, members of this

House and its officers. It is further moved that refusal to carry out these

actions would lead to the hon. member's suspension without stipend until such

time as he carries out the above actions.

Mr. Speaker, I do not make this complaint lightly, and while

Your Honour will take whatever time he feels is necessary to decide whether a

prima facie case of breach of privilege exists, I would urge expediency, in

order that the cloud under which we are presently operating be dispersed and

that the authority of this House be brought back from the brink of anarchy.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to speak to the point of privilege raised by the

Member for Fogo. I do not want to belabour the point. The member has outlined

the events of Thursday and Friday.

Let me just say this, Mr. Speaker. You have been vested by

this House with the authority to maintain order and decorum. You have also been

vested with the right to enforce the authority which is you can grant, name and

expel a member for a day. You have that authority and you exercised that on

Friday. With regard to the suspension that the hon. member as referred to, for

Thursday, it was a motion put by the Government House Leader that the Member for

Kilbride be suspended for the remainder of the sitting day, which was Thursday,

which ended when Your Honour adjourned the House on Thursday. From my

recollection it was around 4:40 or 4:45 p.m. That ended the parliamentary day.

Friday was a new day. In parliamentary terms it was tomorrow of Thursday and the

suspension was ended on Thursday, it was for the remainder of that sitting day.

Friday was another parliamentary day. The suspension did not apply to Friday. It

was taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I don't want to belabour the point.

Your Honour, came back on Friday morning and you asked the hon. the Member for

Kilbride to apologize to the House and to the Chair. Mr. Speaker, said in

Hansard of Friday, page 2686, "The Chair was not asking the hon. member to

withdraw his comments. The record of yesterday will show what transpired here in

this House, but what the Chair is asking the hon. member to do is apologize for

his actions unequivocally. Is the member apologising for his -" The Member for

Kilbride stood in his place and said, "Mr. Speaker, I apologize for putting you

in the position that you are in, and with that I will sit down." Mr. Speaker,

said: Okay; we then proceeded to Orders of the Day and we had a very productive

day on Friday.

So, Mr. Speaker, Thursday and Friday, in my view, are behind

us. I contend that there was no breach of privilege of any member of this House

and we will leave it with Your Honour to rule accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor - Buchans.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, my years in the House of

Assembly since 1975 prompted me to stand for a minute. Mr. Speaker, in the best

of twenty years, I have never taken part, I have never moved a point of

privilege and I doubt very seriously if I have taken

part in a debate on a point

of privilege. But, Mr. Speaker, I was involved in several incidents where the

privileges of the House, as determined by the Speaker, were affected and the

members concerned were asked to do what was required under the rules. I recall

one particular incident, Mr. Speaker, where the then hon. Speaker, Mr.

Ottenheimer, was forced to empty the benches of the Opposition. Each member of

that Opposition, including myself, apologized profusely to the Speaker, but the

Speaker, in each case, reminded the member that: You are not to apologize to me

- you have not insulted me, Mr. Member, you have insulted and breached the

privileges of every member of this House of Assembly. It is to them you owe the

apology. It is for that reason you must withdraw.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Now, Mr. Speaker, in the fourteen years that

I was a member of the Opposition, I can tell you, Sir, and no one in this House

will question it, that I had in my mind plenty of reasons to call somebody a

liar in this House of Assembly when I saw the way my district was treated, or

when I saw any number of things. I came very close but recognized, Mr. Speaker,

that I was not allowed to do it and if I did, then I would be breaching the

privileges of every member of this House of Assembly and that I would be

expected to pay the price, regardless of how humiliating that price might have

been, so I always, in my case, and every other member I served with, drew back

from being put in the position that the hon. the Member for Kilbride is put in

today.

I contend to you, and members had better not take this

lightly, Mr. Speaker, that I am as guilty as any member of this House of

Assembly in the give and the take, the shouting and bawling across the House,

but there is a line one does not cross, Mr. Speaker. I contend to you, Sir, if

the case made by the hon. the Member for Fogo is not taken seriously and dealt

with, then the Member for Kilbride will have effectively - and all the rest

counts for nothing, Mr. Speaker, everything else that has been said in this

debate, including the comments of the hon. the Opposition House Leader, will be

taken for nothing if it is not dealt with, because next week, as opposed to

shouting across the House to some member some innocuous thing that one can get

away with, I will probably look, and every other member can, if they wish, look

at the precedent that has been set here today and was set Thursday, that one can

indeed insult another member, one can indeed call another member a liar and do

it in a way that can be heard by the Speaker, and feel there will be no problem,

that precedent was set, it is okay to call a member a liar.

Mr. Speaker, if we allow that to happen - and I can tell you,

in my case, it has been the best part of twenty years in this House of Assembly

- if we allow that to happen today, we will be lowering the decorum and lowering

the value of this House in the eyes of the people of this Province. I believe

this House has no choice. If they are concerned about the legacy they pass on to

the people who come behind us, and are proud and uphold the tradition of this

House, the Member for Kilbride has no choice but to withdraw and do what is

required rather than stand behind the comments he made here Thursday.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Further to the point of privilege, I just want to say in

reaction to the Member for Windsor - Buchans that as a result of not withdrawing

his comment, Your Honour named the Member for Kilbride on Thursday. The

Government House Leader made a motion that he be suspended for the remainder of

the sitting day, which in the parliamentary sense, was Thursday. Your Honour

ended the parliamentary day of Thursday when you adjourned the House at 4:40 or

4:45, so consequently, the Member for Kilbride served a penalty by being named

by Your Honour for not withdrawing his comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the

Member for Fogo and the Member for Windsor - Buchans, and if anyone can tell me

the parliamentary day of Thursday did not end when Your Honour adjourned the

House for the day, then so convince me. Friday was tomorrow in the parliamentary

sense, a new day. If the Member for Kilbride was to be suspended for the sitting

on Friday then I suggest to hon. members that there had to be a new motion.

Number one, on Friday the Member for Kilbride said nothing unparliamentary, so

consequently, he could not be asked to withdraw an unparliamentary comment on

Friday because he had not made one. If he had made an unparliamentary comment on

Friday and Mr. Speaker had asked him to withdraw, and he had been so named, then

the Government House Leader, accordingly, on Friday, it being a new

parliamentary day, could have made another motion and the member would have been

suspended, but that did not happen, I say to members. The parliamentary day of

Thursday ended when you, Mr. Speaker, adjourned the House at 5:40, so the Member

for Kilbride had served his suspension when Thursday ended.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation that it was the Speaker of this House who adjourned the

House on Thursday. It was not the Member for Kilbride, not the Leader of the

Opposition, not the Opposition House Leader, not the Premier or the Government

House Leader, or the Member for Fogo, or the Member for Windsor - Buchans, it

was the Speaker of the House.

Your Honour, I want to go on record as saying that I respect

sincerely what you did on Thursday. I think you did what was most logical under

the circumstances. I commend you for that.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. member

MR. SULLIVAN: Now who is delaying proceedings?

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Ferryland

regards this point of privilege as just delaying the proceedings of the House,

then I would suggest to him that he is - I don't want to say this, but he is

completely out to lunch.

The parliamentary day on Thursday never, ever, got started, I

say to the Opposition House Leader. It never, ever got started because it was

obstructed and impeded by the Member for Kilbride. He sat in his seat the whole

day and stopped the proceedings of this House, and if that is to be the order

the next time that somebody orders a suspension, or there is a motion put

forward in this House asking that a member be suspended and it is carried, then

all we have to do is sit here and say: No, I am not going to move... and the

next day we come back scott free.

The Member for Grand Bank, the Opposition House Leader, knows

that is not the way this House can proceed, and if he wanted the Rules of

Procedure to apply to this House what he would do is ask that we make a motion

to expel the Member for Kilbride today, and if that is necessary I am prepared

to do it.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I think I have been clear -

I hope I have - but obviously it has not sunk into the Member for Fogo.

Obviously it hasn't. Like I said, I don't want to belabour the point or inflame

the situation where we keep this going here today until 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m.,

which I sort of suspect is the plan of two or three members opposite. I sort of

suspect that. That is the plan over there. They want to inflame this volatile

situation now and keep it going again.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader made a very clear

motion that the Member for Kilbride be suspended for the remainder of the

sitting day on Thursday. The sitting day on Thursday ended when Mr. Speaker

adjourned the House. If the Government House Leader, or the government, or

whoever, felt that the Member for Kilbride had not served the suspension

adequately then I don't know how else it could have been dealt with.

The member did not say anything unparliamentary on Friday. He

participated in Question Period. He was recognized by Your Honour. He

apologized, first of all, on Friday morning to Your Honour for the position he

put you in. You recognized him in Question Period - he participated - and to say

that the parliamentary day had not begun on Thursday is certainly an inaccuracy.

