June 9,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 59

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, last night during an interview on home schooling

on CBC's Here and Now , people were kind of startled to hear the Minister

of Education say that he believes that home schooling, which is really telling

parents to teach their own children at home, is the way of the future,

especially in rural areas of the Province.

Now I want to say to the minister, he owes an explanation to

people in rural Newfoundland, because people are now asking: is this another one

of your hidden agendas, something that you haven't told the people about? They

don't want to have their lives played with by the Minister of Education or by

the government.

So will the minister now tell the people in these rural

communities, up front - they can laugh all they want as they usually do with any

serious issue, Mr. Speaker - what exactly are the government's plans?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for

giving me the opportunity to get up and speak about home schooling.

The context in which it was given - I did this interview

about three or four weeks ago, and the interviewer was asking me what I saw as a

future for home schooling. It was a long drawn out interview and I wish she had

played it all because it was an excellent interview. I said, I could see it as

being in the future, yes, because I am a futurist.

The hon. member must realize that in the not too distant

future, there will be a lot more people working out of their homes than there

are today. You can plug your computer in at Nain, you can plug into St. John's

and work from your home in Nain. It is quite common in mainland Canada and North

America that people are working from their homes. Now, in that context, Mr.

Speaker, I can see home schooling being fairly prevalent; and that is exactly

the context in which it was said.

We have no agenda right now, Mr. Speaker, to do away with the

schools and replace them with home schooling. The hon. member, I am quite sure,

will be pleased to know that we have no agenda to do that at this time. I don't

know what some future government might do but you would do what applies at that

time.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister can skate all he

wants. Last night, the minister didn't say home schooling was an option

available to parents. That's not what he said last night, Mr. Speaker. What he

said last night was that it was the way of the future for rural Newfoundland.

Now there is a big difference, I say to the minister.

So we want to ask him: Why did he single out rural

Newfoundland in his statement? Were you telling the people of rural

Newfoundland, in fact, that if they want to stay in rural communities they are

going to have to educate their children themselves in their homes? Is that what

he meant about the way of the future in rural Newfoundland?

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

MR. DECKER: My, Mr. Speaker, I really feel for the hon.

member. He is really scraping to try to get an issue, isn't he?

No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting that it will be confined

to rural Newfoundland. What I am saying is that in rural areas of the country,

where people want to live in rural areas, it will not be confined to that. The

two examples last night: One was right in St. John's and the other was out in

the Portugal Cove area. So it was by no means confined to that.

There are various reasons as to why people would go for home

schooling. The two examples last night had religious overtones, but I would

suggest to the hon. member that there are other reasons to have home schooling.

Home schooling, as the hon. member knows, is legal in this

Province as it has been for the last fifty years. When the hon. member was in

government there was home schooling going on in this Province, and twenty-five

years from now, when the hon. member is still not in government, home schooling

will still be going on in this Province.

He is really trying desperately to put words in my mouth.

Maybe he would like to tell us his personal feeling. Would he abolish home

schooling or would he not? I would like to know where the hon. member stands

because it is an issue that people can't skate around. I believe there is a

place for home schooling. Yes, I do, and I think it will grow and it will

prosper. It is something that we just can't ignore. We have to make sure.

The hon. member, depending on his next question, which is

written I am sure, may give me an opportunity to explain just how a person can

take advantage of home schooling in this Province.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister can skate and skate and skate and skate and

skate, but the fact of the matter is he said it is the way of the future,

especially in rural areas of the Province. Those are not my words, those are the

minister's words. I expect the minister to be honest with the people. If this is

something in the back of his head, if this is a plan the government has, then

tell us. If it is not, if you were quoted incorrectly, if you did not mean to

say it, then stand up here in the House today and apologize to the people of

rural Newfoundland. That is what he should do.

Now, let me ask him: This thinking which came out in that

statement, `this is the way of the future especially in rural Newfoundland,' is

what a lot of people in this Province have suspected is the strategy of this

government, and has been for a long, long time. That is for communities to

either shut-down or the only way to survive on their own in the case of

education would be home schooling. This year alone you have forced school boards

to lay off 200 teachers, mostly in rural Newfoundland. Over the next two or

three years you will be eliminating the 2 per cent clause, and there will be

another 250 teachers gone in rural Newfoundland.

Now, I want to ask the minister: As a result of that kind of

strategy, the elimination of 450 teachers' jobs over the next two and a half

years through the 2 per cent, etc., as I just said, I was to ask him, doesn't he

think that that particular strategy will leave parents in rural Newfoundland

with no other choice? Is that what he was trying to say when he said, this is

the way of the future? Could he explain that to the people of rural

Newfoundland?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of those mock

trials you see at the first year university, of Frosh Week, where someone tries

to put words in your mouth and all this sort of thing. The hon. member would

have made a good lawyer -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: He would have made a good lawyer appearing

for one of these mock trials in Frosh Week.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have to take second place to anyone in

our treatment of rural Newfoundland. What we're doing in the education system in

this Province, Mr. Speaker, will be for the benefit of rural Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: But what we will not continue to tolerate is

what's been happening in rural Newfoundland because of a gutless crowd over

there who could not deal with the issues when they were in power, Mr. Speaker.

Let me tell the hon. member something that the 2 per cent

rule has done; out in Ming's Bight, Mr. Speaker, two schools, side by side, kept

alive by the 2 per cent rule, because the government doesn't have the authority

to address the needs. One school had nineteen children, two-and-a-half teachers.

The other had nineteen children, two teachers, Mr. Speaker. Now, it might be

great to keep two schools alive but will the hon. member suggest to me that we

were doing justice to the children in that school system? We most certainly were

not, Mr. Speaker.

In the town where I grew up and where my family grew up,

Roddickton - two schools side by side, K-12, one with eighty-two children, the

other with ninety-two children, Mr. Speaker. Is that doing justice to the

children of this Province from an educational perspective? No, Mr. Speaker, it's

not. We have the political will over here to do what's right for education and I

don't expect hon. members to listen to the nonsense that he would put in my

mouth, Mr. Speaker, we're not married to the past. We don't have our feet glued

into the 18th Century.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: We are moving with the times, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm tempted to make some comment

about his opening remark about making a good lawyer. I wasn't sure if that's

what he said but I think that was the word he used. I think I'll stay away from

that one. I'm tempted to make some comment about it but I think I'll leave it

alone. I think the Premier would prefer that I leave it alone, too. It's

probably just as well not to bring this kind of outside interference into the

political system by referring to `good lawyers'.

PREMIER WELLS: I may have been more offended by the

remark of my hon. friend (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, exactly and that's precisely my point. I

dare say the minister will see that in the next couple of weeks when the shuffle

comes along.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister is being very clever in trying

to avoid the remarks. He is talking about the policy, which is not what I am

talking about. I am talking about his remarks. Now, did he say that home

schooling is the way of the future, especially for rural Newfoundland? Did he

say it, and did he mean it?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is trying to

take everything out of context. Now, I don't know if that tape still exists or

not; I would love for the hon. member to see the total tape, because it was an

excellent interview.

