Volume XLI Wednesday Province of Newfoundland FORTY -FIRSTGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Second Session VERBATIM REPORT (Hansard) Speaker: Honourable Thomas Lush [Preliminary Transcript] Number 30 9 May 1990

The House met at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Speaker (Lush): Order, please! Statements by Ministers Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Fisheries. han. the Mr. Carter: on Monday reaction When this Government gave its initial to the Federal Government's Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program, we said the focus of our discontent with the program is not on what the program contains, but on what it fails to address. Nowhere is this failure more apparent than with the inshore fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The adjustment program announced some measures to help deal with the crisis in the offshore sector, but disregarded directed programs or financial assistance for the inshore sector. Considering the plight in which hundreds of our inshore fishermen in some areas find themselves this year, .and considering the extremely good possibility that scores of others in other regions will find themselves in the same dire circumstances later this year, it is an outrage that the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program ignored completely the major socio-economic problems being faced by fishermen in the inshore sector.

For example, on the South/Southwest Coast of our Province, the very survival of a number of once highly prosperous inshore fishing communities is at stake. I am speaking of the 80.0 to 1,000 full-time fishermen who engage in the fixed gear winter L1 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI fishery in the 3Ps and 3Pn zones. And I am speaking of their twenty-five communities from .Belleoram west to Codroy. The winter cod fishery has collapsed in these regions, not because of any action by the fishermen themselves, but because of dramatic reductions in cod landings, caused mostly by French overf ishing in 3Ps.

As a result of the severe decrease in landings, the incomes of these fixed-gear fishermen have been reduced to poverty levels. More than 80 per cent of the yearly catch of these fishermen is usually taken in the December April period. Landings for that period this winter are down a full 78 per cent from those of the December, 1986 to April, 1987 when landings were 18. 3 m U lion pounds. This winter, Mr. Speaker, only 4 million pounds were landed. Last year when only 1 . 1 million pounds were landed, the Department of Fisheries assisted with interest free loans to certain areas of 3Ps and 3Pn.

The Fisheries Loan Board has assisted fishermen in 3Ps over this past winter with deferment of loans, and in some instances with waiving of their assignment of catch agreement. It would be totally inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, for the Government of Canada to expect the Province to bear responsibility for the circumstances in which these fishermen find themselves. The Federal Government has a responsibility to address the needs of these fishermen whose plight is the result of t"esource management factors. However, the Pt"ovince is fully pt"epared to co-operate with the Federal No. 30 Rl

Government in developing an acceptable support program for these fishermen. This Government has made repeated representations to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the han. Bernard Valcourt, asking that this matter be given highest priority. On March 4, Mr. Speaker, I wrote the Minister and explained the situation. When we had a meeting in St. John's, on March 6, I discussed it with him. And on March 9 I wrote him again giving him full details to explain the magnitude of the problem.

In addition to that, in his April 3 letter that accompanied this Government's proposal for a response program for the fisheries, the Premier addressed the need for a continuing income support program for fishermen. The letter said that immediate relief is needed on the South/Southwest Coast and noted that similar income problems can be expected among inshore fishermem on the East Coast and along the coast of Labrador as the crisis repeats itself i~ other areas. We had expected, Mr.

Speaker, the Federal Government would, with its Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program, announce income support programs for fixed gear fishermen on the South/Southwest Coast. The Government of Canada has chosen to ignore the issue, despite repeated representations made by the Province and the Fishermen's Union on behalf of the hundreds of fishermen and their families and communities affected, and despite having more than sufficient time in which to address the situation. On Monday this week, Mr.

Speaker, the Opposition declared its pleasure with the L2 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program announced by the Federal Government. The Opposition apparently accepted the glaring omission of the cornerstone of our fishing industry - the inshore sector. Unlike the Opposition, this Government is extremely disappointed that the inshore sector problems have not been addressed, and we are demanding that the Federal Government act immediately to provide income support for the fishermen involved. I have written Mr.

Valcourt ·requesting a special meeting with him tomorrow night to discuss the situation. Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Grand Bank. Mr. Matthews: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for a copy of his statement before the House started. But when I first looked at it, and after listening to the Minister of Fisheries, except for the last page, I thought the Minister was reading our press statement in reaction to the package of yesterday. Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr.

Matthews: So we will have to watch who comes into the common room over the next few day, Mr. Speaker - not looking at anyone in particular. But we wonder where they got this copy because except for the last page it makes one wonder. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the remarks of the Minister of Fisheries who echoed the remarks of the official opposition of yesterday, that there is a serious flaw in the No . 30 R2

package announced by Mr. Valcourt on Monday. And there is an obvious omission, and that is in addressing the inshore problems and the inshore needs around all areas of this Province. And the Minister has referred to it in his statement from the Southwest Coast of the Province and all the way to the Northeast Coast and Labrador, and that is true.

And as I said yesterday in this House, and it was said yesterday in our press statement in reaction to the package, that it is incumbent upon the Federal Government to recognize that we do have a very serious problem in our inshore fishery, and if all the predictions and assessments are correct, that the problem is going to get increasingly and significantly worse. And the Federal Government must recognize that, and consequently right now agree in principle to compensate inshore fishermen around the Province because of that.

If they · want to take action on conservation measures of mesh size and other things, they again must provide compensation for fishermen to adjust. Not only because of the additional cost of changing the gear types and the mesh size, but as well because we will see a decrease in earnings and landings as a result. So that must be addressed. There is only one thing that I find, I guess, ongoingly sort of bothersome about all of this, and that is the Minister of Fisheries is the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The people we are talking about are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and having said that the Federal Government should do something about this very serious problem, which we all recognize, it is L3 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI incumbent upon the Provincial Government as well to try and address some of these problems within their financial capability. You cannot just walk away from a very serious problem like this, being the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and say Mr. Federal Government, it is all your fault, you put up all the money.

Now it is obvious that we are not going to get the amount of money from the Federal Government that we want, so I think the Provincial Government should take up some of its responsibility and get involved financially, and otherwise, in this very serious issue as well. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I hope that Mr. Valcourt, over the next short while, because we do not have a lot of time, will hold discussions with the Minister of Fisheries provincially, and officials, have the two groups get together, and look at this very serious crisis in a realistic light.

I hope this inshore fishery is a boom, that we have a glut, and so on, but realistically we cannot expect that, and we have to take measures today to address the very serious problems of reduced landings, and incomes and earnings for inshore fishermen. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude by saying to the Minister of Fisheries that I feel it is incumbent upon him, as Minister of Fisheries for the Province, to put up some money as well to address this very serious crisis. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr.

Speaker: Questions the address the left in the No. 30 Before calling Oral Chair would like to situation that was air yesterday with R3

respect to unparliamentary language, and I will make a couple of observations, if I may. The reference was made to the Member for Carbonear and the Member said that he did not make any unparliamentary utterance. And as hon. Members know a Member' s word must always be taken. But the Chair did say it would undertake to review the transcripts. And of course, nothing was heard in the transcripts, they were inaudible, so that sort of solves the problem. But the Chair would like to make some reference to unparliamentary language because of a couple of examples yesterday, and would like to point out to bon.

Members some of our rules and regulations with respect to same. I should point out to all bon. Members, Beauchesne 485, first of all, which says that 'Unparliamentary words may be brought to the attention of the House either by the Speaker or by any Member. When the question is raised by a Member it must be a point of order and not a question of privilege; and except during Question Period, the proper time to raise such a point of order is when the words are used and not afterwards.' Also I would like to quote for han. Members, and this is most important and han.

Members will realize the difficulty the Chair is in with respect to unparliamentary language, Beauchesne, Paragraph 486 and it says "It is impossible to lay down any specific rules in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular Members, or to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to order; much depends upon the tone, manner, and intention, of the person speaking; sometimes upon the person to whom L4 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI the words are addressed, as, whether that person is a public officer, or a private Member not in office, or whether the words are meant to be applied to public conduct or to private character;' and that is very important - 'and sometimes upon the degree of provocation, which the Member speaking had received from the person alluded to; and all these considerations must be attended to at the moment, as they are infinitely various and cannot possibly be foreseen in such a manner that precise rules can be adopted with respect to them.' An Han.

Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Order, please! Number two 'An expression which is deemed to be unparliamentary today does not have to be deemed unparliamentary next week.' And number three which is very important 'There are few words that have been judged to be unparliamentary consistently, and any list of unparliamentary words is only a compilation of words that at some time have been found to cause disorder in the House.' I hesitate to do this, but I would just like to read to han.

Members a couple of things that had been ruled to be unparliamentary, but they must be taken in the context which I have said. It must consider the context, the tone and the intention, but it says 'It has been ruled unparliamentary to refer to a Member as a 'parliamentary pugilist and political bully.' Well that is quite understandable. 'Abusing his position in the House', 'a bag of wind' , 'honourable only by courtesy', a 'blatherskite', 'disgracing the House'. And then, No. 30 R4

since 1958, it has been ruled unparliamentary to use the following expressions, 'above the truth', 'attempted to misrepresent', 'Canadian Mussolini' . And as I say to hon. Members, these are just guidelines, and with 'Canadian Mussolini', we should also take from that, other references such as 'Castro' and 'Idi Amin' and 'Gaddafi' and 'Jim Bakker'. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: These characters do not exist in this hon. House, so I am just using that for guidelines. Also, 'hypocritical' has been ruled, from time to time, to be unparliamentary. With 'hypocritical', also, is 'pretender'.

If one looks in the dictionary, one will see that a pretender is a person who presents things falsely and is a hypocrite. An Hon. Member: True, true! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Also, 'idiot' . Now, the difficulty is, one can also look in another reference and see some of these words have been used and are parliamentary. In conclusion, I want, also, to read the

section which says, 'The following expressions are a partial listing of expressions which have caused intervention by the Speaker, ' in other words , the Speaker has cautioned individuals to say that we are approaching, coming near, to unparliamentary language. Some of these would be 'cheating', 'clearly misleading', 'corrupt' , 'cover-up' , 'dangerous, devious and divisive', 'fabricate', 'fabrication' - that word was used yesterday, again. LS May 9, 1990 Vol XLI Sometimes a Member will use a word and then he will go on to sort of ameliorate, soften the tone. But I do want hon.

Members to remember these - they are just guidelines - and to make every attempt to honour the rules, procedures, past practices and traditions of this House by engaging in dignified, honourable and decent language. The English language is a resplendent one, replete with honourable, decent and dignified words, even in adversarial encounters, so I ask hon. Members to help the Chair in ensuring that these ~ules are carried out. Thank-you. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: for Carbonear. The hon. the Member Mr. Reid: Mr.

Speaker, I rise on a point of order I believe, but indulgence will probably have to be given here. R 10 of Hansard yesterday reported the wrong name, the wrong Member. The unparliamentary remark was attributed to me but Hansard recorded it as being Mr. Grimes. I ask your indulgence on this one, too, Mr. Spea~er. I am not the type of person who makes unparliamentary remarks in the House. I do -not plan to do it. I think our hon. friends on the other side realize now that it was not an unparliamentary remark. I want to clear the record. I did not make an unparliamentary remark, it was taken out of context. Mr.