We had Oral Questions here. The day had begun; we were into the day. We were

into Oral questions. So I think the Member for Fogo is - for what reason I don't

know; I have my own suspicions why he is trying to do what he is doing here

today. I have my own suspicions, but that is a story for another day. I won't

further inflame the situation or make it more volatile by telling them what I am

suspicious of.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will hear one more submission. The

hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to prolong

this matter either, other than to make a couple of points.

One, I want to congratulate the Member for Fogo for raising

this point of privilege today which I think is a very important point of

privilege.

With respect to what the Opposition House Leader has said,

that the penalty was served on Thursday, I think the Opposition House Leader

would agree that is not a parliamentary procedure for preserving the rules of

this House, preserving order and decorum. When a member is ordered to do

something by the Speaker and he refuses to do it, and the Speaker adjourns for a

few minutes to deal with it, and because the day is over by the time the Speaker

comes back, to say that penalty was served is certainly a very nebulous way, a

very weak way, of dealing with matters in this House.

I am not going to prolong the thing, because I think the

Member for Fogo has quoted all of the authorities necessary, other than saying,

Mr. Speaker, other than saying, that what sets us apart, what sets this House

apart, what sets every Parliament apart from other institutions, is the fact

that we make our own rules and enforce our own rules, and the body of rules that

we have coming from the rules that we have made, from tradition and from

precedent, Mr. Speaker, is what combines to make parliamentary privilege, and,

if members themselves abuse that privilege, then of course, the whole system

just falls completely flat, Mr. Speaker, and this is what makes us the

institution that we are because hon. members, through the years, have decided

that we enforce those rules and though we break them, we then do what is

necessary to correct them to uphold the dignity and the respect of Parliament,

and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to do otherwise, is to lower the dignity and

the respect of Parliament and really, to reduce it to a bear pit, Mr. Speaker,

that's why we have these rules of parliamentary procedure to keep a modicum of

moderation and temperance in the House, and as I have said, when we break these

rules, then we do what is required.

We have a situation now, Mr. Speaker, where you, Your Honour,

did all that was required. His Honour did all that he could do under the

circumstances. The point of the privilege raised by my friend the Member for

Fogo, is saying that the House ought not to be satisfied with this particular

ruling, because the hon. member hasn't done what is required to uphold the

dignity and the respect of the House and now we are asking the House to deal

with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: The Speaker has done his job, we are now asking

the House to deal with what we believe was certainly a breach of the privilege

of this House to every member.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As has been indicated here, the question of

privilege is indeed a most serious matter and to be given very serious

consideration. The incident of last Thursday is no doubt a very serious matter.

I would like to take some time to review the submissions by members today and to

consult and research this matter further, and I will take the question of

privilege under advisement and report back to the House at the earliest possible

time.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions about Voisey's Bay for the Minister of

Natural Resources.

Would the minister tell the House the government's current

estimates of the size and the value of the mineral deposits at Voisey's Bay, and

tell us the basis for these estimates?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the only estimates that we can

use publicly are estimates that have been used publicly by the companies. These

are the only ones that I use publicly and we can refer to a number of press

releases that have been given out over the past year.

In that regard, I can refer to one from memory that was

released, and I think it was some time in June, that had proven drill off

reserves, because reserves have a particular definition in terms of mining

reserves. You have to have drilling of certain close spacing and, the number at

that time was 31.7 million tons of proven drilling reserves. They have not put

out proven drilling reserves since, but a few days ago, the company put out

another press release at which time they talked about the drill results in the

eastern deeps and they estimated in that one that they might have another 45

million tons but they need to do closer space drilling before they can put these

into what is called the mining reserve.

There have been other estimates and recently, one of the

co-chairman of Diamond Fields gave a speech at an international nickel

conference in Australia, in which he talked about the number dating back to

June. He gave an estimate of the number that was released last week and he said,

in his own words, he believed there might be two or three times that much. Well,

that's an estimate we have to wait and see what the drilling results are going

to be before we can put an exact number on it. These are the only numbers that I

can use publicly.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I note the minister

didn't attempt to value the mineral deposits. I would like the minister next to

give the government's current estimates for the construction phase of the

Voisey's Bay development. Would the minister indicate what the government

expects in terms of the time frame and the construction cost for the mine and

for the smelter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have done some estimates

ourselves for our internal assessments. I'm not going to make these numbers

public. It would be very inappropriate for me to make these numbers public. I am

not going to do it, Sir.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister care

to explain why he considers it inappropriate for the public to know the

government's expectations about the Voisey's Bay mine construction and smelter

construction?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, it is not a tough job for

anyone with a bit of knowledge of the mining industry to put some estimates on

the number of people who would be employed in a mine, the number of people who

would be employed in a smelter, or the number of people who would be employed in

some type of other processing facility. We have done that after due consultation

with the companies, but also based on our own knowledge of the mining industry

and our own consultation elsewhere. We have good numbers based on our knowledge

of this to date.

I don't think it is appropriate to go putting these numbers

on the air because the company itself is responsible for putting out real

numbers, and we will wait until it puts out real numbers. It has implications

for its stock, implications for its shares, and we must wait until it can put

those out legally.

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

Opposition.

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

you the minister for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador or the minister for

the company? I'm not asking these questions irresponsibly. Won't the minister

reveal for the benefit of the public of the Province more details about the

estimated opportunity at Voisey's Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, for public consumption at this

time we must deal with the reality of the numbers that have been provided by the

company based on the detailed drilling results that have been completed. These

have been made public regularly. The results of more than 200 drill holes have

been published to date. As they become available in the future there will be

more results released for public consumption. We have done estimates, they have

done estimates, and we have used the estimates for various assessment purposes.

But it is pointless for me to go speculating about various things in public. It

should not be done. It is totally irresponsible to do so.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Seven months ago, I say

to the minister, the Premier announced that the government would be amending the

mining tax act to correct the mistakes that were made in a rush amendment before

Christmas last year. I would like the minister to tell the House and the public

what options the government considered over the past seven months, and have him

reveal to the public the options considered and the pros and cons of the various

alternatives that were examined, including the option chosen, which was put

forward in a bill tabled last Thursday.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to get

into the details of the tax legislation she is probably talking to the wrong

minister. She should talk to the minister responsible for taxes. But I would

like to clarify one point.

There was no rush last year when we made an amendment. The

amendment that was made last year had been thoroughly analyzed several years

before and announced in the Budget of 1992. We made the amendment last year,

last December. There was no rush. There were no great mistakes. We have analyzed

our mining history and the mineral deposits that have been mined in our mining

history, in reaching that. But, after the discovery of Voisey's Bay, after the

analysis that we did on Voisey's Bay, we realized that we had better put some

caps on. The bill that was tabled a few days ago showed the caps that we have

put on, and the hon. member will have lots of opportunities to debate those caps

and the details of that in the days ahead.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A final question to the Minister of Finance.

I would like to ask the minister, with respect to the bill

which was made public last Thursday, Bill 43, What do his officials estimate to

be the revenue yield from the Voisey's Bay development, year by year, assuming

that bill is enacted?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: As the hon. member knows, or should know, the

answer to that is impossible to give. Voisey's Bay Diamond Fields is just now

only determining what the total reserves are. They had a recent announcement

which indicated that the mineralization was much greater than expected.

Secondly, that would engender a lot of speculation as to what

world nickel, cobalt and copper prices will be over the life of the mine, which

will no doubt extend beyond the year 2015 or 2020. It is impossible, given those

parameters, to give an answer to the hon. member's question.

As well, as the hon. member knows, the actual rates have not

yet been determined once one gets beyond the 20 per cent return on capital

threshold or the 30 per cent. So what we have done is, we have introduced a

format at which rates we think taxes should be imposed and, as I understand, the

bill will be referred to a committee for appropriate input, and I am sure the

hon. members will have it in due course.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A final supplementary to the Minister of Finance.

Would the minister explain why the government chose to go the

route of Bill 43 and make amendments to the mining tax legislation of general

application instead of adopting the approach taken with the offshore oil

industry and negotiating a project specific revenue rgime?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That option was considered. It was deemed more appropriate to

have a regime of general application to avoid uncertainty, and what the Province

sought to do was to address the larger question of what appropriate caps would

be for the (inaudible) incentives we had offered for the mining industry which

had proven successful. There are possibilities that other finds of this

magnitude hopefully will occur in the future and a general rgime, we thought,

was the most appropriate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Premier.

Over the past number of days it has been indicated there is a

growing problem with this Province's food banks. Cash donations which are

regularly around $40,000 a year are down to around $10,000 this year. A list of

families in need has risen by 1,000 since this time last year, and families are

returning to food banks more often during each month than they did in the past.