Mr. Speaker, we were talking about - she asked, `Where do you

see this going?' I said, `I am glad you asked that, because I consider myself a

futurist', and I referred to what is happening across the country.

MR. SIMMS: A what?

MR. DECKER: A futurist. Did you ever hear of a futurist?

You should read some books. There are people whose minds are back in the 17th-

and 18th Century; normally, we call them Tories. They are glued to the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: But then, there are other people who think

ahead, who plan for the future.

I explained to the interviewer that in many places across the

country, people have chosen to work in their homes. It is the computer age, the

hon. member should realize that, and people are working in their homes. Now, I

said, in addition to all the other ways that people would want to have home

schooling, I could see families living in rural areas of the country, in rural

areas of Newfoundland, and in their opinion the children could not get all the

service in the school, for whatever reason. Why have your child drive twenty

miles to a school if you don't drive twenty miles to work, you work from your

home.

Now, government has to control that very tightly, as we have

been doing. The hon. member will know that those children who were shown last

night are registered in some school. Every morning when the register is marked

there is reference made to those children, so they are part of the system, and

at the end of the day, government is responsible for the curriculum.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to draw his answer to a close.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I give a final supplementary on this to the

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is practising what most of his colleagues in the

front benches practice, and that is avoiding the answer directly. I asked him a

direct question; he couldn't answer it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) question.

MR. SIMMS: I will ask the question when I am ready, not

when the House Leader is ready. It is not up to you; it is up to the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the minister being a futurist, I

have news for him and for his government. They are soon going to be history, in

due course. That is the reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: In the past, now, the minister has made vague

references to a small schools policy, but time and time again, when asked by

members of the Opposition for a copy of that policy, repeatedly making that

request, the minister has refused to table it. In view of this unsettling

statement that he made last night, will the minister give the people of the

Province some reassurance that indeed, he does have a policy, by tabling it here

in the House before it adjourns today? Would he do that?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is confused with

a small schools policy versus an isolated schools policy. The hon. member will

know that we already have a small schools policy and that's what is keeping the

school I referred to, and a lot of small schools, which are incapable of

delivering the education that they should be delivering. What we are talking

about is an isolated schools policy. No matter what happens, there will be

children in Harbour Deep, and we have to be prepared to put extra services into

Harbour Deep.

Now, he wants me to table it today. The hon. member will know

that this is part of the implementation of the Royal Commission, where at this

moment there is a committee in place now putting together viability guidelines,

there is a committee in place dealing with busing issues, there is a committee

in place dealing with curricula, and great strides are being made. One of the

things we are doing is developing an isolated schools policy which essentially

will say that where all other natural means have been used to make a school

viable, we will start putting in artificial means: distance education, extra

teachers, whatever it takes to make that school viable.

Where are we going to get the money to do that? We are going

to get the money to do that from the 400 teachers who are on hold-back. You see,

if we were to abolish the 2 per cent rule today we would not be able to do away

with 400 teaching jobs. These are the people we need to deal with in the

special, isolated schools after we have used up all natural means to make the

schools viable, Mr. Speaker.

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

The minister has gone far beyond the question.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

expected the Minister of Education to tell us that a viable school would be one

where the students brought their splits and wood to keep it warm, I say to him,

the way he is getting on over there, going back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, that is what you are trying to bring

back in this Province, I say to the minister. If you get your way that is where

we will be, back in rural Newfoundland, bringing your splits and paying your

coal fee.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries.

I understand the minister's department has issued a number of scallop processing

licences recently. I'm wondering if the minister could inform the House if that

information is correct, and what criteria was used in the awarding of the

licences?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, we've not done it recently. Last

year there were some harvesting initiatives taken on the part of a number of

larger boat fishermen. We did issue seven developmental licences on a very

temporary basis. In fact, in my letter to the people who got the licences I made

it clear that they should not assume the licences would be issued on a permanent

basis, and therefore they should be very cautious in spending too much money on

setting up a plant.

This year we have re-issued six of those licences, so there

are six developmental licences in existence. But I repeat, these are not

permanent licences, they are licences that were issued to facilitate the

fishermen on the Southern Shore, for example, who were trying to explore new

scallop grounds on the Virgin Rocks and they wanted access to a market for their

very limited quantity that they brought in. It was for that reason we saw fit to

issue these developmental licences.

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

House Leader.

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

wondering does the minister know how many applications were received for those

licences, and on what basis approvals were given and others rejected. Could he

inform the House of that? Really, what were the base decisions on which you

awarded the licences?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I can get that information but I

certainly don't have it in my head. I do know that proximity, I suppose, to the

fishing grounds - for example, there were three such licences issued to existing

plants on the Southern Shore, one in Aquaforte, one in Bay Bulls, I believe, and

I think, one in Cape Broyle, because that was the nearest area to the fishing

grounds. I think there was one issued to a company in White Bay, and that

licence has not been renewed because it wasn't active. I can't give him the

criteria but I can only tell him that these were developmental licences, no

permanency - just issued to facilitate an emerging fishery, to facilitate the

fishermen.

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

Opposition House Leader.

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

supplementary: Would the minister undertake to provide a list to the House of

those processing companies which applied for the scallop processing licences,

and those who were approved, those rejected, and the criteria that were used to

award the licences? Would he undertake to do that for us at his earliest

opportunity?

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

MR. CARTER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can. I don't know what

the hon. member is getting at, but I can almost tell him now, I think, the names

of the six or seven developmental licences: Aqua Fisheries in Aquaforte, the

O'Briens in Tors Cove, another O'Brien in Cape Broyle, a plant in White Bay, a

plant in Cottlesville in my district -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where in White Bay?

MR. CARTER: Wild Cove, I believe, or down that way

somewhere. I will get him a complete list anyway, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Last month the Minister of Health released a consultant's report that outlined

five options for the organization and administration of health care for Labrador

and Northern Newfoundland. I ask the minister: Does he have any time frame in

mind for making a decision?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we hope to finish this as soon

as possible. Everybody involved wants a quick solution and so do we. Part of the

answer to that depends upon when we can clue up the House of Assembly so we can

conduct the hearings appropriately. I'm hoping that we can do so either by the

end of this month or early next month.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knew this week that the House of Assembly is

concluding today, so don't use that as an excuse. Now, this has become a very

hot issue, both on the Northern Peninsula and in Labrador. All of Labrador seems

united in insisting that the issue be decided solely on the basis of quality and

efficiency in health care. St. Anthony, in particular, is also concerned about

the economic impact that decision will have on a town that has few other

options. I ask the minister: What would be the minister's main criteria in

making this decision? Will it be based solely on quality and efficiency, or will

he take into consideration the economic impact on St. Anthony?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Health, my

recommendations will be made on health issues, health grounds. In the

discussions that have been held so far - I went to St. Anthony a couple of weeks

ago and we confined our discussions as much as possible to the health issue,

although the economic issue was brought up, and I am sure that when we go to

Goose Bay, the political issue will also be involved, but my recommendations

will be made to Cabinet on the basis of health issues.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has said, time and time again, that quality of

care and efficiency are the criteria in restructuring other boards in the

Province. I ask the minister: What process, if any, has he put in place to

involve the communities in Labrador and on the Northern Peninsula in the

discussion and resolution of this issue? Will he try to bring them together, or

will he leave them to fight each other over this issue?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the member is

trying to do over there, or where he has been the past three or four weeks. I

have a binder about that thick now full of briefs from various groups and

organizations in Labrador and in Northern Newfoundland, and I have read them

carefully. We have a committee in place of officials who are looking at it. The

hon. the Minister of Education was with me the other day in St. Anthony, and

other ministers will be involved. The Minister of Justice will be with me in

Goose Bay, and other members are invited to be at the meetings, if they wish,

and make their contribution.