Speaker, when it comes to Hansard, if I am going to be accused of something, I am quite capable of defending myself on a particular question. Thank you, very much. Mr. Speaker: The hon. gentleman No. 30 RS

was just giving an explanation. Oral Questions Mr. Speaker: The bon. the Member for Grand Bank. Mr. Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Fisheries. If the issue was not so serious, I would probably sing to the Minister of Fisheries the Randy Travis song 'I Told You So.' this Report says it, that Mr. Demone, of National Sea Products, has confirmed to the Minister of Fisheries that indeed there is a package being negotiated for the sale of the Burgee plant. Could the Minister confirm that for the House today and the people of Burgee? Mr.

Speaker: The Minister of Fisheries. bon. the Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared, nor am I able, to confirm that the sale has been made. I can only tell the House that in conversation with Mr. Demone it came to light that they are, in fact, negotiating with a certain firm for the purchase of the Burgeo plant. Negotiations have not yet concluded, and I have no idea, quite frankly, when they will conclude, but I presume Mr. Demone will keep me informed. Mr. Speaker: The bon. the Member for Grand Bank. Mr. Matthews: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if this is the blessing in disguise the Minister of Fisheries referred to a few months ago when he talked about the Atlantic fishery and what might be L6 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI happening would be a blessing in disguise. Apparently, the Minister has also indicated in his press release that the sale of the Burgeo plant may be the best solution for the people of Burgee. I would like to ask the Minister, what he means by this, and is he indeed confirming by making that statement that National Sea Products has no intention of operating the Burgeo plant any longer? Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, it might well be that the actions contemplated by NatSea will be a blessing in disguise for Burgeo, but I am not able to elaborate on that at this time. I can only tell the House and the bon. Member that the quota currently held by the Burgeo plant will remain there. I am optimistic that if and when the sale is consummated, it might well be that Burg eo wi 11 benefit from it . In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I have taken the liberty of writing the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa, Mr.

Valcourt, reminding him of the possibility that maybe the plant will sell, and asking him to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the enterprise allocation will remain in Burgee. I have been assured by Mr. Demone that that will be the case, and I take his word for it. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Grand Bank. Mr. Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to tell the Minister, as well, that when I said last week the plant was being negotiated for sale, I knew then, No. 30 R6

as well, that the allocation of fish for Burgeo would be left there; it is being left there voluntarily by NatSea as part of the package; it has nothing to do with the Federal Government. I would like to ask the Minister, in his discussions with Mr. Demone, could he inform the House, and more particularly the people of Burgeo, who are going through another period of grave uncertainty and insecurity, of some other conditions of the pending sale of the Burgeo plant, and what they might expect in the future if this sale materializes? Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Fisheries. hon. the Mr. Carter: Mr.

Speaker, as far as I know, the talks are only in their very preliminary stages. I am not aware of anything that is going to happen with respect to the Burgeo plant that will have an adverse effect on it. In fact, it was said a moment ago that the opposite is true. Now, I understand that Mr. Demone and his Vice-President, Mr. Coolican, have asked for a meeting with me and, I believe, with the Premier. That meeting might take place as early as this afternoon, but certainly within the next twenty-four to forty-eight hours. I appreciate, too, Mr.

Speaker, the point made by the Member, that the allocation was, in fact, left with the Burgeo plant, or will be left on a voluntary basis by NatSea. But I wanted to be doubly sure, I suppose, and therein lies the reason for my letter to the Minister in Ottawa, to alert him to what is happening and to ask him to give me an assurance that whatever the enterprise allocation that is currently in Burgeo, it will remain there. L7 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank. Mr. Matthews: Thank-you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, for the supplementary to the Minister, in the discussions with Mr.

Demone, did you discuss the prospects for Burgeo if this particular sale, or this negotiated sale does not materialize? What, then, is National Sea Products future? What are their plans for Burgeo? I would think the Minister would certainly ask Mr. Demone that. There is nothing written in stone about this package yet, it is not finalized. So, if this is not finalized, what can the people of Burg eo expect? Can they expect a future with National Sea Products, or is it, if it is not sold, that Burg eo will not have a fish processing facility operating? Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Fisheries_ hon. the Mr.

Carter: Mr . Speaker, I did not go into that aspect of it, I might as well say. But certainly - An Hon. Member: What? Mr. Carter: Just a second now. I did not go into that, because I understood there will be a meeting between Mr. Demone and myself within hours. There will be a meeting within hours, I hope, and at that time, then, we wi 11, no doubt, discuss all aspects of the possible sale of the plants and what happens in the event the plant does not sell. These are some of the things which will be discussed with Mr. Demone in person, when I meet him. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank. Mr.

Matthews: Thank you , Mr . No. 30 R7

Speaker. It certainly shows the priority this Minister and this Government place on the fishing industry of the Province. Another question for the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker, pertaining to the federal package announced on Monday.

With reference to the Premier's statement of that same day, on page three, where he talks about the federal announcement of $50 million for diversification within the fishing industry and an additional $90 million for diversification outside the fishing industry, the Premier said in his statement that the Provincial Government has problems with this amount of money, and I tell him quite honestly, so do I; I do not think it is enough either, but it is some money.

My question is will the Minister now undertake to provide additional funding from his proposed $110 million, referred to again in the Premier's statement, on page five, where the Premier says they were willing to put in $110 million with the Federal Government, will the Minister of Fisheries now make a commitment to add to that $50 million for diversification within the fishery and the $90 million for outside the fishery, from his proposed $110 million? Mr. Tobin: Good question. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, it should be of interest to hon.

Members opposite, I guess, that the $90 million the Member talks about is for economic diversification. That is $90 million shared amongst four L8 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI provinces, and maybe five. I am not sure where Quebec stands in all of this, over a five year period. That works out to what, $4.5 million? That would have bought one half of a pod for the Sprung greenhouse. I think they had eight pods which cost $20 million, so that would finance the cost of building one half pod for a greenhouse. Mr. Speaker, we were in contact with the Federal Government.

We sent them our proposal, we identified certain cost, and we offered to cost-share that part of the cost which involved economic diversification for the long-term rationalization of the fishery. I can tell you now that the Province would not renege on that promise. An Hon. Member: What promise? Mr. Carter: On the promise we made in our initial paper, that we would, in fact, cost-share a budget which would be there for economic diversification. But I am certain the Province is not going to sit down, Mr.

Speaker, and have the Federal Minister fly in here on Sunday night, call us together for one hour and give us a briefing on their proposal without asking for any input whatever, and then announce it on Friday morning and expect us to write a cheque for $110 million just to cover a program they put together, a very slipshod program, by the way, in which we were not asked to have any input whatever.

So if the Federal Government is willing to do things properly and right, and come to the Province and say look, let us sit down and let us come up with a program of economic diversification in the long-term, there is what it is going to cost, and here is what we No. 30 R8

are going to do, then I am sure the Province would be more than willing to make good on its promise. But, under these circumstances, I am afraid a lot more co-operation will have to come forward from the Feds before the Province is going to throw $110 million at their proposal. Mr. Speaker: The bon. the Member for Grand Bank. Mr. Matthews: Mr. Speaker, what an about-face! The Provincial Government wanted the Federal Gove~ent to provide a $1 billion cheque, and then the Province would get programs specific after. All I am asking the Minister, Mr.

Speaker, is without the Feds, by yourself, you say you were proposing a $110 million expenditure to address the fisheries crisis. That amount of money could help a lot of fishermen and plant workers and communities in this Province. The simple question, Mr. Speaker, is will the Minister undertake to devise a program to the amount of $110 million to assist with this crisis? Mr . Speaker: The bon. the Minister of Fisheries. Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, · in the House, I made a statement and, at the same time, indicated to the House that we have already written Mr. Valcourt Mr.

Matthews: Answer the question about yourself. Mr. Carter: One second now pointing out to him the inadequacy of his program, and how it did not fully address the problem of economic diversification and rationalization of the fishery, L9 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI and we asked him to get back together with the Province and together, then, we would put together an acceptable package on which the Province would be more than happy to cost-share. An Hon. Member: question. That is not the Mr.

Carter: Now, if they are willing to do that, if they are willing to put politics aside and to forg~t this nonsense about afraid to do anything with the Province for fear we might try to get some of the credit, and that appears to be a lot of their problem - sometimes I get the impression they would rather do nothing than do anything that would give the Province a chance to get any credit whatever. Some Hon. Members: Oh , oh! Mr. Carter: If they are willing, Mr.

Speaker, to get back together, and to come up with a good package, acceptable to both parties , then I am sure the Province would be more than happy to consider kicking in the amount of money we promised. Mr. Speaker: The bon. the Member for Grand Bank. Mr. Matthews: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I do not care who gets credit for the package, I do not care whether it is the Federal Government or the Provincial Government, what I am interested in is that fish plant workers, fishermen and trawlermen, out and about this Province, are taken care of adequately because of a resource crisis in the fishery.

I could not care less. All I am asking the Minister is, is he prepared - a very simple question - to devise his own No. 30 R9

program, putting forward his $110 million he supposedly offered to the Federal Government, to devise a provincial program to address this very serious problem? Forget about the Feds and do your own program. Are you willing to do that? Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Fisheries. han. the Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I should correct him on what he says in his

preamble, 'that we supposedly. The offer we were supposed to have m~de. ' That is a matter of record. It is black and white. It is a matter of public record that we did, in fact, offer to cost-share a certain component in the response package on the basis of 20 per cent, or $110 million. But, certainly, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition would not expect the Province, given the fact that the cause, the entire blame for the problem which currently exists, which we are now trying to correct, is on the shoulders of the Federal Government. It is their responsibility, not the responsibility of the Province or the fishermen.

It is their responsibility, and they have an obligation to come forward with an appropriate response program. Mr. Simms: Answer the question. Mr. Carter: I am answering the question. They have a responsibility. We had to bail out the Feds. When it came to the closing of the four fish plants, we had to bail out the Federal Government.

They refused to come to the fore then and accept their responsibility, and the Province was left with no choice in the matter but to put up $14 million, money we really could not afford to put up, because the Federal L10 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI Government backed down on their responsibility, played cat and mouse, trying to tell us that they were working on a larger scheme, when, in fact, they introduced the scheme yesterday, Mr. Speaker, or, Monday, which could have been just as easily released on Christmas Eve. Given the lack of detail in the plan, that could have been released two or three months ago. So, Mr.

Speaker, - An Han. Member: Answer the question. (Inaudible)? Mr. Carter: That is not for me to decide. of the Cabinet. We operate on this side House on the basis of Mr. Simms: Are (inaudible) program? you going Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, we have already written Ottawa asking Ottawa to reconsider. Now, when we get a response back from them, then we will make that decision. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Grand Bank. Mr. Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, the Province has not paid 5 cents of the $14 million it offered Fishery Products International for the extended notice period for Grand Bank, Gaultois, and Trepassey, not 5 cents, and the Minister knows it. In the federal package, as of Monday, the Federal Government committed $120 million over a five year period to an adjustment package for fish plant workers and trawlermen who are being displaced, and so on. In the statement they said they would like for participation from the union, the companies and the No . 30 R10

Provincial Government. Let me ask the Minister, is the Province considering getting involved in this $120 million package to assist fish plant workers and trawlermen adjust again because of the crisis? Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Fisheries. bon. the Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, when our respective officials sit down at the table, if the Federal Government will agree to sit down at the table again with the Provincial officials, these are some of the things which will be discussed then.