With all these concerns and others, I would like to ask the Premier: Has his

government any plans to assist the Community Food Sharing Association this week,

especially as we approach these last few days before Christmas?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member also did

not say is that the reports of the last week indicate that the people of this

Province continue to be the greatest givers to charity and to worthy causes in

(inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that is the process that our

people use to make voluntary contributions. The tax system is not the system to

do that. People choose to do that on their own and I, for one, am very, very

proud of our record in this Province and hold it up for examination by everybody

in the country, anybody who wants to look at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: If the hon. member wants to answer his

colleague's question, he can answer it, but the question was directed to me, so

I am answering it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that is the way the

contributions are voluntarily made, not through the tax system.

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

Capes on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, agree with the Premier that Newfoundland is known far

and wide for its generosity, but we have people who are hungry in this Province.

There are over 20,000 children depending on food banks in this Province today.

Last year, the Community Food Sharing Association distributed $3.5 million-worth

of food. This year it could be estimated up to $5 million. Even with all that,

there is still a need.

One of the things that could be done to help is the passing

of Bill 100 which was introduced into this House of Assembly on May 31, 1995 by

my hon. colleague, the Member for Bonavista South. Bill No. 100,

An Act

Respecting The Good Faith Donation And Distribution Of Food, would open up the

doors for many more individuals and businesses and enable them to donate much

more and possibly fill the void that now exists.

In light of the fact that on May 31 the Government House

Leader said, and I quote from Hansard: "Let me say first of all that we are

quite concerned that the subject of this bill is one that should be addressed."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: I would like to ask the Premier: When does

he plan to address this very important issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we were addressing it in

Cabinet today as we considered the Strategic Social Plan consultation paper that

will shortly be taken around the Province for hearings in much the same way as

was done with the Strategic Economic Plan. This will set out a plan to deal with

our social concerns and our social problems. That is how it will be addressed,

in an orderly fashion, not an ad hoc fashion.

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

Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't agree with ad hoc fashion either, Mr. Premier, but

there is a need, and it is desperate as we approach the last few days before

Christmas. There are several provinces in Canada with legislation similar to

Bill 100. When the bill was introduced, the Government House Leader expressed

some concerns about the wording or the drafting of the bill. If that is a

problem, that in itself, can be addressed with amendments here in the House of

Assembly on second reading. If there were a will within government to assist the

Food Sharing Association this bill could be passed here in the next day or so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I ask the Premier, on behalf of the people

who distribute to the needy, and most importantly, on behalf of the needy, to

have his government deal with Bill 100 before this week is over. I am sure the

government will receive co-operation from this side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government is not going

to address these concerns in this kind of an ad hoc manner. We are doing it in a

logical, sensible manner. I should also say that I listened this week to news

reports that the amounts of food available to the food banks had significantly

increased. I am not sure what the member is trying to do by making the argument

in this way. If that issue needs to be addressed it can be addressed in a

logical and sensible way.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. The House of Assembly has enacted legislation to provide for financial

monitoring control of municipalities, especially as it is related to revenue

expenditure, debt management and reporting. In the Auditor General's report for

1993-1994 the statement is made: The Department of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs does not adequately monitor and control the financial activities of

municipalities as required by law. The same statement is made in the Auditor

General's report tabled just two weeks ago. What measures has the minister taken

to comply with the legal mandates of his department to monitor the management

procedures of municipalities?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered the same

basic question this time last year when the Auditor General's report came out.

The problem that I -

MR. TOBIN: Didn't do anything about it.

MR. REID: Maybe that member should be asking municipal

questions rather you, `Harvey', because he seems to know more of what is going

on here than anybody else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that we refer to members of the

House by the district they represent and not by their names.

MR. REID: I was wrong, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry about that.

May I continue, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister, yes.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we have some 500 incorporated

communities in the Province, and local service districts that are

non-incorporated. On top of that, there are 200 other communities out there. Out

of the 285 incorporated communities, I would say that 95 per cent of those have

town clerks or town managers. Those are the people who are responsible for

providing adequate accounting procedures and financial recommendations or laws,

as it spells out in the financial administrations act and in the municipalities

act.

My problem ,as the hon. member knows, is that I am not sure

how many exactly, but I think I have six people in the whole Province who go

around to these communities on a regular basis, on a day-to-day basis, and try

to help where they can, the town clerks and sometimes the town councillors, to

try to help them put their financial house in order. And the bottom line with

all this is, if this government could afford to give me more funding to employ

more people, I would have no problems abiding by the recommendations of the

Auditor General. That is basically the reason why we cannot do it and that is

why my department and the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs have

been criticized for the last two years at least, by the Auditor General, for not

providing that service. If the money were available, I am certain that we would

be trying to do, as a government, more than we are doing with regard to the

financial administration of municipalities.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount, on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Auditor General's Report for the past year states that:

of twenty municipalities examined as part of the auditor's analysis, it was

found that few have any reliable or objective assessment of the condition of

their water and sewer systems. Sewer treatment facilities, chlorination and

fluorination facilities, pumping stations and piping are not monitored properly.

Has the minister identified these municipalities noted in the

Auditor General's report, and what has he done to assure that those assets -

which are also assets of the Province - are monitored properly?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: A very good question, Mr. Speaker, in fact, an

excellent question.

Very little, to be quite honest about it. When we go out and

assist municipalities of the Province to put in water and sewer systems, it is

difficult for us to be back on a regular basis making sure that these systems

are operable and being maintained. In fact, in a lot of cases in this Province,

a lot of systems are not being maintained especially in wastewater systems

around the Province.

This government and the previous government have been trying

to help the environment by installing different systems around the Province, to

try to control some of the wastewater that is going into our streams and out

into our bays and oceans, but the problem with installing these expensive

environmental gadgets, for the want of a better word, is that they cost a fair

amount of money to operate after they are installed; and a lot of communities

around the Province are finding it difficult just to be able to find the money

to maintain and operate these particular facilities. So I say to my hon.

colleague and to the House, Mr. Speaker, that it is very difficult for me, with

two engineers right now in my department, to be asking those two engineers to

travel the Province checking on some over 200 water and sewer systems in the

Province. And it boils down again, I guess, to the fact that there is very

little money for that sort of thing today, when the hon. the Minister of Health

and the hon. the Minister of Education and Training and my hon. friend, the

Member for Works, Services and Transportation are looking for monies for all

kinds of other things in government, that at the present time, to this

government, are more important.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount, on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In other words, the minister acknowledges that the

infrastructure paid for by the taxpayers of this Province is falling apart. It

is not being monitored and although it is required by law to monitor that, he

cannot or will not be doing anything about it.

Several weeks ago, the minister, in corroboration with the

NLFM, appointed a task force on municipal finance. What are the terms of

reference for the task force, who has been appointed to the task force, will

there be public hearings throughout the Province, and when does the minister

anticipate the task force to report?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: I think there were four questions, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe there were five but I will try to answer four and maybe by that time I

will remember the fifth one.

There were two members from the Federation of Municipalities

appointed: Mayor Milton Peach of Carbonear and Councillor Jeff Brace from the

City of St. John's. They represent the federation, and I believe, to be quite

honest about it, Mr. Speaker, those people were picked because of the cost. It

was cheaper for Jeff and Milton to come into St. John's than it would be to

bring Sam Sinyard, say, or somebody from the Burin Peninsula or someone from the

West Coast.

From my department, the Deputy Minister, the Assistant Deputy

Minister, Mr. Art Colbourne, and my regional director from the Eastern Regional

Office, Keith Warren, are sitting for the department representing the

government. Two secretaries have been appointed, one from my department and one

from the Federation of Municipalities, and I think the Executive Director of the

Federation of Municipalities sits in on the meetings and acts as the secretary

for the Federation of Municipalities.

The mandate of the committee, basically, was to review all

aspects of municipal government in the Province, and I believe when agreeing to

it at the time - and I think my hon. colleague, the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount was there when I did agree - we said that we would look at all aspects

of financial administration of communities in the Province to try to come up

with some ideas, some suggestions to government on ways to deliver funding that

we create and that we provide every year as it relates to the municipal

operating grant, as it relates to transfer payments on debt for water and sewer,

and so on.

There are no intentions at the present time - in fact, the

mandate of the federation which was voted on at that meeting down at Holiday Inn

that day said the report would have to come back before January 31. There is

some argument over whether it was January 31 but the president of the

Federation, in subsequent letters to me, has said that he would like to have the

report by January 31. In doing that, it is going to be difficult for us to

travel around the Province. I cannot see really being able to provide the money

to travel around the Province during the winter. It is a hard time to do it. If,

at the end of the day, the Federation of Municipalities is not satisfied with

what the committee has done and what they have presented, then at that

particular point in time we may look at that.

I will say to my hon. friend that the White Paper on

regionalization is just about ready to go to the printers. Cabinet will see the

White Paper first, and hopefully, Cabinet will discuss, debate, and maybe make

some changes to it, and send that paper on to the general public. If there

anything going to go around the Province, it will be the White Paper on

regionalization.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health.