We have had good discussions. We will be holding meetings. We

will be going to Labrador West, and hopefully going to the Straits. Wherever

people want to meet with me, we will meet with them, and we will have a good,

solid set of discussions, and when we have all the health facts - the health

facts - and we have these analyzed, and compare them with our scenarios, we will

then pick out either one of those scenarios, or a modification of one, or an

entirely new one, and I will then present that to my colleagues in Cabinet for a

decision.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Finance.

Back in December of 1992, in the dying hours of that session,

the minister squeezed through the House two pieces of legislation - one, the

Gasoline Tax amendment, another, the Tobacco Tax Act amendment. Neither of those

acts or those amendments have been proclaimed to this date, and the business

community certainly doesn't wish to see them ever proclaimed. Can the minister

tell us: Is government not going to proclaim them, and if not, is he prepared

now to have them rescinded?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, during the last month or so I

have been busy with some other matters, but there is still a meeting or a couple

of meetings that need to be held, and they will be held in the near future.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I take it from that, the

minister is still proposing to move ahead with those acts. Will he tell us,

therefore, the status of similar legislation proposed for the Retails Sales Tax

Act? Is government still moving ahead with plans to introduce an amendment to

that act similar to the kinds of provisions in the Gasoline Tax and Tobacco Tax

Acts?

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

MR. BAKER: When Cabinet makes the final decision on that,

everybody will be notified at that time. I can't prejudge what is going to

happen in the Cabinet process.

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

for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, on another slightly different

topic, now that we know that the Hydro Bill is not going to be coming before

this session of the House, at least perhaps not until the Fall, has the minister

had any contact with the credit rating agencies in New York over the past couple

of days? Have they called them to express any concern? or have they indicated to

them that they may be having another look at the Province's credit rating now

that the Hydro Bill is not going through? The Premier had wanted to lead the

people of Newfoundland to believe that the credit rating was very much dependent

on the privatization going ahead.

Will the minister confirm that he hasn't had any calls and,

if not, will he now confirm that what the Premier was trying to put over the

people of the Province was to simply have them believe something that was

totally false?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member can't impute motives to another member.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: I will ignore the foolish part of his

question, Mr. Speaker.

I should inform the hon. House, because it is an important

matter, that there have been calls from the credit rating agencies, and just

this morning, for instance, the credit rating agencies - well, either this

morning, or it is happening this afternoon - are receiving a briefing on the

status of that situation, so there have, indeed, been concerns expressed by the

credit rating agencies.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Concerns or enquiries? two different things.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier.

Yesterday, in answers to questions posed by the Leader of the

Opposition, the Premier said that the public opinion poll he commissioned on

Hydro privatization cost about $6,000, but he wouldn't say who did the poll; he

point-blank refused to tell the House who did the poll.

Will the Premier tell us today, who did the poll?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question

was given yesterday and it hasn't changed.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The supplementary is for the Premier.

Why the cover-up? Isn't the poll being paid for by the

government with public funds and, isn't it unethical for the Premier to withhold

from the taxpayers information about who did the poll?

MR. WINDSOR: What about the Freedom of Information Act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My experience with the Opposition in the last month or so

leads me to believe that they are trying -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I can't hear the Premier's reply.

PREMIER WELLS: - leads me to believe that they will stop

at nothing to try to interfere with anything that the government is seeking to

do. They have called people in businesses and industries and so on in this

Province, to try to distort and misrepresent what the government is trying to

achieve. I am simply not going to expose the people to that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What a cover-up!

MR. SIMMS: You can't be forthright, can you?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

More supplementaries for the Premier.

I ask him again: Isn't it unethical for the Premier to

withhold from the taxpayers of this Province, who are paying for the poll, the

information about the people who did the poll? Which firm did the poll or, was

the poll done in-house by the Premier, his Liberal members or his political

staff, and further, is the government poll ongoing, is it what's called a

rolling poll?

Will the Premier continue to poll the citizens of the

Province about Hydro privatization, no matter what it costs, in his futile

search for a poll that will give him the result he is looking for, and what

result is he looking for, what level of public support for Hydro privatization

does he think is required for the government to proceed with the dastardly deed

of privatizing our electrical generating utility?

AN HON. MEMBER: My hydro utility.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are you giving it (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It won't be yours (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I explained to the House why

I didn't answer the question from the Opposition. The people of the Province

aren't asking for it, the Opposition are asking for it and I have explained to

them why I am not prepared to table that information at this time; but what I

will do, Mr. Speaker, talking about money spent - what I will do is, I will get

a complete accounting of the money spent by the former government on polls,

exactly how much they spent, and will table information as to how much of it

they made public in the Province and table exactly what this government has

spent on polls.

MR. SIMMS: Why don't you table who did your poll - tell

us who did your poll?

MS. VERGE: Why the cover-up?

MR. WINDSOR: You will have to get it under the Freedom of

Information.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What a cover-up!

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

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the absence of the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, I am going to put my question to the Premier.

People all over this country, Premier, live in parks, but

here in St. John's, people within Pippy Park are having a very difficult time

with the attitudes of the Commission, and it is time for a review of the

legislation and to make sure that a resident or two of the Park are represented

on the boards. I am asking your office if it (inaudible) to help with those

people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with the

hon. member that it is time for review of the functioning of the Commission. As

a matter of fact, the matter is under review at the moment.

We don't think, necessarily, that we need a full-time - the

practice has been and we followed it for a few years after we took

responsibility for government, to appoint somebody at the deputy minister level

to be Chairman of the Pippy Park Commission. We don't think that is necessary.

We think we can operate the system at a lower cost than that; either by

part-time or outside individuals on the chair, as the Chairman of the Pippy Park

Commission, and run it with officials or staff or employees. We don't think we

need that kind of structure. The whole thing is under review at the moment.

There is another aspect of it. People who live in Pippy Park

have problems, and I think that this is what the member is referring to. I have

a number of exchanges of correspondence underway at the moment from people who

live in Pippy Park who are concerned about policies and the way in which they're

being applied. All of that is under review at this moment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased today to table the final report of the Select

Committee on the practice of public accountancy in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, if I might give a brief

summary of the work of

the committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If I could have a little more silence in the House. I'm

having trouble hearing the hon. member.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, the committee received evidence

from some thirty-seven witnesses over a three day period representing the views

of all sectors of the accounting profession. Our deliberations attracted a great

deal of interest, not only in this Province but from other jurisdictions across

Canada.

