June 15,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 15

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask all

members of the House to join with me in extending sincere congratulations to Ms.

Kim Campbell, the newly elected Prime Minister of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Members on both sides of the House of

course made a significant contribution to the leadership convention that

occurred in Ottawa over the weekend in that we adjourned on Thursday and Friday

and agreed not to sit yesterday to facilitate members of this House who were

participating in the convention. It is obvious they were successful, at least

some were successful in their endeavour's, because they have produced a new

leader for the PC Party and a new Prime Minister designate in Canada. I am sure

all members of the House will join with me in wishing Ms. Campbell great success

in her responsibilities, in the discharge of her responsibilities as Prime

Minister, because what she does as Prime Minister of course will be of great

significance and great impact on the nation as a whole. I do not, Mr. Speaker,

understandably, go quite so far as to wish her great success in events that may

come later this Fall but I certainly wish her well in the conduct of her office

while she is there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I want to be associated with

the words of the Premier, at least the congratulatory words of the Premier,

extended to the new Prime Minister, Prime Minister designate or Prime Minister

elect or whatever it is called. I had occasion to meet with her during the

weekend and had a little chat with her about working with the first ministers

around the country. I assured her of the willingness of our first minister here

in Newfoundland and Labrador to work cooperatively to deal with some of the very

difficult problems that the country is faced with and the provinces are faced

with. So I am sure she will be impressed and pleased to hear the words of the

Premier, notwithstanding the last little dart, which I am sure he felt he had to

get in but let me just say to the Premier and to the members of the House of

Assembly, having had the chance to experience the third federal leadership

campaign, this one was beyond any comparison to any of the others. It was a

very, very highly successful, highly charged convention, a very enthusiastic and

energetic new leader, not only for our party but for our country and I think she

will be there for a long time yet to come.

That could be seen in the poll today, which indicated that

Canadians would prefer Kim Campbell over Jean Chretien and Audrey McLaughlin by

some ten percentage points. So, I think that augurs well and we will see what

unfolds over the next two months. All the partisans will be able to say what

they want to say over the next couple of months, but the reality is that it is

going to be a fight and do not ever lose sight of that, it is going to be a

fight and a battle that will be won on the ground.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

have leave of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too would like to join of course in a totally non-partisan

way in congratulating Kim Campbell on her selection as Leader of the PC Party of

Canada and of course, the first woman Prime Minister of Canada and indeed it is

an honour to lead a party and lead a country in that way, and we are looking

anxiously towards any new policy directions that might come forward,

particularly those that might be favourable to this Province and this Province's

needs, but that all remains to be seen, but I would like to join with the

Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition in congratulating her on her

victory and wishing her well in her new post.

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of all hon. members, I would like

to welcome to the House of Assembly twenty-five students from Grades V and VI at

Catalina Elementary in Catalina from the district of Bonavista South and Trinity

North. The students are accompanied by their teachers Ms. Lorrie Smith and Mr.

Marvin Ryder together with their driver Mr. Don Hicks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I may make a brief statement, I would like to advise the

House, Sir, that I have today ordered a judicial inquiry into the circumstances

surrounding the death of John Steven Rich, of Makkovik, June 8th, which was last

week. Mr.Rich was the gentleman who was shot in circumstances, I suspect most

members will recall, and my officials have received an interim report into the

death and as a result we have decided to hold the inquiry.

The Chief Judge of the provincial court, the hon. Donald

Luther is responsible for assigning a judge and for the timing, my officials

will ask Chief Judge Luther to hold this inquiry as quickly as possibly. I think

I should add that I am not suggesting there is anything untoward or anything

that is going to require any unusual treatment, but what I do want to say, Mr.

Speaker, is that, given the circumstances of a hostage taking and a man who died

as a result of, apparently, an exchange of gunfire with the police, we feel that

it is in the public's interest to have this inquiry as quickly as possible and

address the matters in that way.

Thank you.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just heard the minister's announcement and I welcome it. I

think it is important that there be a public inquiry into the death of Mr. Rich.

It is a rare instance involving a death at the hands of a police officer in a

very highly charged situation. It is important that this be probed, and I am

glad that the minister has acted promptly in arranging for an inquiry.

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

have leave of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the announcement by the Minister of Justice,

particulary in view of the public comments of one of the individuals who was

involved in this particular incident. These are very tragic circumstances, and

very difficult ones for a police force.

It is often difficult to find the right mixture of compassion

for the individual involved and public protection, and I think in each and every

case like this there ought to be a public inquiry to ensure that the proper

procedures are being carried out and that there is not any unnecessary

suffering, so I think it is quite appropriate and very timely.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question, or maybe two,

to the Minister of Fisheries.

Some time ago, I remember during the election campaign myself

having a meeting with a delegation or group of people from the Fleur de Lys

area. I know that my colleague, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, who is

unavoidably absent today and will be back later on this evening, has also had

some discussions with the minister over the last couple of weeks.

Now my understanding is that the minister indicated - this

relates to the reactivation of a crab licence for the plant in that particular

community. I know he is well aware of what I am talking about. My understanding

from having communication with one of those people last night was that the

minister indicated to them last week that he was hoping to have a decision or

something on their problem last week, after Cabinet or whatever. Can I ask the

minister: Does he have such a decision, and if so when is he going to announce

it?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I promised when

we would have a decision. This matter has been ongoing now for quite some time.

The plant in Fleur de Lys presently has licences to process

groundfish, lump fish roe, seal, herring, mackerel, caplin and squid. Mr.

Speaker, the government is not prepared, at this point in time, to issue a crab

processing licence for that plant.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Has the minister communicated this information

to the group from Fleur de Lye? Can I just ask him that? I want to know if he

has communicated to them because up until late last night they were not aware of

that and they were anxiously awaiting his decision.

Secondly, in view of the fact that is now his decision, what

does he have in mind? Does he have any suggestions for the people in that

particular area? Because I think there were something like 280 jobs, certainly,

well in excess of 200 jobs, connected with the operation of that crab plant. It

had been in operation for the last couple of years, as you know, through a

temporary license. I just wonder if the minister has communicated that

information to the group and does he have any other suggestions for them?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, that information has been

communicated to them. I think it has gone out this morning, and I was not in a

position until this morning to communicate that message to them. With respect to

the future of that plant, Mr. Speaker, it is like a lot of other plants around

the coast now, with the new market developing for crab and the high price being

paid, a lot of fish plants want to get access to crab processing licenses. We

already have adequate capacity in that area and, for that reason, we just can't

issue any more new licenses. It just would not make sense, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I have a question, as well, for the Minister of Fisheries. I

just read recently an article, I think it was in The Evening Telegram, where the

Deputy Minister of Fisheries said that the number of processing plants in the

Province should be cut from 260 to 100, which is a reduction of nearly

two-thirds. I would like to ask the minister: How did the department arrive at

that number? Is it a wild guess or is it based on a careful study of the size,

location, and economic viability of the fish plants in the Province? Could the

minister explain for the House from whence the deputy minister drew that number?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, we were having a meeting in

Marystown, one of the meetings on our discussion paper, and in the course of

addressing the gathering the deputy minister did make reference to the need to

reduce the number of plants. I am not sure what the numbers were but, I think,

most people will agree that the processing sector in the Province will have to

be reduced. I don't think there are any hard and fast numbers as to the extent

it will be reduced, but certainly, the fish stocks are not being rebuilt as

rapidly as we had hoped, and I think circumstances will dictate that the number

of plants will be reduced over the next few years.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

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

The deputy minister was rather specific, I say to the

minister - he said, from 260 to 100. He wouldn't say approximately, or within a

fifty range, he was very specific. Now, government decided some time ago not to

renew inactive processing licenses, or to transfer licenses until a plan was in

place for the processing sector of the fishing industry. I want to ask the

Minister of Fisheries: Is that still the policy of his department or has it

changed recently?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there is already a freeze in

existence on the issuing and transferring of groundfish licenses, and crab

licenses, and that policy is being followed.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

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

Can the minister then confirm that government has very

recently issued a license for a plant at St. George's, where a license, I

understand it, was inactive for a period of, I believe, five years? Apparently,

that license now has been awarded to Mr. Martin O'Brien. Can the minister

indicate whether this license has been given to Mr. O'Brien? If so, will he

explain what appears to be a violation of government policy, which maintains the

status quo until you're ready to restructure the processing sector? Could the

minister confirm that? If so, could he explain for this House why he and

government have made this award at this time?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous government,

of which the hon. gentleman was a member, this government does not violate its

own regulations. There was no groundfish license issued to that plant. There

were two plants, one in Stephenville and one in St. George's, that had a number

of licenses. It is part of the government's policy to consolidate plants and to

encourage plants to consolidate. That is precisely what has happened with

respect to the plant in St. George's. There is no groundfish license being

issued. There will be no freezing capacity authorized in that plant. So it is a

consolidation, Mr. Speaker, of a number of licenses that were already in

existence up there.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I will give the Opposition House Leader a

supplementary.

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

The policy of the Department of Fisheries is not specific to

groundfish license, I say to the minister. I want to ask the minister: He has

been going about the Province with `Changing Tides'. He has a number of

processing sector policy measures. I want to refer him to page 62 of that

document, where he says: `No incremental capacity increases would be authorized

where plant consolidation is permitted under existing licenses. That is

Article

20. Then, a bit further on, he goes on to say: `the withdrawal of inactive

licenses once any processing facility fails to meet specific operating criteria,

such as a period of inoperation for two years.'

I want to ask the minister: How can he stand here today and

tell this House and the people of this Province, and particularly, the

processing sector of the fishery, that he has now flown in the face of his own

policy document and his own `Changing Tides' and issued licenses to two plants

that were closed for more than two years? Really, when the minister gets in his

place, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask him: Won't he confirm that what we see here is

the most blatant political patronage move that we have seen for years in this

Province? - awarding a family, Mr. Speaker, awarding a candidate who ran in the

last provincial election; that's what he has done - rewarding the family for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, for that member to stand in his

place and talk about patronage, given the fact that three days before this

government took office on May 5, 1989 - three days

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: - his then colleague, the Minister of

Fisheries, Mr. Peach, on orders from his then Premier, issued three processing

licences.

AN HON. MEMBER: After the election.

MR. CARTER: After the election, three days before we took

office - purely on a patronage basis. So, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to

rationalize the hon. gentleman talking about this government and patronage.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health.