A review of long-term care beds in this Province was reported

by the 1986 Nycum bed study. Earlier this year, the IMB Associates did a study

on recommendations for long-term care beds in the Clarenville area. It was only

two years ago that the Agnew Peckham study reported on serious problems in the

St. John's region where two thirds of the beds do not meet current departmental

standards and there are long waiting lists.

Now, the problem of long-term care beds is studied to death,

I say to the minister, and is becoming a complete waste of taxpayers' dollars.

Now, the minister never seems to get the answer he wants and he puts the report

on the shelf to gather some more dust. The minister said in the House a week ago

that a new report is being prepared by the Medical School of Memorial

University, and according to Sunday's edition of The Evening Telegram ,

the man behind that report, Dr. Patrick Parfrey, draws different

interpretations

from his findings than the minister does.

Now, I say to the minister, if there are hundreds of people

on waiting lists for admission to nursing homes, how can there be enough beds?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At long last, I think I recognize the source of the hon.

member's daily questions in the House by virtue of his exhibiting a copy of

yesterday's Evening Telegram . I would suggest to the hon. member that

there are much more in-depth pieces of work available on which he could base

some serious and hard hitting questions as opposed to going to the Evening

Telegram and asking those types of questions that have been prepared for

him.

To the point of the question, no, the Medical School is not

doing a review of long-term care beds in the system. I never said that and if I

did I wish to correct it. The research unit on health matters at The Health

Sciences, headed by Dr. Parfrey, has been commissioned by the department to do a

review of the continuum of care needs within the Province. That involves home

support services under the Enriched Needs Program, it involves the personal home

care sector which provides Level 1 and low Level 2 care, and it also involves

the long-term care sector which is commonly known as the nursing home sector.

Unless and until we have conclusive evidence that there are

not enough beds in the system, either in total or in any specific area, we will

not, as wise stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, commence to spend money that

will not be, at the end of the day, the most appropriate spending. I can tell

the hon. member again, that as a result of the Osborne work back in 1986-'87

when they recommended we go from 2200 to 2700 beds in the Province for long-term

care, we have not only gone from 2200 to 2700 but have exceeded that by

providing in excess of 3000 long-term care beds in the system today. But, having

said that, if there are gaps in the system, we will seek to address them

appropriately.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland, on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, your department is manipulating the

list to appear that things are improving when they are getting worse. I have

very accurate information from my source and I tell the minister now, in a

meeting that he attended as minister and chaired, with three other of his

colleagues, his departmental staff and maybe I will just table this, maybe I

just will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It goes on to mention in this, Minutes of a

meeting that you chaired, and you are a part of in your department. And the

minister of the social policy committee could not attend that meeting. He was

the only absentee, I say to the minister. You have indicated there are 518 names

on a waiting list in the city of St. John's, 350 of these people have also

placed their names on waiting lists in other areas of the Province. It went on

to say, there are 544 more names of people who are precautionary -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - who may need it in the future. The

minister has that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister, in light of his own

departmental minutes and meetings and other ministers in the social policy

committee, will he now stand in his place and tell us the real truth about

waiting lists for long-term care beds here in the city?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I am not necessarily scared

or intimidated by the loudness of one's question. I would suggest that the hon.

member probably should cool down a little bit because I don't want him to be in

hospital over Christmas with high blood pressure or something of that nature.

Having offered him what I consider to be a reasonable warning in the interest of

his own health care, I would simply say to him again that if he has information

that is contradictory or at variance with what I have given in the House, I

would be happy to examine it. Having said that, I will also tell the hon. member

that we have in this Province, on balance, sufficient long-term care beds to

look after the needs. If in a specific area, such as St. John's, we have some

specific gaps in service we will rebalance the system first of all to make use

to the best extent possible of the resources we have and then we will seek to

provide the resources to add additional spaces if and when we need them.

The information that I have from the community health board,

who run the system and the information I have from Dr. Parfrey, who is doing the

work is that we do not, nor should we at the moment, consider spending one dime

on more long-term care beds until we have appropriately used the ones that are

in the system by moving around the Level I's that are probably in Level II and

III beds where they are not getting any better care than if they were in a

personal care home. So what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is rebalancing the

system, addressing the needs in a reasonable and rational fashion and we will

continue to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a small petition from seven people

in my district whom I met with on the weekend and who wanted me to bring their

concern before the House of Assembly and, I guess, the public in general.

The prayer of the petition is as follows: We, the

undersigned, petition the hon. House of Assembly not to approve the

establishment of the Indian River watershed management plan without further

widespread public input and debate.

It is signed by seven people attending the meeting, Mr.

Speaker. People may wonder what the Indian River watershed management plan is

all about, and so did I until the matter came into the news in my district

recently in some local newspaper articles, and from some phone calls I got which

I responded to with the meeting on the weekend.

It would appear that a local committee of concerned people, I

presume, wish to set up a regime whereby the watershed area of the Indian River

and certain other rivers in that general area would come under this local

committee and would have delegated to it certain authorities from the provincial

Crown and the federal Crown. This is particularly as a note for, I guess, the

Minister of Natural Resources, maybe the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation. Because one of the aspects of a local watershed management committee

is that they would have some jurisdiction over the management of the fish

resource, some jurisdiction over access, use of the forest and wildlife

resources in the watershed area, and some degree of management control over the

establishment of tourist lodges and other such related facilities.

Local people in Green Bay who are avid salmon fishermen,

anglers, are concerned that there may be undue restrictions put on their

ordinary use of the watershed areas. People who enjoy the use of the woods for

recreational activities, for firewood cutting, who already have summer cabins,

etcetera, in the general area, are also afraid that there may be some

restrictions placed on them.

I indicated in a comment in the House the other day that the

establishment of a national park in the Torngat Mountains is probably the best

kept secret in the Province. Certainly the establishment of the watershed

management committee is one of the best kept secrets in Green Bay. The few

public, very small public meetings with a dozen or two people present so far

have not involved many of the general public but have raised some alarms to the

point where it has gotten to the local media and where the citizens concerned

have called their MHA to express their concerns.

As the sitting MHA for the area, I have had no official

invitations from the group who want to manage the watershed to attend any

meetings. I hope that will change in the future. My purpose in raising this here

today is to put it on the public record and maybe invite the Minister of Natural

Resources or the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to make a comment.

Because presumably, in due course, if this plan is established, it would have to

be sanctioned by the provincial Crown as well as the federal Crown. I understand

there are areas elsewhere in the Province where the management concept for

watershed areas is much further advanced than it is in Green Bay. I would much

appreciate it if one of these ministers could make comment and maybe bring some

degree of comfort to the citizens who dealt with me who are concerned that their

freedoms are being infringed upon with regard to this move.

It is supposed to be a public committee, publicly elected. So

far the people involved are a very small number of people, but the management

authority that would be transferred ultimately to such a committee would have

widespread implications for the whole citizenry in the general area. As I said,

I bring this forward today as an initial move to put this into the public forum,

and I would certainly invite the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister

of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to make a comment, specifically with regard

to their departments' experience with this, where I understand in other areas of

the Province the idea is further advanced.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, in the Province at this time,

we have two areas that we have approved, as a government. One is the Indian Bay

area, Bonavista North; the other is in the Bay St. George area. We have approved

two as trials for community watershed management for the management of the fish

resource and other resources in the watershed using local committees. These two

were put in place after a significant amount of consultation in the local areas

and after a lot of consultation between both governments. At this time, I am not

aware that any others are about to be put in place. No others have come forward

to me. There may be some local committees that are looking at some other parts

of the Province where they would like to do a watershed management agreement for

all the purposes just mentioned by the hon. member, but certainly, it would

require the approval of the Provincial Government and also the approval of the

federal department, as well, of Fisheries and Oceans, I think. So at this time I

don't think anyone should have any particular concerns about it. There is no

action taken in my department, at my level, at least.

Orders of the Day

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do not

adjourn at 5:00 p.m. today.

On motion, that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole to deal with Motions 1 and 2, and I believe

we will begin with Motion 2.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): Motion 2, the adjourned debate.

Resolution

That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend

The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the guarantee of the

repayment of loans made to, and the advance of loans to certain local

authorities.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, the last time we were on Supply,

we adjourned Motion 2 and I think somebody from the Opposition benches was

speaking at that time. It may even have been the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you were, it doesn't matter.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, there is not a great deal that

can be said about Bill 14. We can spend all day, if we wish, debating the

wisdom, I guess, today of providing these types of funds to municipalities. Let

us first of all recognize the fact, that these are exactly what the bill says,

it is a local authority guarantee act. The Province guarantees loans to

municipalities, and therefore, takes responsibility should municipalities

forfeit on that loan.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we are finding out that this is happening

ever more regularly and with the drastic reduction of the Municipal Operating

Grant, I suggest to the minister he is going to find that many more

municipalities are going to default on these loans in future, far more, in fact.

