December

4, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 68

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform hon.

members that I will be making a formal Ministerial Statement to the House

outlining how government plans to address the $60 million deterioration in the

Province's financial position this year. That statement will be made tomorrow.

In the meantime various departments of government will be giving layoff notices

to staff beginning today and the details of government's financial measures will

be available tomorrow as part of my statement.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, there is not a great deal

anyone can say about this. We are anxiously awaiting this Ministerial Statement.

It is a little disconcerting I suppose that employees today are knowing there

are people going to be laid off. They do not know how many are going to be laid

off. The minister has not told us so I guess every employee in government today

is shaking in his or her shoes waiting to see if that pink slip arrives. We

certainly look forward to the minister's statement tomorrow and hope that he has

some new and innovative ideas in here, not only to cut the deficit but to create

some employment in this Province.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to be able to ask the Premier about the federal

government's new UI/EI conversion that was announced on Friday but the day after

the announcement he went off to Europe for a week. In the Premier's absence I

will ask the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. The UI/EI conversion

will probably have a greater effect on Newfoundland and Labrador than any other

province, and it is imperative that we do a thorough analysis of its impact.

Will the minister tell us his estimate of the net loss of federal funds flowing

into the Province each year after the transition period as a result of the

changes, and will the minister table the calculations the provincial government

has done?

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

Labour Relations.

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

Let me say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that of

course this problem is something that government has been dealing with a long,

long time and we decided that we would do it through out Social Policy

Committee. I say to the hon. member that the Minister of Education, being the

Chairman of that Social Policy Committee, will address on behalf of the

government the federal government plan.

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition is quite

correct. Government has to do a thorough analysis, and government should indeed

do a thorough analysis of the impacts of these reforms. The analysis is being

done. One of the difficulties we are having, Mr. Speaker, most of the tools we

use for analyzing such an impact are based on the old system where you required

weeks but this system is being changed to hours and it is making it a little

more difficult. Hopefully in the very near future we will be able to have an

impact of what these actions will have on the Province.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Finance

it is obvious that there is one possibility for saving some money and that is to

reduce the Cabinet by at least one minister. The Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations seems to be superfluous.

Let me ask a supplementary to the real Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations, the Minister of Education and Training, has the provincial

government yet received the financial and economic analyses the federal

government did on which Lloyd Axworthy based his announcements and if so, will

the minister make it public by tabling it in the House? Will the minister table

in the House the calculations the Premier told us last Thursday the Province did

based on a variety of possible scenarios?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know we have

practically all the information that the federal government has chosen to make

available. I am not sure if there is any specific thing she is talking about, we

have all of the information and that is one of the problems we are having. For

example, the information we have from the feds says that we are in receipt of

$725 million a year in unemployment insurance. Now according to our own

estimates we are only receiving somewhere in the vicinity of $650 million. So

everything that the feds have put out is based on the $725 million unemployment

insurance that we are receiving. The problem with the whole program that we are

having, Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects to it, one is the unemployment

insurance, the income, the insurance part of the program and the other is the

income supplementation. Unemployment insurance in this Province has become

income supplementation.

AN HON. MEMBER: No (inaudible).

MR. DECKER: And as he says, no, of course we all know

that. Now, there does not seem to be any great major disagreement with the

insurance aspect of this program. There is a leap of faith required with part

two. If the federal minister is correct then the employment generators that he

is talking about will work and the need for the unemployment insurance will not

be as great but I have to be quite frank with the hon. lady that there is a leap

of faith which we have to make and until we have the opportunity to analyze all

the figures that are coming down from the federal government and our own

estimates, it is difficult for us to say what impact it will have. I can tell

the hon. lady that according to the federal minister himself, in the year 2001

we will be losing $138 million, now that is the federal figures. We will be

losing $138 million out of the unemployment insurance fund but there will be $85

million reinvested into work stimulation, into trying to get the economy up and

going, that is 2001. We don't have the breakdown for '97-'98 for '98-'99,

'99-2000 and these sort of things. So we still don't have all the information

but we are desperately struggling to get that.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the Minister of Education and Training.

The federal government announced a $300-million transition

fund, $120 million of which is earmarked for the Atlantic Provinces. What amount

of the transition fund does the minister believe Newfoundland and Labrador is

entitled to, and who is going to fight for a fair share for Newfoundland and

Labrador? How is this Province going to meet the competition from Premier Frank

McKenna who is fighting for his province and the other Maritime premiers, when

the Premier of this Province is over in Europe?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the quick answer is how much do

I believe that the Province should have? The answer is, we should have the full

$120 million, however that's not the way things have been done in the past. If

it were based simply on population then we would be receiving about 27 per cent

of the $120 million. If it is based on the unemployment in the region, which is

the formula that ACOA uses, we would be getting about 30 per cent of the amount.

The hon. member will know that one of the things which Mr.

Axworthy said, as a result of this reform, there will be opportunity for each

province to negotiate with the federal government to determine how much we

should get. We will be going after the maximum that we can get, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Education and Training: In making his

major announcement about UI on Friday, Lloyd Axworthy said the federal

government will no longer purchase training courses, whether from the provinces,

public or private institutions. Mr. Axworthy said funding for training could be

provided directly to individuals to provinces or third parties depending upon

what is negotiated with each province.

Can the minister give us any assurance that the level of

federal training funding, coming into Newfoundland and Labrador next year and

beyond, will not drop below the approximately $50-million level it is this year?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady seems to have some

understanding of this, not the full understanding obviously. The established

program financing is where the money to post-secondary education use to come

into the Province and within that fund the $50 million she is talking about

would probably be the total amount, within that fund there was a category which

was government to government purchases. This is where the federal government

would buy from our public institutions some seats - manpower seats, we used to

call them. They, last year, took $2 million out of that $7 million fund. This

announcement would give the indication that it would completely disappear next

year, but that is not the case. It is going to be phased down over a year or

two, depending on the deal that we can make, but the hon. lady is quite correct,

that from here on there will have to be negotiations between the Province and

the federal government to determine how much will come in. The federal minister

is quite adamant when he says there will be no more government to government

purchases except for a phase-out. There will be no more government to

institution purchases. This is where the fund - that is correct, where the

schools used to be funded.

The federal minister is still talking about a voucher system,

which will go directly to the student, and then the student will buy a seat into

a college. That detail has not been fully worked out, and I am sure the hon.

member will be impatient about that, but I can tell you we, too, are impatient;

we want to get all the details, but we cannot tell her exactly what it will do

because there is going to be some negotiating there.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the minister has confirmed that the federal government,

through human resources development, will no longer be purchasing seats from

public or private training institutions; neither will the federal government be

extending UI or EI for students. Will the minister tell us what objectives he

and the provincial government have set for themselves in heading into

negotiations with the federal government?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend today to tell

the hon. Leader of the Opposition exactly what we are going to negotiate with

the federal government. That would be a negotiating exercise that we will have

to go through. I can assure her, though, that it will be our intention, it will

be in the interest of the people of the Province, that we get the best possible

deal that we can, and we will be doing that, but I think it would be highly

inappropriate for me today to tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition, or anybody

else, exactly what we are going to do in our negotiations. That would be a bit

presumptuous; that would be insulting to the people with whom we are going to

negotiate. I can assure her, though, that after the negotiations have taken

place we will be quite prepared to make available to her, and to the people of

this Province, exactly what our position is.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, the people of the Province are

entitled to know the principles the Province has adopted to guide its

negotiations with the federal government. There is a tremendous amount at stake.

Now, will the minister tell us his timetable for working out

the new federal/provincial training arrangement, and will the minister indicate

what changes he foresees for the academic year that starts September, 1996?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I already told the hon. member

that there is a phase-down for the government to government seat purchase, so

that will certainly help us but, no, I cannot give her today all the details. We

have to work that out. We've been working on this, I should tell the hon.

member, for the last little while, because we were aware that there were going

to be some major changes. In last year's Budget it was announced that the

government to government seat purchases would disappear. There is some leeway

and there is some phase-down, but the actual details of what we are going to put

forward, I can assure the hon. member that it will be in the best interests of

the people of this Province and the students of this Province. I'm not going to

get up today and make some announcement as to something we are going to do until

we have thought it fully through.

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

West.

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

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations regarding the same issue. I'm not

sure why the Minister of Education and Training chooses to answer these

questions. Probably it is because he has begun the demolition of the health care

system, now the education system, and he wants to participate in the demolition

of the UI program. I would hope the real Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations would respond to my questions.

On Friday the federal minister announced drastic changes to

the unemployment insurance program. While the Premier of this Province stated on

national radio that this is a marvellous program - and many Newfoundlanders I

may say don't share his view that it is indeed a marvellous beginning - I would

like to ask the minister to explain how eligibility is determined. I would like

for him to take, for example, that if a construction worker works sixty hours a

week for ten weeks earning 600 hours, far more than the 420 hours that are

required, will this worker be eligible for employment insurance after the ten

weeks and the 600 hours? If he is not eligible after these ten weeks, when would

he be eligible and how much would he receive a week?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wondering why

I'm answering the question. It is quite logical. These reforms which the federal

minister announced last week, or yesterday, on the weekend, apply to the

Departments of Education and Training, Social Services, Employment and Labour

Relations, Health, and various other departments in government. We have in

government as hon. members know a Social Policy Committee of which I happen to

be chair. Rather than having all ministers try to address the answers to the

questions, we as a government decided that the chairman of social policy would

deal with it. That is why.

In his

preamble he talks about the Premier calling this a

marvellous reform, or something to that effect. Once again the hon. member is

taking the Premier out of context. At no time did the Premier say this was a

marvellous thing. The Premier talked about the meeting he had with the minister,

and he talked -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the Premier made no reference to

content. He talked about - it was a good meeting. The federal minister had

explained that there will be an opportunity for each province to enter into a

bilateral agreement with the Federal Government.

Now, as for the details of this program, I'm not going to get

up and defend the Federal Government. It is their program. I will tell the hon.

member that because of the change from weeks to hours I can give him a few

little illustrations. A normal week will be thirty-five hours. So a construction

worker who works for seventy hours in one week actually gets two weeks worth of

stamps. When he applies for the unemployment insurance -

AN HON. MEMBER: How many stamps do you have?