On May 21, I asked the Minister of Health about any plans his

government may have had to compensate victims of the HIV virus from blood

transfusions before mandatory testing occurred in 1985. The minister avoided the

question by saying that it was under review before the courts.

I ask the minister: Has he received a proposal for

compensation, and is the government prepared to consider some form of disability

benefits for those who were infected, and their dependants?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, since that time, we have been

in contact with some of the individuals who have been involved with this

problem, and we appreciate very much the seriousness of the problem they are

facing. We have taken it under advisement but, as I say now, the matter is still

before the courts and I don't particularly want to discuss this matter publicly

at this time, but be assured that this government will do what is appropriate.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fact that it is in the courts has not stopped the

Government of Nova Scotia from giving compensation, and it hasn't stopped the

Provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Alberta from developing packages that are going

to their Cabinets. Why can this government not act as other governments have

done and are now doing?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the Province of Nova Scotia, I

believe, did make a move after the government was defeated in the election, and

the Government of Quebec have made certain movements in that direction, as have

other governments. One government has asked that it might be put on the agenda

for the next Health Ministers' Conference, and another government has asked that

the item be put on the agenda for the next Deputy Ministers' Conference, which

will be occurring later this month, so the matter is under consideration.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would hope that this matter of compensation is not a

political matter, as the minister stated it was after the Nova Scotia government

was defeated. There are nineteen people in this Province who received the HIV

virus through transfusions - sixteen haemophiliacs and three through surgery, of

which two of the three from surgery have died, and seven out of sixteen have

died who were haemophiliacs.

Many of those surviving cannot obtain work and their families

cannot obtain life insurance and medical insurance. Surely, this government

should be as compassionate as the other four governments involved which are

seeking or giving compensation.

Now, every person in Newfoundland and Labrador understands

the fundamental justice and compassion needed, especially in cases where these

individuals received HIV infection through something they thought was safe. I

think it is the responsibility of this Province to do something about it.

This minister has a proposal in that I think is reasonable,

and I will ask him: Will he move now to put in place a disability package for

these people and their dependants?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I have said all I am going to

say on this topic at this point.

Thank you.

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Environment and Lands.

Recently, the Minister of Environment and Lands told the

media that the proposal to import garbage for incineration at Long Harbour was

dead because of the cancellation of ACOA funding.

According to the stories in the press, North American

Resource Recovery is not yet ready for burial. Has the minister met with NARR,

and has she told them the project is dead as far as the Provincial Government

are concerned, and is the minister prepared to pull the plug on this project?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, in response to my critic's

comment, when you put in context what I said about the North American Resource

project, I think it becomes clearer. My response to the question at the time by

someone in the press was that, when ready funding was available to these

individuals and they did not take advantage of it, it seemed unlikely that they

would, indeed, then go out and try to find funding through banks or whatever.

That was the context in which I made those statements. I also indicated at the

same time that NARR is, indeed, still free if it should so wish, to put in a

proposal to us, but I felt that in the light of the money being withdrawn, this

was not likely to happen. They failed to meet all the deadlines that had been

put in place by ACOA, who were ready to hand them the money free gratis.

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

John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Will the minister bring in legislation to

ban the importation of domestic and industrial waste for incineration or other

forms of disposal? Will she introduce legislation so that there will be no more

NARRs?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, in response to that question, my

answer can be no different from what it has been in the past. We do not at this

time see a way to bring in legislation that would rule against cross-border

transport of garbage that could not, in some way, interfere with a future

project that this Province might have in mind, that would involve taking some of

its waste materials to another province. So, our position remains the same, that

we are comfortable with the legislation we have at this time and feel the

environmental assessment process is a fair and just way to look at any new

project.

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

for St. John's East Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: I want to ask the minister a question on

another subject. Newfoundland Power has recently received, apparently,

permission from the City of St. John's to store PCBs at their site in Mundy

Pond, which is a densely populated area. As the minister knows, the proposal to

store PCBs in Mount Pearl, Chance Cove and other areas have been turned down.

Will the minister take action to ensure that the storage of these highly

hazardous materials are not permitted in or near populated centres? Will she

insist that Newfoundland Power find a site well away from residential areas and

that it provide security so that there can be no risk to people or the

environment?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: To my knowledge, there has been no certificate

of approval granted to Hydro for the storage of PCBs outside of their current

storage area. We have now turned down two - the application has been withdrawn

or we have turned down two such proposals. It will not be too long before PCBs

will be destroyed and we hope the problem will be over with. In the meantime, we

do have to find a safe place to put them and we are endeavouring to do that. So,

I can only reassure you that we will find a way to get Hydro to store these PCBs

as safely as possible until they can be destroyed, which we hope will happen

over the next few years. Possible sites for the destruction of PCBs have now

been announced in New Brunswick. An environmental process is ongoing in New

Brunswick to see if those are appropriate spots, and once that is resolved, then

our PCBs will be accepted by New Brunswick and we will get rid of them there.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Social Services. In the

March Budget, which we, in this Assembly, are now debating and will shortly be

expected to pass, the government cut funding to community organizations,

including agencies funded by the Department of Social Services, including: Big

Brothers, Big Sisters, The Personal Credit Counselling Service, Church

Counselling Services, the Newfoundland Hearing Association, The Goodwill Centre

and the Community Services Council. These organizations, through their good

work, prevent social and health problems, thereby saving the government money,

and because the agencies enlist volunteers and raise money from other levels of

government and the private sector the Province gets a high return on its

investment and the provincial government funding cut is only a minuscule

percentage of total Social Services spending. Has the minister - being in office

now for over a month - realized that cutting these community organizations is

penny wise and pound foolish, and will he reinstate the funding?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the hon.

member is aware or not but we're living in a time of fiscal restraints, living

in a time of economic malaise. We've got some terrible fiscal problems. In times

like these there are bound to be some cutbacks in all government departments.

Certainly the government is aware of the contributions made by these agencies -

Big Brother's and the Community Services Council. All of these. We're certainly

aware of the contribution that they make and delivery of services to the

Province. That's why we've asked for an assessment of all of these agencies, and

that's presently being done, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know about

malaise anywhere else but there's certainly malaise in the government benches

opposite here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Here, here!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the minister's department, the

Social Services department, has budgeted spending a total of about $10 million

on young offenders this year. That's an average of about $60,000 per youth in

trouble with the law. Does the minister realize that the good work of just one

of the organizations his department is cutting - Big Brother's-Big Sister's -,

work mostly done by volunteers and supported generously by community

fund-raising, helps to prevent crime by young people? Does the minister realize

that the cut in funding to Big Brother's-Big Sister's of $40,000 this year, down

from $90,000 to $50,000, puts in question the ability of that organization to

continue serving as many families as it does? Does the minister see that if the

work of Big Brother's-Big Sister's keeps just one or two young people out of

trouble with the law each year, then the Province will be in money?

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

MR. LUSH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we're concerned, and we're

concerned as I've said about all of these community agencies. That's why, again,

we've asked for an assessment. That's why we have our people out in the field

talking to all of these agencies, determining the type of work that they do,

determining the levels of financing which are necessary, and determining whether

or not the government will be able, in recognition of the work they do, to

assist them further.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why hasn't the

government done assessments long before now? The government's been funding these

organizations for years, the four years this administration has been in office.

Why hasn't the government completed its assessment? Why won't the minister give

the members of this Assembly who are being asked to vote on the Budget in a few

days, an answer? Are these organizations going to have their funding reinstated,

yes or no?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, it takes time to do these

assessments. We have many agencies out there in the area of delivery of services

to government, and we want to ensure that there is a thorough and a

comprehensive assessment in terms of viewing what these - in terms of analyzing

and determining what each of these agencies is doing. As soon as that's done,

Mr. Speaker, we'll be in a position to determine -

MS. VERGE: When will it be done?

AN HON. MEMBER: When!?

MR. LUSH: - as soon as that is done, Mr. Speaker, and it

will be done as expeditiously as possible, the government will make a

determination of what its response will be.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my question's for the Minister

of Tourism and Culture. As the minister is fully aware, major developments are

taking place at Cape St. Mary's Ecological Reserve, including the upgrading and

paving of the access road. A few weeks ago the minister confirmed that his

department was not consulted in regards to the establishment of a quarry at the

site until it was too late. Is the minister aware of other activities related to

the development of cabins along the route to Cape St. Mary's, either by private

or business persons, and what is his view on such developments taking place?

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate there are about

three questions there so let me try to deal with them in the order that I

remember them, so that is starting from the back and going to number one.

In terms of cabin development along the road, I am not overly

familiar with the fact of whether or not there is cabin development taking place

on that road, but I would like to point out to the hon. member that the access

road from the main highway to the site is actually a road that is owned and has

jurisdiction by the Coast Guard. It is a federal road, a federally maintained

road and will continue to be that way in the future.

With respect to the upgrading of the road in terms of wanting

to have the road paved, last Fall, under a federal/provincial subsidiary

agreement with respect to that site, the hon. John Crosbie wanted to add some

$750,000 to the federal/provincial subsidiary agreement, specifically to upgrade

that road. After much discussion and deliberation, it was decided that we would

accept the funds and the funds came forward under the agreement and they were

project-specific upon Mr. Crosbie's insistence, and by that I mean, the $750,000

could have been used in some other aspect of the development that we would have

liked to have seen go there, but he was somewhat insistent that that money be

used on the road, so we decided that we would certainly agree with him and pave

that road. There was a proviso of course, that even though the road was being

paved and upgraded, that the road would continue to be the responsibility of the

federal government.

Now, with respect to the quarry, I cannot remember, but there

was a question about more quarry operations or - I may have to ask the member to

repeat that part of the question.

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

Capes, a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware that the road

leading to Cape - St. Mary's is federally owned. It is the land that goes on

both sides of the road that I am concerned about, and the possibility that

cabins will be built on this road and this road is agricultural land now, has

been leased to the Development Association in our area, which is controlled by

the Department of Forestry and Agriculture. The question I asked is, what his

view would be on developments taking place on the road to Cape St. Mary's, and

would he have his officials check this out and report back to the House on their

findings as soon as possible, because I am sure, as I am sure the minister is,

that if the cabins become the problem that the quarry became, he would not want

to see either?

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Okay. I was not sure about the cabin part -

thank you, Mr. Speaker, I thought you were talking about a new quarry and that

is what threw me a little bit.