Municipalities are finding it extremely difficult. Now, it is the age-old

problem, of course, of some municipalities being quite able to finance their

capital works and some are not. Generally speaking - and I say generally

speaking, there are exceptions to every rule - but generally speaking, the

larger municipalities, the urban centres, are able to look after their own

capital debt and have not required subsidies on these loans by the minister.

Now, I understood that we were putting in place a system that

provides only those municipalities that can show they can support this debt will

be given financing in the future. Now, that sounds well and good, sounds

reasonable, Mr. Speaker, but it does two things; first of all, it is an indirect

way for government to force municipalities to increase their taxation. The

argument can be made, and not an involved one, it is a valid argument that those

who receive those services should indeed be able to pay for them. Well, that

sounds well and good in theory, but unfortunately, in rural Newfoundland that is

not always going to work. Many rural municipalities in this Province are

extremely expensive to service, far too expensive, I submit, in many cases. The

cost per house per capita is much, much higher than it really should be, but

what are the alternatives? Do we leave these communities without adequate water

and sewer systems, without fire protection? Here again becomes another dilemma.

We can provide water and sewer systems in rural municipalities, as we have in

many areas under the community development program of the Department of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the local service program of installing water

and sewer systems, and it is a matter of the level of the system that we are

talking about here. Many of the municipalities are staggering under this debt as

represented by these loans because there are cadillac systems being installed,

cadillac systems that are all very well and good if one can finance them, but if

you cannot then perhaps we should be looking at the level of service that is

being provided in municipalities.

There are many, many examples of two neighbouring

municipalities very similar in size, one of which is incorporated under the

Municipalities Act and therefore, is provided loans under the Loan and Guarantee

Act, puts in place a cadillac water and sewer system, the full service system,

and the neighbouring community, very similar in size, very similar in tax base,

but is not incorporated, therefore receives a water and sewer system installed

and built and designed and managed by the Department of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, the Water Services Division. Both municipalities have water and sewage

service. One municipality probably has adequate fire flow; the other probably

does not. We can sit here and say: Well, every municipality should have adequate

fire flow, and I certainly would agree with that, but the question is the cost

versus the benefit. What is the risk of major fire in some of these

municipalities?

I know of municipalities, I spoke with one colleague

opposite, I believe it was, last week, who said that in the community he has

lived in now for some fifty-one years, there has never been a major fire. Yet,

there is millions of dollars spent on a water and sewer system - a water system

particularly - that can provide adequate fire flows, a fire department that has

all of the complex equipment to fight a fire, and rarely has to fight one. Now,

I am not for a second downplaying the importance of fire protection, of course.

It is critically important, and volunteer fire brigades all across this Province

are doing invaluable service to this Province. I suggest that if the Province

and the municipalities had to pay for the service provided by those people, we

would have been bankrupt long before now. But in many of the rural communities,

water is very, very close at hand. It may be salt water, it may be fresh water,

but water is generally very close at hand, and those communities that are served

by pumper units that have to rely on natural sources of supply can often provide

a very adequate level of protection.

There is no question that a fully serviced water system that

has adequate fire flow will provide a better level of protection, and there is

always that risk that one life will be saved because of it, but at what cost is

that? That is the question, and it is a dilemma, I guess, that nobody really

wants to answer.

The problem with the water and sewer systems, as I started

out to say, is the tremendous cost of putting in place cadillac systems, and I

have said to the engineering community, my professional colleagues, many times,

that they are designing cadillac systems when a far lesser system could well be

adequate. Human nature is such that consulting engineers who receive a

percentage -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Absolutely. I yield to the hon. member for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The alternative, as I was just pointing out,

and as members have said, I have brought this up before - first of all, I

believe the engineering department should be setting standards. If a

municipality comes in and says: We need a system and our consultants have

estimated it is going to cost $4 million. We need $4 million. Because we have a

serious pollution problem. The Minister of Environment may well step in and say:

This problem needs to be dealt with, and he would encourage his colleague the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to approve that. Because of a

serious pollution problem.

Now, I have to backtrack again. Many of the serious pollution

problems in this Province are because of poor planning on behalf of the

municipalities. They've allowed people to build homes in their back gardens

right next to one another,

whereas years ago wells and septic tanks were quite

acceptable. Now they've allowed sons to build in the father's back garden, the

front garden, the side garden, to the point where now the density of development

is such that everybody is polluting everybody else's well. Okay?

The septic system may well be working okay, if it is properly

installed. Too few are, because of very few controls on that, in the past. That

is improving. The septic system might work. Maybe in that municipality when we

have a pollution problem the problem is that the wells are being polluted. Not

that there is sewage flowing over the grounds - there are cases of that - but

generally speaking, it is not that there is sewage flowing over the ground, it

is that everybody's wells are being polluted by their next-door neighbours's

sewage system.

In that case, perhaps a simple water system to provide

potable drinking water would be fine, and the septic tanks are an adequate means

of disposing of sewage.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Not at all. I welcome....

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) gear down from these Cadillac

systems, and I don't say this in any political derogatory sense. I'm just

wondering why it wasn't followed. Because I thought it was the route to go at

the time. I believe it was his colleague - I don't know if he remembers - I

believe Mr. Brett was the minister at the time. I thought it was a marvellous

plan. It didn't seem to go through, and this government hasn't followed through

with it, and I wondered why. Because I happen to agree with what the hon. member

is saying.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Brett, the

former Member for Trinity North, a former Minister of Municipal Affairs as well,

he was very aware of this. Because there are many examples in his district. On

Random Island, for example. There are a number of communities on Random Island

that have been provided water and sewer systems under the water services

division of the Department of Municipal Affairs. Very adequate systems at a very

low cost. Those communities are still not incorporated. They are receiving water

and they have a sewage disposal system. That is their concern as tax payers. If

they want the Cadillac system, if they want to be on a municipal system rather

than on a septic system, in these cases most of them are municipal systems.

But instead of having an eight-inch water line coming down

from some lake way back up in the mountains - probably cost $2 million just to

get the supply to the boundary of the community - instead of that we have

drilled community wells that might serve eight or ten or twelve or fourteen,

depending on the flows found in those artesian wells, with a central pump house.

Then a two-inch plastic pipe buried, in some cases where we have severe rock

cases; in some cases, particularly in Labrador, we have had to insulate those

pipes and put heat tracers in them for winter conditions. Many things can be

done rather than moving thousands of tons of rock using dynamite and burying

these eight-inch pipes.

Those eight-inch pipes give you firer flow, but as I've said,

in many rural municipalities you would like to have the Cadillac but you have to

consider the cost. Perhaps pumper systems, as many municipalities have, provided

partly by the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, those types of

systems, where water is in adequate supply, maybe a tanker for a quick response,

these sorts of things. But fire departments can be geared to the facilities and

to the water resources available. Many departments have salt water available to

them all the time. Ninety per cent of their homes are built around the harbour

and a simple pumper truck that can throw a hose into the harbour can provide

very adequate fire protection.

It is like buying insurance. If you have a $50,000 home you

don't put $5 million insurance on it. If you have two dozen houses around a

community you don't spend $3 million providing a water system that will provide

full fire protection. You would like to have it, everybody would like to have

it, but you can't justify it. It goes back to the geography and the demographics

of our Province. We have so many small communities scattered around the

Province. The cost of service is incredible in a little town - I was going to

name some names but I won't name any names - but in a small, rural community

compared to an urban centre like St. John's or Mount Pearl or Corner Brook, the

cost per capita is staggering. I have seen cases where we have installed water

lines to houses that cost us $100,000 for a house, to provide water and sewer to

that house and yet the assessment is done by the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, the assessed value of the house is probably $25,000. Now the

logic of that, Mr. Chairman, escapes me.

I don't want to talk about resettlement but, it might be

better to relocate certain homes to an area of the municipality where services

can be better provided, and it goes back again to planning where we allow houses

to be built up, scattered along a road, ribbon development we call it; so in

order to build a house, the houses have 200 and 300 feet frontage on a main

highway. To service one house you have to put in 200 and 300 feet of water and

sewer; don't ever think about storm drainage, it is not in the cards and

probably not necessary but the cost per house, and then the house is way back up

in the meadow or somewhere, probably another 150 or 200 feet away from the road,

so the cost to service that unit is staggering and I would submit that in many

of those cases ensuring that proper septic tanks are in place and artesian

wells, if shallow wells are not adequate, could be provided at a far lesser

cost, so that the municipalities are not staggered with this incredible debt and

that the taxpayers therefore are not staggered, and that their monies can be

used for other things in the community, for community development, for

recreational facilities, for the sorts of things that people need, you know, for

services, snow clearing, street lighting.