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Opposition don't

take this very seriously. They think it is a big, laughing, joking matter. If

they ask serious questions, that is part of their duty as Opposition members.

They should ask questions so that the people of the Province can understand what

is going on. Then they have to give the people of whom they ask the question the

opportunity to get up and give an answer. That is part of their duty and it is

part of the parliamentary institution, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to the answer.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They won't let me

answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a

supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, many people in the Province would

hope that this was a joke rather than reality, I say to the minister. It was not

I who said the Premier stated that it was a marvellous meeting or a marvellous

program; it was the CBC radio news. The national news in the morning newscast

said that even the Premier of Newfoundland has described it as marvellous, after

the meeting with the Federal Minister and the Prime Minister - that is who the

Premier said it to.

A second question to the minister. Now that he won't answer

if that person can qualify after ten weeks or if he has to wait for sixteen

weeks; he won't answer that question, let me ask him this: What is the maximum

number of weeks a claimant will be able to receive EI based on the minimum

requirements?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the details of this program are

better addressed to the federal minister. The reality is, that will vary again

throughout the Province, it is my understanding. A person who finally gets on,

it is going to be, I think, in the vicinity of forty-five weeks you can collect

for. At the moment you (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Yes. These are details, Mr. Speaker. We have

to react to the impact that the whole thing is going to have on the Province.

But the details of the program, I don't have them in my head.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to believe

that they advocate it as being a marvellous program and yet they don't know the

details of what this marvellous program is all about.

Let me ask the minister this question: Out of that fund to

which he is referring, how much money from that $300 million they are talking

about, will Newfoundland receive per year? Over how many years will they receive

this money? What will be the type of work projects that are going to be

available and who will administer or sponsor these projects?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: The hon. member will know, when his leader

asked the same question, I explained that the formula has not yet been

determined as to how much each province will receive. As I said, if we base it

on unemployment, we will be entitled to about 30 per cent of the fund. If we

base it on population we will be entitled to about 27 per cent of the fund; if

we base it on the population of Canada, we will get 2.2 per cent of the fund, so

that is a detail that we don't have worked out.

As I pointed out earlier when I was addressing this question,

Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects to this. One is the insurance part of the

Unemployment Insurance Program or the Employment Insurance Program. The

insurance part of it, if a person loses his or her job, there is an insurance

there to help that person as he or she is waiting for a new job. For the income

supplementation of the program, the federal minister is talking about making

available a fund, and this is one aspect of it. Other areas of funding will be

made available.

What the Federal Government is saying, and they use one year

only as an illustration - in the year 2001-2002, this Province, according to the

Federal Government, will lose $138 million in direct unemployment insurance

payments. At the same time, the re-investment will be in the vicinity of $85

million for a net loss of 7 per cent, Mr. Speaker. These are the federal

figures. We have not been able to verify them or not verify them at this present

time, and that is part of the exercise we are going through.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, over the last month when we were

asking questions in the House of this government as it relates to the UI changes

that this government is going to implement, we were constantly told by the

Premier, the minister and others, that they couldn't comment, that they were

waiting to see what the Federal Government was going to announce before they

could comment.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen, we now have proof of the kick that

the Federal Government has given to seasonally-employed people in this Province

and, indeed, the whole Province. Let me ask the minister: Is he going to sit

idly by now again and wait until the Federal Government announces what portion

of this funding we are going to receive for training, of this $300 million, or

is he going to stand up and fight for Newfoundlanders and do something that is

right and proper for a change?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there is a difference in

fighting and posturing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: I can tell the hon. member that his former

leader, the former Premier Peckford, postured as fighting the time he had the

big diatribe about `They sold the shop, they sold the shop'; all he did was, he

made a fool of himself. All he did, Mr. Speaker, was make a fool of himself in

the eyes of the people of this Province and the eyes of the people across the

country. We will not be posturing, but I can assure you that just as we have

done in the past, we will be putting forward a case on behalf of the people of

this Province which will be for the ultimate good. But if the hon. member is

asking me if I am going to get out and make a fool of myself saying: `They sold

the shop, they sold the shop', no, Mr. Speaker, that's not the way we play. We

will represent the Province adequately, as we have always done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

About twenty homes in the community of Harcourt near

Clarenville have experienced well pollution as a consequence of an agricultural

operation. It began as a vegetable farm, it became a dairy farm in the last

several years. Residents want to know who is responsible for correcting their

problems and what remedial actions the minister has taken to address their

concerns?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for Trinity

North who represents Harcourt - and by the way, I want to let the hon. member

know Harcourt Monroe is my town as well, that's where my parents came from, so I

am well aware of the area, and quite proud of it to be honest about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) $13,000.

MR. REID: Yes, we provided $13,000 to the community in

this round of infrastructure money and they are using it now. As far as I know,

they have dug, I think, and tested three different sites for three different

wells and they are having problems trying to find water. Now the problem with

the water is that some residents are taking the water out of a brook or a stream

and they are saying that the water is being polluted by a farm up river further.

We addressed the problem, we had our people go out and look at the problem and

certain times in the year the faecal content or the contamination content is

higher then others and we thought at the time that it was necessary to spend

that money. So it is an ongoing investigative type of thing going on out there

now. We are trying to find a solution to the water problem that they have and as

soon as we do we will have to look for the money I guess, to provide it to the

community - to provide adequate drinking water to those people.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister could confirm as to whether or not

the Kitchener Pelley Farm obtained environmental approvals prior to the

conversion from vegetables to dairy operations?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't know. I really don't

know. It would not come under my department anyway and I guess he will have to

direct the question to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, I don't

know.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, if I could I would like to

address that question to the appropriate minister to see if there was an

environmental study completed before the Kitchner- Pelley Farm was permitted to

switch from root crops to a dairy operation?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad my friends

across the way have finally addressed me properly, that is quite good.

I don't know the particular case you are referring to but

normally, unless there were something very, very different about the area, I

would think that an environmental assessment would not be necessary under normal

circumstances. As to whether there was an environmental assessment done, I

really cannot tell you but I certainly will look into the specific case and

report back.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my information tells me that the

wells that have been drilled thus far have been non-productive in terms of

procuring water. It will take about $2.5 million to bring a water supply from

the nearest pond or river over about a 2 kilometre distance. Residents want to

know again, who will be responsible? They did not create the problem but they

are the victims of it. I wonder if I could ask the question to the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was just talking to my

colleague from Trinity North. I am sorry, I apologize, I did know. The original

question that I referred to my colleague was, did they have a permit to operate?

Yes, the permit was granted prior to 1989, I believe it was '88 or '87. So it

was the previous government that gave that farm the permit to operate, I think

that is clear. The other question is purely hypothetical, $2.5 million for a

water and sewage system or a water system for Harcourt, that is what you are

asking me about, Mr. Speaker, I am not in any position here today to make any

comment about whether or not this government or anyone would provide the

funding. Let them continue drilling and if they can find a well suitable, we

will look at providing them with the funding necessary to get drilled well water

to as many houses as we possibly can. We will look at it. I am not in any

position to make any other comment other then that. I am going to do whatever I

can to help the people in Harcourt and the Monroe area. Like the hon. member

knows, I will try to do as I do with every community in the Province.

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is for

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

It was reported on Friday, December 1, at approximately 8:30

a.m. that a school bus travelling between Purbeck's Cove and West Port on the

Baie Verte Peninsula, with eight school children on board encountered some icy

road conditions and subsequently skidded off the road. I wonder if the minister

could update us on what his officials have reported about that particular

incident?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have had a full report since

Friday afternoon about the incident involving the school bus on the Purbeck's

Cove Road on Friday. It was not as stated in a press release given by the hon.

member, not even closely stated, and I am getting sick and tired, personally, of

dealing with inaccuracies in this hon. House of Assembly by hon. members

opposite.

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

Bay on a supplementary.

Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Minister that he

is going to be more sick and tired of me if he doesn't pay attention to what

people are telling him, especially in rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister for his report from his

officials. He did not give it here, but just said that it was inaccurate. I can

tell the minister that I spoke with the parents - one of the parents who had

three children on that school bus - I spoke to the principal of the school, and

I spoke to the bus driver himself; that is where I got my report. That is why I

asked the minister what his report was all about. I have also checked with his

own officials and found out that there were - the minister keeps repeating that

there are no lay-offs -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: - no reductions in the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to

his question.

MR. SHELLEY: - that there were no reductions on the Baie

Verte Peninsula. His officials have told me already this morning that there have

been nine lay-offs with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

Can the minister confirm that there were nine lay-offs on the Baie Verte

Peninsula with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and the man

who formerly did the sanding on that particular road where the incident occurred

was one of the people who was laid off this year.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: If I find out that one of the employees of

the Department of Works, Services and Transportation is giving out false

information, as he is stating in this House of Assembly, there will be more

lay-offs on the Peninsula.

I am telling this hon. House of Assembly, the lay-offs under

the Department of Works, Services and Transportation were totally restructuring,

mechanical and labourers and clerks and, in the case of trucks, I pointed out to

this Province thousands of times, we do not need two people driving the one

truck.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: What happened on Friday morning is total

misinformation in this House of Assembly, and an exaggeration by the member

opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is time for one quick supplementary. The hon. the

Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, first of all, there were no two

drivers because there was no truck; there was nothing there. Eight o'clock in

the bloody morning -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Eight-thirty in the morning, when children

are driving on these icy road conditions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has time for one quick supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister: Were

there reductions in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation on the

Baie Verte Peninsula?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, there have been reductions in

staff all over this Island. What happened there Friday was not, and nor could it

even be possibly, closely related to the changes in operational staff of the

department. There was a build up of ice on the road. The bus driver went down

over it - he went down over it - and picked up the kids after driving over a

small spot of ice on the road. It had nothing to do with lay-offs, and the hon.

member knows full well what I am saying is correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice

that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled

An Act To Amend

The Shops Closing Act.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I

will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled

An Act To Amend The St. John's

Assessment Act.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled

An Act To Amend The Mineral Act.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, two notices.

May I give notice that I shall on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce the following bills, entitled:

An Act Respecting Provincial Offenses; and,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.