But until that happens, until the Federal Task Force and the Provincial Task Force can sit down together again and go over the plan, then I am afraid that decision is going to have to wait. Mr. Speaker: The bon. the Member for Grand Bank . Mr. Matthews: Mr. Speaker it is unbelievable! I mean, that might not happen. That is what worries me, it might not happen; you might not get together again because of the unilateral announcement on Monday. So what I am concerned about is, will you put your $110 million into this problem to help fishermen, fish plant workers, and trawlermen? That is a simple question.

You can have your own program. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Matthews: You are the Provincial Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Not ottawa or Quebec or PEI, Newfoundland, so why don't you do something for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who need your help? Lll May 9, 1990 Vol XLI Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Matthews: laughing matter, serious. It is it not a is very Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The bon. the Member for Grand Bank is on a supplementary question, and should no·t get into debate. The Chair has recognized that the questions have been somewhat repetitious.

As all bon. Members know, we should not be repetitious in the questions. I will permit the bon. gentleman to get to his question and the Minister to answer. Mr. Matthews: Mr. Speaker, when you cannot get an answer from a Minister on such a serious issue, and he continuously gives the same answer about getting together with the Federal Government, which might never happen, then you keep going back to see if he will answer something.

Now let me ask he Minister of Fisheries, and remind him of a question I asked him several weeks ago about the Gaultois situation, which does not need money from anyone, it needs an allocation of redfish, has the Province supported the position of the people of Gaultois, who have requested 10,000 metric tons from the Federal Minister of Fisheries? Has the Minister and the Provincial Government supported Gaultois in that request? Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Fisheries. hon. the Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, getting back to that other question, I can only tell the Minister that Mr.

Valcourt, during his talks to us on Sunday night, did express the No. 30 Rll

wish that maybe our two Task Forees could start to get back together again any maybe pick up where they left off, plus the fact, Mr. Speaker, I will be in Ottawa on Thursday night and all day Friday, having Meetings with the Minister, Mr. Valcourt, and these are some of things which are going to be discussed. We are going to be discussing, for example, the entire response program. I am hoping from that some guidelines will be established as to how they expect to implement some of the recommendations in the guidelines. With respect to the Gaultois plant, the Premier and I, and the han.

Member for the District, met a delegation from the Town of Gaultois. I believe it was the Council of Gaul~ois, and, I believe, it might have been the fishermen's committee. We discussed a number of options that were open to them. one being that maybe the Council itself would form some kind of a co-operative and operate the plants. In fact, I had a gentleman in my office this morning who has assured me that he has secured markets in London, England, for the entire production of that plant for a year. We are supporting Gaultois in ~hat they are trying to do, and we will support them.

To the best of my knowledge, we have writ ten the Minister supporting their request for a redfish quota. But I can only say, Mr. Speaker, the people of Gaultois know it, the Council of Gaultois knows it very well, that we are 100 per cent behind them in what they are trying to do. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Grand Bank. Mr. Matthews: I thank the Ll2 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI Minister for his answer, Mr. Speaker. You know, you can have all the markets in the world and the most skilled work force in the world, but if you do not have any fish, there is no point in having the markets or the work force.

So that is why we are so supportive of Gaul to is on this side, and we have written in support of that, and I will table the letter later on, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I again refer to the Premier's statement of May 7th, when they talked about a proposed major education and learning initiative as part of this long-term strategy to address the fisheries crisis, and I am just wondering now, since education is totally a provincial responsibility, is the Minister or the Government now looking at spending some of its proposed $110 million on an education initiative to address this crisis? Mr.

Speaker: The han. the Minister of Fisheries. Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, while education is a provincial responsibility, I think, in the context in which it is being discussed in the paper we have presented to Ottawa, there must be some federal participation in the program, because we are training workers who are being displaced by virtue of mismanagement of the fishery, which falls on the shoulders of the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and to ask me now if we are going to spend that $110 million on education, Mr. Speaker, first we want to find out exactly what they will do .

We are going back to the Federal Government; we are going to make a new approach to them and ask them to reconsider some of the things that were in No. 30 R12

our package but they chose to ignore, and I expect that education and learning will be in that category. Mr. Speaker: The bon. the Member for Fogo. Mr. Winsor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question, too, is to the Minister of Fisheries. As the official Opposition, we were delighted to hear of the reopening of the plant in Twillingate, formerly operated by Oceana. Can the Minister tell us who owned the assets or now owns the assets of the plant, and what are the terms of the lease arrangement? Mr. Speaker: The bon. the Minister of Fisheries. Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, the asset was initially owned by Oceana Seafoods.

They defaulted on their loan payment, their mortgage payment, and consequently NLDC then took action under their mortgage and put it in receivership. Initially, the assets were owned by Oceana Seafoods. Mr. Speaker: The bon. the Member for Fogo. Mr. Winsor: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since this plant was placed in receivership by Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation, can the Minister tell us the extent of his personal involvement with the receivers in the negotiating of the reopening? Mr. Speaker: The bon. the Minister of Fisheries . Mr. Carter: Mr.

Speaker, my personal involvement would have been no more for the Twillingate L13 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI plant than it would have been for the Fogo plant when it was in trouble, or no more than it was for the plant in Brig Bay when that was in trouble, or in the Little Bay Islands, when that plant was in trouble, or in the White plant, upon the Great Northern Peninsula, nor will my interest be any greater in Twillingate than it will be in the Fortune plant, which is in the District of my bon. friend and critic, or in any other plant in Newfoundland.

I have said before, any plant in the Province which has promise of survival and success, then, Mr. Speaker, this Government will get behind that plant and support it. Twillingate did have that kind of promise and, as Minister of Fisheries, naturally I got behind it. Mr. Speaker: The bon. the Member for Fogo. Mr. Winsor: A supplementary, Mr . Speaker. The April 25th edition of The Lewisporte Pilot makes several references to the Minister's daily personal involvement in trying to find an operator for this plant.

My question to the Minister is, does he have the same personal involvement in all plants which are in receivership in this Province, or has he a vested interest in this plant? Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Fisheries. bon. the Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to tell the Editor of The Pilot that in his ambitions to promote me for re-election, he can go too far with it. Some Hon. Members: Hear , hear! Mr. Speaker: The bon. the Member No. 30 R13

for Fogo. Mr. Winsor: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me to read one line, he receives 'a Fax report from the Fisheries Minister's office, updating the situation following the day's negotiations.' Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Simms: It is not the Editor, you have a line for yourself. Mr. Winsor: In light of the Minister's recent statements about the Twillingate plant, does the Minister expect employment levels to remain at 450 plus, or is he supportive of the company, which is meeting the union tonight, asking for worker 'concessions? Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Fisheries. Mr.

Carter: I am not got the last part question. Would repeating it? han. the sure if I of his you mind Mr. Winsor: The company officials are meeting tonight, asking for worker concessions, according to the press today. Mr. Carter: I am not aware of that. Mr. Speaker, when I went down to announce the reopening of the plant I think I had a long, frank, full discussion with the people who attended in this big auditorium. Reports say there were 4,000 or 5,000 there, but being a modest man, I would say about 800. And I laid it out for them, no holds barred.

The Twillingate people are big enough to take that kind of talk, and they took it. I told them the plant was in serious trouble. This is the third owner now, and the two previous owners had lost L14 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI money. I told , them the plant had to be viable this year, because if it were not viable, I could not guarantee them that it would operate next year.

Given the fact that this Government is taking a very businesslike approach to running the Province, we are not going to be bailing out fish plants which have no future, and if the workers in the Twillingate plant will prove this year that they, in fact, do have a future, then they will continue to have our support. If they do not, they will not have our support. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Education.

The Minister and the Premier, and other Central Newfoundland MHAs, have received correspondence recently, which I will table, from seventeen pediatric nurses who work with children and young people in the Central Newfoundland hospital in Grand Falls, pointing out the absolute necessity to fulfill the rights of the child, the absolute need to advance our ability to provide better educational opportunities, and asking the Minister if terminating such a proven beneficial educational program as hospital full-time teaching classes is, in his view, an advancement.

Can I ask the Minister if he is now willing to admit the decision made by Government in this regard was premature and, indeed, a step backward, and is he willing to take another look at this situation? Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Education. No. 30 hon. the R14

Dr. Warren: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House some days ago that this decision was made in the budgetary process. It had been considered for over a year, in fact, and that we had requests from other hospitals to extend services to them. So, that was the context in which this decision was made. I indicated also, Mr. Speaker, that the reason for the termination of the three schools was that students were staying for short periods of time, and that we were anxious, in fact, we were determined to provide alternate services for students who remain in hospital for longer periods of time.

With respect to the letter, we are preparing a response to the persons concerned, to respond to that letter. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is equalizing by downgrading. That is apparently what is happening. Ms Verge: Shame! Mr. Simms: Can the Minister confirm this, that he has also heard from parents and from former youth patients, all speaking out against the decision of the Government? I can tell him, by the way, he can expect more from the school trustees in the next day or two, or a meeting in Gander.

But can he also now confirm that he has also heard from school principals, saddened that a Government comprised of so many former educators could be so insensitive? Can he also confirm that the President of the NTA has LlS May 9, 1990 Vol XLI now publicly condemned this decision by chastising the Government for making the decision without consultation of any kind, and will he, once and for all, stop this issue from festering, do the right thing and reinstate the program? Mr. Speaker: The hon . the Minister of Education. Dr. Warren: Mr . Speaker, we get quite a number of letters.

This Government has received a lot of very positive letters for the things we have done in education, as well as negative ones. Mr. Speaker, we are looking at alternate ways - we are working with school boards - to ensure that no student is negatively impacted as a result of this decision. We want to ensure that students who are in hospital for extended periods receive the educational care they deserve. This Government believes education is a priority, and we will ensure that we keep that commitment over the next decade, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: expired.

Question Period has Just relative to a ruling that the Chair made during Question Period, subsequently, by the answer given by the Minister, it seems as though I heard the answer several times before, and one can only assume that the question was asked a couple of times before. I remind hon. Members again, and refer them to Beauchesne, Page 121, Paragraph 410, Clause 9: "Questions should not repeat questions already asked although this does not mean that other questions on the same point are out of order." No. 30 RlS

Before calling the next item of business, on behalf of hon. Members, I would like to welcome to the public galleries today 25 students from Holy Rosary High School from the Town of Lloydminster, accompanied by their teachers, Josephine Stone and Mark Stragrud. It is interesting to note that the Town of Lloydminster is located on the border of Alberta and Saskatchewan, locating the Town partially in both provinces. These students are accompanied by their hosts for this exchange visit, by 25 students from Our Lady of Mount Carmel High School in St.

Mary's Bay, and accompanied by their teachers, Brenda Nash and Colleen Hogan. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: Hon. The Minister of Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! At this point, I would ask bon. Members not to move in their seats while the Speaker is speaking. Petitions Mr. Speaker: The bon. the Member for Torngat Mountains. Mr. Warren: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. I have a petition, Mr. Speaker, signed by practically every voter in the community of Postville in the District of Torngat Speaker, Premier Cabinet Labrador Now, Mr. Ll6 Mountains.