Mr. Speaker, in reaching the decision on the questions

referred, your committee had to consider a number of competing interests,

namely: Public protection from unqualified practitioners; adequate competition

in the marketplace; and fairness to all accounting bodies.

Mr. Speaker, after careful consideration of the evidence and

a review of legislation governing public accounting in other jurisdictions, it

is the opinion of your committee that the licensure as public accountants or

qualified CGAs and CMAs would enhance competition without compromising the

public interest provided that the appropriate legislative controls are put in

place. Your committee is recommending that each body of accountants license

their own members. The committee also recommends that a standards directorate be

established and that mandatory participation by the three accounting bodies be

legislated.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion your committee commends to the

House of Assembly the Alberta model of concurrent public practice rights with

appropriate safeguards to protect the public interest. This model has been

agreed to by all three accounting groups in Alberta and has worked effectively

since 1987.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to

thank the committee members for their tremendous input, cooperation and

dedication in carrying out the work of the committee. I want to thank the Member

for Mount Pearl, the vice-chair, the Member for Kilbride, the Member for Port au

Port, and the Member for St. John's North. I want to give special thanks to the

assistant clerk and clerk of committees, Ms Murphy, for her efforts throughout

the process.

Thank you very much and thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague,

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I would like to table the

report of the Public Tender Act exceptions for the month of April, 1994.

MR. SPEAKER: I hereby table the report of the Commission

of Internal Economy.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inform the hon. House

that the audited financial statements for the Province of Newfoundland Pool and

Pension Fund for the year ending December 31, 1993, are ready for tabling.

Some of the points worthy of note include the fact that the

pension fund grew by 21.3 per cent during the year and had investments at the

market value totalling $967.1 million as of December 31, 1993. This growth is

perhaps greater than the growth in previous years. There was a pay out of about

$111 million from the fund and the value of investments, the percentage return

on investments, about 24 per cent. So it's rather good.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 122

Newfoundlanders from various parts of the Province of Newfoundland; from Fleur

Clarenville.

Mr. Speaker, these individuals, the undersigned, are

concerned about the importation of garbage for final disposal in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, which they say is an indignity to our people and

should not be seen as a growth industry for the future and for the Province.

They're concerned about the final disposal being destructive and hazardous to

our physical environment, and with the exception of any established regional

obligations, should not be undertaken on behalf of any jurisdiction other than

our own. They are concerned that the adoption of the waste trade industry would

signal the destruction of what we hold dear about our Province.

It goes on to say, Mr. Speaker - and this should be of

interest to the government - that the overwhelming majority of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador are opposed in principle to such industrial

initiatives.

Your petitioners respectfully request the hon. House to take

such action as may be necessary to enact or amend legislation to say no to

industrial schemes which have as their objective the importation of waste for

final disposal in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, this petition, Mr. Speaker, is part of a growing

petition that is being organized by the Say No To American Garbage group, a

petition which already has about 6000 signatures on it, and will be continuing

as a campaign throughout the summer to demonstrate on paper the reality of

public opinion polls that have been done, that have established that the public

of Newfoundland and Labrador is overwhelmingly - and I am talking about in the

order of 80 to 90 per cent - opposed to this particular type of process.

Now, we have before the Minister of Environment and Lands,

right now, a proposal that the Premier spoke about yesterday, to import

contaminated materials to Baie Verte. They are called asbestos contaminated

materials, and what that means is there has to be at least some asbestos in it.

Whatever the rest of it is, we do not know. The only criteria is that they be

asbestos contaminated materials.

We are at the stage now, Mr. Speaker, where the Environmental

Preview Report has been presented. The minister has given a deadline of June 17

for submissions on it. The concern is that over the summer when the government

thinks that nobody is looking, they are going to release this project from

further environmental assessment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the government that this is a

very serious matter with far-reaching implications and a precedent setting issue

that must have, and deserves to have, full public discussion and involvement all

over this Province. It is not just a concern of the people of Baie Verte,

although they are opposed to it. The Baie Verte Economic Development Committee

is opposed to it and various municipalities in that area have stated their

opposition to it.

Who is this project for, Mr. Speaker? Initially, when the

environmental protection guidelines were put forth, the government was named as

the proponent. On April 17, 1991 the guidelines for the preparation of an

environmental preview report states on Page 2: `identification of the proponent

for the purposes of the EPR, government is considered the proponent and should

also identify how it intends to operate the proposed project.'

This was when James Noseworthy Limited who were receiver and

manager of Baie Verte Mines Inc. made the initial application, or continued it

on behalf of Baie Verte Mines Inc. while in receivership.

AN HON. MEMBER: The government are the receiver, is that

it?

MR. HARRIS: Well, this was issued by the minister. The

guidelines issued by the minister, the Environmental Preview Report Guidelines

included the statement that for the purposes of the EPR the government is

considered the proponent and should also identify how it intends to operate the

proposed project.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that government has been intimately

involved in this from the very beginning. We had the Premier yesterday saying

that it wasn't an industrial waste importation project, but what it was, he

said, and I quote him, "There's no proposal to import American garbage" - which

is not what I said - "There is a proposal that would consider putting back into

the hole from which asbestos came in the past, asbestos waste, from whatever the

source."

Mr. Speaker, the Premier would have us believe that this is

some kind of come home year for asbestos fibres. This is not the swallows coming

back to Capistrano. This is in fact the wholesale importation of industrial

waste which, amongst other things, contains asbestos. There is very grave and

important concern about what is involved in this whole process. There are, in

fact, very serious worldwide concersn about the industrial waste industry. The

toxic waste trade is notorious for its ability to get rid of toxic industrial

garbage in various ways.

A recent edition, June 2, of The European newspaper, a

weekly newspaper, distributed worldwide, under the headline, Squads Track Toxic

Smugglers, talks about the fact that police in twelve countries are mounting an

international operation to track down criminal gangs who are moving into the

lucrative trade of toxic waste smuggling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: We've got to force them, Mr. Speaker -

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

The hon. member's time has expired.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we get into the

substance of the afternoon's debate, I must ask the House to engage in one of

the more arcane procedural manoeuvres that it is possible for this House to do.

Yesterday or the day before, I forget just when, we adopted an amendment to the

Mineral Act. This morning we discovered that two words had been left out of the

amendment which have the effect I am told of negating the amendment and in fact

making the situation worse.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

MR. A. SNOW: The words are included in the Explanatory

Notes.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. My friend for Burin - Placentia West

reminds me that the words are clearly in the Explanatory Notes. I don't quite

know what happened that those who were responsible - and I guess in the long run

that is me - for writing the Explanatory Notes got it right, and those who were

responsible for doing the amendment - which in the long run is me - got it

wrong; but that is what happened.