That is the infamous Attorney General's bill we see each

year.

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

West.

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

ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

Whereas the federal government has introduces a new

employment insurance plan replacing the existing unemployment program;

And

whereas this new plan will negatively affect many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians;

Therefore

be it resolved that this House condemn the actions

of the federal government for implementing this attack on Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow

I will move the following resolution:

Whereas the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has the

responsibility to create an atmosphere where there will be an incentive for

people to join the workforce;

And

whereas the recently announced employment insurance

program will be based to some extent on hours of work versus weeks;

And

whereas many people in today's society have no

alternative but to be employed in part-time work;

And

whereas the cost of living has increased in recent years

and the collapse of the fishery has had a domino affect on many indirect jobs;

And

whereas the minimum wage of Newfoundland and Labrador is

at $4.75 per hour, the lowest in Canada along with Prince Edward Island;

Be it therefore resolved that as of April 1, 1996 the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador increase the minimum wage rate in this

Province to $5.75 per hour.

Petitions

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have

the opportunity to rise and present a petition in this House on behalf of the

undersigned people, the residents of Labrador City and Wabush.

The prayer of the petition is:

Whereas because of budgetary

restraint new school busing proposals are unrealistic and dangerous, and

whereas

extreme climatic conditions and local conditions force students to use school

buses, therefore your petitioners humbly pray that the government allocate

necessary funding to permit the continuing operation of a safe and reliable

school busing program in Western Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Western Labrador have been

accustomed to busing for the last twenty-eight to thirty years, a safe reliable

school busing system that was designed around the parameters set and paid for by

residents of the area. It wasn't as is occurring by this particular government,

it wasn't somebody setting down the parameters in St. John's and deciding: This

is what has to be done. Because it can work in St. John's, it has to work in

Labrador City and Wabush.

That is what is happening now, and that is what is upsetting

the people of Labrador City and Wabush. The fact that people think they can pass

a silly little regulation in their Cabinet room here in Confederation Building

and say: That is the way it has to be done. Not taking into consideration the

extreme climatic conditions or the geography of Western Labrador. They don't

understand what happens up there, and that is why the people in Western Labrador

are visibly upset about it.

We have ministers such as the Minister of Education and

Training who expressed his ignorance here in question period today about the

unemployment insurance reforms that this government went along with. We saw what

he did there. He rolled over, played dead, and said: It is good for Ottawa, it

is good for us in Newfoundland. That is the attitude that got us the EI reforms.

If it is good for Ottawa it is good for this Province.

That is not the way the residents of Labrador City and Wabush

feel. It may be good for St. John's, it may be good for the Minister of

Education and Training, for his budget, but it is not good for the children in

Labrador City and Wabush to not have the adequate and safe reliable busing that

they have become accustomed to, and deserve. The people in Labrador City and

Wabush want this minister to change his attitude. The people of Western Labrador

want the minister to change his attitude with regard to the delivery of a safe

and reliable busing system and to implement the program so that next year the

people can count on the busing system to be reliable and safe.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this government thinks they can save

$330,000 on the backs of the children of Labrador City and Wabush, and that

means triple busing. It means kids will have to eat their lunch in the lockers

or in a snowbank, or somewhere inside the school, in a gymnasium, or wherever it

is going to be, because the five schools in Western Labrador are not equipped

with cafeteria facilities. There will be no lunch period busing in Western

Labrador under the proposal set down by this government. It also means that

children will be leaving their home at 7:10 in the morning to catch a bus at

7:15 or 7:20 when it is pitch black in April. It is unsafe, there are ten foot

snowbanks, and narrow streets because of the extreme climatic conditions, but

people in the Cabinet do not recognize that.

They do not understand the geography or the climatic

conditions of Labarador City and Wabush, Mr. Speaker, and because they are

forcing the triple busing on the people it is going to be unsafe for their

children. I mentioned in this House last week that a mother wanted me to ask the

minister, and all the ministers, what they felt the value of her child's life

was worth. They are going to save $300,00 but she says her child is worth more

than $300,000 to her. I do not know what their price on their children is, or

her child, but she feels that this Cabinet does not feel that her child is worth

the $300,000, and she does not agree with them. She feels that her child's life

is a priceless commodity and it should be treated with respect, and more respect

than this government has been giving these people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. A. SNOW: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. A. SNOW: The people of Western Labrador want the

government to rethink their busing schedules in Labrador. They want this

government to outline a policy that will allow the people of Western Labrador to

implement, or continue with the program that is presently offered, one that is

safe and reliable. It is not a large consideration considering the amount of

contribution that the people of Western Labrador make to the provincial coffers.

They contribute more per capita than any other resident in the Province and they

feel they have earned and paid for, and have shown this Province that they are

willing to contribute to the overall economy but they want to be treated with a

little bit of respect and they also want this government, and especially the

Minister of Education to start considering that when they offer a plea for their

child's safety they do not think it is nonsense, which is what he is recorded as

having said with regard to his proposals for the change in busing in Western

Labrador.

They do not think it is nonsense. They think this minister

should show to them that he is willing to offer their children a safe and

reliable bus system so that they can enjoy the privileges of going to school

without having to endure the hardships. He knows, yet refuses to do anything to

guarantee their safety with regard to attending school in Western Labrador. They

want the minister to respond in a responsible manner and not to just utter the

word `nonsense' because that should never be said when you are talking about the

safety of children. The safety of children is paramount in this and the minister

should recognize this, and that is what he should always be considering. Instead

of saying it does not matter about the children in Western Labrador he should

consider their safety.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the minister -

MR. TOBIN: A former President of the NTA is making his

withdrawal leave.

MR. A. SNOW: The Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation and the former President of the NTA concurs with what I am saying,

that children's safety should be paramount, we should have a safe and reliable

busing system in Labrador City and Wabush, and that the minister should tell his

officials now to redraw the parameters around what the busing is going to be

designed in Western Labrador so that the children of Labrador City and Wabush

will know that next year they will have a safe and reliable busing system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I want to support the petition presented by my colleague, the

Member for Menihek, representing the concerns and wishes of Labrador City -

Wabush, and school busing and safety.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a very important matter, very

important to the people of Labrador West, but very important to people in all

areas of this Province today and communities in this Province. The issue was

raised today by the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay about a busing incident in

his district over the weekend. Mr. Speaker, it is all over this Province, the

concerns for safety on the highways,and particularly with busing safety,I say.

And we see how seriously the government treats these kinds of issues today. We

saw the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, in essence, issue

threats to employees of his department, that if they open their mouths, if they

indeed tell the truth about the situations in their areas, they will be fired.

MR. EFFORD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: This is the problem that I have with the

people opposite - giving out wrong information. I said very clearly, that if I

found out or if the hon. member could tell me who is passing out false

information, false information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say that the false information that has

been given out in this House has not been coming from the employees of the

department, Mr. Speaker. It is not from the employees of the department that the

false information is coming, and the minister can try all he likes to defend the

indefensible out and about the highways, and what's happening in this Province,

he can try all he likes, but once again, we see from this minister an issue of

threats, trying to muzzle the people of this Province to not tell the truth of

what the highway conditions really are and what particular time of day, Mr.

Speaker, the sand trucks are out on the road. That's the problem, Mr. Speaker,

and I want to support the Member for Menihek in his petition today. He does have

a very legitimate concern for Labrador West, conditions are different down

there, weather conditions are harsher. It is darker at different times of day

when kids go to school and so on, Mr. Speaker, and they deserve a safe bus

system.

Let me just say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, it was only Saturday, that I left this city around twelve

o'clock to go to the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker. And between Goobies and

Terrenceville, I say to the minister, it was absolutely treacherous at 2:00

p.m., absolutely treacherous on that highway. I asked the person who was working

in a service station there when they first saw a piece of equipment and it was

an hour earlier, at 1:00 p.m. that they had first seen a piece of equipment. And

I drove through it myself, snow, four to six inches deep and mild conditions.

If the equipment had been out in the morning as it should

have been, there would have been safe driving conditions. Now that's what is

going on in this Province, I say to the minister. Equipment is being deployed

too late in the day for whatever reason. It is either cutbacks - as the Member

for Baie Verte - White Bay has said, it is either cutbacks, Mr. Minister or, it

is that the people who should be doing the job are not doing it. Now, it is one

of two things, and I say to the minister, it is cutbacks. There are nine people

laid off on the Baie Verte Peninsula, all over this Province, in highway depots,

there are people laid off, they are kept on in the summertime when the need is

not as great and they are laid off now in the Fall, I say to the minister, when

they are needed most. Now, that's what is happening, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I stood in my place to

support the Member for Menihek's petition; they have a very legitimate concern

down there for school busing and bus safety and I just hope the Minister of

Education and Training will see fit to make sure that they keep a bus system

that's safe for their children in that area.

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have sat in this House for the

last two weeks listening to the Member from Labrador West posturing, and if you

were to listen to the hon. member, you would think that we had cut the guts out

of the busing system in Labrador West. It is the same technique used by his

colleague, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay who got up and shouted like

Matilda that the house is on fire, and when you go and look there is no fire

there at all. The problem with this, Mr. Speaker, is when members start doing

that over there, after awhile - I mean, how many times can you panic? How many

times can people scream fire before you stop listening to them? One of these

days I am afraid that something is going to happen because we are not going to

believe them when they come forward. How often do you believe people going on

with foolishness?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I went and made it my business to see what

was really happening in Labrador West. Listening to the hon. member, it was not

safe for children to go to school, it was a danger to poke your nose out through

the door on any day up in Labrador West. It almost sounded like the whole place

was planted with some sort of land mines or something. It frightened the life

out of me. So I checked into it and what are we doing? Now, Mr. Speaker, there

is a policy on busing in this Province which applies to everyone whether you

live in St. John's or Nain, or no matter where you live. However, Mr. Speaker,

we make special provisions for Labrador during the cold months of the year,

between November and April. The 1.6 rule doesn't qualify, they are different. We

recognize that there is a problem with the cold weather; however, there are

certain standards which must apply to everybody in the Province.