Now, Mr. over a month ago, the announced a five-member Committee to view the Air Subsidy Program. Speaker, the people in May 9, 1990 Vol XLI Labrador, the people throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador by now would have expected, with the very extensive negotiations that those flve members had by now, to come back to this bon. House with a report. Now, Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador are getting very, very impatient with the Premier and with his select Cabinet Committee. Mr. Speaker, all they had to do was determine whether the Subsidy Program would be in place or not.

I better read the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker. We are concerned that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has reduced the Labrador Air Subsidy, and has thereby unacceptably increased the burden of Tranportation Costs to the residents of this Province who live in Labrador. So, Mr. Speaker, the people are sick and tired of waiting for this Government to give a report. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to read a Labrador paper where one Cabinet Minister said he is waiting for comments to be delivered to his office and he quoted to the paper that he received thirty-seven requests so far .

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you, Sir, besides these thirty-seven requests the bon . Minister received, Sir, in this House already there have been tabled in excess of 6, 000 requests, my bon . colleague from Menihek have already presented a petition with close to 2,000 signatures; and this is my seventh petition that I have presented. So already there is something close to 5,000 or 6,000 or 7,000 signatures that have come into this House saying reinstate the program. And, Mr. Speaker, I think if this Government makes an No. 30 Rl6

'- announcement that they are going to cut out a program and then all of a sudden put the program on hold, it is a disservice to the people, because, Mr. Speaker, one thing we must remember is that the different groups in Labrador cannot make plans for travel unless they know for sure if the program is going to be in place or not. And I say to the han. House Leader opposite, it is very, very difficult for teachers or sports organizations to make plans or even for people to make plans for their holidays, because, Mr. Speaker, some of those people will not visit the Island this summer if this program is curtailed.

And I would think it is incumbent upon the Government to advise those people, because in another month, Mr. Speaker, there are going to be hundreds of people wanting to come to the Island, and they look forward to saving for a family as much as $600 on their air travel, but they will not save it, Mr. Speaker, if this Government does not let them know as soon as possible whether the Air Subsidy Program will be reinstated. Now, Mr. Speaker, the night before last the han.

House Leader told about how excited and how happy all Government employees: the nurses, the teachers, public service employees, Government employees in Labrador were excited about the benefit package. And I say to my han. colleagues opposite they are very excited. And I give credit, Mr. Speaker, to the Government opposite to continue with the initiative that we started last year. But that is good for Government employees. That is good for people who are guaranteed their cheque at the end of every two weeks. But, Mr.

Ll7 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI Speaker, that only includes one-sixth of the population, them and their families and their children, it only includes one-sixth of the population living in Labrador. Now what about other people who wish to travel? And I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Government has a sincere obligation to those people to come forward and announce that they are going to reinstate, not only the Air Subsidy Program for travel for vacation, but also give back the $100,000 to the sports and recreational groups that also look upon going to other schools, to other competitions and, in fact, Mr.

Speaker, if they do not - I want to say this in closing, I know I only have thirty seconds left, but in closing if the Government does not reinstate this program the Government will lose money in the long run, because many of the people in Labrador would decide to go to other provinces for their vacation instead of coming to Newfoundland, the Island, and spending their tax dollars here.

So I say to the Government that it may cost you $300,000 or $400,000 to reinstate that program, but you are going to lose money in the long-run because the people will go for their vacations in other parts of the Dominion or probably to the States or somewhere else. So I refer this petition to the Department to which it is addressed, and naturally it will be the Department of Transportation, Works and Services and also the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. No. 30 Rl7

Some Hon. Members: Hear , hear! Mr. Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader, about half a minute. the with Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A review has been underway. I am sure the hon. Member would not like us to simply look at the situation and make a hasty decision. But I will say to the hon. Member I agree that very shortly the announcement should be made regarding our review, and the announcements will be made shortly. Mr. Speaker: This being Wednesday and Private Members Day I believe it is the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Grand Falls, with his private resolution.

I have here in front of me a little note requested the House, on behalf of all hon. Members, to wish the oldest Member of the elected House a happy sixtieth birthday, the Member for St. John's East Extern. Some Hon. Mem be rs: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr . Simms: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker I have twenty minutes to speak on this particular debate, at least to open the debate.

Recognizing that I will have twenty minutes at the end to close it I obviously have a ream of information in facts and figures here, but I am not going to get through it in the first volley, but I will save some for the latter stages of the debate towards the end of the afternoon. May I first of all, while I have the opportunity, welcome the visitors here from Lloydminster.

I had the privilege on one L18 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI occasion a number of years ago to walk down the main street of Lloydminster, and I was absolutely confused, because on one side of the street is Alberta and on the other side of the street is the Province of Saskatchewan, as I recollect. So I hope things are not as confusing for them here in Newfoundland during their visit to the Province. Mr. Speaker, I would introduce the debate resolution by quickly through the resolution appears on the Order Paper. like to on the reading as it

WHEREAS the Government announced in its budget that the of flee of the Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) will be eliminated; and

WHEREAS the Ombudsman received over 900 complaints in 1989; and

WHEREAS over 40 countries in the world and all provinces except P.E.I. have an Ombudsman; and

WHEREAS no other jurisdiction has ever eliminated the off ice of Ombudsman; and

WHEREAS only the Ombudsman has the necessary authority to resolve complaints made by citizens against Government;

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly recognize the importance of the office of the Ombudsman in protecting citizens against government actions; and that this House of Assembly urge the Government to reverse its decision to eliminate the office of Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman). Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear at the outset, because of the inferences made No. 30 Rl8

from time to time about the office holder, the individual who holds the office of Ombudsman, having at one time being a Member of Parliament in representing a political party, and that because of that, those inferences, there is somehow an impression created out there that the Government is doing this for partisan reasons. Now quite frankly I cannot believe that that could ever possibly be true for such an important decision as that.

And so whoever responds to this I hope will make that clear right at the outset, because obviously if the Government wishes to remove the incumbent there are methods and procedures for doing that. What we have here is a decision by the Government, a most serious decision in my view, to eliminate the entire office. Now having heard the way the process went, I cannot believe for a moment that the Government ever gave any serious lengthy amount of thought and consideration to this particular decision.

It is obviously such a backwards step that it is just too hard to believe that they gave it a whole lot of discussion. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the more you think about it and the more you see the comments of the Minister of Finance in responding to questions about it after the budget, it seems like it was simply a sudden last minute budget suggestion by somebody sitting around the table and everybody agreed - wipe it out. That scenario is all the more plausible because of the way that the matter was dealt with and described by the Minister of Finance.

The fact that the Ombudsman himself - an officer of the House, was not a servant of the House even notified of the Ll9 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI decision, that in my mind, Mr. Speaker, was indecent to say the least. But worse still, the gentleman was not even consulted or talked to beforehand. His office was advised after the fact, and that is again obviously because the decision was taken in a sudden fashion, and at the last moment. The move, I should point out, is contrary to the legislation, it is contrary to the Act.

I raised a point of privilege, Your Honour might remember, as to concerns I had about it being actually a breach of privileges of the Members of the House. So therefore, the method itself was reprehensible. It was sneaky, and indeed it was down right distasteful. And I found it personally very offensive. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have heard it on open line programs around the Province, I have read' comments in the printed media, I have heard comments on an open line or call in television program, and there have been many terms used to describe this particular decision.

I would like to quote some of them for you: People have said it is a regressive move, some have said it is a tragedy, it is sad, it is a disastrous decision, it is damaging to the good of the public, it is very unfortunate, it is morally wrong, it is politically wrong, it is bringing great harm to our people, it is a loss of people's rights, it is a very backward step, it is another Newfie joke, it is dangerous to our reputation as a Province, and so on, and so on. One person even said it was a calamity.

And I looked up the definition of calamity this morning, just to satisfy my curiosity, and it says, and I quote, 'a grave misfortune that brings deep distress or sorrow to an individual or to the No. 30 Rl9

people at large. ' Now I cannot but offer the word calamity myself as probably the best description of what this Government has done with respect to the elimination of this office. disadvantage, Mr. people, it is a is certainly a a very unfortunate developed for the Province. It is a definite Speaker, to our handicap, it drawback and situation has people of our Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly look at some of the important points that should be known about the position itself. The Ombudsman is an officer of the House of Assembly. He is a servant of the Members of the House of Assembly who represent the people.

He is appointed on the recommendation of the House of Assembly. According to the law, he can only be removed on the recommendation of the House of Assembly for disability, neglect of duty, misconduct, or bankruptcy. He reports to the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, annually. The estimates that we have seen in the Budget, of course, do not provide for the full functioning of the office as required under the law, under the Act. It does not, of course, meet the requirements of the Act that the salary be the same as the Chief Justice and so on, everybody is familiar with those particular points.

The whole question of the Off ice of Ombudsman, I believe, transcends political partisan lines. This Act, Mr. Speaker, to create an ombudsman was passed in 1970, twenty years ago, by a Liberal Government. It was brought into force in 1975 by a Conservative Government. The present Ombudsman recently renewed L20 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI his position in 1986 and it was renewed by the Legislature, this Legislature, supported unanimously by the Opposition as well. Including the present Minister of Fisheries, the present Minister of Forestry, and the Speaker of the House, in fact, spoke very highly.

Most of the Commonwealth including the United Kingdom, Australia, all Provinces, as I said in the

preamble, except PIU, have an Ombudsman. Forty nations have an Ombudsman. And the reason for it is obvious, modern Government has grown so large that individuals on their own cannot fight the system on their own many times. MHAs cannot be as effective, as the Minister of Finance says we can be, as the Ombudsman is. It is silly to argue so. I will tell you why a little later on. He has extensive powers to insist on evidence to call witnesses and documents and so on. This will be the first Government, and the President of Treasury Board laughs, but I can assure him this is a serious, serious situation.

And he may not be smart enough to recognize it, but I can tell him it is. It is the first Government in modern parliamentary history to remove the office, as far as we can ascertain and last year, I point out of course, there were 900 complaints lodged to the Ombudsman's Office here in Newfoundland. In 1975 there were only 209 complaints lodged.

Indeed the numbers have grown consistently in our Province to the Ombudsman's office and just to compare a province of normal comparison as an example: the province of Manitoba which has 1.1 million people, larger than our Province, twice as large, in 1986 for example, they had 6 7 4 complaints and the Newfoundland No. 30 R20

Ombudsman's complaints. office had 706 The per capita cost to have an ombudsman office in Canada, all provinces in Canada: in Newfoundland it is thirty-eight cents, it is guess it is, and Manitoba. the third lowest, I behind Nova Scotia The rest of them cost much, much more per capita to have an Ombudsman's office. Mr. Speaker, let us look at the Government's reasons as enunciated and articulated by the Minister of Finance who announced the decision in his Budget. I remember myself seeing him interviewed on NTV and he was asked: why did you eliminate the office of Ombudsman, and he gave basically two reasons.

Outside the House he said: The office really served no purpose, it was not worth the money, but specifically he said that if people had problems with Government or felt they were wrongly done by some Government Department or Government Agency they could go to their MHA's or to the Cabinet Ministers to get them resolved. Now, what a silly, stupid reason for abolishing the Ombudsman's office, Mr.

Speaker, it points out too clearly, I am afraid, the ignorance of the facts and the ignorance by the Minister of Finance and Members of Government obviously, for the purpose of this office, because primarily people go to the Ombudsman after they have already approached their MHA's and in many cases Cabinet Ministers trying to get problems resolved, and they still feel that they have been wronged, unjustly wronged by the system. Where will they go now, where will they go now, Mr. Speaker?