With respect to cabins and cabin development, not only does

the federal government control the access road that leads to that site, but I

believe they control - and I am not sure of the exact amount but a fair amount

of land on either side of the road, so if the federal government were wishing to

restrict access, they own the road, they own the boundaries on both sides of the

road, it could be 200 or 300 feet on either side of the road, I am not sure of

the exact amount, but if they control that, they also control the access to it,

they control the ditches that one would have to put culverts in, they control

the land that you would have to put the roads on to get to your cabins, so

should there be cabin development there, I will certainly ask our officials to

discuss with the federal government, and the Coast Guard in particular, what

would be the best way to deal with the use of their land.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. The hon. the Member

for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: I ask the minister, would he seek a change

in present policy to ensure the projects can impact on our tourism industry,

require the prior approval of the Department of Tourism and Culture before

proceeding, even though the possibility of the cabins being built on the side of

the road, there is also the possibility of the cabins being built on the border

of the ecological zone which stretches for three miles on each side of the road?

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr . Speaker.

Regardless of where the line for the ecological reserve is

drawn, there is always going to be a border, whether we take it right back to

the communities or the nearest community, there is always going to be a line

that you have to draw that says: the ecological reserve begins here and

something else can exist on the other side and so, for us to decide that you

cannot build within a certain distance of the reserve, where does the reserve

end, you may as well keep the reserve going.

But I certainly will take under advisement your

recommendation that we talk to our federal counterparts to see if we can ensure

that any development that would take place within a reserve area, and by that I

mean on the outskirts and not inside, but within some reasonable distance from

the reserve, would be something that we would jointly agree to and that we would

hopefully be able to administer collectively in terms of the Crown Lands

Division, but also in terms of how the federal government looks upon their own

property which is the access road. I will take that under advisement and talk to

my officials.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a district question I

would like to ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. He would

be familiar with, and be aware of, the controversy that has occurred out in the

Central Newfoundland area, the Grand Falls - Windsor area, with respect to the

four-lane Trans- Canada Highway. I understand from some public comments the

minister has made he has offered to go out, sit down and talk to whoever to see

if the issue can be resolved to the satisfaction of the business community, in

particular out there, who have a lot of concerns. Can the minister tell the

House when he intends to go out, if in fact he has said he will go out, and who

he intends to meet with?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I inform the hon. Leader of the Opposition that while he was

enjoying his two or three days in Ottawa I was meeting with the council members

from Grand Falls - Windsor and we have come to a reasonable agreement. I have

notified them by letter since of the stipulations that we wanted in the

agreement to come to an understanding that everything would be satisfactory to

both sides. That has since been faxed to them on Monday morning and everybody

seems to be quite happy about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

Provincial Affairs.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills:

"An Act To Amend The St. John's Municipal Elections Act."

"An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act."

"An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act."

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

the following bills:

"An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act."

"An Act To Amend The Financial Corporations Capital Tax Act."

"An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act."

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

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

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

Adjustors, Agents and Brokers Act."

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a very brief

comment on it. One provision of this bill, of which I have just given notice,

bears upon a matter in respect of which I was briefed, or retained if you wish,

as a lawyer while in private practice.

I have taken no

part in consideration of the matter at either

the official or Cabinet level. As this is the first occasion that the matter has

come before the House, I now make a declaration pursuant to

Section 33 of the

new Conflict of Interest Act.

My friend, the Minister of Finance, will carry the bill

through to its parliamentary stage, whatever may be its fate, and I would ask

the Clerk to make an appropriate notification in the Journals of the House, Sir.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand to present a

petition from 286 residents of South Brook and surrounding area. The prayer of

the petition to the House of Assembly is as follows:

We the undersigned residents of South Brook and surrounding

area petition the hon. House of Assembly to instruct the government to repair

and upgrade the bridge over South Brook on the Trans-Canada Highway near the

intersection of the Beothuck Trail and the Trans-Canada Highway.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, that is signed by 286 local

residents.

Mr. Speaker, South Brook, the town, derives its name from the

brook which runs through it - South Brook. At the intersection of the Beothuck

Trail and the Trans-Canada, very near that intersection, the Trans-Canada

crosses South Brook, the river, and there is a concrete bridge there that, to

say the least, is an absolute disgrace. It is in a stage of total disrepair. It

looks terrible, and I think from a safety point of view leaves a lot to be

desired.

A good bit of the railing consists mainly of planks wired

together, and anybody probably leaning on the railing is in danger of actually

falling into the brook itself which, given the Newfoundland terminology, we know

it as a river rather than a brook.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I indicated the bridge in question is very

near the intersection with the Beothuck Trail, which is a designated tourism

trail in our highway network - the trail that the Beothuck Indians used to take

in their Spring migrations to the sea. It does very little for the tourism

potential of that particular trail, to begin one's journey with the bridge in

question in sight. It certainly would do much to discourage tourists from

exploring the surrounding area if that is the sort of bridge work they have to

deal with. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that entire intersection leading to

the bridge is far from up to modern day standards and is in dire need of

upgrading.

I have written both the federal and provincial Ministers of

Transportation, as has the council of South Brook, with regard to the bridge and

the intersection. Both sides seem to be passing the buck as to whose

responsibility this bridge is and what priority it should receive.

Mr. Speaker, I would like both governments to stop passing

the buck and start spending the buck on the bridge over South Brook. This bridge

is a disgrace. Anyone driving over it can see it. Unfortunately, for whatever

reason, the

section of the Trans-Canada Highway between Badger and the Baie

Verte junction might as well be in the Bermuda Triangle, because it's receiving

absolutely no attention from the appropriate authorities.

Mr. Speaker, I support this petition. I've signed it. I ask

that it be tabled and referred to the department to which it relates. Thank you

very much.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In listening to the

Member for Green Bay read the petition, or speak to the petition that he's

talking about, I cannot as minister say that I'm fully aware of the situation at

the bridge. I guess he probably had written the former Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. I suspect that the condition of the bridge is not

quite as bad as he says it is. If it is, I'd have to question first of all why

he did not approach me personally and say so. Because the danger that he's

talked about here in the House of Assembly in presenting the petition leaves me

somewhat dismayed at why we would have a bridge in that condition where it's

life-threatening to traffic or to pedestrians or anybody else.

What I will do - because I don't agree with him either that

this area of his district, or any district, is not getting attention when it

comes to safety or the lives of the people, or the transportation system across

the Province. What I can assure the hon. member that I will do, I will have my

officials look into this immediately. If it is as bad as he says, whether it's

the responsibility of the provincial Department of Works, Services and

Transportation, or a federal responsibility - I don't know what point he was

trying to make there, one passing the buck over to the other - there's monies to

take care of emergency situations. There's money in the Trans-Canada Roads for

Rails agreement and there's money in the provincial agreements every year to do

the provincial funding for the highroads and by-roads across the Province, the

secondary roads.

All I can say to the hon. member, in a situation like this I

would have certainly had somebody look at it sooner, had I been aware of it. I

can assure him that I will have someone look at it and report back to him

personally so he can take it back to his constituents. Once I get it checked out

and see if what he's saying to this hon. House is the exact clear picture of the

dangers the bridge really poses.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion, but before I

do perhaps the House might allow me a moment or two to discuss what the

government will be asking us to do now that we're either refreshed from the long

weekend or impressed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or depressed.

MR. ROBERTS: Or depressed. I say to my friend for Grand

Bank that he and his colleagues in the Tory Party in my judgement did Jean

Chretien a considerable favour on Sunday. I realize my friend was not part of

it.

We're going to ask the House to deal first, Mr. Speaker, with

Your leave, with the amendment to the Standing Orders so we can move that ahead.

Then we shall ask the House to deal with Bill No. 4, which is the Department of

Industry, Trade and Technology bill. Now that's a change from where we left it

last week. We were going to deal with Bill No. 2 first, but I say to those

interested in Bill No. 2 that I'm trying to accommodate my friends opposite

who've asked that we deal with the `DITT' bill, as we call it, first.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The `DITT' bill. Not `ditts' but `DITT'.

Department of Industry, Trade and Technology. Then we'll go on with Bill No. 6,

which is

An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act. It's a long bill. It's a very

straightforward piece of legislation. We'll leave Bill No. 8 for a moment,

because that may be a little more controversial. Bill No. 12, that's the Liquor

Control Act. Bill No. 10, which is the implementation of the deals with the

government. Then we'll come back to Bill No. 2.

Now we'll see how we get along. We may not get through all

those, I realize, this afternoon before 5:00 p.m. That being so, Mr. Speaker, I

move the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: If I understand the hon. Government House

Leader before I move on, you wish to deal first with Motion 5, then orders....

MR. ROBERTS: Orders, Mr. Speaker, number 8 -

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I just wanted to understand first of

all what the (inaudible) -

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) speak to the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that's fine. Then we would move on. You

propose to deal with -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) non-debatable motion.

MR. SPEAKER: - 2, I'm sorry, with Nos. 8, 9, 12, 13 and

7, in that order. Is it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk, if I

could, to the Government House Leader.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Government House Leader sent across

a list here that we did not have a chance to discuss and I wanted to get a

chance to have a chat about that before we really proceed. We have no problem

starting with Bill No. 4, "An Act Respecting The Department of Industry, Trade

And Technology." Perhaps we could then have a word about procedure after that

because we do have a person or two who are en route and we might be able to

accommodate them by re-scheduling it or juggling around the order, please?

MR. ROBERTS: Before my friend for Mount Pearl speaks

perhaps I could say I would be delighted to call Bill No. 4 in an effort to

co-operate with the opposition. He and I could meet while the minister and the

opposition critic are dealing with Bill No. 4.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister is making a motion

not to adjourn at 5:00, but Standing Order 7, I believe it is, is very clear.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order so I know what we are

discussing, I do not think the hon. Government House Leader made the motion. I

think he said if business was not completed.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I did.

MR. SPEAKER: You did make the motion?

MR. ROBERTS: I did move that the House do not adjourn at

5:00 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: That is if business were not completed.

Anyway, go ahead.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member has moved a motion and let me be clear, I

think we are going to agree with what he wants. I think that was the agreement -

that we would agree. I just wanted to make it clear that I think the motion is

out of order, actually, because Standing Order 7 very clearly says that at 5:00

o'clock, except on Wednesday and Thursday, if the business of the House is not

adjourned, Mr. Speaker, shall leave the Chair until 7:00. You cannot change the

Standing Orders except by the mechanisms laid down and by the unanimous consent

of the House. What I am saying is that the motion is out of order. Now, if the

member would like to have leave to come back at 7:00, or not to adjourn from

5:00 to 7:00 we will agree with that, but I want to make it clear that he is

totally out of order in accordance with the Standing Orders but we will agree to

it.