One of the problems, Mr. Speaker, is the lunch hour run. Now,

nowhere in this Province does the government pay for the lunch hour run. We have

found, as we looked at the system, that there are cases where boards have been

manipulating and they have been paying for it. One was in Englee, up in my own

riding, which we picked up last year and advised the board, no, you are not

supposed to do lunch hour runs. If the parents want to get together and pay for

a lunch hour run, then sobeit, do it, but that is a policy we don't stand for.

Another policy which we have, Mr. Speaker, is that a bus will only make four

stops in a given area. That is the rule throughout the Province; it is the rule

in Happy Valley, it is the rule in Labrador West, Mr. Speaker. So we don't see

why we are putting any hardship on the people by doing it. Now, notwithstanding

that, buses are driven by human beings who have a fair amount of common sense,

and if there is a stormy day, if there are some extenuating circumstances,

nobody is going to be fired if you make five stops. Now, Mr. Speaker, all we are

tying to do is treat the people of Labrador West fairly as we treat the people

of Happy Valley fairly and at this moment no changes have been made. All the

boards are doing - they have been directed by the Department of Education to

look at their busing and see where we can bring them in line with what we are

doing in Happy Valley.

Now, the hon. member gets up and makes a statement that

because the people in Labrador West are making more money then the people, say,

in Harbour Deep, then they should get special treatment. They should be given a

little extra back. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not the way democracies operate.

That is not the way Canada, the United States of America, it is not the way any

of the great democracies work. If you were to carry that argument to its logical

conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we would have a society very much different from the

one that we have and the hon. member would not want to live in such a society.

You would end up into a user-pay and those who could afford to pay for a

particular level of service would get it and those who could not would have to

do without it. So that argument is the argument I am talking about as being

utter nonsense, when the hon. member gets up and suggests that because people

make more pay they should be treated with more respect. In a democracy, Mr.

Speaker, we are all equal under the law, and the person who, through no fault of

his own, finds himself or herself without a job is just as valuable to this

society as the person who is making a million dollars a month. I am not going to

buy into this Tory nonsense that the hon. member is talking about that somehow

we have to treat someone special because he happens to make $50,000 or $60,000 a

month or something. Mr. Speaker, we are not going to buy into that kind of

nonsense. We will treat the people of Labrador West fairly as we treat the

people in Happy Valley fairly, as we treat the people in Goose Bay fairly, as we

treat the people in Pouch Cove fairly - we will not be getting into the nonsense

he is getting on with. He wants some special treatment because they are making

more money. We are not going to stand for that.

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

Bay on a petition.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition on behalf of the constituents of Baie Verte

- White Bay:

We, the residents of the Baie Verte Peninsula, are very

concerned with the recent cutbacks to the Department of Transportation. We

believe that these cutbacks will seriously affect the safety as well as the

overall quality of transportation on the Baie Verte Peninsula. We urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reconsider these reductions in order

to ensure that safety and quality in road transportation is retained at an

acceptable and safe level.

Mr. Speaker, today during Question Period -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Today, during Question Period, I had the

intention of rising in this House to be very serious and sincere with the

minister - we did get rushed in the last few minutes because it was the closing

of Question Period - to ask some serious questions. And the whole intent of the

questions today was for the minister to take the matter seriously, to take this

as a wake-up call. There was no fabrication, no false information - and I was

asking the minister to seriously have another look at the cutbacks in his

department this year, realizing fiscal constraints, realizing the responsibility

of government and so on. And, instead of getting a serious answer, what we got

from this minister was the lowest that a minister could stoop to, threatening

people who gave information.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the minister where I got my

information. First of all, the students, who were scared to death that morning

on the bus -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: I am telling the minister where I got my

information. Now, he can take appropriate action, like he says.

The eight students on the bus were scared to death when the

bus slipped to one side of the road, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible) passengers.

MR. SHELLEY: Eight passengers. What difference is it, I

ask the Minister of Education, if it is one child, or eight children, or fifty?

AN HON. MEMBER: Eight doesn't count.

MR. SHELLEY: Eight doesn't count?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: I will challenge the Minister of Education

and Training, like I did with the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, to tell me what information I am giving here is incorrect.

Eight children on the bus, those were the people who were

worried. The parents in that community, and one parent, in particular, who had

three children on the bus, was very, very upset - all three of her children were

on that bus. She was very upset. She reported to me exactly what happened, the

principal at the school reported to me exactly what happened, the bus driver,

himself, reported to me what happened and, last but not least, I could not get

in touch with this person, but one of the people who had been let go from last

year. So the only one that the minister had a chance at, out of the six people I

have had information from, was the fellow he already laid off. So, I say to the

minister, you can't lay him off the second time, he is already gone.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the information is straightforward and

simple, and he can go there; as a matter of fact, the CBC cameras are there

today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That bus skidded on a very icy patch of

road. No, it didn't go off the road - the minister is half right. Do you know

why it didn't go off the road? Because it hit trees on the side of the road that

kept it on. That is what happened, and right next to those trees was a

forty-foot drop. Now, I said forty-foot, and I was corrected by the people in

Westport this morning; they said it is more like sixty-foot, so I apologize for

that misinformation.

The truth and the seriousness of this situation is: that bus

skidded on a road that was not sanded at 8:30 a.m. which, last year and the year

before, it was confirmed by residents, ever year up to this year, it was sanded

in the a.m. so that bus could travel a very dangerous road on the Baie Verte

Peninsula, probably the worst one there; and it was confirmed by his own

officials that it is probably the worst road on the Baie Verte Peninsula, very

hilly, very narrow. So there is no doubt about it that that road is in that type

of condition.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the bus driver is an experienced bus

driver with no record of accidents, a very careful bus driver. So what I asked

the minister about was a serious, serious situation that could have happened.

And I was about to end up with my questions today until he put the kibosh on the

whole situation and started to threaten people who were giving information, and

talked about laying off people.

I was asking the minister if he would seriously reassess the

cutbacks on the Baie Verte Peninsula, but then, in the next breath, the minister

is saying, `There are no cutbacks'. Now, unless I am missing something here,

when you take nine employees out of the winter maintenance program on the Baie

Verte Peninsula, or any other part of this Province, what do you call that? It

is a cutback.

Now, the first thing the minister has to do, like anybody who

has a problem - if you have a problem with alcoholism, you admit the problem

first and then you fix it. Well, the first thing this minister has to do is

admit, even to this extent... I ask the minister, in all seriousness, just to

reconsider, reassess, if indeed there were cutbacks in any part of this

Province, and ask himself this, because I do not want to point the finger at the

minister, as he keeps saying. I don't want to point the finger at him and talk

about an accident which I think could have been corrected without this, if there

wasn't a cutback.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. SHELLEY: The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation is withdrawing leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to support my colleague's petition today dealing with

transportation, and the initiative he put forward, and to see what happened -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Member for Kilbride, and I

notice that there are a number of members who are interfering and interrupting

with conversation back and forth across the House. I ask the hon. members to let

the hon. Member for Kilbride speak.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, I stand to support the member's petition put

forward today. It is interesting to hear what the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation said, that he is sick and tired of hearing false information

being brought forward in the House.

The reality is very easy - the minister can stand and respond

to this petition after I have finished speaking and have taken my seat. Have

there been layoffs in that area, yes or no? Our information is that there have

been nine layoffs in that area. Was there a sand truck that went over that area

prior to school buses going there that morning, yes or no? But the reality is,

no, there was not. The Leader of the Opposition indicated that the school bus

went off the road and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation said

no, it did not. The only reason it did not go off the road and down a

thirty-foot to forty-foot embankment was because it was saved by a cluster of

birch trees - that is the reality of it.

When the members on this side of the House stand and present

petitions given to them by their constituents and their districts, and to have

ministers such as the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation stand up in

this House and say that he is sick and tired of false allegations, and then

publicly saying: If you will tell me who from my department is giving you false

information, there will be more layoffs. The reality is, there was no false

information given. It is a clear-cut issue. Either a sand truck sanded the road

where there were icy conditions prior to school buses travelling over them, or

it did not. In this case, there were not necessarily any layoffs because there

weren't any people hired to take care of it. There was no truck. There was no

sanding took place on that road during that time.

The minister can spin out information, he can put a

particular spin on the situation that probably reflects a point of view that he

wants reflected, but it does not change the reality, that a shortage of staff, a

claw-back in his department's budget, layoffs that have occurred throughout the

Province, will impact upon the ability to maintain safe roads for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. He cannot, in any way, shape or form, Mr. Speaker,

dispute that. Thank you very much.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I respect what the hon. member

just said there. I understand the point he is making about the responsibility of

the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to provide safe driving

conditions, not only for school buses but for all trucks. That is the point the

hon. member is making and he is quite right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Ah, boy, shut up now and listen for a second.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. EFFORD: If this is as serious as both hon. members

said, then the hon. people in the front benches should at least give me an

opportunity to explain it. If you don't want it I will sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to

provide safe conditions. On Friday morning the foreman was on duty, so was the

driver. And the sand truck was there on duty. That

section of road was not

sanded. It was the only icy spot on the whole of that area - there were good

weather conditions - because of an ice build-up. But the fact, it was not sanded

- and the fact is, we did have employees working that morning, so it has nothing

to do with cutbacks.

I am having an investigation made into why it wasn't sanded.

That is a different matter. But it certainly wasn't because there wasn't staff

there. If I find out that there was a human reason for it, that it should have

been sanded and it wasn't, then I will take appropriate action. But it was not

because we have laid off people in the area. It is a different situation

altogether.

Now, I am being blamed, as minister, for laying off too many

people in the department, causing a hazard on our highways. Just listen: In 1983

there were 230,000 vehicles on our highway. We had 103 deaths, with all the snow

clearing equipment and staff they had there. In 1994 there were 415,579 vehicles

on the road and we were down from 103 fatalities to 35, double the amount of

vehicles and one third of the deaths. So far this year, with all the layoffs

they said we have, we have twenty, so far as of the end of September, highway

fatalities this year, down from 103 back in 1983, with all the massive layoffs

and cutbacks that the hon. member and my critic for St. John's East Extern has

been espousing in the House of Assembly. You had better get your facts right,

and if you are going to make accusations, if you are going to ask questions, get

your facts right. Accidents are down 40 per cent with twice as many vehicles on

the road, fatalities thirty-five compared to 103, and if that is not enough to

make you understand the false information and accusations that are being made

opposite, it is misleading information coming into this hon. House of Assembly

and to the public of this Province. It is time to have a bit of respect for this

House and put the right information out here.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, have we now come to the magic

place where we call Orders of the Day?