For example, if the press seek L21 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI information from a Government office or a Government Department, and they are denied, under the Freedom of Information Act, they can go to the Ombudsman to have the matter further pursued. They can, and I will tell them that the press are very much aware of it. Where will they go, what has this Government done? The Leader of the NDP, if he wants to get some information - the Leader of a valid political party, the third party in this Province, he could go to the Ombudsman if he wishes but there won't be be an Ombudsman! Mr.

Speaker, this Government has decided to double the Budget of Newfoundland Information Services to $320,000 this year, an agency, that a year or so ago, when they were in Opposition they wanted to eliminate, but they now feel that obviously $320,000 to serve their purposes politically, is much more important than providing much less than that, I think it is $236,000 for the Ombudsman's office, so that those who feel they have been wrongly treated by Government or one of its Departments or Agencies, would have a place with some authority to take their problems.

So it seems that Government is simply trying to eliminate those opportunities that people have, and the problem is of course that we now will have nobody watching the Government, and that may very well be the primary purpose behind this whole decision and that's an important question in the minds of a lot of people. Now, Mr. Speaker, I said that it was too foolish to talk about to suggest, as the Minister of Finance did, that MHA's can do what the Ombudsman does. Let me just point out some of the powers that the Ombudsman has, which MHA' s do not No. 30 R21

have. I will quickly run through some of them just to try to make my point. First of all, the Ombudsman takes an oath, administered by the Speaker of the House of Assembly and that oath says: He or she will not divulge any information received by him, in this case, in the execution and performance of his powers, duties and functions . MHAs take no such oath. Will people feel comfortable now with that? Or will they expect their MHAs to go public with a lot of the information they might disclose to the individual? The money involved, Mr.

Speaker, the act provides for the Ombudsman to receive two-thirds of his salary as a pension if he is removed from office. And it also provides for pensions to be paid to individuals who are employed in the Ombudsman's Off ice. So there is not going to be a very large savings involved in all of this, that decision, the decision that has been taken by the Government. I also want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is the duty of the Ombudsman to investigate any decision made, including any recommendations made to a Minister or by a Department or Agency.

The Ombudsman has the authority to investigate a complaint against the police, if somebody feels they have been wrongly done by the RNC, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the Ombudsman has the authority to investigate it. Now I can see somebody going to an MHA and asking them to investigate it. An Han. Member: Asking them what? Mr. Simms: A complaint, if somebody feels that they have been wrongly done by the Royal L22 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI Newfoundland Constabulary, for example. The Ombudsman has the authority to investigate for anybody who feels they have been wronged by the police.

The act gives the Ombudsman the authority to deal with Cabinet Ministers. Now I can see the Member for Torngat Mountains attempting to get a meeting with the Premier to discuss a matter where one of his constituents have been wrongly dealt with, after what the Premier has said about the Member for Torngat Mountains. It is too silly to talk about. Under the legislation, he is allowed to get whatever information he wants, from wherever he sees fit - that is in the law. He can offer a Government Department a hearing, if they feel they are wrongly treated in the matter. And they are allowed to have counsel.

They are allowed to have a lawyer at the hearing. How can a MHA handle or do that kind of thing? That is too silly to talk about, Mr. Speaker. An Han. Member: Why don' t you do it? Mr. Simms: What is most telling: The legislation requires any person in a Government Department, it requires any person in a Government Department to produce any document that the Ombudsman asks for. MHAs do not have that power, particularly the Opposition MHAs. Let us face the facts. The Ombudsman can summon witnesses under oath. MHAs have no authority to do that.

Any Government employee, anyone, in his opinion, who can provide information under the law. And also, Mr. Speaker, I tell you No. 30 R22

that under the legislation the Ombudsman is deemed to be an investigative body under The Public Investigations Act, MHAs are not. MHAs have no such authority. It is absolutely ludicrous to expect, as the Minister of Finance says, and the Premier said, by the way, the fifty-two MHAs are there, they can handle all of those kinds of complaints. Now I only have a few minutes left, Mr.

Speaker, but I want to quote just two or three examples - I have five minutes - where the Ombudsman did, in fact, overturn decisions that had been made by Government Departments, and after the Ombudsman's interventions he was able to turn things around for people who were wronged by the system. I quote just quickly for Members of the House. In 1979 a retail sales tax issue, where individuals who had purchased a supply of pre-cut homes had been ordered to pay retail sales tax, Members might remember that, as a matter of fact.

I believe even Opposition Members then, who are now in the Government pushed the issue, tried to push the issue. And what happened was that the Government of the day held fast, but the Ombudsman investigated it. And the Ombudsman after the investigation, felt that these people were wronged and made a recommendation to the Government. Once the recommendation came to the Government, as the Government has always done as I understand it, they accept the Ombudsman's recommendation. That would not have happened if there was no Ombudsman in the Province. I can tell Members that.

Another incident in 1988, where L23 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI individuals were after an opportunity to subdivide land. The Government refused them. They went to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman investigated the matter and found that the people were wrongly and unjustly done, and recommended to the Government that they overturn their decision and they did; and that would not have happened without an Ombudsman. Another matter, Mr. Speaker, 1979 the widening of a highway on somebody's property. The Department said an adamant no.

They went to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman investigated it, turned it around, found that the people were wrongfully dismissed. In 1986 an employee was dismissed for alcoholism in the public service, dismissed for alcoholism.

He was refused his pension by· .the Government, by Treasury Board; and he went to the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman after obtaining medical evidence and all the rest of those kinds of information that he is allowed to get, found that this particular individual had been wrongly done by the system and by the Government, and that would not have happened if there had not been an Ombudsman in this Province. I say to Members opposite, please give some more consideration to this matter. It is not a commonsense decision, it is a stupid decision, an absolutely stupid decision. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The han.

Member's time has elapsed. Mr. Simms: I suggest the Government review the matter and we will see what the debate goes like before I conclude my remarks later on this afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No. 30 R23

Mr. Speaker: The han. the Minister of Health. Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Decker: Mr. Speaker, to set the tone for my few remarks, I want to tell han. Members about two meetings which were taking place in Moscow on the eve of the Communist Revolution. On one side of the street, there was a group of members of the newly-formed Communist Party, Lenin and his group, and they were discussing the plans to throw out the government and bring the new Communist Government into Moscow. They were discussing pretty heavy philosophy; very relevant, momentous events, they were discussing.

On that same night, on the opposite side of the street, there was a group of priests. They, too, were engaged in a very heavy, relevant discussion, Mr. Speaker. They were discussing whether or not to lengthen their gowns by one inch. Talk about relevance! That group of priests, Mr. Speaker, missed one of the greatest opportunities in the history of mankind, to deal with a momentous event. While the Communist manifesto was being discussed by one group, another group was talking about lengthening their gowns by one inch. I want to relate that story to what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador today. Today, Mr.

Speaker, there is a major crisis in the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador, a crisis which will impact on the lives of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian in this Province. The people of Grand Bank, the people of Trepassey and the people of St. John's are wondering about their L24 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI future, are wondering do they have a future left in this Province. The people in the inshore plants up in St.

Anthony, in my District, the people in Twillingate, the people in Burgeo and the people in Fogo, people around the Province, are wondering just what their future is going to be, as fishermen, pondering their future. And while Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, at this very instant, at this very minute, are discussing their very future, what does the anternate government do today? What does the government-in-waiting do today? They stand up and discuss the sensibleness of lengthening their gowns by one inch . That is how relevant they are, Mr. Speaker.

That is how relevant they are to what is happening in the Newfoundland fishery today .. When big things are happening in this Province, when the very future of the Province is at stake, what do Members opposite do? They talk about a Tory hack. They talk about one of their friends, a defeated Tory candidate, and whether or not there is going to be a job for him, Mr . Speaker. You talk about irrelevance!

Now, for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who have the opportunity to listen to this speech by radio, for the benefit of the world at large, who have the opportunity to listen to this speech by radio, let me explain now what is happening in the House on this Wednesday afternoon. This, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of Newfoundlanders, is Private Member's Day, and this is the day when private Members from either side of the House, but especially the Opposition, can present to the floor of this hon. House, matters which are of major importance, or which are of No. 30 R24

!:!&: importance to private Members. It is a time, Mr. Speaker, when we can discuss issues which are important to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and to the people. Today, the Opposition have a tremendous opportunity to bring in a motion very topical, very revelant to what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. What an opportunity they had, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the crisis in the fishery.

I heard the Member for Grand Bank today talk about how important the fishery was, I heard him accuse the Minister of Fishery of not considering the fisheries to be a very important issue, yet, when they had a golden opportunity today to devote from 3:00 o'clock until 5:00 o'clock, two full hours, to discussing the crisis in the fishery, what did they do, Mr. Speaker? They brought in this motion to discuss the Ombudsman, something which, in the words of the Member for Grand Falls, is a top priority, a very important issue. Well, Mr.

Speaker, maybe it is, maybe it does have some importance, maybe it does have some relevance, maybe it is something that should be discussed at some other place. Maybe it should be discussed. If there was a bunch of women sitting around knitting or making a quilt, it might be a topic of conversation. But today, when the fishery is in such a crisis, they waste two hours of this House discussing whether or not we are going to fire the Ombudsman. Mr. Speaker, is that the alternate Goverment?

They could have introduced a completely new motion today; they could have outlined the faults which are with this program which their friends in Ottawa have just put forward. They could have L25 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI discussed the faults or, if they had wanted to do as they were told, get up and praise it up. They could have done that, Mr. Speaker. The means were here all laid out: they could have gotten up and had a debate on the fishery.

They could have disagreed with what this side of the House is doing; they could have disagreed with what the Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador is doing; they could have agreed with what Mr. Valcourt and Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Crosbie are doing, or they could have disagreed. That was exactly up to themselves. They had the opportunity to do it, but they missed it. Like the priest in Moscow, they were totally irrevelant to what was happening in the world around them, they were more concerned about the length of their gowns than they are about the reality of the mess in the Newfoundland fishery. Mr.

Speaker, they could have come with a complete brand new motion. An Hon. Member: And we would have welcomed it. Mr. Decker: But, Mr. Speaker, they did not even have to do that. Hon. Members who look at the Order Paper will see that had the Member for Grand Falls not jumped in - An Hon. Member: That's right. Mr. Decker: - Motion No. 10 on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, the private Member's motion that should have been debated here today, had the normal progress been allowed to go on, would have been by - and I read: 'Mr. Bill Matthews (Grand Bank) - To Move:

WHEREAS the fishery is the economic mainstay of Newfoundland and Labrador; No. 30 R25

Mr. Walsh: Paper. Mr. Decker: parts of the goes on to THEREFORE BE Already on the Order AND

WHEREAS for many Province ... ' -and he describe it - 'NOW IT RESOLVED that this House support an all plants open approach; and urge the Goverment to work with the Federal Government to develop a financial package ... ' This is the motion.

If they did not have the imagination or the foresight or the ability to come up with a revelant motion pertaining to the fishery - they didn't even have to do it - they could have taken Motion No. 10, which was put on the Order Paper by their own Member, the Member for Grand Bank, and we could have spent two hours, with full media coverage, we could have spent the whole afternoon debating the faults and the good points about this package which has been delivered to us by Ottawa. But no, Mr. Speaker. Talk about having their priorities right!