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

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Let me,

first of all, say to my hon. friend that the Standing Orders are not the only

rules of this House. In fact Standing Order No. 1 says: In all cases not

provided for hereinafter or by sessional or other orders. The hereinafter refers

to the Standing Orders and then there are sessional or other orders, point one.

Point two, the motion, Mr. Speaker, has been made time and time again during my

period in the House, which goes back a little further than even my hon. friend

from Mount Pearl, and has been accepted by any number of Speakers as being in

order. Furthermore it is not debatable and does not require notice. The motion,

I would submit, is in order and accordingly should be put without debate and it

does not require notice. Generally we do it with consent but I would make the

submission that the matter is in order, the motion is in order, and accordingly

should be dealt with at once.

MR. WINDSOR: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: I submit that the hon. member's submission

is totally irrelevant, that in all cases not provided hereinafter, but in this

case it is very clearly provided hereinafter in Standing Order No. 7 which says

very clearly that the House shall adjourn at 5:00 and come back at 7:00 if the

business is not there. Now, my friend points out that way back in history, and

we all know he comes from back in the dark ages, and he may well be correct that

there may have been cases, but I point out that the Standing Orders were changed

only a number of years ago to provide that there would be a supper break from

5:00 to 7:00, and it also provides that at 10:00 the House will adjourn. The

former Speaker ruled against an objection of ours a couple of months ago when

the House failed to adjourn at 10:00. I am pointing out to the hon. member

opposite and to Your Honour that these rules were changed so that we are not

going through the foolishness of being here all night and that we do take a

supper break from 5:00 to 7:00. If the member wants leave not to, then we are

prepared to give leave, but we are not going to do it because he says the

Standing Orders are not applicable.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I will not

get into the personal diatribe that he wants me to get into, but he should at

least read the full passage which says: in all cases not provided for

hereinafter, or by sessional or other orders. Secondly, the House does not

adjourn at 5:00 pursuant to Standing Order. Standing Order 7 says, 6:00 o'clock

and not 5:00 o'clock.

MR. SIMMS: That has been changed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to hear the member on the point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: The point I wish to make is that there are

precedents of this House from the session before the election in March, there

are precedents from the session before Christmas, the last two sessions of the

40th or 41st general assembly and I could go right back through the entire

history of this House, Mr. Speaker, at least the last ten or fifteen years and

would find precedents supporting the motion I have made.

MR. SPEAKER: I will hear from the hon. Member for Mount

Pearl, then I will go to the hon. Member for St. John's East.

MR. WINDSOR: Just one final submission on that, Mr.

Speaker. The hon. member may well find cases where we have done that, and I say

again as I did then, that it is incorrectly using the Standing Orders, and that

mistakes were made, I say with respect, by the Speaker who was in the Chair at

the time, but that does not make it correct. The Standing Orders are very clear

that we adjourn from five to seven, unless the member has leave and we are not

prepared to accept this motion.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, as the Government House Leader said

the other day, if you do not have rules, you do not know what is going to

happen. Now we have a situation where the rules provide for certain specific

sittings of the House, and the Government House Leader takes the position: well,

it does not matter what is in the rules because we can pass whatever motions

that we want. I think it is an important point, Mr. Speaker, because otherwise

we can come here any day at the whim of the Government House Leader and his

party whip behind him, and we can be here until five, until seven, until ten,

until twelve, until one, until two, whenever it suits the Government House

Leader. I do not think that that was the intention of the rules when they were

made and I think there has to be some overriding intention that is very clear

from the rules, and there may well be emergency situations or situations not

provided for, but this one is clearly provided for and before we go on this

afternoon, I think it is important that we have a ruling from Your Honour, as to

the status of the rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I will take five minutes and come back with

the ruling. The House is now recessed.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have before us a point of order raised by the Member for

Mount Pearl. I would like to point out to hon. members that, as I am sure most

you know, the Standing Orders have not been amended formally to reflect a change

in sitting hours which have been in practice since the mid-1980s I am told,

since at least 1985, and that we sit from 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. and from 7:00

p.m. - 10:00 p.m., although the Orders provide for the sittings to be, in fact,

one hour later. So, I will use for a point of convenience and reference the

current hours that we now sit. I would not want to be held to that on any future

occasion should any member wish to raise a point of order with respect to our

practice, with respect to when we do, in fact, sit.

The hon. the Government House Leader earlier made a motion

that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m., but continue on through what is often

termed the supper break. The Member for Mount Pearl has objected that the motion

is out of order, since Standing Order 7 provides for an automatic break from

5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m., and I will use our current hours as opposed to those

provided for in the rules.

The Government House Leader suggests that Standing Order 1

allows a motion not to recess from 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. to be put to the House

at any time. It is my view that it is the intent of Standing Order 7 that there

be an automatic two-hour recess for members to enjoy a supper break if we are to

resume sitting in the evening. Standing Order 1 is insufficient to override

this, since there is no other standing, sessional or other order, or usage or

custom of the House of Commons, that would support the contention of the

Government House Leader. On a strict reading of the rules, I would be persuaded

to uphold the point of order by the Member for Mount Pearl; however, there is a

long history of precedent in this House which includes, in a brief survey, rules

of February 15, 1979, December 14, 1984, December 6, 1985, March 26, 1986, June

18, 1987 and December 14, 1992, all of which allowed such motions to be put

either to not recess at 5:00 p.m., in accordance with Standing Order 7, or to

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m., in accordance with Standing Order 8. Furthermore, in

the notations or commentary at page 10 of the Standing Orders of this

Legislature adopted on May 8, 1951, it was stated as follows: if the House

intends to sit later than 11:00 p.m. a motion may be made either during the

sitting and without notice having been previously given, `that the House do not

adjourn at 11:00 p.m.' These apparently were notations and comments attributed

to Speaker Sparkes who was the first Speaker of this House of Assembly following

Confederation.

Just in

summary, therefore, I believe that the Member for

Mount Pearl is correct insofar as the rules, I think, were intended to give

members a supper break and I don't know to what extent they have been in

existence but they certainly predate Confederation. However, there is a clear

precedent in this House going back to 1951 that contemplated that the motion

should and could be allowed to be put, as the Government House Leader did.

Therefore, I would, on the basis of the considerable long-standing precedent,

allow the motion to be put by the hon. the Government House Leader.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: I am not to question Your Honour. Your

Honour has made a ruling and I am not going to question it at all - I will

simply point out that these Standing Orders were changed in 1979. Some of the

precedences Your Honour has referred to was before these hours were put in and

the rules were clearly changed to provide these things. I simply want to say,

Your Honour, that if the Standing Orders can be changed then let's throw away

the Standing Orders. Obviously, they can be overruled at any time. So I ask the

Government House Leader: let's establish the Committee and get the Standing

Orders changed, and make it clear that precedent will not govern, and these, and

many other items that have been overruled by previous Speakers - if the Standing

Orders are not going to be strictly followed except by leave, then they are of

no value.

MR. SPEAKER: If I may, before I recognize the hon. the

Government House Leader. I just point out to the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl

that, in fact, Standing Order 7 was not changed in 1979, that it is, in fact,

the same wording as we have had going back to about Confederation, and did

provide for the supper break. So had there been a substantial change in the

orders since Confederation, or since those notations originally appeared, I

would probably come to a different conclusion.

I think the member's contention is well put, that we are

operating under rules right now, or we are operating in a fashion which is not

provided for by the rules. It does concern me, and frankly, I intend to enforce

the rules and the precedent, as I understand it, in this House. It just so

happens that I think the member is right in point of view of what the rules

probably originally meant; however, I don't think I can overrule a history of

this House going back to at least 1951 that I can discern at present.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that the

Standing Committee on the Standing Orders has been struck - I chair it. It is

the intention of my colleagues and myself to ask the Committee to meet - we

won't try to get at this while the House is meeting, particularly with the kind

of

schedule we are now in. But we hope to meet over the Summer and before the

Fall, and there are a number of areas of the Standing Orders that I hope we will

address with a view to bringing a report back to the House. I would say to any

member of the House, if he or she has any suggestions, please speak to any one

of us, or, of course, any member of the House has the right to sit in on any

committee. Indeed, my friend from St. John's East has sent word, I believe, that

he would like to sit in on the meetings of the Standing Committee.

I agree, the rules ought to reflect where we are. In fact,

when Your Honour asks for the first order of business, I will call an order

which I hope will address that very problem in part.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe that before the point of order was

raised the Government House Leader had indicated he wished to have Motion 5

called at this point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, does the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture wish to be recognized?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, okay. Motion 5 is now before the House

that the Standing Orders -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, have we put the motion that the

House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.? I want to be sure.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that is the order in which you wished

them put.

All those in favour that the House do not adjourn at 5:00

p.m., `aye', contrary, 'nay', carried.

Motion 5. An amendment to the Standing Orders by providing

for 54.1 and 54.2.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. There

has been consultation among the groups in the House. I understand that this

Standing Order, as it is drafted and as it appears in today's Order Paper,

represents a consensus to which all members, I understand, can subscribe.

Although I don't hold myself out as speaking for all members, I certainly speak

for my colleagues on this side of the House in this matter.

The order doesn't require much detailed comment, but may I

make just one or two points. It is divided into two parts, Mr. Speaker. The

first part addresses the situation where legislation is referred out to a

Standing Committee of the House before it is introduced into the House. The

procedure is laid down for dealing with that. The Standing Committee involved

would be the Standing Committees on the Estimates, which have been set up and

which have worked very effectively, in my judgement.

The second order deals with a situation where a bill has been

given second reading by the House, which means it has been approved in principle

by the House. If a committee wishes to become seized to that bill - the

appropriate committee is defined - it simply passes a motion. The bill is then

dealt with by the committee and cannot be dealt with further in the House unless

the House passes a motion to allow the matter to come back on the Order Paper

before the committee's report.