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day, yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

Mr. Speaker, the first order of business today will be the

bill which I indicated on Friday. That is Order 29, the Executive Council Bill.

Should be move beyond that today, the government will propose, that we start

with Order 7 which is at committee stage, and I think there was some progress

made on Friday. Perhaps all the more so because I was not here for the latter

part of the session. We could move on from Order 7 through to however far we may

get.

We will not sit beyond 5:00 o'clock, Mr. Speaker, to

accommodate certain members who have other engagements, and that's fine. We may

have to sit late tomorrow night and possibly Thursday night, but that will be

determined after my friend for Grand Bank and I do our consultation process, and

if there is no need, I say to him, we shall not sit. We shall sit if necessary

but not necessarily sit.

Your Honour before you call the Executive Council Bill there

is one motion for leave to introduce a bill which is Motion 4. Would you call

that first please, Sir?

On motion, Bill No. 37 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: On motion, Bill No. 44 read a first time,

ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 29, Bill No. 32.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier, of course, is away from the Province so it falls

to me to have the pleasure of introducing this bill. Although it is a

substantial piece of printing with a fair number of pages in it, it is really a

very straightforward piece of legislation. It is founded on a recognition of the

fact that every Premier since Confederation has organized and reorganized his

administration, and every future Premier will do so, too, whether it is his

administration or her ministry as may be the case. The voters will decide that

if the Opposition caucus has not decided it first. Every Premier since

Confederation has organized the ministry as he saw fit, and I suggest every

future Premier has the right to organize the ministry as he or she sees fit.

Now, our practice in the Province, and it is in use in some

provinces but not all, is to organize the ministry formally by means of

departmental statutes, and we now have seventeen or eighteen of these here in

the Province and they occupy a fairly substantial portion, the better part of

one volume of the revised statutes. In addition to that every time the Premier

of the day reorganizes the ministry and moves functions around to create a new

department, or to change the function of another department, we follow it in due

course with a statute to authorize and bless that.

Now, in a legal sense that is not necessary because there was

a bill put on the statute books back in 1965 or 1966, which I refer to with all

modesty as the Channing-Roberts Bill because it was drafted on the instructions

or the guidance of the late James Channing who was then Clerk of the Executive

Council and Secretary to the Cabinet and also, I believe, Deputy Minister of

Provincial Affairs at that time - in those days we regularly did double duty -

and I was on the staff of the Premier, either as executive assistant or as his

parliamentary assistant, and we together put through the bill which is now known

as the Rearrangement And Transfers Of Duties In The Public Service Act, and this

has been used by every premier and every cabinet. Mr. Smallwood used it, Mr.

Moores used it, Mr. Peckford used it. I don't know if Mr. Rideout ever formally

made use of it; he wasn't there long enough. My recollection is that he did, in

fact, reorganize his ministry, and that is a right premiers should have, in my

view; and, of course, the present Premier has reorganized the ministry on a

number of occasions and we have used, in each case, the Rearrangements And

Transfers Of Duties In The Public Service Act as the legal authority to do so,

so it is all very straightforward, really. It simply carries into effect the

scheme that the premier of the day has for delivering the programs and the

services, and operating the government during the time for which he has

responsibility.

As I said, we have ended up cluttering up the statute books

with a whole bunch of statutes, most of which are very duplicative in that there

are sections of each which are common. There are very few sections which are

unique once you get beyond the name of the department and perhaps a purpose

clause saying: Here is the mandate of the department, but even those are cast in

such broad terms that they are essentially, almost so broad as to be

meaningless. They are nothing, more or less, than sort of an indication of where

the cabinet and the premier of the day choose to have the department do its

work.

This bill will vest in the cabinet, in the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council of the cabinet sitting, in its formal role of the

advisor to the Queen - the Queen, of course, being represented by the

Lieutenant-Governor in the Province - this bill will give the cabinet the

authority to create departments and abolish them by Orders in Council, and that

is really laid out very straightforwardly and very concisely and, in my

judgement and that of the law officers who drafted the statute, very

effectively.

To me, and to the ministry, this is nothing more than a

reflection of reality. It does not, in any way, affect the ability and power of

the House to control the ministry because, of course, the ministry must come

every year to the House of Assembly to ask for supply. That is in the

constitution. It is a very basic role of the House to deal with supply, and we

are here every year, and if the House should not like the way in which the

government have organized the ministry then the remedy lies in the hands of the

House, very effectively and very practically, and I suspect could be used - not,

I suspect, could be - it would be used very quickly, and I know it could be used

very forcefully.

The bill repeals and replaces no less than seventeen other

statutes, and these are laid out in

section 23 of the act. One of them, I should

say to the House, is reenacted, and that is the rearrangements act, which is

number 16 on the list in clause 23 of the bill; they become sections when they

become acts. The provisions of the Rearrangements And Transfers Of Duties In The

Public Service Act show up in clauses 18 and 20, I believe. I haven't checked

them through, but I believe 18 and 20 of the bill reproduce the operative parts

of the Channing/Roberts act, the rearrangements act.

The members will note that the boiler plate provisions, and

that is a lawyer's term which is not entirely a respectful one but not entirely

disrespectful, the boiler plate provisions which are found in each of the

existing departmental statutes are reproduced, and these are found in sections 8

through to 16. I am sorry; when I spoke earlier of the rearrangements act, it is

clauses 17, 18 and 19, but the boiler plate clauses are found in the clauses

beginning with 8 and ending at 16, and these are not new. My guess is that these

clauses, in almost exactly these words, are found in every one of the existing

departmental acts, and they will appear now in every existing departmental act.

Mr. Speaker, there are only two ministers specifically named

in the statute, in addition to the Premier, and I will come back to the

prerogatives of the Premier, let me deal with those now. The hon. lady from

Humber East will no doubt be very interested in this. This bill goes to great

length, and properly so, in my judgement and that of the ministry, to preserve

the prerogatives of the Premier.

Section 3, says: nothing in this act affects a

traditional prerogative of the Premier respecting the organization and

composition of appointments to and dismissals from the Executive Council, and

that is one of the basic principles from which our system of responsible

government is based. Responsible government is responsible to the House of

Assembly, the Premier has the authority to form a ministry, he has the

responsibility to form the ministry and as long as he or she has the confidence

of the House, those prerogatives continue unimpaired.

The House may of course, test the confidence at any time and

a loss of confidence brings a quick and inevitable result, either a new premier

takes office at once if some other premier commands the confidence of the House

or, depending on the constitutional situation, the Premier has the right to

dissolve - when I say depending on a constitutional situation, the times when a

premier is not entitled to a disillusion are very few and far between indeed.

One can conceive of them but it is very difficult to conceive of them in real

life.

But in any event, the withdrawal of confidence by the House

leads to consequences which are well-known and entirely in keeping with our

constitutional traditions and with the Constitution of Canada. So these

prerogatives are preserved, in fact, again members may notice in clause after

clause, the phrase appears 'on the advice of the Premier', and this again

reflects the reality and in my view, the proper reality of the constitutional

position. The ministry is the Premier's ministry, the Premier's administration

and he or she answers for it and in return for that has the authority and the

ability to shape and reshape it.

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking of the two ministers who are

specifically named. These are set out or their names are found or their

positions are described in clause 4 (2) to be precise. They are the Attorney

General and the Registrar General. The Attorney General has functions under the

Criminal Code of Canada, a very wide range of functions are vested by the

Criminal Code of Canada in the Attorney General of a province and that reflects

the fact that while the authority that creates the criminal law is vested in the

Parliament of Canada, the responsibility for administering the criminal law is

placed by the Constitution in the governments of the provinces and exercised in

most if not every case, through the Attorney General, so we are providing here

in the bill, that the Cabinet may appoint an individual known as the Attorney

General.

The Registrar General is not an individual who wears a cap as

one might suggest, but the Registrar General is instead the official who is

vested with the responsibility for the custodianship of the great seal.

MS VERGE: Who wears the Registrar's hat.

MR. ROBERTS: The Registrar General is my friend, the

gentleman from Carbonear who is the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. Members are concerned about caps. Let me remind them now, our Standing

Orders say that a member who wishes to speak, must stand uncovered in his place

and, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: You know, when the hon. lady says that, I am

reminded of an exchange between Winston Churchill and Lady Astor. Nancy, Lady

Astor was the first woman to sit in the House of Commons in England. She sat for

one of the Plymouth seats and she was a Langhorne, from Nancy Langhorne, she

married the Second Viscount Astor and became Lady Astor, but at one stage, she

and Sir Winston Churchill, who was then probably simply Mr. Churchill, were

having a go at each other across the House as did the hon. lady just now, the

Leader of the Opposition, and Lady Astor looked at Mr. Churchill and said: Mr.

Speaker, if I were married to the right hon. gentleman, I would put poison in

his tea, and the right hon. gentleman, Mr. Churchill looked back and said: Mr.

Speaker, if I were married to the right hon. lady, I would drink it. I know

exactly how he felt.

Anyhow, the point I was making is, it is quite in order to

wear a cap in the House and I am delighted that my friend from Grand Bank is

carrying on the tradition. I will tell him, the last person who did so in this

House in my recollection, was the former Member for Bonavista South, the late,

great Ross Barbour. Ross would appear in the House once in a while wearing what

we used to refer to as `a quiff hat'. Now if one looks in a dictionary of slang,

one would find a very different meaning attached to the word `quiff' but when I

was growing up here in this Province, forty and fifty years ago, the word quiff

or the term `quiff hat', was a very common and acceptable term.

Now my friend from Grand Bank is not wearing a quiff hat

today, he is wearing what appears to be a baseball hat which he is wearing

frontwards instead of backwards. I have to tell him he is out of step with every

other kid I have ever seen in the whole Province because baseballs hats, for

some reason, are inevitably worn bass backwards.

MR. SULLIVAN: I know but when you are a kid you play with

kid's things and when you grow up you cast them away.