The Government in waiting, the alternate Government, they were more concerned with protecting one of their former friends than they were about the plight of the Newfoundland fishermen today. That shows what they really are. That shows what they are made of. Mr. Speaker, when I went through the Order Paper I saw that motion which we could and should be debating here today, the plight of the Newfoundland fishery.

Instead, the Member for Grand Falls, the House Leader, who calls the shots when Spike is away, what he did was jump over Motion 10, which dealt with the fishery, and went to this silly little motion, which is more appropriate for a few friends sitting around a table having a drink than it is for this L26 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI House today, when we are in the midst of such a crisis in our fishery. I had to ask myself, why did Members of the Opposition choose to depart from the Order Paper today to discuss a motion which is totally irrelevant, and not discuss the important issue of the fisheries. I asked why? Mr.

Speaker, I can only guess at the reason why, but it is an educated guess, it is a guess which is based on what I have seen happening to my friends on the other side of this House over the last few days, and over the last few weeks. Here is the reason why they refused to call the motion concerning the fishery today. Members opposite are no longer calling the shots. The Leader of the Opposition is no longer calling the shots as to what the Government-in-waiting is going to do, the han. the Opposition House Leader is not calling the shots. Mr. Gover: shots? Who is calling the Mr.

Decker: The shots, for my friend from Bonavista South, are being called by John Crosbie and their Tory cohorts in Ottawa. That is where the shots are being called, Mr. Speaker. Over the past few days there have Faxes going back and forth from Ottawa, it is difficult to get a free line, faxes back and from from Big John telling them what to say and telling them what to do. Do you mean to tell me Big John does not know what the motion should have been today? Today, Private Member's Day, we should have been discussing the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I can imagine the call coming down saying, look friends, look Tory buddies, do not let this get on the floor of the House today whatever you do, because we No. 30 R26

realize the package we offered is an insult, we realize that what the Newfoundland Liberal Party and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was saying is right. They are on the right track on this one. ottawa realizes this, so they said for goodness sake, do not let this get on the floor. So, what did they do? They discussed the lengthening of the gowns by one inch, when the Newfoundland fishery is falling into poverty, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have a bit of advice. This is my sixth year in this House, and over these years I have made friends with Members on both sides.

I have friends on the opposite side, yes. I consider the Member for Grand Falls to be a friend, the Leader of the Opposition is a friend. They are all friends. They are not enemies. But I have a bit of advice for them. I want to tell them not to tie themselves to their friends in Ottawa; don't continue to act as a front for the boys and girls in Ottawa, because Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are not going to be deceived, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians don't always distinguish between Ottawa politicians and Newfoundland politicians. So, I am going to give my friends on the opposite side a bit of advice.

Do not tie your futures to the futures of your friends in Ottawa. Let them stand up for themselves and support our position on the fishery, because we have the right on. If they don't do that, I am very much afraid that what happened in New Brunswick is very likely to happen in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. And, for the life of me, I do not want that to happen. Because if democracy is going to be properly served, we do need an L27 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI Opposition. I am giving hon.

Members this advice for two reasons: One, because most of them are my friends, and secondly, because I do have faith and a belief in democracy, and I don't want to see democracy wiped out in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Humber East. Ms Verge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, they say there is no defense like a good offense. An Hon. Member: That is right. Ms Verge: That is what the Minister of Health was thinking of before he rose in his place here this afternoon. Sadly, that was not a good offense.

That speech was embarrassing. It is the second embarrassing speech the Minister of Health has made in _ this House in the last twenty-four hours. Last night, when we were having a debate about the fisheries crisis, the Minister used the occasion to tell a silly joke about a man and his dog and proceeded to imitate the dog. Mr. Simms: afternoon. CBC carried it all Ms Verge: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure people who are following this debate that on some Private Member's Days, the level of debate is much higher.

I remember just four or five weeks ago the Government Member for Bellevue made a motion on the women's centers in the Province. An Hon. Member: Right. No. 30 R27

Ms Verge: It was a motion that he composed and injected on the Order Paper ahead of the schedule, because it was an important issue and it was timely. Mr. Simms: Like the Ombudsman. Ms Verge: The Member for Bellevue, obviously cared about the subject. He prepared seriously for his presentation and made a good presentation.

I rose in my place as a Member of the Opposition and supported what he said; I contributed to the discussion, since I have had an extensive involvement over the years with women's centers, and at the end of that two and a half hour debate, we rose in our places, every Member on both sides, to support the motion. This House of Assembly 'unanimously resolved to condemn the Federal Government for cutting core funding to women's centers, and we urged the Federal Government to restore that funding. We are happy that there has been a partial victory.

Women's centers have a parallel function in our Province to the office of the Ombudsman. Each institution serves the interest of ordinary citizens, of individual women and men. In the case of the Ombudsman, the focus is resolving complaints about the Provincial Government and its agencies. The Government, over the years, has been growing and growing in numbers of public servants and in influence over peoples lives. The Government has enormous potential to do good, but it also has the potential to adversely impact on people's lives. The Provincial Government and its agencies are enormously powerful in our society.

How is the ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian to L28 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI deal with this gigantic organization if and when the citizen runs into a problem in dealing with the Government? It is partly through recourse to the office of the Ombudsman. Mr. Speaker, the office of the Ombudsman is one of several institutions in our society designed to be independent of the executive branch of the Government, designed to operate independently of the Cabinet, and function free of political interference. Other such institutions include the Public Utilities Board, the Auditor General , and the Courts . Mr.

Speaker, in its one year of office, this new, real-change Provincial Government has established a pattern of interfering with and emasculating the power and the roles of these quasi-judicial and judicial bodies. In the case of the Ombudsman, the Government is proposing the radical measure of eliminating the of(ice altogether. In the case of the Public Utili ties Board, through legislation the Government has altered the structure, and, then, picked and chosen among the former Commissioners, reappointing some, dismissing others.

In the case of the Auditor General, the Government has just put forward a draft bill to reform the office. Ironically, while the incumbent has been a proponent of reform, the effect of the bill is to do him out of a job next year. So, just as the new Auditor's Act will likely come into force, the incumbent will be out of a job. In the case of the Provincial Court, the Government is proposing new legislation which will limit the term of office of a Chief Provincial Judge. Mr. Speaker, No . 30 R28

~ this pattern is extremely worrisome. I do not think many people in our Province appreciate what is happening, and it is my job as an Opposition Member, and the function of my colleagues here, to bring this to the attention of citizens. Mr.

Speaker, in our democracy, many have struggled long and hard, many have advocated effectively to create our system which allows freedom of expression, which allows freedom of political involvement, and which contains checks of abuse of power by the executive branch of the Government, and balances to the strength of the Cabinet and a massive Public Service, and one of the important checks and balances is the Office of the Ombudsman. Mr.

Speaker, some forty nations in the world, most of them Members of the British Commonwealth, as well as many jurisdictions of Federal states, in the case of Canada, in the case of this Confederation, all jurisdictions, except Prince Edward Island, have an Ombudsman, or Ombudsman-like independent positions which serve as watchdogs of the executive branches of Government. Mr.

Speaker, if the legislative measure announced by this Government to abolish our Ombudsman's Office proceeds and is passed, we will have the regrettable distinction of being the first jurisdiction in the whole wide world to disband the Office of Ombudsman. Mr. Hogan: wrong? Does that make us Ms Verge: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Placentia asks, does that make us wrong? It does not necessarily make us wrong. Perhaps the rest L29 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI of the world is wrong and we are right. That is a theoretical possibility. Mr. Speaker, let us examine the merits of retaining the institution of the Ombudsman.

It has been suggested that the Ombudsman is low profiled, that the Ombudsman does not attract very many complaints; it has been suggested that MHAs can easily do the same work the Ombudsman is doing. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is true that the incumbent has kept a low profile. He said that readily. When the incumbent was reappointed for his second t.en year term on the recommendation of this House of Assembly some four years ago, several Members on both sides of the House rose in support of the reappointment.

Three Members of the then Opposition spoke in glowing terms about the contribution of the incumbent, one of them the present Minister of Fisheries. Mr. Efford: When was that? Ms Verge: That was on June 6, 1986, to answer the question of the Minister of Social Services. On that day, Mr. Speaker, the present Minister of Fisheries said, and I quote: 'The man has maintained a low profile, and I suppose the nature of the job requires that he do that. I am sure there are times when, if he wanted to, he could have gotten himself a lot of publicity.

But being the type of person he is, he quietly and very effectively does his job in a very fair and very impartial way. We have no hesitation, Mr. Speaker, on this side, in going along with this legislation and wishing the No. 30 R29

Ombudsman all the best in the years ahead . ' Earlier in debate the Minister of Fisheries had used superlatives to describe the incumbent. He said, quote: 'I think the choice of Mr. Peddle as an Ombudsman is an excellent one. I think he has conducted himself extremely well in that office, he is a very impartial man. • Mr. Speaker, another Member of the then Opposition who praised the reappointment of the incumbent was the present Speaker of the House of Assembly. The present Speaker called the incumbent an Ombudsman deluxe.

The Speaker also alluded to the low profile kept by the incumbent, and suggested that perhaps the powers of the office be expanded. Mr. Speaker, there are people who feel the decision to eliminate the Office of the Ombudsman was an impulse Budget decision, the same as the payroll tax and the closure of the hospital schools outside st. John's. There was some evidence to support that thesis, primarily the fact that, shockingly, the Premier did not even extend the incumbent, Mr.

Peddle, who had been the Ombudsman for fourteen years, the common decency of consultation, or even notification in a personal way, of the Government's decision. The incumbent found out about the Government's decision to abolish the office through a call from a friend who had heard a news report about the Budget Speech. I find that shocking.

It is extremely disturbing to think that the current Premier, who holds himself out as representing fairness and balance, and who likes to think of himself as highly ethical, would, number one, preside over a decision to abolish the Office of L30 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI Ombudsman and, number two, not even extend the incumbent the courtesy of personal notification of the decision. As I mentioned, speakers, Members of the Government, have suggested that MHAs can easily substitute for the Ombudsman. That is patently false, Mr. Speaker.

MHAs do not have the powers, MHAs do not have the resources, and, I suggest, in many cases MHAs do not have the necessary objectivity to represent the interests of individ~als of this Province who have grievances against the Provincial Government. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, has referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act. That is a piece of legislation, introduced in this Assembly by the Smallwood Government and enacted or put into practice by the Moores' Administration, which creates the office of the Ombudsman in our Province.

That law gives the Ombudsman special powers: powers to investigate complaints against the Provincial Government and its Agencies and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, powers which include requiring people to provide him with information, powers of summoning before him documents, papers and other things. Furthermore, the Act gives the Ombudsman the power of notifying, not only the Minister affected, but the Cabinet and then the whole House of Assembly, in a public way, of his findings and recommendations .