Apparently this problem has come up before because somebody -

I'm not sure if it was in my time in the House or not - wrote rule 60A in the

Standing Orders which in the first sentence says: "When a Bill has been read a

third time and passed, the third reading and passing may be declared rescinded

by a majority vote..." So, I will ask leave of the House - because I cannot give

notice of this motion a day in advance - to deal with the motion I am about to

make under rule 60A which says that Bill 19,

An Act To Amend The Mineral Act, be

declared rescinded and recommitted to Committee.

If the leave is given I shall then ask to have the motion

put.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. ROBERTS: I understand leave is given. The motion is

put. If Your Honour would put the question we can then get on with this

business.

MR. SPEAKER: I suspect we need first of all leave on the

motion itself.

All those in favour of rescinding Bill No. 19 in accordance

with Standing Order 60A and then recommitting the House to Committee signify by

`aye'. Contrary-minded, `nay'.

Motion carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I thank members.

Would you be good enough please to resolve the House into

Committee of the Whole? The first thing we will deal with is Bill 19 and get

that straightened out.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): Order, please!

Bill No. 19. The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Bill No. 19, Your Honour. This stands in the

name of my friend, the Minister of Mines and Energy, and since a minister may

not amend her or his own act, may I move the following amendment to

section 3:

To delete all the words in quotations and replace them with the following: "41.1

The minister may make regulations for the purpose of paragraph 4(1)(b),

exempting from the operation of this Act the minerals in, on or under those

lands and lands under water that are defined."

I would say to the Committee, by way of explanation, that

adds the words `and lands' to the wording of

section 3 as it was in the bill as

printed.

I move the amendment, Sir.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 3 as amended, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill,

with amendment, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, that disposes of Bill 19.

We were getting on so very well yesterday with my friend from

Mount Pearl and my friend from Gander, discussing the NLCS Bill, which is Order

3, Bill No. 24, that I would ask if Committee could resume its discussion of

that. We got, I believe, to clause 10, and we were discussing clause 10 and the

proposal to amend clause 10.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It almost became a knuckles bill too.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from Grand Bank is correct; it

almost became a bare knuckles bill, but I understand overnight there may have

been kiss and make up time.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you would sit down, we could

(inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I would be delighted to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 24, we are on clause 10. The hon. the

Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned yesterday

the Minister of Finance was trying to put some words in my mouth, which I

objected to. The Minister of Finance was trying to suggest that I was saying

that we should eliminate, we should disband, Newfoundland and Labrador Computer

Services and start from scratch. I said no such thing. The minister is being

less than honest, and he knows the difference in that, because we have supported

the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services in principle

ever since the concept first came up. Both publicly and here in the House, the

Leader of the Opposition and other members on this side, myself, have supported

the concept.

What we are finding here, what we are seeing here now,

though, is that the minister is bringing in some enabling legislation. We don't

have a problem with that, we realize he has to do that, but we have a right and

a responsibility as Opposition to question where he proposes to go with this

enabling legislation. Obviously we have to have a certain level of trust and

confidence in the government. It is hard for us to do at times, but nevertheless

we do have to have a certain measure of trust and confidence.

What we found out yesterday, with the amendment that came in,

was that first of all Memorial University now was added to it. That simply

brought to light the value of the contract that is being bargaining away here as

well. We don't have a problem with selling the company. That makes a certain

amount of sense if we can get the same level of service at a lower cost.

Otherwise, what is the objective of privatizing it? Some benefit, I guess, in

taking back some investment capital. I assume we will get some investment

capital out of it. Maybe the minister could tell us what he expects to get.

Maybe he can give us a ballpark figure. Negotiations must have progressed to

that stage now. I suspect they are very close to being finalized on computer

services. Maybe the minister can give us an idea of how much he proposes to get

for the bricks and the mortar, and then tell us how much he proposes to get for

the sale of that contract for however many years, and the minister has not told

us how many years.

As I indicated yesterday, I would be a lot more comfortable

if this act, this amendment, had in it some sort of a sunset clause that gave

the minister the right to award the contract for up to, say, five years. I would

like to see something definitive, not an open-ended blank cheque, as this is,

for the Minister of Finance to sell computer services, and with it give all

government computer business including Memorial University, including

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I assume - although if the other bill goes

through it will be pretty hard for government to commit Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. That's an interesting question: What is going to happen to the

Hydro contract because Computer Services - unless things have changed - Computer

Services does a tremendous amount of work for Hydro as well and all other Crown

corporations. Memorial University alone I understand is something like $21

million a year, that is just what Memorial University pays to Computer Services.

Maybe the minister would like to tell us the overall value of

the work. How much is Computer Services worth to us now? How much does he expect

to have to pay for that same work? Is it less or is it more is the question. How

much are we getting for it in return? I mean, are we getting a $10-million bonus

for the business for that contract, because what we are doing is selling a

contract without tender and that is a real concern that we have on this side of

the House, Mr. Chairman. I would ask the minister to tell us just how much he

expects to get for it, what is it worth and what is it going to cost us in the

future for that same business? Because unless there is a substantial savings to

government, including the benefit of eliminating whatever debt may be eliminated

by taking out whatever capital - the minister will tell us I hope now how much

capital we expect to recover, how much debt we hope to eliminate. There are

benefits to that.

The minister surely by now has done a cost benefit analysis

on that, can quantify for us the real benefit of eliminating that debt and of

having that extra capital to do other things with. Maybe the minister can tell

us, in return for that how much we pay over the next number of years in

additional costs for the same services that we get today?

So, Mr. Chairman, I will sit and maybe the minister can

answer those questions for me.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I explained yesterday, we had hoped that this particular

initiative would have been completed before now, however it has turned out to be

a very complex situation, primarily because our main objective is simply not to

sell a company. Our main objective is to provide for the further development of

the information technology industry in the Province, and that makes it a very

complex situation. So the privatization of NLCS is not yet completed.

Discussions are still ongoing on some of the major points. We hope it will be

finalized before the end of June.

Now this creates some problems. Had, for instance, the deal

been finished by the end of May or the middle of May or whatever, if it had now

been completed, I could give the hon. House the full details of the contract,

the full details including the pay out price, including the conditions attached

to the privatization, including the guarantees of contracting out to the other

IT firms in the Province, including the amount of extra business, including the

cost of doing business in terms of the government and MUN with the new company;

and all of these details would be exact and could easily have been provided to

the House.

However, the deal is not yet finished and may not finish.

There may be wrinkles come up in the next couple of weeks that we can't deal

with, in which case there will be no deal. So at this point in time many of the

numbers, to which the hon. gentleman is referring, cannot be provided. That

being the case we cannot wait till the fall. If in fact the deal does go through

in the next few weeks, we can't wait for the fall before we actually finish it

because you will be dependent upon things happening almost immediately. I think

right now they are in the process of planning and starting to construct an

extension on the building and this will be fully covered by the new company

rather than the old one; and we have guarantees that it won't cost the

government any money.