MR. ROBERTS: Ah, the bible says, when I was a child I

speak as a child, and so forth.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I spoke as a child and I acted as a

child.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend for Burin - Placentia West is

getting used to the back benches.

MR. TOBIN: No, I was just going to say, some people wear

hair and some people wear caps.

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend for Burin - Placentia

West who is very astute that one seldom sees grass grow on a busy street.

MR. J. BYRNE: Right on.

MR. TOBIN: My friend for St. John's East Extern endorses

that thought. He is a shinning example of the reason for doing so.

Your Honour, let me come back to the bill. The Registrar

General is the custodian of the great seal of the Province, and the gentleman

for Carbonear holds the commission at present as the Registrar General. I

believe it is necessary in the constitutional structure to have a Registrar

General because somebody must hold the great seal as it is necessary to affix

the great seal to documents. In fact in the traditional British parlance one

became a minister by the process of kissing hands and one left office by

surrendering the seal. We have often heard the phrase the seals of office. Well,

here in Newfoundland and Labrador the hon. gentleman for Carbonear at present

holds the seals while my friend for Port de Grave is responsible for another

kind of seal and has a very great interest in them.

Mr. Speaker, the other point I make is to point out to

members that the

schedule to this bill, which is the last fifty or sixty pages

of it, reenacts as stand-alone statutes a number of sections which are

substantive enactments in their own right and are found now in departmental

statutes. It is inappropriate in my view to have substantive provisions of law

standing in a departmental statute so what has been done is to separate them out

and these will appear as:

Schedule A is the Education Act,

Schedule B is the

Environment Act,

Schedule C is the Fisheries Act,

Schedule D, a Municipal

Affairs Act,

Schedule E a Public Health Act,

Schedule F is a Social Services

Appeal Board Act, and

Schedule G is a Works, Services and Transportation Act.

These simply reproduce presently existing sections of the law. I acknowledge

that I have not personally checked each of these against the existing sections

but I am told by those who do the drafting that there are no substantive changes

in them, there are no changes beyond those of the nature which we made in any

consolidation or revision of the statutes as we do in this Province from time to

time.

Mr. Speaker, with that said I commend the bill to the House.

I believe it is a step forward in the sense that, A, it is a recognition of a

reality which, I believe, is a proper one and which we all accept, and which

both parties have made use of over the years, and I have no doubt will continue

to make use of, and, secondly, it will make our statutes a little more

accessible, it will reduce the volume of the statutes significantly by taking

out seventeen or eighteen acts and replacing them with one, and finally, it will

preserve the prerogative of the Premier and the right, responsibility, and

authority of the House of Assembly to control the ministry in that it preserves

the fundamental principle of our constitution, that the ministry hold office

because they have the support of the majority of the elected House of Assembly.

I move the bill be read a second time, Sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say briefly that I support the bill. I agree with the

Government House Leader in saying that the bill essentially reflects the

practice of successive administrations of successive Premiers. The bill also has

the advantage, as the Government House Leader indicated, of consolidating

several statutes and making them easier for people to find and work with, and

the measure will save the House of Assembly some time in the future.

All the bill changes is the mechanism for structuring the

Cabinet, for designating departments and structuring the Cabinet. In fact that

is now done by the Premier typically with legislation reflecting the arrangement

months after the Cabinet has been set up.

MR. ROBERTS: Years in some cases.

MS VERGE: The Government House Leader says years in some

cases, and I would agree with him there. Now, members of the House will be

spared the drain on our time and energy of debating housekeeping measures to

designate departments. From time to time Premiers change the composition of the

Cabinet and designate new departments, and combine and divide departments.

One controversial change made by the present Premier was

doing away with the separate Department of Fisheries. That was a change that was

strenuously opposed by members on this side of the House. In future, a premier

will be able to re-establish a separate Department of Fisheries. Mr. Speaker, I

look forward to doing that. I look forward to the day when the Government House

Leader and others will be able to use the feminine pronoun along with the

masculine pronoun in referring to the usage of this legislation by premiers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few short

comments on talking about different pieces of legislation that come to this

Chamber.

I remember back, I don't know if it was the spring of 1989 or

1990 that the minister brought in legislation - I probably can point out the

exact date when we had to bring it to the House - to establish the new

Department of ITT, a year or so after the election. That encompassed at that

time Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, the Economic Recovery Commission and

all that. It was a new department. We spent I think two or three days, if I'm

not mistaken, or probably longer, talking about the implementation and the

formation of a new government department.

I can understand, looking at the politics of it, when they,

in that particular department then, were going to include the establishment of

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador and the Economic Recovery Commission. I

suppose looking back on it you could say that probably some of the words and

some of the comments at that time are probably coming through today or will soon

come through. Some of it may be evident after the government announces its

mini-Budget in the next couple of weeks. May be able to substantiate and confirm

some of the comments I'm making today.

Anyway, the point I wanted to make was that we spent two or

three days I'm sure, probably longer, discussing the formation of a government

department. This is a prime example, as far as I'm concerned - I will have to

echo the comments of the Member for Humber East and the Minister of Justice that

this is a good piece of legislation. I think it is crazy. The time has to stop

when we have to come to the Chamber, come to this House, with a piece of

legislation that makes government work easier or makes it easier for a

particular government department to work, rather than come here, take three or

four days, just wasting the time of the House of Assembly and the people of the

Province. There are more important things to discuss than the formation of a

government department. That is entirely up to the administration at the time,

whether it be PC, Liberal or NDP, whatever they might be at that particular

time.

As far as I'm concerned it is a point well taken. It is a

good piece of legislation, and it is about time that we in this Chamber started

to stand and say: Let's not waste valuable hours on, as far as I'm concerned,

just playing politics with something such as this. As far as I'm concerned it

should be passed without any further debate.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will

close the debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I take it no other member

wishes to speak.

I thank both the Leader of the Opposition and the gentleman

for Humber Valley. The hon. lady's remarks were well taken, and it is generous

of her to offer her successor as leader of the PC Party the chance to use this

if she doesn't get the chance. My friend for Humber Valley, I want to thank him,

because he has succeeded in getting me more front-page coverage than I've

managed to get by my own in a long time. I'm suitably grateful to him.

With that said, I will move the bill be read a second time,

Sir.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Executive Council,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House

presently, by leave. (Bill No. 32)

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

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not sure we need leave. We are allowed

to go two in one day. It is not a stage.

Your Honour, would you be good enough please to put the House

into Committee of the Whole and we will deal with the bills on the Order Paper

for Committee reading beginning with Order No. 7. Should the Committee be so

minded we will go as far as we can up till 5:00 p.m. We will not be dealing

today with Order Nos. 18, 19, 20, and 21 because those have been referred to the

social services committee. They are not yet back in the House.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, here we are in committee again,

together alone at last. Would you please call Order 7, Bill No. 30? My

suggestion, Sir, is that as we deal with each bill in committee we carry on with

the ones on the Order Paper and we also can deal with the Executive Council bill

if we get that far today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 30. Clause 1; the hon. the Member

for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This particular piece of legislation, when we spoke on it

before, was referred to - well, it wasn't exactly referred to a committee, but

we did meet after with a gentleman from the Department of Justice, I think Mr. -

MR. ROBERTS: Chris Curran.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chris Curran, I think he met with a

social policy committee. The Member for St. John's East was there, and I think

the Member for Trinity North; anyway, there were three or four members, and it

was the same day we met with the sheriff on the jury act.

There were a few concerns expressed at that time by

individuals at the Table, and they were addressed by Mr. Curran, I think, to

pretty well the satisfaction of everybody who was there. There were a couple of

things brought up by a member that he was going to check out. I cannot remember

whether he got back to him or not at that particular time, but one of the things

- and the minister, when he stands to close debate on this particular piece of

legislation can probably answer it for me - I mentioned it in debate before

about how come - I think it is some three years; it goes back to January 1,

1993, on that particular part of it - but I would like for the minister to look

section 7.(2), rights of third parties. There was some question there, and in

looking at the bill since: TD Trust Company is not liable for a debt, liability

or obligation arising out of

an act or omission on the part of Central Guarantee

Trust Company in respect of a document or trust to which

section 4 applies that

occurred before January 1, 1993.

Now, going over further, looking at

section 8.(3), about the

proof of accuracy of the recital, and that instrument shall be considered...,

they refer to

section 5.(1), saying that everything that comes into effect on

January 1, they would be liable for; everything that took effect before that,

under the real and personal property held in trust by Central Guaranty Trust

they would be responsible for, but anything under that section,

section 7.(2), I

do not know why they would not be - if they are responsible for all the real and

personal property held in trust, they are responsible for everything to do with

recycles, and they are responsible for pretty well everything else in this act

except for that particular section, and the reason why I question that, and

there may just be a simple answer to it when the minister gets up, is that most

people who are doing business with a bank, or with any financial institution in

this Province or the country today, those things usually go on, and usually they

change hands without people even knowing of it, in some cases, until they

realize that they have been taken over by another company or another financial

institution, or whatever. So I was just wondering if there should be some

concern there for something that people may bring up in a month's time, or two

months' time, or whatever, or since January 1, 1993, that might come under that

particular clause.

When I look at: "...not liable for a debt, liability or

obligation arising out of

an act or omission..." on behalf of a company that

they are taking over, but yet they are responsible for everything else, then

that just leads to some suspicion, that is all, and maybe the minister, when he

gets up to address the closing of this particular piece of legislation he may be

able to give me the answers to that particular section.

Other than that, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing else there

now that I see with regard to this. It is in effect since January 1, 1993. In

any case, I suppose it is retroactive, really. So when the minister - that is

the only concern I had with that particular clause.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I thank my hon. friend. I

think his question is well taken. Let me try to answer it, if I understand the

situation.