There is a provision here that will allow a very brief debate

on that motion, essentially, a statement of principles or a statement of

position by each side of the House, should we be into that. The House will note

that only a minister may move that motion that, in effect, reflects the fact it

is a form of closure, and under Standing Order 50, only a minister may give

notice, as I understand it, of a closure motion.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a step forward, in itself. The

amendment, the rule speaks for itself. I will not say anything more but I will

make one further comment in a general way, this grew out of a misunderstanding

to which I contributed perhaps in large measure, but others as well in some

smaller measure, and it reinforces the wisdom of the adage we have seen in the

last little while, that where we do not have rules written down, not only can

Your Honour not enforce them, but we cannot even attempt to follow them because

we do not know what they are.

This is an attempt to write down an agreement among the

members of the House, as to how we should deal with legislation where we want to

refer it out to a committee for consideration by the committee, but also as a

means to allow people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador to come before the

committee and be heard. That is very easy in the committee format, it is very,

very, much more difficult to have it done here in the House of Assembly,

although there are precedents for that as well, but not always happy ones, but

with a committee, it is quite easy to arrange a meeting and if people want to

come forward and make representations or ask questions or discuss the issue

generally, it can be done, so with that said, Mr. Speaker, I will move that we

adopt this change to the Standing Orders.

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

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

Just a few brief comments. The Government House Leader is

quite right, we did have consultation on this, the Government House Leader and

myself and as well, the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier had a short

discussion on it, and the Opposition House Leader and the Government House

Leader, so in essence, we agree with these changes, but I would just like to

point that in 54.2 (2) we, as an Opposition would have liked to have seen a

little more time there - it goes on to say here: which motion was spoken to by

one member of the opposition shall be replied to by a minister for not more than

ten minutes each. Originally, there was no intent there to have any debate

really on this particular section, and we felt strongly that there should be an

opportunity to have a debate and we were able to only be able to squeeze ten

minutes out off the Government House Leader -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, we asked for more, we fought for

more but we felt that ten minutes was at least an opportunity, I say to the

Member for St. John's East. That is better than none but not quite enough, but

at least it gives us a chance to have something to say about whatever we want to

say at that time, so without further ado, Mr. Speaker, these are my comments on

that. I personally think it is a move forward and I guess it might be an

opportunity to say, that as the Member for Mount Pearl so rightly said before,

and the Government House Leader has certainly indicated I think, a willingness

that we really have to come to grips with our Standing Orders and get on with

it, and let us formulate what our Standing Orders are going to be so that Your

Honour can rule in the best interests of members according to the Standing

Orders, and let us get on and do it because we procrastinated a lot over the

last couple of years on making revisions and improvements to the Standing Orders

and I think now, there is a willingness to do that so I look forward to

committee convening before too long.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will say there was some consultation on this but there was

no consultation on the issue that the Opposition House Leader now refers to and

that is, apparently an agreement by the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier

or someone on that side, that only one member from this side of the House shall

speak and only the minister on the other side, which appears to be inappropriate

and designed, at least by default, to prevent anyone other than the Official

Opposition from having any say on this particular motion, and I do not know if

that was intended. If it was not, I would ask that the one be changed to two,

and will so move at the end of my remarks.

But the issue here, and I think we are all agreed on the

principle here, and upon consultation with the Government House Leader I made it

clear that I will be quite happy to see an arrangement whereby the legislation

in draft form will be sent out to the committee, giving people an opportunity to

have an input into it in draft form, before the government has committed itself

and I think that is a very valuable approach and can lead to better legislation

at that stage, before the government has made any political commitment to a

particular bill.

I am a little concerned about the ten days, the ten sitting

days being a requirement, because although the government has the right to

increase that ten sitting days by motion, it seems to me that that is a very

small period of time, particularly if the interest of members of the House is to

have real public input and public discussion ten days does not hardly seem

enough time to get proper advertising out and to allow the public to be aware of

the sittings of the committee. Nevertheless, there is still flexibility there in

that the committee can itself insist on carrying a bill and can go on holding

hearings despite the fact that the matter is still being debated in the House.

There is some flexibility there, and it is certainly

acceptable in the form that is there, but I would say that by only allowing one

opposition member to speak to a motion, even after giving notice, allowing the

House to go ahead and override the consideration of the committee by having a

very short debate of only twenty minutes duration of the House, it seems to be

unduly short. There should be at least an opportunity for not just one

opposition member but at least one other to state their views on a particular

motion.

So I would move an amendment to the motion that the 1 in

paragraph 54.2(2), that the 1 be changed to 2 - that one member be changed to

two members - and that would adequately allow a thirty-minute debate instead of

a twenty-minute debate, which would not unduly lengthen the time of debate and

would provide for more discussion in this House of such a motion.

Usually, Mr. Speaker, these kinds of motions are only made

when the matter is one of some public contention, when there is obviously a

dispute between a committee and the House as to what is going to go on, or a

dispute between the opposition and government. It is only going to come about

when it is a matter of contention, and it would be desirable, therefore, to have

at least more than one view on the opposition being able to be expressed, and

that would adequately meet the requirements of the House that all views are put

forth.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it was intended by the

discussions between the Government House Leader and/or the Premier and the

Leader of the Opposition and/or the Government House Leader to exclude me or any

third party from any debate. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I think we

probably could readily have agreement from members of the House to amend the

words `one member` to `two members` of the opposition, in paragraph 54.2(2), and

I so move.

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) motion?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I will second his motion, sure, and in doing

so I want to explain to the Leader of the NDP, or the Member for St. John's

East, how this transpired.

If I had my druthers I would rather have a full day's debate,

which would allow for ten or twelve members - not only the opposition members

but members of the House - who might want to debate, so I can assure him that

was not the intent.

The original draft that came to us did not provide for any

debate, and it was basically just a measure of compromise that allowed at least

for the opposition in the House - I mean, you are a member of the opposition, in

our view. You are on the opposition side of the House, so it said: `Can be

spoken to by one member of the opposition.` Now whether that is interpreted by

this Speaker or future Speakers as being simply this party or some other member

of the opposition, it is up to the Speaker. Our point was that we wanted to make

a provision for some debate to occur rather than it being another non-debatable

motion. At least you would get up for ten minutes and be able to argue how crazy

it is or whatever, how silly it is, for them to be pursuing it or whatever.

So that is the purpose of it and that is the point, but if

the hon. member moves - well I have already shown I am prepared to support his

amendment, because it will still be up to the Speaker or future Speakers to

decide which members of the opposition would be recognized in such a debate. So

if he wants to amend it to two, I would have preferred to see him amend it to

read five. I would have seconded that amendment as well, but since he has moved

the amendment to allow for two, we will support it and agree with it, but I have

a funny feeling it may not receive the same kind of support from the other side

of the House, but we will just have to wait and see when the vote is called.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to the

amendment, and perhaps if the House will agree, end the debate, unless any other

hon. members want to speak. I do not want to speak twice, so if there are other

members who wish to speak, either on the amendment or on the main motion, I will

yield the floor gladly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the amendment

first. We must oppose it, unfortunately, but for two reasons. One of principle

and one practical. The practical one is the one adverted to by my friend for

Grand Falls, the Leader of the Opposition, which is that this amendment, the

wording is the result of a compromise arranged behind the Chair, to which he was

party I think - I'm not speaking out of turn - and the Premier was party, as

were the House Leaders. So I must proceed on that basis.

The principle on which this compromise was struck in my

understanding is straightforward. The House recognizes a Ministry and those who

support it and those who sit in opposition to it. The physical arrangement, the

debate, inevitably flows this way. There are references in Standing Orders. We

do not have a definition of Party in this House, or group, and perhaps when we

come to look at Standing Orders that's a point we might well with profit

address. Because there are some rulings -

AN HON. MEMBER: It's in the draft (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, and there are precedents. Again, I can

recall when other groups sat in this House. When the Premier sat with the

Liberal Reform group in 1968 and 1969. Mr. Crosbie, the Premier, the late Mr.

Abbott, and Mr. Gerry Murden sat as a group in the opposition. There was a time

when the official opposition only had three members: Ank Murphy, Senator

Ottenheimer and Tom Hickey. Yes. There were three.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, for those reasons we shall not be able

to accept the amendment. I am prepared however to suggest, if members are

willing, that we change the words, a "member of the Opposition" to read: a

member sitting in opposition, with a small "O". Or whatever the Clerk may decide

is a proper wording. To catch the point it doesn't have to be the Official

Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, alright then, if there's no agreement

I won't press the point.

Let me go on to say, Mr. Speaker, with reference to this

particular point, that the motion is not one to limit debate. This is why when

we struck the compromise on this side we took a fairly strong position. I think

the Leader of the Opposition will agree. He and the Premier had a conversation.

I understand the Premier took a very firm position on this. This is not a motion

to restrict debate. The motion to call a bill back into the House is one to

bring debate on in the House. Recall again, this will apply only to a bill that

has passed second reading, that's already received approval in principle by the

House.

For our part, we don't think it's at all exceptional. We

think it would be entirely in order if the Ministry were prepared to take upon

itself the responsibility and to move that motion, to ask the House to bring the

bill on for early debate. The committee can still meet. When the rule was

drafted it did not prevent the committee meeting. It would be a little

anomalous. It might be superfluous or redundant, but if the committee wished to

make a point it could carry on with the point.

MR. SIMMS: But all we ask for is the opportunity to

debate.

MR. ROBERTS: That is what - my friend the Leader of the

Opposition is quite correct - we've attempted to do, in that each side will make

a statement. Ten minutes is long enough for many things. I've heard debates, as

I suspect he has, Mr. Speaker, perhaps Your Honour has, in the House of Commons

in England, in London, sits in London, where twenty minutes is as long as

anybody speaks.

We're all familiar, Mr. Speaker, with the old adage: I'm

sorry I've made a long speech, I didn't have time to prepare a short one.

There's a great deal of truth in that. We see it every day here in the House.

I would make one other point in response to my friend for St.

John's East. When he said with reference to bills that are being referred out

before they had been introduced into the House, that he was somewhat troubled by

the ten sitting day period. I would point out to him that the rule says - and

I'm reading 54.1(3): it may not be called for debate, or the report to the House

shall be the later of either the tenth sitting day or the day set by whoever is

responsible for the conduct of business on behalf of the government, the House

Leader.

MR. TOBIN: Carried!

MR. ROBERTS: It is our intention that this be used

primarily in respect of legislation that's being addressed while the House is

not meeting.