We see today many municipalities are turning off every second

street light; they are being strapped so much by the debt represented by these

loans, by the cutback in the municipal operating grant and the overall increased

costs, Mr. Chairman, without an increased ability to raise taxes at the local

level. There is only a certain ability to raise funds in the municipalities, it

is only so much that taxpayers can pay and you take a municipality, many rural

municipalities that might have 90 per cent unemployment, your ability to raise

taxes in those municipalities is very seriously restricted.

Now I don't know, and maybe the minister can correct me, but

we talked some time ago about communities which had a very high incidence of

social assistance; people receiving social assistance from the Province, that

the Province pay the legitimate share of taxes to the municipality for them,

because we have large numbers of communities that have very high percentages of

perhaps senior citizens who are on fixed incomes, who are constantly going in

and many municipalities have a policy of giving certain rebates or reductions to

seniors and that's well and good, but it affects the overall financial position

of that municipality, and if persons are on social assistance and don't have the

money to pay taxes, I am not sure if now, the policy of the Department of Social

Services is to pay that for them.

There was some discussion on it and it may well now be in

place; if not, it should be, because otherwise municipalities are bearing the

cost. Other taxpayers, the very few of them who are probably gainfully employed

in some municipalities, now will have to shoulder that additional burden and

support the services that need to be provided here even the most basic level of

services in those municipalities so, Mr. Chairman, I got off on tangents here,

but it is so pertinent that we allow this to happen, that so many municipalities

and we can look at all of these and I know I can play all kinds of political

games and look at the ones that went in districts represented by members

opposite and the very few that were in districts represented by members over

here, but I don't want to play that game today.

I think this is a serious issue, Bill No. 14. It is a very

serious issue of deciding where we should be spending very scarce dollars today.

When the minister stands up as he did a week or so ago and said we have to find

$60 million and he introduced some very, very painful measures to this Province

in order to find it, then I think we have to rationalize our expenditure on

these types of services and make sure that we are getting the maximum benefit

for the very few dollars that we have available, Mr. Chairman, and that the

municipalities that are being provided with these facilities, within reason, are

able to pay for them, but we must also recognize that there are many

municipalities in this Province that have serious problems, serious pollution

problems that need to be met, serious need for potable drinking water and they

have a right to those services but they may not have the financial wherewithal

as a community.

The tax base may not be there to support it and the

department must be there in these cases to share the burden. All of us as

taxpayers at the provincial level must be there to transfer some support to

these municipalities. I am concerned as I see municipal operating grants being

cut and loans to municipalities to provide these services being seriously

restricted to only those municipalities that can show they can afford to pay 100

per cent of it. I suspect we are getting into a state where only larger

municipalities will soon be able to apply and be eligible for funding of capital

services.

I point out in closing, do not forget, that the construction

of those capital services is a major employer in this Province, so if a

municipality can only afford half of it there is a significant benefit, at

least, of providing construction activity in that area and in the Province

generally. There are spin-off effects. The more we cut back on capital

expenditures, be they in municipalities, in public works, public buildings,

transportation, the more we cut back the more we contribute to the economic

problems we have by the loss of revenues coming back indirectly from the

Province, so we have to be very careful of that.

Mr. Chairman, I will stop at that for a moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few comments I want to make regarding this

particular bill, a few concerns on municipalities and comments that the minister

made earlier. If you look at communities out in rural Newfoundland, and the

minister made reference here in this House to a municipality in my district,

where he heard on radio that they had a very low poll tax. I say to that

minister if you are in an area or in a city where you have water and you have

sewer, you have street lights and garbage, and you have other services, you pay

in proportion to the service you have. This community does not have bus

transportation around the town, it does not have water, and does not have sewer.

They have lights and garbage. If they do not have rec centres to subsidize or

other forms of recreation why should they pay? Why should they pay what we pay

here in the City of St. John's? A municipality should pay in proportion to the

value of service it is getting for the rate it charges its people in the

community.

Now, that community he talked about was Cape Broyle?.

MR. REID: Do they charge for snow clearing?

MR. SULLIVAN: In Cape Broyle? No, that bill you had

before the House is going to try to force it down on them. That is a new

municipality that started just three years ago. The minister made reference to

that community here in the House and mentioned they are only charging a poll tax

of $100. You said you heard a lady on the radio from Cape Broyle that morning.

MR. REID: I might have heard a lady on the radio, but I

did not say Cape Broyle.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I said Cape Broyle, but you were

referring to it, because there was only one lady who spoke that morning on that

show and one that talked about the poll tax, so it was easy to identify that

community I say to the minister.

The minister, in his latest round of cutbacks had a deal -

and I heard the Mayor for Ferryland and Aquaforte on one morning, the same

morning. They were on a previous morning, too, prior to that weekend meeting at

Holiday Inn. When the new council took over in Ferryland they decided to look

back at their debt. They had not met their debt obligations, and they looked at

refinancing that debt to be able to make payments. They were on schedule, I say

to the minister. In light of the restraints and over spending they made severe

cuts within their community, then the minister came back and slapped, without

notice before the end of the fiscal year, further cuts on that municipality.

He said I had a handshake, I think he said, with the minster

and walked away. They lived up to their commitment and the minister and his

department pulled the rug from under these people. I do not think that is

playing ball. There is a municipality in my district I say to the minister, and

he is very well aware of it, that has no debt whatsoever and applied for

infrastructure funding for a measly $25,000 from this provincial government. Bay

Bulls is that community. I do not mind saying it here in this House. They wanted

$25,000 from this government, $25,000 federal level. They were willing to put up

$25,000 with not one penny of long-term debt. The minister goes around this

Province and talks about communities in debt. Then he throws more money into

communities in debt, and a community that is paying its bills, has no debt,

cannot get one cent out of an infrastructure thing, and the criteria they wrote

back for selection - the minister might as well face it - the criteria for

selection is very political. I think there is merit in that community. It should

have been recognized. It should have obtained money under the infrastructure

program. It is in good standing there. It is a growing community, a responsible

municipal council there, and they were ignored by this department.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give it all to Tory districts.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is not. You do not have to give it

all to Tory districts. I say a community in this Province that does not owe once

cent of long-term debt deserves to be congratulated, and they deserve a pat on

the back. That is what I say to the minister, and they should have the common

courtesy... They wanted to have a meeting, and do you know what the minister's

department said? The minister said, when they called for a meeting with the

minister: I don't see any point, the decision is made. There is no point in

meeting with you.

That is what the minister said. That is what the minister

stated. I don't think that is good enough. Still, we can turn around months

later, the past few months, and we can go into Cabinet, the same minister, and

he can sit around and give an okay to this government to spend $7.2 million on

water bombers, and they are using the reason they are fifty years old. When the

Budget came down in March they were 49.5 years old, and another half year and

they decide we have to go spend $7.2 million, and you are turning down

communities that wanted $25,000 of provincial dollars. It is not acceptable.

You look at Cabot, Marble Mountain another $9.2 million

according to warrants I had a look at when they were tabled here in this House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not against it yet. If I go skiing

I will probably be against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I think it is a fine facility, but I

don't think you should sit around the Cabinet table in August and approve

special warrants when you are cutting $60 million a few months later out of the

expenditure of this Province. I don't think that is responsible. If you budgeted

for it last spring and you build it into your budget that is fair game, but it

is not fair game to take $26.2 million in special warrants and then come looking

for $60 million a couple of weeks after. It is not playing the game. What did

they do with water bombers. Did they do that, too, on water bombers? Did they do

it with - I know the SRDA one you probably mentioned. Sure, if we are getting

money we take advantage of it, but there is no excuse in other items.

AN HON. MEMBER: Marble is okay (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I didn't say Marble is okay, not at

all. I think we have to rationalize -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I would have to see exactly the lay out

that the federal government proposed, whether the provincial was inefficient in

dealing with it at the time. I would have to look at other factors around the

situation before I could draw an informed decision, but I can tell you one

thing: There is no federal attachment. A decision to buy water bombers was an

improper decision (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Governor's Park?

MR. SULLIVAN: What about what?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Governor's Park?

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't care who does it, whether it is the

PC government or Liberal government; I don't agree with wasting money that the

taxpayers pay into this Province in retail sales tax or income tax, tobacco tax,

or whatever it happens to be. I don't agree with the waste of money, period. If

you have money to throw around, cut your expenses, do it in an efficient manner,

give it to charities, do whatever you have to do, but don't waste it, I say to

the government; don't waste money. They have not used very much common sense.

I don't see sidewalks, I say to the minister, up in Cape

Broyle, and I don't see recreation facilities, and I don't see bus

transportation going around the community, and I don't see -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister complains because they have a

low poll tax. I would say, granted, if the community of Cape Broyle, and they

are operating, I say to the minister - to my knowledge the community of Cape

Broyle has no long-term debt. They have no long-term debt, and they made a

decision against their council. Council voted to accept a $500,000 water system,

and the people of the community, 90 per cent, said: No, we don't want to

mortgage our future. We want to be responsible and not spend money we may not be

able to pay. And the minister complains because they have low poll tax. The

minister wants them to get water and get sewer, increase poll tax, property tax,

get bus transportation, increase that, get rec centres, increase their poll tax.