The bill takes effect retroactively as of January 1, 1993

because that is when the transaction by which TD, Toronto Dominion Trust

Company, bought some of the assets of Central Guaranty Trust. Now, I say `some

of' because I am not aware whether they bought them all. And that leads me to

the next point which really addresses the concern my hon. friend has raised with

respect to 7(2), 8(2) and 8(3). My understanding of the transaction is this:

Central Guaranty Trust Company, of course, the body corporate - I am not sure if

it got into trouble or if its parent got into trouble, more likely it got into

trouble; perhaps its parent did as well. And with the blessing of the federal

regulatory authorities - and I suspect that is CDIC, the Canada Deposit

Insurance Corporation. There may also have been involvement from OFSI, the

Office of the Federal Superintendent of Institutions, OFSI. With the blessing of

the regulatory authorities, the TD Trust Company, which is a subsidiary of the

TD Bank, came riding in to the rescue but it didn't buy Central Guaranty Trust.

What it did was buy the assets of Central Guaranty Trust and these are spelled

out - I am not sure in fact if they are spelled out at all. No, they would not

be spelled out, because this is of no concern to the House in that the House has

no control over these assets as such. But I might say of the transaction that TD

brought some of the assets of Central Guaranty Trust. They may or may not have

assumed some of the liabilities. I will come back to that point.

What they did assume and what the bill authorizes

retroactively, the bill blesses if one wishes, is the substitution of the

Central Guaranty Trust for the TD - I am sorry, I got it wrong, substitution of

TD for Central Guarantee as a fiduciary and gives it the powers that one would

have in respect of a fiduciary under a trust deed of one sort or another. Now,

again, I may be getting ahead of myself. Let's remember what a trust company

does. A trust company does several things. One of the things it does is take in

deposits and lend money out on mortgages or on secured loans of one sort or

another. Secondly, a trust company acts as a trustee. I don't know, under my

will I may leave my estate in such a situation that I want a trust company to

act as trustee or as executor and there are, of course, different functions. I

may convey property in trust, whether it is real property or personal property,

and they may appoint the trust company to act as the trustee in respect of that

trust.

Often, in debenture issues or bond issues, a trustee is

appointed to receive interest and pay it out to those entitled to receive it. A

trustee in law is essentially - I will take a run at a very quick definition.

This isn't what the law dictionaries will say, but a trustee is one who has the

legal title to property owned beneficially by another, and the legal right to

deal with that property, but must do so in accordance with the tenets of

fiduciary responsibilities. Now, there are three other lawyers at the table

here, if I have it wrong, maybe they can tug - but I think that is not a bad

definition of what a trustee does. A trustee is held to a very high standard and

that is what fiduciary responsibility is all about. Members will remember when

we talked about the limitations act we had special onerous burdens laid on

trustees.

So what happened was, TD Trust bought some of the assets of

Central Guaranty. It did not buy their liabilities and that is what

Section 7(2)

says. So whatever happened, whatever liabilities Central Guaranty may have had,

as of January 1, 1993, remain with Central Guaranty. Now are they good? Is this

a case of stripping the assets out of a company and leaving a shell? what we

call, in the lawyers parlance, judgement proof. The answer to that, in my

understanding, is that the federal regulatory authorities in approving the sale

made arrangements to deal with those liabilities. Now, I can't give my hon.

friend the details if I don't have them, but if he wants them, I will undertake

to get them for him and make them available.

I understood, in fact, this was a point that was being

addressed at the committee and that Mr. Curran or another of my officials would

have dealt with. But that, in my understanding, is what happened, that TD bought

the assets, not the liabilities. The liabilities remain with Central Guaranty

Trust and a person who has a claim against Central Guaranty goes against it. The

arrangements have been made, to whatever extent and of whatever nature, by the

regulator. My friend, I think, has a question.

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, of course.

MR. WOODFORD: If the minister would look at

section -

what initiated my concern on this one, and I forgot to mention it when I spoke

before, is

section 4, substituted fiduciary. They name everything there. They

say that: "...Central Guaranty Trust Company is removed and TD Trust Company is

appointed as successor trustee...." They outline all the things that come under

them.

All those things, to me - or not all, but I would say 50 per

cent or 60 per cent of them, would, to me, mean a liability, some liability

somewhere down the road or an obligation to those particular people. Because you

are talking about wills, you are talking about settlements, assignments, and

everything like that. That is where my concern came from with that. In one

clause it talks about successor trustee, exactly what was under that Central

Guaranty Trust, and on the other hand, it says that they are not responsible for

any debt, liability or obligation arising as of January 1. That was my concern.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) I thank my hon. friend.

Section

4(1) says at some length and in proper drafting language what I attempted to say

when I said that the purpose of this bill is to substitute the TD Trust as the

fiduciary. Then, I went on to describe what a trustee does. Fiduciary and

trustee are synonymous terms. A trustee is a fiduciary, and a fiduciary is

almost always a trustee. It is like saying all Cadillacs are cars. It doesn't

mean all cars are Cadillacs.

Let me try to give an example. Here is what

section 4(1)

does. Supposing my hon. friend's mother had died and had left him, I don't know,

1,000 shares of Newfoundland Telephone company stock. But my hon. friend's

mother, for whatever reason, didn't want my hon. friend to have control of that.

Maybe she didn't feel he could handle the money wisely, or maybe she wanted to

leave him only a life interest, or whatever reason. One has the right to do this

without giving a reason, in fact. So she said: Fine, what I shall do is I will

leave it for the benefit of my beloved son, Rick, but I leave it to a trustee,

and I name as trustee the Central Guaranty Trust Company because I know them,

they are good reliable people, and I want them to handle it.

The beneficial ownership to that property, the 1,000 shares

of TelCo. stock, rests with my friend, but the legal title to it rests with the

trust company. The trust company then becomes a fiduciary. As of January 1, 1993

Central Guaranty Trust Company drops out of the picture and TD Trust Company

comes in. So my hon. friend, if he wants to bring an action for something that

happened last September, in September 1994, and says: You did me dirty, you

didn't act properly as my trustee, and I hold you to this very high standard as

the fiduciary, my hon. friend would take his claim against TD Trust, because

they had to do with it. But if it was something that happened in 1989, before

the sale, then he would go and claim against Central Guaranty Trust, which I

assume and hope would have some assets. That is where the federal regulatory -

all we are doing here is blessing an arrangement that the federal authorities

approved.

Now, that ties in very neatly with

section 7(2). Let me read

it in its entirety: "TD Trust Company is not liable for a debt, liability or

obligation arising out of

an act or omission on the part of Central Guarantee

Trust Company in respect of a document or trust to which

section 4 applies that

occurred before January 1, 1993."

So the last phrase, "that occurred before January 1, 1993",

applies to the act of remission. I just notice now, the clerks will notice,

Guaranty is misspelled in

section 7(2). There is a clerical error. It just shows

that no matter how often we read these things, the blankety-blank spell check

which says Guaranty should be G-U-A-R-A-N-T-Y and it is spelled as

G-U-A-R-A-N-T-E-E. That will be corrected when the bill is printed.

Have I answered my hon. friend's question? What it means in

simple terms is that if something went wrong before January 1993 you have to sue

Central Guaranty. If it goes wrong after that you sue TD Trust.

MR. WOODFORD: My concern is that there is nobody there to

sue after the fact.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, Central Guaranty Trust, in my

understanding, still exists as a body corporate, but its assets are obviously

diminished. I understand the regulator, the federal authority, CDIC, has stepped

into the breach, but I don't know the extent or the nature of its obligations.

My understanding was, that was going to be dealt with at the Committee stage,

but if my friend wishes, I will either make available one of the officials, or

get some information for him.

In fact, I had a bunch of correspondence here in the House

which I showed to my friend, the Member for Trinity North, one day, who is chair

of the Committee, because I had raised exactly that point when the TD Trust

solicitors here in St. John's, Stewart McKelvey, first approached me to ask

whether we would bring in this bill. They are acting for the TD Trust Company. I

said: Yes, but tell me what happens here. Because when I read the draft statute

I said: Hold on now, what is going on?

The key to it is that TD Trust bought the assets, not the

liabilities, and I can't go beyond that. But, I mean, that is clearly what the

bill does and I don't want to mislead the Committee, Mr. Chairman.

A bill, "An Act To Provide For The Transfer Of The

Trusteeship And Agency Business Of Central Guaranty Trust Company To TD Trust

Company." (Bill No. 30)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, Order No. 8, Bill No. 12,

please.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act, Bill

No. 12.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke in second reading

on this I asked some questions of the minister related to imposing taxes on

marine fuel as a percentage of purchase price, as to what the impact of this

might have, and whether it applied on all marine vessels, whether it applied

only to commercial or whether it applied to recreational vessels, pleasure

vessels, and this sort of thing. I wonder could we get some information on that?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman?

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

MR. ROBERTS: The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

is not in the House and I don't have the information. Maybe let's just let the

bill stand. I don't see who is here to tug my garment, but I will undertake to

ask the minister to speak to the hon. gentleman, either here in the House or

outside, as it may suit their mutual convenience. We will just let the bill

stand until we hear.

Could you call Order No. 9 then, Sir, please?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order No. 9,

An Act To Amend The Liquor

Control Act, Bill No. 17.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand it is a finance bill and therefore greater

latitude is given me to -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What are we on there, `Ed'? What bill

are we on?

MR. ROBERTS: We are on the liquor control act amendment.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I will wait for the next bill.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, that's good, that's okay, that's

next. Go ahead. (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I say to the House

that I understand this is a finance bill and there is greater latitude in terms

of what we can speak about.

MR. ROBERTS: You can say whatever you want within reason.

Finance (inaudible) in Committee of the Whole, resolutions, motions (inaudible)

you can say anything you want, pretty well. You are supposed to talk about the

bill in Committee.

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough. I will refrain, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that's fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill No.

17)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Order No. 10, Bill No. 15, Sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

An Act To Amend The Financial

Administration Act, Bill No. 15.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2, carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 2 has been carried. We are on the

title. Does the hon. the Member for Kilbride wish to speak?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. , this comes back to the same question

that we had about the sinking fund. Obviously, what this does is it allows the

government to do what they did last year, which was to take funds from the

sinking fund in advance of it reaching its maturity. At the moment, all sinking

funds actually can - they build up and gain interest until they mature and then

the funds are used and then sinking surpluses can be taken away at the time.

What this does is it allows government to go from - at any point in time that it

considers if there is a surplus there, to take those funds and transfer it to a

consolidated revenue fund. Mr. , we have said many times that we see this as

being - not an error, obviously, legally it is there, and from an accounting

point of view I understand the Auditor General has supported this concept a lot.