So these are very wide-sweeping powers that no ordinary Member of this House, on the Government side or in the Opposition, long-shot. No. 30 possess, by a R30

Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that the Ombudsman isn't effective enough to warrant retention of the office. The facts fly in the face and repudiate that claim. In fact, low profile or not, the Ombudsman in this Province dealt with some 900 complaints last year, and on a per capita basis, Mr. Speaker, the Ombudsman for Newfoundland and Labrador has gotten far more complaints than the Ombudsman of other jurisdictions of Canada, for example, Manitoba. I just happen to have statistics for Manitoba here, Mr. Speaker. The Ombudsman for Manitoba has not been dealing with near the volume per capita as our Ombudsman.

Saskatchewan, which I also have at hand, again has even a lower ratio. Mr. Speaker, last year, in our Province, 900 individuals who felt wronged by the Provincial Government went to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman resolved many of those problems to the satisfaction of the individuals. In several of those instances, the citizens had previously taken up their problems with the MHA, but despite some efforts on the part of Members of the House of Assembly, successful results were not forthcoming. Mr.

Speaker, in supporting the motion of my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, I would like to urge the Provincial Government to reconsider this step. The amount of money at stake is only $236,000 a year. In disbanding the office, the Government will have a legal obligation to award a substantial sum to the incumbent who, after all, under the existing law and on the recommendation of the House of Assembly, was reappointed for a ten year term just four years ago. So, Mr. Speaker, the savings L31 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI to the provincial treasury are going to be marginal.

And in the absence of any external complaint mechanism relating to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, I would suggest the Government is going to have to create some kind of police commission, which is probably a good idea anyway. So this is a false economy. But what is at stake is more important than $236,000 a year, Mr. Speaker, what is at stake is the removal of an office to serve the interests of ordinary residents of Newfoundland and Labrador who, from time to time, are unfairly treated by the vast Provincial Government and its agencies, whose rights occasionally are abrogated. Mr.

Speaker, the evidence is that this disbanding of the Ombudsman's office is part of a whole pattern of conduct being waged by this Provincial Government to interfere with quasi-judicial and judicial bodies which are supposed to function · independent from political interference. Mr. Speaker, evidently the Minister of Health, and perhaps his colleagues in the Cabinet, do not like the current Ombudsman. The Minister of Health referred to the incumbent, Mr. Ambrose Peddle, in disparaging terms, calling him a Tory hack. Mr.

Speaker, I know that opinion is not shared by all his colleagues, because the Minister of Fisheries, when he endorsed the reappointment of Mr. Peddle for a second ten year term, as I have already quoted, used superlatives in praising his contribution and effectiveness as Ombudsman, as did the current Speaker. Mr. Speaker, seemingly the redneck element in this Cabinet prevailed in this instance, and while there might have been a consensus in the Cabinet that they wanted to get No. 30 R31

rid of Mr. Peddle, because fifteen years ago Mr. Peddle was affiliated with the PC Party, why is the Government not only getting rid of the parson, but burning down the Church? That, perhaps, is a metaphor the Minister of Health can relate to. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the Opposition House Leader did, I really plead with the Provincial Government to review this matter and keep the institution of the Ombudsman for the sake of ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in the interest of - Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The hon. Member's time is up. Ms Verge: Thank you. If I might finish my sentence, Mr.

Speaker - in the interest of individual citizens of our Province. We do not have the power or the resources, the knowledge or the time to overturn unfair and wrong decisions made by the Provincial Government and its Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The Government House Leader . agencies. hon. the Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of things I want to say about this resolution but, first of all, I would like to respond to the self-righteous speech by the Member for Humber East, and the kind of distortions and twisting of the truth we find coming from Members opposite. Mr.

Speaker, the Member opposite tried to tie this into The Auditor General's Bill which is now before this House, and, in so doing, she made what I believe to be some despicable statements, absolutely L32 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI despicable, in trying to tie this in. I believe she probably read an editorial in the Sunday Express and assumed it to be true, and is now trying to say, somehow, that the purpose of the Auditor General's Bill is to get rid of the present Auditor General. Now, Mr. Speaker, I consider that kind of twisting and playing with the truth to be despicable.

And if that is an indication of the accuracy of the rest of what she said, I do not pay much attention to it. Mr. Tobin: Do you know what the truth means over there? Mr. Baker: Now, Mr. Speaker, I could go on for the next two or three hours on that point alone, however, to get back to the Parliamentary Commissioner, we have suggested that this House repeal The Parliamentary Commissioner's Act. We are doing this in a very straightfo~ard manner, up front; there is nothing hidden behind it. Mr. Speaker, We are doing it for good reasons.

We spend $250, 000 a year in the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner, and in the process of determining spending priorities, we have to make decisions. We are not afraid to make decisions, Mr. Speaker, and the decisions have to be made in light of the urgent needs of this Province. That is how we have to make decisions, and that is how, Mr. Speaker, this particular decision was made. If we had lots of money to throw around, if we were rolling in money, it would be nice to have a half dozen Parliamentary Commissioners, or a half dozen of everything.

In the circumstances we find ourselves, we had to make decisions. In examining the Office of the No. 30 R32

,, Parliamentary Commissioner, what we did was what we are doing to every program offered by Government, all programs that have been in place for some time, we are doing a re-examination to see if the programs are now relevant in this day and age. We do not believe, simply because a program was in existence for the last ten, fifteen or twenty years, that it has to be in perpetuity. We do not believe that. Times change, things change and conditions change, and if we are to be a responsible Government, we have to look at all our programs periodically and determine the level of priority that we put on them. Now, Mr.

Speaker, in examining the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner we saw a number of things. Another distortion, Mr. Speaker, that was in the Member's speech, during 1988, the Parliamentary Commissioner dealt with 460 - not 908 - 460 complaints. Ms Verge: (Inaudible). Mr. Baker: Four hundred and sixty. The Member is again distorting. There were 908 complaints, but half of them were not within his jurisdiction. He could not deal with them. He did not deal with them .. He dealt with 460 - another distortion. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Baker: How can we believe anything, Mr. Speaker?

Four hundred and sixty complaints. Mr. Simms: complaints. There were still 900 Mr. Baker: He dealt with 460 . L33 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI Mr. Simms: But he had 900! Mr. Baker: here. I distortions spread. I am telling the truth am counteracting the you are trying to Now, then, Mr. Speaker, in the report there was a

summary of selected cases which were within the jurisdiction, and one would expect these would be the imp·ortant ones, and so on. Now, Mr. Speaker, we can go through the

summary of selected cases, the important ones. I invite han. Members to get this and read them all. I cannot read them all, and I am not going to be selective in the ones I read. An Han. Member: either. No, (inaudible) Mr. Baker: No, these are the ones that were selected as being example cases, the flagship cases, out of the 460 that were dealt with. 'A registered part-time fisherman complained because the practice of allowing fishermen to purchase marked gas tax free has been discontinued. He was asked to write his complaint.' That is a case, one of the 460. An Han. Member: look after. (Inaudible) to Mr.

Simms: He didn't. the problem. That is Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Mr. Baker: The next one: 'The complainant felt the Department of Finance was acting incorrectly in assessing a tax of twelve dollars on a vehicle he had bought for scrap, for which he had paid one dollar. The Ombudsman informed the man of the right of the Department to determine the value No. 30 R33

of the car, and his right to apply for a review if dissatisfied.' Another complaint, Mr. Speaker, of Justice. I am just picking a couple from each section. 'An inmate at Her Majesty's Penitentiary complained he was not allowed fresh milk for his coffee and tea unless he paid for it, in spite of the fact he was allergic to powdered milk. The penitentiary was contacted and it was learned that a doctor must certify in writing that allergies exist before food changes can be made.

No proof could be found of the inmate's allergy through a search of hospital records, however, the problem resolved itself, for the man was released shortly thereafter.' Under Social Services: There are a number of them, and you would expect a number of complaints under Social Services. I suppose the Minister's Department handles thousands each year, and each MHA handles hundreds and hundreds each year. 'A recipient of social services had been assaulted and his upper dentures were broken and lost. His social worker said arrangements to get new dentures would take about three weeks.

He felt this was too long, as he was unable to eat solid food and was losing weight. In a check with the Department, it was learned that the man had been given explicit instructions on how to make application for funding for replacement of the dentures.' Mr. Tobin: That is (inaudible) for you to try to poke fun like that. Mr. Baker: Handling the problem. Handling the problem. Now, I recognize what the Member L34 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI is saying, and I understand that it could be interpreted that way.

However, I want to assure the Member opposite that we made the decision on the basis of the usefulness in the Province at this present time, and I am simply trying to show something which I will get to in a few moments. And I am not poking fun at anybody, I am simply stating the facts and reading from a public document. Another one in Social Services: 'A worker on a Social Services work project complained because the door to his new home was slightly warped and he would like to have it replaced by the Department. Having a steady income, he is not eligible for assistance.' An Han.

Member: door, boy! (Inaudible) the Mr. Baker: I am just pointing out - and you can go on and on. Mr. Speaker, the cases are all alike i~ here. And, what they all have in common, Mr. Speaker, is that obviously, to the people involved, they seem to be big concerns. But the problems could be solved by a phone call to almost any source in Government. Mr. Speaker, we are now providing facilities for MHAs to have offices in their Districts. The Member for Burin - Placentia West can now have an office in his District; funding is provided to have an office in his District. Mr.

Speaker, we have many appeals processes in place. On almost every Government decision you can think of, we are now making sur"e that the appeals pr'ocess is a pr'oper appeals pr'ocess; we ar'e making sure that takes place. Even in ter'ms of Gover'nment workers we are making sur"e that No. 30 R34

the Classification Appeals Board works, and all this kind of thing. We are making sure that there is appeal to Government decisions. We are guaranteeing true democracy. Mr. Speaker, we have in this Province, if there are serious problems in terms of human rights, very active human rights groups who are very involved in the human rights of individuals. Mr. Speaker, I s~y to you that if you read the reports, you will find that we could make no another decision than to come to this House and ask for repealing of the Parliamentary Commissioner's Act.

Because, as a priority for the spending of $250,000, it is simply not up there with a lot of the other things, like opening the intensive care beds at the Health Sciences Complex. It simply does not rate. Now, Mr. Speaker, if, in fact, and I have no doubt that at a certain point this was necessary - the Member for Grand Falls read out about four cases, one from 1979, another from 1986 and another from 1988, where some action occurred.

I say to him that an awful lot of action occurs by calling MHAs' offices, although he belittles it and makes fun of it and so on, but a an awful lot of action occurs by calling MHAs' offices, and an awful lot of action occurs by going through the appeals process. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Baker: It does now. If it did not a few years ago, it does now. Mr. Speaker, we could come to no other conclusion than the service provided.

At the present time, L35 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI and the way things have evolved, the service provided was one that there were many other avenues to provide the same service and, therefore, we could better use the money next year - not this year, because it is still in existence this year - for some other purpose. Some Members might say it was a difficult decision, a hard decision, it was something that should not have been done.

I did not find it particularly difficult, but I will admit that cutting anything is difficult, removing jobs anywhere is difficult; there are four jobs involved, and I regret that these four jobs are no longer there. Mr. Speaker, we have our priorities. We intend to stick to them, and we intend to support the abolition of the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner. you, Mr. Speaker. Thank Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: The bon. the Member for Kilbride. Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible). Mr.