If the people only want a low poll tax, and want a low level of service, leave

them be; don't force them into it and compare. When you compare poll tax and

property tax you should compare the level of service you get for that tax

dollar, that is what should be done. Why force a big infrastructure on a

community that in the future might have to resettle because of the policies of

this government? They might have to resettle the community.

We have a declining population in that area of my district.

We know other areas of this Province that have a declining population away from

urban growth centres. Why put them in a position whereby in the future the few

remaining people are going to have to bear a higher cost or the government is

going to have to pick up the bill down the road? There is no need of it, it

should not be done, it should be prudent management. They have no debt, Bay

Bulls had no debt. They could not get funds out of this government in there for

a few measly $25,000 out of $48 million. They could not get $25,000. In a

responsible, growing community of 1,200 people, an efficiently run town, I say

to the Member for St. John's South, the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations passes up through there now and then and he is familiar with what I am

talking about there. I think it is a well run community. I don't have anything

to indicate otherwise. In fact, lots of information to indicate it is. I am sure

the minister is aware of that and why -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Good, good, I am glad.

Here we are making decisions that are not responsible and we

are making decisions that are going to further encumber the building, people in

this Province to pay and this government by a lack of planning and a lack of

foresight.

In UI changes we seen, I say to the minister who just spoke

there, UI changes is further putting a damper on activities in rural

Newfoundland. It is further going to put great pressures on people to be able to

continue to reside in rural Newfoundland. We should be looking at ways that are

going to be able to make rural Newfoundland viable to be able to maintain a fair

population base in line with their taxation and not being able to try to tell

them more services and force up taxes. We should be taking responsible action

there and I have not seen it in certain incidents there. In certain instances

there are of course and they do compliment the government. They make decisions

in areas - they have made decisions I think outside my district in expenditures

too that I support and I agree with them. I don't care whether you refer to

-whether it was Brian Peckford, Joey Smallwood or the current Premier, it does

not make any difference. Decisions should be based on their merits, not based on

who makes the decision. So you can get political on those issues.

There has been tremendous downloading on municipalities. They

blame it on the federal government, you can blame it on who you like. The

federal government did not change things in mid-stream. This government has

changed in mid-stream from the first year I came in this House they made a

change in June, right early in the fiscal year and downloaded. They have capped

funding now. It is going to be down to $30 million after the next fiscal year

and municipalities are in a dilemma. What happened several years ago, five or

six years ago, municipalities took over roads. They took over extra roads.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sullivan, there must be a plan there,

what's the plan?

MR. SULLIVAN: They took over extra roads. We know what

the plan is, they took over roads. The community of Renews and Cappahayden took

over little lanes, we will call them, practically lanes but you can meet a car

there because the government is ready to get rid of them, give them $2,000 a

kilometre to maintain those and $1,000 for snow clearing and $1,000 for summer

up-keep when they have all those roads in other communities. Then they decided

we are going to cap municipal spending. We are going to cap it which meant the

roads component two years ago actually disappeared just about, it went down from

$2,000 to $1,200. It went down to $400-and-some and when government realized the

problem they had - last year this government realized the problem that was in

rural Newfoundland, they decided to shift that. We could not eliminate the roads

component because rural areas are spread out so far they would never collect

enough taxes to be able to just maintain a road so they threw component back in.

Well what has happened right now with the capping going down $4.1 million I

think it is, another $7 point some million next year. I think almost $11.9

million in total, we will be down just under $30 million now from what was

almost $50 million. Municipalities cannot cope, their betting on long term

decisions. They have roads, they cannot pull them up, fold them up and put them

away anymore and they cannot afford to maintain them.

Rural Newfoundland is going off to Alberta, Northwest

Territories and all over the country, out of the Province. Rural Newfoundland is

dwindling. The ability of the people to maintain the infrastructure in those

communities is not there anymore. There is a certain thing - this government has

to do something about it. They have to look at the situation that they created

here, our economic situation. The Premier stated, a very interesting comment I

heard yesterday and it is alarming, he said we should not be focusing on

constitution. We should deal with the social and the economic problems facing

this Province. Anybody else to talk about putting his priorities and deal with

social and economic problems of a province and not be worried with the

Constitution of the country. The Premier, after going on a frantic mission

across Canada for three years talking Constitution for breakfast, for lunch and

for dinner, day after day, tours all over the country. Constitution. That was

his Bible, that is all he talked about. He ignored the fiscal and social agendas

of the Province and now he talks about: We should be looking at social and

economic things, the Premier of the Province not dealing with Constitution.

Now that is a pile of malarkey. The Premier, more so than

anybody else, he is least qualified to talk about dealing with Constitution

matters and focus on social and economic. It is about time I say the Premier

woke up, after almost seven years, it is about time he woke up and smelt the

coffee and looked at the problems in this Province. People don't care about the

Constitution. They told him that on the Charlottetown Accord, they told him that

over and over again.

People in this Province are concerned about putting food on

the table, having a job and earning an income, and being able to get up in the

morning with a bit of dignity and go to work and bring home a pay cheque, and to

feed the family and be able to survive. They don't care whether we are in

Canada, they don't care whether Quebec is in or out. Most people in this

Province, they want to be able to live from day to day and wonder where their

next cent comes from. Those are the issues that we have to deal with here and

the problems and concerns there. We are spending too much time debating and

discussing things that are not relevant to the ordinary individual

Newfoundlander and Labradorian. That is something we have to get back on track

and we have to deal with some of those things. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the

resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, Motion No. 1, Bill No. 13.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion No. 1, Bill No. 13,

An Act To Amend

The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend

The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the

guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to

certain corporations."

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the

resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on

Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report

having passed certain resolutions, and recommends that Bill Nos. 13 and 14 be

given approval to effect same, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, the following bills read a first, second and third

time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act,

1957." (Bill No. 14)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957."

(Bill No. 13)

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4, the hon. the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have received a message from His Honour, the

Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise, please.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board:

"I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland,

transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for

the year ending March 31, 1995. By the way of Supplementary Supply and in

accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these

estimates to the House of Assembly."

Sgd.:_________________________________________

Frederick W. Russell, Lieutenant-Governor

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message together

with the amount be referred to the Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the message

together with the amounts be referred to the Committee of Supply

Motion, carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole On Supply

MR. CHAIRMAN (M.Penney): Order, please!

Bill 37, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is the normal supplementary supply bill for the last

fiscal year that comes in to clean up the details at the end of the year. It 's

in the amount of $67,854,800 and it covers the period from April 1, 1994 to

March 31, 1995 and this defrays the additional charges and expenses of the

Public Service of Newfoundland as set out in the schedule. The amounts are set

forth on the back of the bill which I think are straightforward. The main

expenditure there is, or the largest one I should say, is that of Social

Services in the amount of $27 million.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, it is notable that last year

when the accounts were tallied up at the end of the year, the deficit, capital

and current, was in the amount of $120 million as opposed to the $190 million,

$189 million that had originally been forecast, so notwithstanding that it was a

matter of Supplementary Supply in the year, the Province's performance improved

substantially from Budget time forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that's all I have to say with regard

to the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What this is, is once again proof of the government's total

failure to manage the financial resources of the Province. It's again, another

$60 million in Special Warrants issued for the last fiscal year and this whole

process of course, is the most foolish process in the House of Assembly.

This is for money that was spent in the fiscal year,

1994-'95. We are now in to '95-'96 and in fact we are three-quarters of the way

through '95-'96, and we are now being asked to approve $60 million basically in

Special Warrants that were tabled here during the fiscal year 1994-'95, and once

again, Mr. Chairman, all it does is highlight the inability of this government

to properly manage or otherwise the unwillingness of this government to be

forthright in their Budget documents at the beginning of the year.

As I recall that year, as we have said ever year and every

year we have been right, the Budgets have not been truthful documents, have not

been an honest reflection of what one could expect to see during the course of

the year, social services, we have been $27 million off. Now, Mr. Chairman,

there is no justification for any government to miscalculate the requirements

under social services by $27 million.

No one can say well, things happen. You didn't have $27

million worth of things happen that could not have been foreseen. Expenditures

could have been foreseen, should have been budgeted properly at Budget time,

instead of having to come in with Special Warrants partway through the year.

The Department of Works, Services and Transportation, $17

million. I believe that particular year, without going back over my notes on

that Budget, I believe that year there was a tremendous cutback in the funding

for snow clearing. The minister said: Well, we don't know if we are going to

have any snow this winter. So we will put money in there. They did the same

thing in forestry, actually. Cut back drastically on funds for forest fire

fighting that year. They said: We probably won't have any forest fires, and if

we do then we will have to come up with the money, but by special warrants.