MR. ROBERTS: In fact, she suggested it, I think.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, she has suggested it. But I would have

preferred, since this fund was put aside to decrease the overall debt of the

Province, if there is a surplus in one sinking fund that it either be

transferred to another sinking fund, so that it is still there to retire the

debt, or that it actually be paid down on some debt to eliminate some debt

somewhere along the way. But it does provide more freedom for government to

manage its affairs, and in that regard it is difficult, I guess, to disagree

with it. I guess the purpose for which these funds are being used when they are

being taken and applied against debt, now they are going back into current

account. And we saw the government gain some $70 million over the last two years

in its current account, which makes its deficit or lack thereof, in this case,

this year, a balanced budget, which the minister himself has confirmed, smoke

and mirrors really. You are really taking money that was allocated for debt

retirement and now putting it back into current account. So we think it is a

short-sighted approach, Mr. Chairman, and that it would have been far more

preferable - the flexibility is fine. It provides for good management of one's

financial affairs, but I think it would have been preferable if that money had

been designated to retire certain debt, which was the purpose for which it was

voted in the budget initially, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I say to my friend, the Member

for Kilbride, it is back and forth. He will have the opportunity to say whatever

he wants, no problem there.

Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to disagree with the points

made by my friend, the Member for Mount Pearl. It is not often that I find

myself in a position to say that. First of all, this is

an act - this

section or

this change will affect the management of the sinkers. Number two, not only was

it approved by the Auditor General, my recollection is that she made the point

in one of her reports that it would be better management.

MR. WINDSOR: Several reports, actually.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, I thank my friend. And number three,

it is better management of our debt. Number four, I agree it would be preferable

if we could use this to pay down the debt but it is all we could do and we are

not there yet. We will see what tomorrow's statement brings, but it is all we

can do to balance the budget but balance means on capital and current account.

So at least we are not incurring further debt. What happened was this, and my

hon. friend will acknowledge this, we have sinkers on most, if not all, of our

longer term debts. The sinker, of course, earns money and because of the higher

interest rates in the last period of years - they are down right now but they

have been up in the previous years - the sinkers earn more than was projected.

So the fund would end up, at maturity, instead of having $100 million to pay off

- the $100 million to take an example, would end up with $103 million or $104

million. So rather than borrow money to put the sinkers in place or to pay the

interest on them beyond that was needed, we simply - again with the full

concurrence of the Auditor General and I think with the auditing of our own

financial people - said it makes better management to take them in now and deal

with them. But nobody should be fooled, we are not trying to fool anybody and my

hon. friend is quite right when he says this doesn't solve anything, but it is

better management of the debt. It doesn't reduce the debt. We would like to come

to the day where any surpluses can be used. In fact, we would like to come to

the day where we could generate a surplus not simply on current account but on

current and capital account together and use it to pay down the debt. With good

management, we think we will get to balance this year, but certainly, as we go

into month seven, similar to what my friend the Minister of Finance says

tomorrow, we aren't there yet. We thought we were there but we aren't there yet.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. .

Not to reiterate what my colleague, the Member for Mount

Pearl discussed here in the House or just put forward, but when you are talking

about proper financial administration of debt as the Minister of Justice put

forward, not only on current account but on capital account, is very important.

We would not be in the situation, talking about debt, of having to deal with a

$60 million debt today if this government had proposed the Budget they proposed

and stuck to their plan. The reality is that, you know, the amounts of money

that government issued through Special Warrants to purchase water bombers, to

assist with Marble Mountain development which may, in fact now be privatized or

about to be privatized I understand or there were some initial discussions about

privatization underway, that we wouldn't be looking at massive layoffs today,

and I am sure that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is going to, as he

said today, lay all that out tomorrow, but, proper financial administration is

something that we must look at here as legislators, that if we bring in a Budget

and predict a balanced Budget, that through no fault of our own, must we add to

that burden, and that means passing legislation in this House that a Budget must

be followed or that a balanced Budget is something that the government of the

day must do, then we should do it and that any Special Warrants - I mean the

Special Warrants for the issue of water bombers, not necessarily in my mind, the

reason why Special Warrants were put in place.

The majority of those water bombers, for example, they are

twenty years old, I know that our fleet is older but it is something -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I understand that, but all those water

bombers, were they all ready and on the ground to respond to a situation in this

Province for the entire summer or were some of them rented to other provinces or

another province?

MR. ROBERTS: That's (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. ROBERTS: That was an interprovincial agreement

whereby one province rents to the other as the need arises.

MR. E. BYRNE: I understand that, so that's an ongoing

agreement, Minister? I wasn't aware of that. That's an ongoing agreement -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) year-to-year.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay, fair enough. But the reality is, did

we have to purchase those water bombers and add several million dollars to the

debt? I ask the Minister of Justice, how much did we spend, how much was given

to Marble Mountain Corporation? Was it nine or ten?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) and Cabot were $9 million under

that Warrant.

MR. E. BYRNE: Under that Warrant alone, so you are

looking at another $9 million that were spent beyond - we are looking at $16

million there now that really did not need to be spent in my mind. If we are

looking at maintenance of a debt, sticking to what was predicted to be a

balanced Budget, but it is my contention, Mr. Chairman, that government knew

that at the end of the day that this would not be a balanced Budget and that

come this year, at this point in time in 1995, we would be in the situation we

are in today. I don't think they predicted it; their own predictions would have

set us at $60 million, I think their own predictions would have put us at about

$25, but things got out of control, and this is not the first time that this

House has been asked by this government to deal with such a crisis at this time

each and every year.

We have had two Budgets from this government each year. One

is the Budget that is smoke and mirrors, that is brought down on March 31 for

the upcoming year, and the next one is the crisis that the people of this

Province have been asked to deal with and their projections as a government have

never been on and what has happened as a result? We will see tomorrow what will

happen as a result of this year, layoffs -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. WINDSOR: They knew they needed money for Marble

Mountain they were asked for a year-and-a-half to put funding into capital

(inaudible) -

MR. E. BYRNE: Exactly.

AN HON. MEMBER: - and then two months later they

cancelled it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Exactly, a good point by the Member for

Mount Pearl. They knew they needed new water bombers, they knew they had to put

money into Marble Mountain and they knew they needed money to finance The Cabot

Corporation and then, they cancelled the Cabot Corporation. I mean, if that is

proper financial administration, then we should be discussing here - I mean,

that's not proper financial administration. We should be discussing in a more

detailed way as legislators of this House, how we can better control the

finances put forward in each and every Budget by each and every finance minister

on behalf of the government, and how do we do that? Do we set up special

Legislative Committees that can become more watchdogs on government spending and

put more decision-making power into the hands of legislatures? That's a

possibility, one that I would be in favour of. It would I suppose, give members

a greater latitude in dealing with the problems that this government faces and

that governments of Newfoundland and Labrador have traditionally faced, and what

governments of the future of this Province are going to face, and probably make

each and every one of us somewhat more accountable.

But it is hard to sit up and swallow the pill that is going

to be put forward by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board

tomorrow, when members of this House know that that pill didn't have to be so

sour if only government had followed what it said it was going to follow. It

talked about less money coming in from transfer payments. The former Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board predicted exactly how much less was going to come in

transfer payments. Special warrants, less revenues than projected, have added to

a crisis that many people in this Province and many people in the public service

are going to have to respond to.

What would have happened last year if it wasn't for the sale

of the southwest coast ferry? What kind of financial shape would we be in? If we

didn't have to sell - or just make an announcement on selling the Holiday Inns.

My God, what, would we be talking about a $60 million deficit today on current

account?

AN HON. MEMBER: But we are running out of things to sell.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: When is Confederation Building going on

the block?

MR. E. BYRNE: There are more, under this government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) leasing back is a different

matter (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is right, leasing back is a different

matter. This government knows all about lease-back options when it comes to

Trans City and proper financial administration. There is a game of snakes and

ladders that you have to go through to get good lease-back options with this

government. There is no question about that.

What kind of shape would we have been in if we hadn't sold

some of the assets that we've had? The day will come when we have no more assets

to sell. What do we do then? These are serious questions that we must deal with.

Next year a projected $200 million to $250 million less coming in in transfer

payments. Government hasn't articulated what the plan will be other than that it

will be a straight 9 per cent cut across the board. What does that mean in real

terms? What does it mean to the constituents that we represent, and what does it

mean to the future of the Province?

What about UI cuts? What will be the impact upon the

financial administration of this government in terms of revenue received either

directly or indirectly from small business, corporate income tax, personal

income tax? What is the impact on that? These sorts of financial clouds that are

hanging over our head, directly and indirectly, I mean the impact on government

coffers, the impact upon a population in terms of morale and attitude, will be

significant. To the point where what we are talking about is a philosophy of

throw up your arms, do nothing, and all of us can become bean counters and say:

From this department here is what we have to do. What do we become? All account

managers? We've got to start to look at some different ways of how we approach

things.

Does government have to say to itself and to the people it

represents that the way that we govern ourselves - if the UI system is out of

date and the way in which that has been processed and continued to be processed

since 1941, maybe the way we govern ourselves is out of date. Maybe it is time

to have a sincere look at the structure of governing in this Province and

respond in a greater way to the needs of the people out there.

You take mortgage holders, for example, in this Province.

People who own mortgages, who are paying on mortgages on a $100,000 home over a

twenty-year period will end up paying back in the vicinity of $260,000 to

$270,000. Over a twenty-year period; if they pay bi-weekly they will get it back

to fifteen-and-a-half, sixteen. At a, say, general rate of 10 per cent. Mortgage

rates are a little bit better now, but for the most part people who own

mortgages now borrowed when the rate was between 10 per cent to 12 per cent.

Except for new home-buyers in the last eighteen months.

Is there a role for government to step in and say: We can

provide better mortgage rates. Is there a role for government to say, from a

corporate entity - in on Cashin Avenue right now there is a mortgage shop full

of brokers. If you went to see a broker on a mortgage, his job is to find you

the best current mortgage rate available today in North America. It could be

with First Line Trust out of Toronto, it could be with any number of mortgage

companies out of Toronto. But the best rate that most peop