Speaker: I would remind the hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island and the hon. the Member for Grand Bank, that I have recognized the hon. the Member for Kilbride. Mr. R. A:y:lward: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear you recognize me. Thank you, very much. Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words on the resolution put forward by the Member for Grand Falls, the Opposition House Leader, on the importance of trying to keep in this Province the position of Ombudsman to help No. 30 R35

people who have grievances with Government. And whether they are trivial to the President of Council, the Government House Leader, or other Minist ·ers of the Departments, is completely irrelevant to this debate, because a person would not make the effort of taking a complaint as far as the Ombudsman for review if they, themselves, did not think it was an extremely important reason. Mr. Speaker, what MHAs in this House might think is trivial or not important is not necessarily so to the person who has an injustice done to him or even a perceived injustice.

If the Ombudsman can straighten out a problem, even if he comes down on the side of the Government Department that is being complained about, the person who brought the problem would feel a little better because he had an independent person, and I do not think there was any question that the Ombudsman's office was not independent. Even the Minister of Health in his ridiculous speech did not try to suggest that the Ombudsman was impartial. Mr . Speaker, the person who is complaining no matter what certainly would like to have decisions made to their own complaint or to their own benefit. But, Mr.

Speaker, there is a better feeling if an independent person, such as an Ombudsman, was to make a ruling on some grievance between Government, Mr. Speaker, and probably you would feel a bit better. Mr . Speaker, as far Cabinet Ministers, or in particular, doing the Ombudsman, as MHAs or MHAs I guess the job of representing complaint feels he someone who has a against the Government, L36 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI has been wronged by a Government decision or by a decision by some Government Department.

An MHA who represented his brother against an agency of this Government, being the Fisheries Loan Board, would have been in conflict if he had been asked by the ship builder, as it was at the time Eastern Ship Builders, who might or might not have been a constituent, I am not sure, but if he was a constituent how would the han. Member for Port de Grave represent both sides of the same argument, where the Ombudsman could have represented either of these people if they felt they had been grieved by the Government agency. Mr.

Speaker, it is absolutely impossible for MHAs to represent - and even more impossible if that MHA happened to be a Cabinet Minister, Mr. Speaker. I would imagine that there could very well be - I would not say that there would definitely be - but there could very well be constituents in the District of Port de Grave or Conception Bay South, or Twillingate, who would have problems with, maybe in Twillingate, with the Fisheries Department. Maybe in Port de Grave with the Social Services Department, maybe in Conception Bay South with the Department of Labour, especially Workers Compensation Board, Mr.

Speaker, who would have grievances against those boards and now they have to go to their MHA, and that MHA would be the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Social Services or the Minister of Labour to take up for their cause. And that Minister is responsible for the decision in the first place that was made against them. It would be a complete and grave conflict of interest, Mr. Speaker, to have that Cabinet Minister No. 30 R36

represent both sides of an argument. Right now we have no - we will have very shortly - no Ombudsman's office. So all these people who legitimately have complaints, whether we consider them important or not, cannot go to the Minister of Social Services if he represents that Department and the complaint is against them, and they happen to be his constituents.

If some people are grieved in the near future by some forced amalgamations that are going to come from the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and they happen to be constituents of the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, and happen to live in the Mount Pearl part of his District, where can they go to get representation on being forced to amalgamate if that happens? I do not say that it will happen. It could very well happen is what -I am saying. Where would they go to get an independent body now? There is no Appeal Board they can go _to.

The President of Treasury Board said we have Appeal Boards to look after these things now. There is no appeal board that a person from Mount Pearl can go to to look after a complaint that he would have if he is forced to amalgamate with any other municipality. Mr. Speaker, the arguments that the Treasury Board President just put forward are totally and absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. First of all I want to say, as the Member for Grand Falls said, I know this Department, or this Office of the Ombudsman was not abolished because of any political vendetta. I know that. I am certain of that. Some Han.

Members: of Health said it. L37 May 9, 1990 The Minister Vol XLI Mr. R. Aylward: Well, I did not hear him say it, but he should be ashamed of himself, he should apologize to the office, and he should also apologize to the Premier if he said that, because I do not think the Premier would make that type of a move. I say, yes, it was a rash decision, and it was a quick decision during the budgetary process. It was a $220,000 lump of money that it seemed could be saved because there did not seem to be a lot of complaints.

The 900 complaints that we had at the time did not seem to the Cabinet to be a great number of complaints. I consider one complaint to be very significant, if a person is grieved and they have nowhere else to go. That is the difference between the Cabinet that exists now and the Cabinet that was here a few years ago. If I were cutting, certainly, one of the last things I would cut would be an Ombudsman's Office, because the people who will be using the Ombudsman's Office, a vast majority of them, are people who are not familiar with, and maybe cannot afford, other avenues.

They know the Ombudsman is there and he is supposed to take up their cause. That is well publicized and universal throughout the world, certainly throughout the free world. It is certainly universal in Canada, that we know there is an Ombudsman somewhere in our Province. We have to take up a phone book, maybe, to find it, but he will take up my cause. Mr.

Speaker, that would be the last thing I would cut if I were in Cabinet because these people, people who would not know other avenues, I am not saying they are poor, rich, affluent, or not, people do not know the bureaucracy of the appeals boards as were mentioned No. 30 R37

before. They very seldom know how to go through that bureaucracy, but they do know how to get to this Ombudsman and they have confidence that he will represent them. What I have seen happening over the last year is a trend. I know they scream and howl when I mention this trend and the President of Treasury Board tried to attack the Member for Humber East for pointing out a part of this trend, but I see a trend, since this Government took over, Mr. Speaker, on treading on people's rights, or closing the door to Government even more so than it has ever been closed.

I thought this Premier of our Province was one who was going to open up Government, make it a smaller Government, not interfere with people's lives more, but open it up to everyone. I did not think you would even need the Freedom of Information Act if you wanted information. Mr. Speaker, what is happening since this Government took over, the trend I see, first of all we had the consumer Advocate removed from the Public Utilities Board. That, at the time I disagreed with, yes , but there were arguments that the Minister of Justice made that maybe, or maybe not, you could agree with.

I thought at the time that it was very important, when the place was made, the position was put on the Public Utilities Board, I felt from my constituents that they were more satisfied that things were being done not so secretly with the Public Utilities Board. Rates for electricity were finally being reviewed by someone who represented them. That is not the case now . You removed that person from the board. I know it was a L38 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI consumer advocate making the decisions against the utility and maybe the utility should have had an advocate on it, too.

I would not even care if they did have an advocate on it. At least there was a consumer advocate on that board who had input into the back-room decisions that were being made, Mr.Speaker. We did see an

article in the paper, whether the President of Treasury Board liked it or not, some time ago, that the Auditor General's Act is coming up for review and maybe the ·present Auditor General, who has made a good name for himself in looking after the accounts of the Province, maybe he is going to go . He has experience there now. There is a good chance that after ten years there is the possibility of putting someone in that place who would lean more toward Government persuasion at the time, and maybe he would not be so rough on Government. But, Mr.

Speaker, if that Auditor General's position or that person has to be replaced, I am going to be very interested to see who is going to be hiring the new Auditor General, Mr. Speaker. And I would hope that it will be independent people, such as the Speaker of this House of Assembly and others, who might have a say in who the new Auditor General will be, if there is going to be one, Mr. Speaker. The Ombudsman did have 900 complaints, whether the present Treasury Board likes it or not, he had 900 complaints, he could only deal with some 400 of them. So what do we do, we abolish the Ombudsman's office.

What we should be doing is expanding his power so he could deal with the No. 30 R38

whole 900. Mr. Speaker all the complaints that he is getting now, he cannot manage these complaints or he cannot react to them, you expand his powers to get him to be able to look after as many of these complaints as he can, and all legitimate complaints. We should be expanding the powers. A country I just happened to be fortunate enough to visit at one time was Norway. Norway, Mr. Speaker, has a very good and very strong Ombudsman's office, not only an Ombudsman, Mr. Speaker, to deal with general complaints of the people of Norway, they have another office, Mr.

Speaker, another individual, who is appointed as a children's Ombudsman, and maybe this Province needs a children's Ombudsman too, because we see the problems we are having in this Province as are being highlighted by the Hughes Commission. Maybe there is a need, not only for this ombudsman, Mr. Speaker, but an expansion of that off ice so that children can have an Ombudsman. This exists in Norway and maybe should be established in this Province, Mr. Speaker. What we are doing in our Province, Mr. Speaker, is we take one step forward and, since this Government got into office, Mr.

Speaker, we are not taking one step backwards, we are running backwards , Mr. Speaker. We are going completely opposite to the trends of the free world, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this Ombudsman's office is going to save, I think if it is cancelled, some $220,000. Now, I do not remember the total figure for our Budget, I think it is about $3 billion, so we are going to save $220,000 by knocking out someone who can fight for the rights of people who need L39 May 9, 1990 Vol XLI this position, $220,000. What have we done with Newfoundland Information Services, Mr.

Speaker, a Division that certainly is not needed as much in this Province as an Ombudsman, because it is only going to be used now because it is in the Premier's office, it is going to be a political arm of Government . Mr. Speaker, when it was in the Department of Public Works, it had a function. Now if I had to make a choice, how much would we save if we cut Newfoundland Information Service. Now I am sitting in Cabinet, and I have a choice of cutting the Ombudsman's Office, which costs $220,000, and I have Newfoundland Information Service, which costs $335,000, Mr. Speaker.

If I had cut Newfoundland Information Service, I would have saved more money than by cutting the Ombudsman's office. But what did I do as a Cabinet Minister, what did our fifteen great people do as Cabinet Ministers, Mr. Speaker, they doubled the price of Newfoundland Information Services. They increased their Budget by almost 100 per cent. Not only is it going to become a political arm of Government now which it had never been before, they doubled the salary of it. Mr. Speaker if I had to make the decision of protecting the rights of Newfoundlanders, I would retain the Ombudsman.

What else are we spending this money we saved on, Mr. Speaker. Constitutional affairs - Meech Lake - $216,000. Mr. Speaker, did we cut out the Ombudsman so the Premier could have $216,000 to spend on Meech Lake? Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. R. Aylward: That Budget, Mr. Speaker. No. 30 is in our Where else R39

are we going to spend it, Mr. Speaker? We are going to cut out this Ombudsman's Office which we need in this Province. What are we going to do with it? We are going to take that money. We are going to multiply it by two and get it up to $535,000, Mr. Speaker. and spend it on Caribou Management. Well. Mr. Speaker. if there is a choice between - if there is a priority in this Province between caribou and people who have complaints, Mr. Speaker. we certainly have a very. very backward Government. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. R. Aylward: Mr.

Speaker, the Ombudsman's Office only cost us in 1988-89, $216,000 out of a $3 billion budget. That is not worth cutting, Mr. Speaker. In last year 1989-90, it cost us $220,000. That is not a big pile of money, Mr. Speaker, for the function that an Ombudsman's Office serves for this Province. We should be investing that and not doubling Newfoundland Information Budget, Mr. Speaker, we should be doubling the amount of money that we should be spending on the Ombudsman. Because certainly the way this Government is operating now, Mr. Speaker, one person we are certainly going to need in this Province is an Ombudsman.

Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. R. Aylward: Mr. Speaker, I would imagine this legislation that we are going to have is going to come before the Legislative Review Committee. I am not sure of that yet, but I would imagine it would, because one progressive step that this Government did do was to set up the Legislative Review Committees. So th