Mr. Speaker, with that I shall heed the admonition of my

friend for Burin - I never thought I'd hear him say `Carried'. If he keeps it

up, in twenty or thirty years he may some day, when he's back over here, be the

Government House Leader. I'm not sure I'd wish that fate on him, but anyway I

do.

The other thing I would request, Mr. Speaker, is if this

motion is adopted, as I hope it will be, I would ask the Chair of the Social

Services Standing Committee, which is the committee seized of the subject matter

of Bills 1 and 7, if he would be good enough to call a meeting of his committee

at the committee's convenience with a view, I hope, to passing a motion to have

Bills 1 and 7, which are the anti-smoking bills, referred to the committee, so

the committee can get on with hearings; I don't care when - it is the Social

Services one. My friend from Burgeo -Bay d'Espoir chairs it and I think the lady

from Humber East is the Vice-Chair. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will call a

vote on the amendment and then on the motion, which I hope will not be amended.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

We will vote first on the amendment. It is moved by the hon.

the Member for St. John's East, seconded by the Official Leader of the

Opposition that Order 54.2(2) be amended by the deletion of the word `one' at

the end of the fifth line and substitution of the word `two'.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for Motion 5 that the

Standing Orders be adopted in accordance with - Standing Order 5 is written to

add 54.1 and 54.2?

On motion, amendment carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough,

please, to call Order No. 8, Bill No. 4 which stands in the name of my friend

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: The Municipalities Act is next.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want a long speech or a short

speech?

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The

Department of Industry, Trade and Technology". (Bill No. 4)

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise for second reading of this bill. The

reason why we refer to it as DITT, in short now, is because I had a letter from

a company in Toronto that was very disturbed that we were using ITT because it

was their copyrighted name, so we refer to it as DITT, in short. I thank whoever

put the structure together for getting the letters in that order I, T and T is a

lot better than any other order, I can assure you.

Mr. Speaker, this department comes about, as you know and as

all hon. members know, because of the Strategic Economic Plan. The Premier and

the government, after consultation across the Province, determined that we

should break down the Department of Development, which really was a catch-all

department and a very large department, a combination, I think, of

four-and-a-half ministries from the previous government. We determined after

consultation with various interest groups and people in general, that Tourism

and Culture ought to be pushed out on its own and given specialized attention

with its own department to create opportunities for people.

We determined that Industry, Trade and Technology should be

set up on its own and broken out into a number of divisions. Mr. Speaker,

Off-shore Petroleum Business, Industrial Technology, Information Industries

which by the way, Mr. Speaker, last year in Canada the whole telecommunication

and information industries, I think, accounted for some $15 billion worth of

activity, and in the deepest part of the recession, had an 8 per cent growth. I

think that is significant and worth noting.

The manufacturing industry - we have created its own

division. Last year there were 600 businesses operating in this Province, with a

value of $700 million, and it, too, has a great potential for growth.

I saw this morning in The Globe and Mail - I don't know if

many members saw it - in the business

section there is an

article there on Terra

Nova Shoes out of Harbour Grace. The former government was very helpful to that

company. The current government continues that help. They are now marketing in

Japan, what is called the Wild Sider boot. Perhaps my friend from Burin -

Placentia West would know all about that boot - the Wild Sider boot.

We see Heritage Woodworks out of Eastport marketing container

loads of furniture into Japan. Brookfield Ice Cream is marketing their ice cream

products in the Skydome in Toronto, exporting into Ontario, so there are good

things happening in that sector.

There is a services industry sector, a business analysis from

the old department. Marketing and Investment is standing alone now, which will

help to operate the SIID agreement and Strategic Procurement.

Mr. Speaker, we decided to take a focused look at the new

department, splitting off Tourism and Culture, creating the new Department of

Industry, Trade and Technology, so that we could focus the energies of a very

competent work force in that department to look after companies that can expand

in the new economy, and I think that is very important to recognize. The old

economy is the economy of the resource base - the trees, the timber, the paper,

the fish, the minerals; all of that which we took from the earth is the old

economy and, as that is in decline, we have to look for new ways to generate

opportunities for people in the new economy. The new economy is the information

industries, the high-tech industries, those kinds of things.

I am very proud of this little high-tech sector we have in

this Province. Instrumar is a classic example of doing the contamination ice

wing detector, which has great opportunities to change the aviation laws of the

world.

Ultimateast Data Communications - I met their president in

Halifax. We passed each other yesterday - or was it this morning? - in Halifax.

They are marketing in the South China Sea, marine telecommunications, in a big

way, and doing a fabulous job. There are all kinds of others.

Newtech has just done a joint venture last year with General

Motors, building components for tanks, so there are lots of good things

happening in the high-tech sector, in the manufacturing sector, in the

information sector and in the trade sector.

In the trade sector, Mr. Speaker, the department, as you

know, focuses on three areas - the Free Trade Agreement, which was constructed

by the current Federal Government, with some consultation by the provinces, with

the United States of America; the NAFTA agreement, which will open up

continental free trade right through Canada, the Americas, and Mexico, and has

potential to stretch out beyond that to the Latin American countries; and, of

course, the other issue that we have to be cognizant of is the issue of internal

trade barriers and what that means for business people who conduct their

day-to-day business from East to West in this country.

Those are very detailed and very complex issues, Mr. Speaker,

and we have a very good team, I am happy to tell hon. members, in our

department, who look after those issues.

That is a thumbnail sketch of the department and I will wait

with bated breath for the Opposition's wonderful comments about my great speech.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a few brief comments. Essentially, this is a bill

formally constituting a department which already exists in government. The name

DITT - I would suggest that the name probably be changed to DLEC, the Department

of Liberal Economic Cosmetology.

This is a department which basically handles the economic

development end of things in this government - and this government has very

little economic development of which it can boast.

The high-tech sector, the information sector, there is a

growing sector there. I was impressed with the displays at the booths that were

at the Manufacturers' Trade Show here some days ago, but while that industry,

itself, is in its infancy in growing, it falls far short in terms of the numbers

of jobs that are needed in an economy such as ours.

On the larger issues, Mr. Speaker, such as the Lower

Churchill and general creation of jobs, the record of the Wells Administration

has been nothing short of absolutely dismal. It is the job of the minister, the

smooth-talking minister, to put the best face on the failure of the Wells

Government to deliver on its initial economic promise of bringing home every

mother's son. If it weren't for the fish aid package from the Federal Government

and the Hibernia package negotiated basically by the previous PC Government and

the Federal Government, there would be very little money in circulation in this

Province.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that even the

minister's million-dollar smile, can't put a pretty face on the sad economic

face of this administration.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this

piece of legislation. When the Government House Leader introduced it as DITT, I

thought he said DIP, D-I-P, which is another piece of legislation that I have a

concern, that in this particular department - and I have no difficulty with the

reorganization of the department in putting Tourism and Culture in one

department and allowing the government to focus on industrial and technological

development. But, Mr. Speaker, the success of the department under the old name

is not something that if I were this government, I would want to brag about, and

I have a major concern, as well, Mr. Speaker, as to exactly what this

government's attitude is towards development.

What do they really mean? What kinds of jobs can we expect

from the attitude of this government? And I want to give an example of the kinds

of things that this government is up to under the aegis of development and

supporting the private sector. You don't have to look very far, from the

minister's own actions in the last couple of weeks, in establishing a

corporation known as Labrador Stores Inc. Labrador Stores Inc, Mr. Speaker, was

incorporated quietly, secretly, down in the back rooms of the government

divisions. It transferred all the employees in the Labrador Stores Inc. who were

formerly working for the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology, working

for the Labrador Stores division, and then they refused - they said then, Mr.

Speaker, these people are no longer covered by a collective agreement, they are

no longer unionized. We are not going to deduct their union dues any more; we

refuse to collect union dues. They don't have a collective agreement any more.

And now, these thirty-nine or forty jobs, the people who had long service,

between seven and twenty years in the public service, are no longer even covered

by a collective agreement.

They will not be able to collect their union dues, there is

no successor rights. The government takes the position that they have

transferred these people from a government department under the Public Service

Collective Bargaining Act, out from underneath that, and under the Labour

Relations Act. The collective agreement doesn't apply, no successor rights - the

government knows this because this has been before the Labour Relations Board a

number of times - and all of a sudden, these thirty-nine people have no job

security, because the minister plans to sell off the corporation and these

thirty-nine jobs with job security, with pensions and everything else intact,

all of a sudden these people are at the whim of what the minister may sell to

one of his friends, these stores up in Labrador.

What is the plan here? Are we going to trade - is this the

government's plan to trade these unionized jobs, change them automatically by

stealth of hand without even consulting with the union, without consulting with

the employees, transfer these jobs to Labrador Stores Inc., with no

consultation, no information to the union members, to the employees, these

thirty-nine people, some of the very few full-time jobs I say to the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, on the whole Labrador Coast, working in this

service that has been provided by the Government of Newfoundland since 1942, Mr.

Speaker, for fifty years. For fifty years, the Government of Newfoundland has

provided this service on the Coast of Labrador, supplying goods to the remote

areas of Northern Labrador that could not be provided and still can't be

provided adequately by the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, what we've got here is a plan by this government

first of all to de-unionize these jobs and then sell off this corporation.

That's what's happened. Sell off this corporation. We're going to trade these

full-time decent jobs in Labrador for some sort of part-time jobs at minimum

wage standards with no union in place. Because the government has already

carried out a plan to get rid of the union and to deprive these individuals of

their bargaining rights in collective agreement. That was done without any

consultation with anybody in the bargaining unit, without even informing the

employees of what was happening, and without any consultation with their

bargaining agent.

The minister's idea of development for Labrador, at least, is

to take this public service that's being provided to the people of Labrador,

turn it into some sort of private enterprise thing, which is going to be what's

known to be called `McJobs' in Canada. Part-time, low wage, usually

non-unionized clerks' jobs in stores, and that's going to be the end result of

this minister's idea of development for the coast of Labrador.

I understand he's going up to Labrador later on the week or

next week and he's going to try and tell the people of Labrador that it's all

going to be better. I don't know. Maybe he has another member to carry his

briefcase. I'm not sure who's going with him. I understand that the minister has

plans to go and try and sell this proposal to the people of Labrador, but I

don't think it's going to work.

What we've got here is an attitude by this government. We've

heard it expressed by them now. Supporting the efforts of the NAFTA agreement,

the free trade agreement with Mexico. He's going to extend that now further

south than Mexico. I think he's even ahead of the Michael Wilsons of the world.