The cost of doing business with the new company will not be

outside the cost of normally doing that kind of business. This is not a

sweetheart deal and will not be a sweetheart deal, but I must say that the

length of the service guarantee we provide will ultimately determine the price

we get for it. If we were to, for instance, not agree to any service extension,

then the company at this point in time would be worth very little. If we were to

agree to a three-year service extension, it would be worth a bit more, a

five-year, seven-year, ten-year, depending on what we do with that, that will

determine the value, and the negotiations have not yet finished. I can assure

the hon. member there will be a limit, there will be a sunset provision, there

will be a specific limit to the guarantee of service or business that will be

provided to the new company and will not be for a long time. It will be

realistic in terms of that company standing on its own two feet and giving it

time to develop the other IT businesses in the Province.

With regard to the building, itself, we don't want to sell

the building - I pointed that out; therefore, there can be no particular number

put on the bricks and mortar. We are not going to sell the bricks and mortar. We

are going to enter into a long-term lease, and that is the hope of the end

result of this contract, to lease the building and receive so much payment each

year for the use of the building from that company, so the amount of revenue to

the Province will depend upon the value of that lease. If the lease is $200,000

a year, then a certain sum will accrue, if it is $300,000 there will be a bigger

sum. So that building will be leased to the new company because we prefer not to

sell the building.

Now, obviously, the partners in the consortium, NewTel,

Anderson Consulting, and Bell Sigma prefer to own the building outright. That is

the best deal from their perspective, they would rather own the building

outright, but our position is, no, and this is one of the points that has been

causing some delay in reaching an agreement.

Unfortunately, a lot of the numbers are not available. I will

check in the next few minutes to see specifically what business MUN gives

Computer Services, but it is certainly not $21 million. It is a very much lower

number, as far as I know, and would again be subject to MUN's budget each year.

The amount of business we give has been reducing in the last three years because

of our financial problems, and

whereas there are changes we would like to make

in the way government operates in terms of computers, we have not been able to

do perhaps what is ideal, so the amount of business we have been doing with NLCS

has been getting less and less over the last couple of years, and depending on

the financial situation may indeed decrease in future years.

As to how much business over the five or seven years, or

whatever it happens to be, the three years, or whatever it happens to be, that

we are guaranteeing the business, there can be no absolute guarantees except to

say that whatever business we have we will do during that period in time. There

can be no value put on it. So, aside from the past numbers - I can easily find

out how much business MUN did over the last one, two, or three years, that type

of number, but I can't provide any others because the contracts are simply not

completed.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, what concerns me now is that

the minister doesn't even know the numbers. I appreciate that negotiations

aren't completed so the numbers obviously can't be completed, but he must have

some concept. Negotiations have been ongoing now for months, on this particular

takeover, and surely the minister can give us better information than that on

exactly the ballpark figures. He may not have final numbers but, I think, the

minister can give us ballpark figures.

And I guess the question is, as the minister just said, if

the amount of government business is decreasing, what guarantees are we giving

this new company? If government decides next year, or the year after, to greatly

decrease the amount of services it needs from the new corporation, are we locked

into any minimal payment, any fixed payment, or is it on a fee-for-service

basis, totally depending on the amount of work that is being done? These are

questions, Mr. Chairman, of which we need to know the answers, the terms of

which we are still very concerned about.

I mean, we could stand here and argue that they shouldn't

receive any work without going through the public tender process. They may well

be the only firm in the Province for the next number of years that can bid on

it. There may well be other firms from outside the Province that would bid on

it. So that's why I can accept the fact of giving them some comfort for a few

years. We would not want this new company to lose that business for the next few

years until they can strengthen and take advantage - the advantage of

privatizing NLCS, the only advantage that I can see, is that it allows NLCS to

compete for private business.

Until now we've tied their hands pretty much and said: you

can do government business, you can do government agencies and you can do some

outside business if there's nobody else in the Province capable of doing it or

interested in it but you're not to be out there competing with private firms

unfairly. And it's not fair that a government-financed corporation, built and

paid for with government funding, with taxpayers' dollars, should be out there

unfairly competing in the private sector. That's the real advantage of

privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, to allow them to

expand. Hopefully, in five years time they'll be twice as large as they are now,

and only half of their business will be government business, the other half will

be from private enterprise. That's what we would like to see but, Mr. Chairman,

we need some comfort that in five years time they will have to go through a

public tendering process. If they haven't put themselves, in five years, in a

position where they can compete with anybody for that business - particularly

where they've been doing this business and only this business ever since it was

formed, it's the purpose for which it was formed - they should be in the

position to know exactly what is required and to compete with anybody from

anywhere. They should be in that position now but I can understand wanting to

give them five years comfort.

I can understand the investors, who are putting their money

into this company, wanting to know that they have a company that's worth

multimillion dollars and that tomorrow, by a stroke of a pen in a Cabinet

meeting, government can't take away their whole business, 100 per cent of their

business. If it was 10 per cent or 20 per cent, then perhaps that's an

acceptable risk, but 100 per cent of their business at the moment from one

client, all the apples in one barrel, we can appreciate that they want some

comfort. We're prepared to accept that, but we're not prepared to give

government a blank cheque, an open-ended contract to give this business to this

new company without public tender.

So, in that regard, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to propose a

sub-amendment, seconded by my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, to

basically add after the end of the amendment that we're now debating, which

reads at the end, `the currency of those agreements', after that add the words:

`for a maximum period of five years.' That's all we're saying, is to restrict

this right of government to give that work without public tender, because that's

what the government is asking: no public tender, no public preference act, no

provincial preference. The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act goes by the

wayside, of course. The Restraint Act goes out because now it's a private

company. The Reciprocal Taxation Agreement Act, all of these things are being

written off by these amendments. So all this sub-amendment says, Mr. Chairman,

is simply to put a five-year limit on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WINDSOR: On the government's right to give these - to

sign an agreement giving all of the government's work to the new computer

company for a maximum of five years. The minister may find he only wants to do

it for three years. But we're prepared to go along with giving a five-year

lease, without tender, under these circumstances. We certainly wouldn't want to

see it open-ended as it is here today. It's asking for a blank cheque, no time

limit on it and no opportunity for other companies to come and grow in the

Province and compete for this business, Mr. Chairman. I ask the minister: Would

he not consider a very simple amendment? Would the Page like to take the

amendment?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the clause as it now reads specifies, `during

the currency of the agreements' and limits the length of time to a time definite

within the agreements. So it puts a time limit on it and does not open it up

forever unless the agreement says, `this is forever.'

Now, at this point in time, I am not prepared to accept the

sub-amendment. I would be prepared to specify that there will be no indefinite

extension.

I want to assure the hon. gentleman that

whereas - he has

picked a number out of thin air without really looking at the situation, the

dynamics, the new company structure, the conditions of the IT industry in the

Province and so on. All of a sudden he has magically picked five years as a

point in time when there would be other people within the Province capable of

bidding. Then the business won't be lost to some mainland firm which is going to

do the work on the mainland and so on.