That is not good, responsible financial management. You have

a reasonable expectation that you are going to have snow in this Province.

Anybody who would tell you that you probably won't have snow in Newfoundland

doesn't deserve to be a minister of the Crown. You certainly have a reasonable

expectation that there are going to be forest fires, albeit, not quite as secure

as knowing there is going to be snow in the Province. Not quite as sure.

But in this case we cut back on services that we knew we were

going to have to provide. It just wasn't an honest document, and this is the

proof of the pudding. We saw it again this year. We told government that its

Budget last year of a $2 million surplus was not a realistic document. We told

them there was going to be a deficit. Two months ago I asked questions in this

House to the minister: Is it true that we are now facing a $50 million deficit?

Two weeks later he had to confirm that there was a $60 million problem that he

had to deal with, and he had to come in with his ministerial statement to try to

deal with it.

All this is here is an admission of failure on behalf of

government to properly budget, to properly foresee the expenditures that are

going to be incurred during the year, and not being honest with the people of

this Province in its Budget document, in putting forward a document that it knew

it could rely on and that was reasonably accurate and reasonably close to what

would be expected during the course of the year. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My

colleague for Mount Pearl said most of what needs to be said about this. But I

was just curious, with some of the ministers (inaudible), I was just wondering

what basically the expenditures were for in their respective departments. Snow

clearing is pretty straightforward, $17 million or so, Department of Works,

Services and Transportation.

I'm just wondering. Industry, Trade and Technology. I see the

minister is not here. I just wondered what that $3 million was for. It is not

outlined here, I don't think. It doesn't outline here what the expenditure was

for, I say to my colleague for Mount Pearl. I don't know if he can tell me or

not. I would like for someone to be able to tell me.

MR. WINDSOR: I have some of them here.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What is that?

MR. WINDSOR: I have some of them.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, $3,081,700, Industry, Trade and

Technology. I wonder what that was all about. Was that for the Economic Recovery

Commission or Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador? I'm wondering what that was

about. Money that wasn't budgeted.

MR. MACKEY: Two hundred days in the Far East.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Two hundred days in the Far East, my

colleague for Grand Falls says. I doubt if it would cost them that much, $3

million. It would cost them a fair bit. We know he is an expensive minister but

I doubt if it would cost him that much. I'm just wondering if someone in the

Ministry could answer, if the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board could tell

us what specifically this was about. What the expenditure was for, Industry,

Trade and Technology, $3,081,000. I wonder would the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board know what caused that department to spend that much money above

and beyond what was budgeted for that we have then to deal with special

warrants. I wonder (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) social services.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, Social Services, that is $27

million. Social assistance, allowance and assistance, $19 million. Home support

$6 million, child welfare $1.6 million. I'm just wondering what the Industry,

Trade and Technology was.

The other interesting one was the Department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation for $960,000. I'm wondering what that was about. I wonder

if the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board could tell us what that was for.

Was that for Cabot, that infamous Cabot Corporation, or Caboto Corporation, or

defunct Cabot - oh, the minister is in another seat! Sorry, I didn't see the

minister. I wonder if the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, with his

nice bright Christmas tie on there, I'm just wondering, was it to buy ties for

the minister, I wonder, Christmas ties, so he can give them out as he travels

around the world now, is that what it was for? Could the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) we don't do that, do we?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Do we? No, no. Listen to the Minister of

Education and Training

I was just wondering if it was to buy Christmas ties for the

minister to give out as he travels around the world now? Is that what it was

for?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Education and Training,

the hon. Chris Decker, could not attend. The hon. Chris Decker was absent from

the big health meeting, the special committee on health. He could not attend. In

attendance the hon. Lloyd Matthews, Chairman, hon. Kay Young, Minister of Social

Services, Edsel Bonnell, Dr. R. Williams, Brenda Fitzgerald, and on and on it

goes. There was a good crowd but hon. Chris Decker could not attend. I do not

know where he was. Was he in Calgary?

I say to the minister that I remember the OHMS. That is

better than OT when you work with the unions. Like the guy said down in the

transportation depot in Grand Bank, that good old TO. I do not know if he is

still there or not. Is this it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, that's industry, trade and

technology.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, an educated guess, Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation, $3,036,700, and that infamous Economic

Recovery Commission $45,000. What did they come up with now that they had to get

extra money for? What was that about, Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador and

the Economic Recovery Commission? When are we going to see that Economic

Recovery Commission abolished, I say to the Minister of Finance?

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, the Minister of

Education and Training, the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Health, the

Minister of Natural Resources, and the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, when are you going to have the intestinal fortitude to abolish that

so-called Economic Recovery Commission? There has been no economic recovery or

no economic discovery by the Economic Recovery Commission. What was it the

Chairman said? Get wool and go knitting, wasn't it? Buy balls of yarn. The

economy of the Province depends on knitting.

MR. SULLIVAN: Are they going to knit their way out of the

recession? Is that it?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, that is what someone said. We are

going to knit our way out of the recession.

Mr. Chairman, when I was here listening and somebody

mentioned knitting I thought to myself, well, Dr. House has been pulling the

wool over the government's eyes now for I do not know how many years. Imagine

the Member for Gander has been here six years, six years too long I say to him,

six years of big pay and big expenditures. Still the Minister of Finance could

push 400 or 500 through the door just a couple of weeks ago. He showed them the

door yet he keeps the Economic Recovery Commission and Enterprise Newfoundland

and Labrador. He keeps them there and puts very good, productive, hard working

people out the door. It is unbelievable, Mr. Chairman.

Once I got on to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation he left. He did not want me to pursue the ties too much, $960,000. I

said two or three times and I had hoped he was here but wasn't in his seat. He

tried to hide away over there behind the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations which is not very difficult to do, to hide away behind the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations. I thought he would come back and answer the

question, why he needed $960,000 in a special warrant in the fiscal year before

last? What did they spend it on? Was it trips to Bristol? Was it wine and cheese

parties? Was that what it was? Was it entertainment?

I saw in some statements here, there must have been some wild

parties because of the amount of money that was spent on some of them, thousands

of dollars for entertainment. It is pretty broad ranging, too, that

entertainment. Almost as broad as, what is it, OHMS, entertainment. It covers

almost as much as OHMS. On Her Majesty's Service, I say to the Member for

Placentia. When you put that up on the claim, reason for trip or reason for

claim, OHMS, now I can tell you that covers just about everything, On Her

Majesty's Service.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I say to members, it is pretty

serious stuff when you see that OHMS.

MR. WOODFORD: Electrical resistance.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, there is a lot of resistance to

some of the things that are covered under OHMS, I say to my colleague from

Humber Valley. There is a lot of resistance to a lot of things that are claimed

and documented under OHMS, I guarantee you that. I would like to see now the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation claims under OHMS and the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology and even the Minister of Finance himself. Even

the Minister of Finance, I would like to see now what comes in under OHMS.

I want to say to my good friend the Minister of Education, I

want to welcome him back after a long jaunt across the country on OHMS. It must

be tiring. He must be suffering from jet lag. Yes, it is tiring and those boring

conferences. I want to welcome him back from Her Majesty's service. It must be

quite an honour to go across the country -

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I know that but I got to tell the

minister we were here sometime Friday afternoon and the Premier came back. I was

winding up my few remarks on the most recent Hydro bill and I don't know how it

came up but anyway a lot of Cabinet ministers were gone, so I said to the

Premier: Sir, half the Cabinet is in Ottawa. He looked at the Government House

Leader and he said: What's going on in Ottawa? I said well let me tell you

what's going on in Ottawa. I said the Minister of Finance is in Ottawa, the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is in Ottawa and I said the Minister

of Education stopped at Ottawa on his way back from Calgary. He said, is that

right Ed? Ed did not say too much. It was almost like he was trying to settle

him down because he knew there was something twigged with the Premier once he

knew that the three of them were up there with Mr. Tobin. The three of them were

up in a big meeting with Mr. Tobin in Ottawa. That is what really spooked the

Premier is when he found out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He is gone to Ottawa. It is what they

call a late declaration of allegiance.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is gone up to put a word in for the

Premier.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, that would not surprise me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) coming across the House

(inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Coming across there? Is that before

Tobin comes back or after he comes back?

MS VERGE: Tobin is in Marystown, isn't he?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But the real Tobin, the number one Tobin

is in Marystown.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, but the other Tobin, that fellow

that the minister dropped in on, on the way back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, they mixed up their first names, is

it? The last name was correct but they mixed up their first names, it was Glenn

Tobin. Yes, that is what it was.

Anyway, I wonder if the Minister of Education would tell us

how the meeting went? Perhaps he could tell us how the meeting went in Ottawa.

Who is the candidate going to be? I think that is the big thing we have to

determine here. Is it going to be the Minister of Finance or is it going to be

the federal Minister of Fisherie