He's even ahead of them. He wants now he's going to go south of Mexico with a

free trade agreement. An agreement which is depriving not only his government

but all successive governments of Newfoundland of the ability to even have a

development strategy that's not based on just giving money away to the private

sector.

That's what happening under our very noses with the

platitudes that we hear from the minister and the government and the Government

of Canada, particularly the members of the Ministry, and the back benchers are

all supporting this whole notion of so-called competitiveness. Globalization and

competitiveness are the big watchwords of people who support this approach. What

this really means is tearing down the standards of living and working life in

this country, The standards that have been fought for for generations by

workers, by people in this country trying to put together a social safety net,

the social programs of Medicare, social services, health care, old age pensions.

All of these things that are part of what it takes to make Canada a different

country, all of these are being eroded by the approach to development, the

approach to so-called competitiveness.

Prosperity Initiative. This government calls it a Strategic Economic Plan. It

all boils down to the same thing. That we will eliminate the role of government

in development and we will turn it over to the competitive private sector and

put in place rules, such as NAFTA, such as the free trade agreement with the

Americans, that really prevent us from acting in our own best interests.

The minister talks about taking down inter-provincial trade

barriers. The first thing that's going to happen when you take down

inter-provincial trade barriers is we're going to close down the brewery in

Newfoundland. The two we have left, they're going to close. Take down all the

inter-provincial trade barriers, the first thing that will happen is that we

will lose the two breweries that we have left. That's the first thing that would

happen. Pretty soon Canada would lose any brewing capacity and it'll all be done

in the United States, down in Pennsylvania some place.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I say to the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture, who's just discovered that trees don't swim, that I'll tell him one

thing that does swim, and that will be leaving Newfoundland, will be the jobs of

the people who are currently working in the brewing industry. I say that to him.

Those jobs will be swimming to Nova Scotia and later on down to the United

States, just as the hundreds of thousands of jobs have already fled and swam

down south of the border as a result of the Free Trade Agreement entered into by

the PC government in Ottawa, that your government here supports. You support

that policy. Your government supported the Free Trade Agreement, and still

supports the Free Trade Agreement.

The Minister of DITT supports the NAFTA agreement. President

Clinton is concerned about American workers now, but I did not hear the minister

here express any concerns about the faith of Newfoundland workers or Canadian

workers, but we now have the President of the United States unwilling to move

forward on this bill without the additional protection for labour standards and

employees in the United States who have worse standards than we do. He is

concerned enough about it to try and bring about some changes but the Canadian

government and the Newfoundland government are quite happy to go along with the

erosion of labour standards, the downward pressure on our social programs, and

the further implications we are getting day after day in terms of restricting

the ability of government to take action to really control their own economies

and in fact to effectively do what the leader of his federal party talked about

in 1988, the erasure of the Canada US border. They were very effective ads and I

think the minister would agree. Back in November 1988 when the issue before the

people of Canada was the Free Trade Agreement, and when 60 per cent of Canadians

voted against the party that supported free trade and only 40 per cent voted for

them one of the most effective set of ads was made by the Liberal Party of

Canada talking about the erasure of the Canada US border.

Well, we now have an about face by the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology in Newfoundland who now thinks its a great thing. You have

NAFTA, We are opening up new markets for Newfoundland products, and I have to

join with him in praising the technological firms that are involved in this

particular case, but I ask the minister to get on his feet and tell me how many

people work for these firms. How many people are employed in this Province by

these firms? He said we are going to forget the old economy. The old economy is

the resource based economy. We are going to go to the new economy. How may

people in Newfoundland are employed in the old economy? Right now,

unfortunately, there are 20,000 of them who are suffering because of the

mismanagement of that economy.

If the minister is saying that we are going to turn our backs

on the resource industries of this Province I hope the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture is prepared to agree that we will forget about the loggers, we will

forget about the people who work in the woods and in the paper mills, who are

working in the resource industries. We are going to forget about what is going

to happen after the cod moratorium runs out. We will forget about them and ask

them to all work in the new economy.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology

causes me very grave concern when he drops these platitudes about the new

economy and let us forget about the old economy, especially when some of the

actions of his department, particularly with how they are handling Labrador

stores, shows a callous disregard for the employment rights and employment

standards and wants to set up a private enterprise in Labrador that is going to

de-unionize and take away the security of employees. Sell it off, privatize it,

lay of those people who have worked for dozens and dozens of years.

I see the Member for Torngat Mountains listening, as he

should be. Have a look, talk to some of the people who work in the stores in

Nain, Makkovik, and Hopedale. Ask them when they were told what their status

was. Ask them when they were told they were not going to have their union dues

collected anymore because they were no longer covered by a collective agreement.

After the fact, two months later. If the minister gets his way what I would

predict, I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains, if he gets his way and

privatizes those operations all those people will be laid off or they will be

offered a job part-time at a very low rate of compensation.

That is what I would predict if the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology gets his way, to do away with the service that is being

provided in Labrador. I am very concerned about that, Mr. Speaker, because it is

an example of the attitude that government has and what it is prepared to do.

Maybe the minister has an explanation, maybe he is going to get up and say: I

did not know this was happening, maybe he is going to get up and say: well, this

just happened without my knowledge, they did not consult with me. He transferred

Labrador stores to ENL, Mr. Speaker, and they immediately set up a corporation

called Labrador Stores Incorporated. It is on the road to privatization, gets

legal advise on how to terminate employees and all of that sort of stuff.

They then refused to collect union dues, Mr. Speaker, and all

of these employees, these thirty-nine or forty employees, were told that they

were no longer covered by a collective agreement. They were no longer required

to collect union dues and they were in a very different situation then they were

the day before. Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe he is going to say he does not know

anything about it but if he did not know anything about it, Mr. Speaker, he did

not act to protect the interest of his own employees in his own department. If

he cannot protect them, Mr. Speaker, what hope do we have that his policies and

his government policies are going to look after the interest of workers in this

Province? Especially, Mr. Speaker, when he holus-bolus agrees that NAFTA is a

wonderful thing. It is going to buy the market for Newfoundlander's and increase

our job potential.

Here we have the American President saying hold on a minute

now, we have to make sure that American workers are protected. We have to make

sure that American labour standards are protected. We have to make sure that the

environment is protected but not the Member for St. Barbe, the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology, no we do not see that kind of concern from him.

He seems to be content to mouth the platitudes of the captains of industry of

Canada. The Michael Wilson's, Mr. Speaker, who speak on behalf of the major

corporate interests in this country and not on behalf of the needs of people in

this country.

The whole notion, Mr. Speaker, that we can carry out in this

Province alone some kind of industrial development program in the face of this

kind of legislation, this kind of international treaty being undertaken by the

from this government other than saying: well here we are, we are going to forget

about the old economy. We are going to move to the new economy. The resource

base industries are in decline and we do not really think that we have any

future in that. We do not see our future in that, we see our future in the new

economy.

I say to the minister that the economy of this Province is

going to be dependent for many, many, many decades to come on the resources that

we have and not only is it going to depend on those resources but it is going to

depend on our ability to utilize those resources. It is going to depend on the

development of technologies so that we can maximize not only our use of these

resources but the products that come from them. So, there has to be new

technologies, I have no difficulty with that but we must not turn our backs on

the resource based economies. We must not turn our backs on our roots, we must

in fact do what one of these organizations, that the minister spoke of, what

Ultimateast is doing, their technology, their business is based on our resource

and our use of the sea. They have developed technologies for use in our ocean

resources, developed for use in our ocean industries and they have taken that

and marketed it to the world. We should be doing the same in our forestry, the

forest industry, Mr. Speaker, not only in this Province but in this country.

This country has failed to develop from its own resource base industry the kind

of technological development that it should. We should not be importing all of

our forest mechanical needs, all of our equipment, our harvest, all of this

comes from Norway.

Mechanical needs. All this comes from Norway. It comes, Mr.

Speaker, from those countries such as the Scandinavian countries which have

developed, in addition to their forest resources, forest technology that they

have marketed throughout the world.

So that's my point about this issue,. We can't do what the

minister says in his flippant way. Turn his back on the old economy, the

resource-based industries, and say: we're all going to be in the new economy.

These hi-tech companies - Instrumar, Ultimateast, and there are probably four or

five or half a dozen more - are doing excellent and remarkable work. How many

people do they employ? A maximum of 300? Maybe more. Give them 500. Nothing to

compare to the employment in our fisheries, in our forestry, in mineral

resources in this Province, and the employment to come in those industries. Very

important. We don't just go overnight from an economy based on resources to an

economy that's totally based on the information technology.

We've got a long way to go before the population of

Newfoundland - which we always hear people complain about the fact of our

illiteracy rate, our high school drop-out rate, our 40 per cent illiteracy rate,

our 50 or 40 per cent high school drop-out rate - before our population is going

to be sustained by the information technologies. Granted we have lots of good

examples. In Paradise River, Labrador, Mr. Higgins has a wonderful contract to

do software in a little community of eighteen or twenty families, if that many.

Maybe eighteen or twenty people. He has a $500,000 contract to develop software

for remote learning. That's a wonderful thing, but that doesn't come from

somebody who does not have a high school education, who hasn't completed high

school, or who's amongst our high numbers of illiterate people in this Province.

We don't move from being an economy based on resources to a hi-tech information

based economy by the minister saying so. There's an awful lot of work that has

to be done in between.

So I say to the minister that while his dreams may be high,

there has to be an awful lot of reality and a lot of real work on developing the

stages and steps that take us from one to the other. I have a concern that this

government, and this minister, as evidenced by what his department has done,

this is just one example. If that's the way that this government is going about

the creation of industry in this Province what we'll see is `McJobs'. Part-time,

low wage, temporary jobs to fulfil somebody else's need to make profit, not to

provide service to the people of this Province, such as Labrador stores has done

in its various formations for the last fifty years.

What has been predicted, Mr. Speaker, is that if the minister

has his way and these stores are privatized, we are going to see a price

increase of 30 per cent - 30 per cent. That is a conservative estimate, and that

comes from his own officials.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the kind of attitude this government

has, or lack of planning - maybe he is innocent, and I would be interested in

hearing him get up and proclaim his innocence, he knew nothing about this; this

was not part of his plan; he wants to make sure - he has made some statements

about this - the government are not good shop keepers. The government is not a

very good shop keeper. If that is the kind of simplistic idealogy that we are

going to hear from this government about development and planning and everything

else, then I am afraid that we have a very serious problem.