He has automatically picked five years, and, Mr. Speaker, I'm

not prepared to live with that number that he has simply come up with, without a

lot of background information, although he has a feeling, and he just picked it.

I'm not so sure that would fit the circumstances that exist in the Province

today, so I am not prepared to accept that type of restriction.

MR. WINDSOR: What number would the minister suggest then?

MR. BAKER: Not more than ten.

MR. WINDSOR: Not more than ten.

MR. BAKER: Something like that, yes.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman (inaudible)?

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minister is

saying ten years. I would have a little bit of comfort in ten years - not more

than ten years. It might be three years, it might be seven years, but at least

we would have some comfort. I think ten years is too long. I don't know how my

colleagues feel about this. Maybe somebody else would like to talk about it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Chairperson. I wanted to say a few

words about this because I think the minister is really getting off pretty

lightly with all this and I think it is time he answered some questions. I

asked, and had a whole series of questions the other day at second reading and

the minister chose at the end to treat it as some sort of rhetorical flight

about being opposed to profits.

Now, If the minister wants to treat this as a rhetorical

issue, he can, but I think the public of the Province are entitled to a little

bit more from the minister. I have a copy of the audited statement of NLCS,

Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, as of March 31, 1993, showing an

annual revenue for 1993 of $21 million and for 1992 of $20.679 million.

MR. WINDSOR: That's for everything?

MR. HARRIS: That is for operating revenue. The minister

has identified some millions - $10 million, perhaps, $11 million, government

business. What does that mean? Where does the other $11 million come from? If

the minister doesn't know, well, say he doesn't know and tell us that he doesn't

know what he is doing negotiating a deal on the sale of it if he doesn't know

where the revenues are coming from. I don't think that is the position of the

government. I think the government does know. Total operating revenues are $21

million. They've gone up by $400,000 from 1992. The government's business might

be going down but it is not going down by very much, and it is being replaced by

business from somewhere else.

What makes up the $21 million? Is it government business,

government agencies, Hydro corporation perhaps? Is it MCP? Does he consider that

government business or does he consider that something else? Is that government

business? Is Hydro government business or is that outside business? We are

talking about $21 million with an operating profit or net income of $3.4

million. I see nothing wrong with profit. You can get up and say that I'm

attacking profit and attacking - I think it is wonderful to have an income

stream of $3.4 million of net income. That's what is being sold, not the

building. I think the building means nothing. The building is only a place out

of which you operate. Any company with revenues of $21 million can manage to

find accommodation.

MR. BAKER: You are wrong in what you just said.

MR. HARRIS: I'm wrong. Well, if I'm wrong then the

minister, I'm sure, will have lots of opportunity to get up and say - the night

is young. It is only 3:00 p.m. He will have lots of opportunity to get up and

tell us where I'm wrong. If the operating revenues are $21 million, then the

question is: what is the source of those revenues? The university is part of it,

perhaps Hydro is part of it, perhaps other government agencies or Crown

corporations are other parts of it, but they do have a net income. They had a

net income for the year 1993 of $3.4 million, in 1992, it was considerably less,

$755,000; nevertheless, they are carrying a retained earnings of $2.8 million.

It appears to have paid a dividend of $2 million in 1993 and I guess that is a

dividend to the people of Newfoundland.

Now, if the minister wants to sell the corporation, I don't

quarrel in principle with the idea if it is going to do any good, but the

minister hasn't answered the questions, and you know, maybe I should ask him one

at a time and sit down and let him answer them. I mean, we will keep it simple,

I will ask one question, I will sit down and let you answer it, and then I can

ask another question to see if you could try to answer that. The minister hasn't

yet answered any of the questions that I have asked.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Finance - and maybe he

doesn't intend to, maybe what he wants is a carte blanche from this Committee,

from the House to go ahead and do what he likes over the summer and announce it

after the fact, have a press conference and say: Oh, well, we are telling the

public what we have just done; but he already would have signed the contract and

he will say: Well, we have the legislative power to do it. but I think if the

minister expects to get away in the dying days of this session, with a piece of

legislation and no answers for the public, then I think we may be here for a

little while. Is the minister prepared to answer some of these questions?

MR. BAKER: What questions?

MR. HARRIS: Well, the question is: what is the source of

the operating revenue of $21 million dollars? If the minister is saying: I don't

know, then I will have to condemn him as a minister who is unable and who

shouldn't be negotiating this deal. You know, he suggested that the Member for

Mount Pearl was wrong when he said Memorial University was $21 million. What

kinds of games are you playing? We all know that the total revenue is $21

million; you have said -

MR. BAKER: You can't both be right. If the total revenue

is $21 million, and he is saying all the $21 million is from MUN, then somebody

has to be wrong.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible), twenty-one is a number

(inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, obviously, that is not correct, but I

mean, who has the answers? Does the minister have the answers, if he does, why

doesn't he get up and tell us, of the $21 million, what proportion comes

directly from government and what proportion comes from Hydro or other sources,

and what makes all this up? The public is being asked to agree that the minister

can do what he likes with this corporation and make whatever deal he wants and

bypass the Public Tender Act for an indefinite, unlimited period if he so wishes

and, in essence, guarantee to this new entity some sort of financial stability.

Now, I don't have any objections to that in principle, that

if there is a company that is guaranteeing, for example - and we haven't heard

anything about that - a certain level of new investment, if it was a company

that was guaranteeing a certain level of new jobs, if a company was guaranteeing

a certain level of technology transfer from a company like Bell Sigma and

Anderson Consulting, if those were the benefits that were being held out and he

could say this is the level of benefits or this is the area in which we are

looking for benefits, and we are going to have commitments on this and we are

going to have commitments on that, we are going to have commitments on something

else, but we have to trade something off for it and what we are prepared to

trade off is an income stream involving $15 million-, $16 million-, $18 million-

or $21 million-worth of business potentially, for a period of four, five, six or

seven years, then we would know the ballpark in which the minister was prepared

to operate, but what we have now, is a totally open-ended situation where the

minister is not telling the public anything and after the fiasco that we have

had with the Hydro privatization scheme that has been floated around for the

last year or so, the public, frankly, expects a lot more from the government in

terms of what it is going to come forth with before the Opposition can be asked

to say yes to a proposal such as this.

It is obviously not on the same scale as Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, but, but, and I say this, if last year, as of March 31, 1993,

there was $3.4 million of net income, that is significant when compared to what

the government got out of Hydro in that same year, they got $10 million. Well,

out of this little company, NLCS, the government is getting one-third the amount

that it got out of the whole of Hydro in the same fiscal period. So, you know,

it is not peanuts we are talking about here, we are talking about a significant

revenue source, obviously of significant interest so that NewTel and Bell Sigma

and this international worldwide computer firm would be interested in it, so it

has to be of some significance and I think it is time for the minister to give

us some of the facts. I mean, he doesn't have to show his hand from a

negotiating point of view, but I think the public is entitled to know what kinds

of expectations the government has in terms of new investment, in terms of jobs,

in terms of technology transfer, and in terms of what it is prepared to give up

by way of going to the market for the same service it is now paying $21 million

for, government and government agencies, and the university or whatever, in what

proportion.