These are not stores that are run in Labrador. This is a

public service. This is a service being provided to the people in Labrador who

cannot get access to retail goods and services because of the geography of this

country, and subsidies are not enough. Subsidies are not enough. Labrador stores

fly fresh fruit and vegetables into Nain, Hopedale and Makkovik, in the winter.

No private enterprise is going to do that, Mr. Speaker, unless someone is

prepared to pay $10 for some broccoli or whatever else. It is just not going to

happen.

Mr. Speaker, we have a situation here where the government's

attitude seems to be one that is willing to allow these services to disappear,

not interested in looking after the employees. Some of the few full-time jobs on

the Labrador coast of that nature are being carried out by employees of Labrador

stores. They no longer have access to their collective agreement. They are being

told that they are no longer unionized, and there has been no consultation, no

planning, and they do not know what is going to happen next.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with reorganizing the

department. I am sure that somebody has decided that all of these pieces can fit

together in a different way, in a different department, to allow the Department

of Tourism and Culture to concentrate on one aspect of activity. I think it is

probably a very good idea. Perhaps the minister could be a little bit more

expressive and learn - maybe he has to learn a little bit more, I do not know.

Not everybody has the same security in life as perhaps the hon. minister now

has. There are people who have to worry about their pension rights, about their

bumping rights, about their ability to earn a living, and their ability to keep

a job.

Mr. Speaker, that is a major concern and I am concerned that

this government does not have that for its own employees. If it does not have it

for its own employees, what about the employees who they expect to be hired in

the new technologies, the new economy about which he talks. Does he have a

concern about them and what kind of job conditions that are going to be there,

or are we all going to have our wages and our economic conditions determined by

the wage rate in Mexico? Is that what we are going to have?

The wage rates in Mexico are about one-eighth of what they

are here, so you take the hourly rate of a worker here in Newfoundland, and that

is the daily rate for an industrial worker in Mexico. That is who we are

competing with under NAFTA. That is the standard that is being set for

industrial development in this Province, by this minister praising NAFTA as a

means of economic development in this Province, establishing a department that

is going to promote development and holds up NAFTA as a means of us getting

economic development.

I do not see that happening, Mr. Speaker. I can see the

government supporting private enterprise, giving out some money. I think

creating a climate is what the Premier says from time to time, creating a

climate for private enterprise to operate, making the rules to suit Bill Barry,

for example. That is what I hear from this government when they talk about

making the rules in such a way as to support private enterprise.

He praised up Terra Nova Shoes, another company that went

through the same kind of racket that Mr. Barry is going through now out in

Corner Brook, tried to decertify a union, organizing the workers, committing

unfair labour practices. It is the same kind of thing. Not only did they do

that, they did that with the help of the same person who this government has

appointed to the commission to look into the Barry situation.

I see some platitudes from this government about economic

development and industrial development. I see a Strategic Economic Plan, but I

do not really see a commitment to the kind of jobs in this Province, and to the

kind of industrial development that this Province needs to be able to guarantee

security to our work force, and I do not see the kind of concern about making

sure that those who are working in our resource industries are protected for the

future.

Mr. Speaker, those are my remarks on this Bill. I hope the

minister does get up to answer them. Maybe he will successfully claim innocence

of what's been going on in his department. If he does I'll be very interested in

hearing that. I say, Mr. Speaker, that his own department's action and treatment

of his own employees bespeaks a very negative prospect for the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I will sit down, Mr. Speaker. Not at the

urging of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, but because my time

is up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Technology if he speaks now will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, I think it's

important to address a few things. Having listened to my hon. friend speak he

gives me a deeper appreciation for Shakespeare's Hamlet when he said: first we

kill all the lawyers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: I beg your pardon?

MR. FUREY: I mean, I have never heard anybody distort in

so short a time the truth. Just imagine going to university to learn how to

distort, and when you can't even distort you concoct and create an untruth

disguised as a truth.

Nobody on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, said they were

for the free trade agreement. That is an utter falsehood. We inherited the free

trade agreement. This new Liberal government in 1989 inherited the done deal. It

was done, completed, done. Done by a fellow Mulroney and the Progressive

Conservatives. Federally we argued against it, provincially we said: we are in

principle for free trade but we do not like this free trade agreement that's

being inked by the federal Conservatives and Mr. Reagan at the time. Let the

record be clear. That is just an utter falsehood on the hon. member's side.

Then he talks about the old economy. I said: forget the old

economy. I didn't say any such thing. I said: wake up to the reality. Unless my

hon. friend is living in Disneyland or fantasy land, like his colleagues in

Ontario are doing, he's got to snap open his eyes and have a look at the real

world. In the real world fish stocks are going down. In the real world we're

prohibited from cutting timber and making paper due to recycling, and the

eco-sensitivity that's happening worldwide. We have no claim on that, or

monopoly on that, that we can cut trees whenever we want to cut trees and create

jobs. Is it our fault that mineral prices are going down and therefore mines are

shutting down everywhere? I say to the hon. member, jump out of Disneyland. Stop

your Donald Duck economics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Wake up, boy!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: While the old economy is in decline, Mr.

Speaker, we have to be reaching out and looking to the new economy. It is

important that we do that, very, very important. Now, he talked about beer. Yes,

there has been a loss of jobs in Saskatchewan in the beer industry. Yes, there

is a brewery shutdown in New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker, and some jobs lost in Nova

Scotia, but I do not know where my hon. friend has been. Newfoundland has

resisted the interprovincial beer agreement. This minister at the Canadian Trade

Minister's table resisted that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried!

MR. FUREY: I have to say something about Labrador.

MR. ROBERTS: Say what needs to be said.

MR. FUREY: I am surrounded by lawyers, Mr. Speaker, and I

cannot even speak, I cannot get my two cents worth in. Let me say this about the

Labrador stores. Everything that my hon. friend said is utterly false as well. I

have had consultations with the Member for Torngat Mountains, very serious and

in-depth detailed conversations. Mr. Speaker, the only thing we have done is

loosened the bindings on government. Our hands were bound because the stores

were strapped for some forty or fifty years in a line department. We could not

access sales, we could not build in efficiencies. Our hands were bound by the

Public Tender Act. How could we function in the real world of the private sector

competing as a line department when sales were being swallowed up instantly and

we were being left behind? Yes, we created Labrador Stores Incorporated. We put

that Crown Corporation out there to take the bindings of government off it so

that it could act responsibly as a Crown much like any other storekeeper could.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I hear him sounding the alarm bells and

starting brush fires and employees losing their jobs. Nobody is going to lose

their job. We have simply asked for a request for proposals and we are waiting

to see what those proposals will say. When we moved them out of a line

department into a Crown, yes, under union agreements there is a state of limbo,

much like there was when we moved the RAND employees over to the old NLDC. They

were NAPE and NLDC was CUPE. There was a limbo period until they, the union

members, not you or not me, we do not decide which union they have, they will

decide that, but I guarantee that we will honour every provision of the

collective agreement that is currently under DITT which was transferred to

Labrador Stores Incorporated. Their pay, their severance, their holidays, their

sick pay, all of that will be honoured and I give my personal commitment that

will be the case. Consultation. The Vice-President for Labrador consulted up and

down the coast, consulted with the employees, and I am going in with the Member

for Torngat Mountains very soon.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues want me to sit down but I will say

this. We need not take any lessons from the New Democrats. You just look

westward to Ontario and see the economy crumbling, day after day after day, in

Ontario.

He says it is free trade. It is partly free trade, but it is

partly the policies of the socialist government, and I know nobody on the planet

who can afford to be socialists except wealthy NDP members like the hon. member

opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Department Of

Industry, Trade And Technology," read a second time, ordered referred to a

Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 4).

June 15,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 15A

[Continuation of sitting of June 15, 1993]

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to

call order 9, Bill No. 6, please?

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Municipalities Act". (Bill No. 6)

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take too long in

introducing this Bill. As all members in the House realize last year we

introduced a new Elections Act in this House, and basically what we need to do

in this Bill is to introduce into the Municipalities Act, basically the same

rules and regulations pertaining to the Elections Act. There are a few items

that may need to be explained.

Clause No. 1 for example, would permit an increase in the

maximum number of councillors from ten to eleven, and that is to accommodate one

area of the Province as it relates to amalgamation.

The second clause talks about a two-year afterward waiting

period. That is somebody who has been on council and has been disqualified,

thrown off council for some reason or whatever, and a by-election is called and

in some cases, that person runs again or something and often that person is

convicted, and that is to provide a two-year waiting period before that person

goes back in.

Items 3 to 6, are pretty straightforward. 6 is to remove the

occupation of the person after his name, and I suppose the stigmatism of having

to write after your name 'unemployed'. I think that same question came up in the

Elections Act Committee last year, so that is gone too as well, as is within our

Elections Act to the House of Assembly, that is gone.

Clause 16, gives the municipality the right now to enact, or

this act will enable people to vote the four hours that the provincial and

federal people have as well. Disabled people are allowed to vote in the advanced

poll the same as our provincial election; the physically disabled and also

election officials may vote now in the advanced poll and the requirement under

Section 12 or Clause 12 of allowing persons confined to their homes to be forced

into getting a certificate, that is done away with as well.

Clauses 24 and 26, if you remember what happened to us down

in Labrador in our own provincial act, this

section of this particular act will

allow for the draw of a name in the case of a tie, and the returning officer

then places the two names or how many are on the ballot if they are tied or

whomever is tied, have to draw one name and that person then would automatically

be elected.

Along with this Bill, Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 6, there are

three other bills which I gave notice of motion in the House today and they are:

The St. John's Act, The Mount Pearl Act and the City of Corner Brook Act and

basically all I am doing in those three acts is adding the clauses that are in

this one into those other three. I apologize to my hon. friend from Grand Bank,

the Opposition House Leader, I think it was Wednesday of last week for not

having that in there earlier, but they should be written up tomorrow and ready

to go in the next couple of days at least, but the only thing is that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, I think I should do that. I found out

after why they did not come in early. Those three communities were notified some

two months ago that this Bill was coming and that the three cities should

immediately request the Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs to include

into their bills this particular section. They for some reason or other, the

three of them, did not get around to doing it and then when they heard this

particular Bill was going on the Order Paper they rushed and immediately asked