I would just like to give the minister an opportunity to

answer some of those questions, and not get on the flight of rhetoric that

perhaps he got involved in the other day, and I may have gotten involved in a

little bit myself, but there are certainly factual questions that are on the

table or the floor of the Committee at the moment, and I would like the minister

to take advantage of the opportunity to answer some of them.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, where should I start? The hon.

gentleman spends so much time repeating over and over again that there are all

of these questions that he wants answers to; and he keeps repeating it over and

over again, and talks about protecting the interests of Anderson Consulting, and

all this kind of stuff, and he goes on with a whole bunch of nonsense and it is

very difficult to pick out what specific questions he wants answered. It seems

as if he just wants to stand up for ten or fifteen minutes every now and then

and throw words at the Hansard people. Perhaps he likes to see them in print the

next day. He keeps repeating the same thing over and over again.

Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can explain the situation once

again. Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, the biggest chunk of its

business comes directly from the government and government departments. In

addition, it provides services to MUN and Hydro, and it does some business

outside. The Member for Mount Pearl is correct in the sense that if there is

some business out there that can only be done - they have access to some private

sector activity; let's put it that way, and that is the way that NLCS has

continued.

As a matter of fact, their mandate was changed a few years

ago. About three years ago their mandate was changed so that they could enter

into agreements with private sector companies to allow other smaller private

sector companies to bid on business in the private sector; NLCS would support

them as a backup. Therefore, NLCS got some business in the private sector

through co-operation and joint ventures with some private sector companies. So

that $21 million total revenue, I haven't got the breakdown at my disposal now,

but most of it is government business. It varied, I guess, from $11 million to

$14 million or $15 million when we were spending more money, so that is an

amount of government business. I am not sure what MUN was, but it might have

been $3 million or $4 million. The amounts from the other sources were much

smaller. The big chunk was government business.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we decide to privatize computer services.

If we had proceeded along the lines of simply saying: We are going to sell the

building, sell the equipment. We, as government, will just simply go on the

market to try to find services. We no longer will use Computer Services, no

longer have them; we will sell the building and equipment, then nothing would be

accomplished. I tell you what would be accomplished, and that is we would lose a

couple of hundred jobs in this Province, a couple of hundred very high- level

jobs. We would go to the general market and Systemhouse, or Bell Sigma, Bell

Canada, or IBM and so on would get our computer business, and it would all be

handled on the mainland somewhere, and that would be straight privatization of

selling off Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services. That is what would

happen; we would lose hundreds of jobs.

In order to entice one of the larger companies in the world

to come in here - and we had bids from Systemhouse, we had bids from IBM, and we

had bids involving Anderson Consulting, which happens to be the biggest. In

order to entice some of the larger companies to come in here and set up a

computer business and bring computer business from other parts of the world into

this Province, and to develop a company existing in this Province, providing

jobs in this Province that could have an impact worldwide in terms of going

after worldwide business, that we would have to leave computer services as it is

- in other words, still with the government business, with the normal business

it normally carries on.

So, this is not avoiding the Public Tender Act, in that

sense. It is for a period of time trying to leave Computer Services as it is so

that it could grow and be built with the extra business from these other outside

companies.

A contract is in the process of being worked on. Now, I know

it might be very difficult for the Member for St. John's East to understand, but

the contract has not yet been arrived at, and until it is arrived at, I can't go

around all over the place giving all kinds of details of what is being discussed

because it could affect our final position. Not only that, but if this deal does

fall apart, we then have to go back to one of the others and it wouldn't be to

our benefit to be releasing all kinds of details, even if I had them at my

fingertips. I would have to be very careful about what kinds of details I can

give.

What I can say is that rather than destroy a couple of

hundred jobs - we could leave it as it is and have no growth, or we could simply

sell it off and destroy a couple of hundred jobs in the Province. We could do

that quite easily, and then, allow our work to be done on the mainland, or we

could try to keep that company as it is, allowing the private sector to build on

it, until we have a larger, more capable company getting business elsewhere in

Canada and elsewhere in the world - we could try that approach, which is the

approach we chose.

If we don't go ahead with this, NLCS would do all our

business. It is not subject to public tender then. We are not changing the

situation at all, except that we are putting a limit. We are saying in the

contract that there will be a definitive limit on the length of time that we can

guarantee services to this company. Because once they've grown to the point and

have enough outside business and develop some local companies to the extent that

they can then bid on some government business, at that point in time then there

is no longer a protection. At that point in time we will go through the public

tender process to have our business taken care of.

In the process, as well, whatever is in that contract it is

not selling, as the Member for St. John's East implies, a cash flow of $3

million or $4 million. That is not what it is at all, not at all. What is

happening now is, it is our company and it is really a transfer of funds. If we

transfer too much funds over for the work that is done, then we take it back at

the end of the year. That's what it is. That's what he is seeing there. This is

not a real business situation. This is an internal government thing by-and-large

and we are not selling a cash flow of $3 million or $4 million. We are not

guaranteeing that on our business, anybody will make $3 million or $4 million or

anything like it.

But my problem is, again, I can't divulge, until the

contracts have been completed, any details of the contract. It will be a

contract that will be competitive. It won't be an automatic, as the Member for

St. John's East seems to imply, $3 million or $4 million we are giving someone

else. We are certainly giving them our business for a short period of time. The

out.

I really can't give any more details than those because it

doesn't exist. If hon. members want to hold this thing up, that's fine. We can

stay here, I suppose, until - as long as we need to get this through, and we

will do that. It is a good deal for the Province. It is an attempt to develop an

IT industry in this Province that creates more jobs, more high-paying jobs. For

hon. members to say: Yes, but you as government now could go and give the whole

thing away, and all this kind of stuff. That is foolishness, absolute

foolishness! That is where I sort of turn off my hearing aid, the Member for St.

John's East, when he gets on with all this nonsense. Because I know what we are

up to and it is not in our interest to do things that would give away that

business and give away jobs and give away the company and give away money - we

are trying to save money, trying to create more jobs - we have no intent to do

that.

He sort of casts all kinds of doubt on it, about protecting

the interests of Anderson Consulting, I believe, he mentioned. Anderson

Consulting could swallow this Province and wouldn't even know notice it, for

heavens sake. Our Budget means nothing to Anderson Consulting. We are not

protecting the interests of Anderson Consulting. They would laugh at it, if they

heard the hon. member saying something like that.

We are interested in protecting the interests of the

Province, in getting a large company involved in a local company here, that can

bring a lot of business here and can create more jobs here. That is what we are

interested in. We are not interested in giving everything away. That is

nonsense! That is why I sort of turn myself off as he goes on with that. If he

would simply ask a question and then I would give an answer, but he has to go on

with ten minutes of rhetoric with every question he asks. That is something I

find difficult to listen to.

Mr. Speaker, I could easily find out and table the exact

breakdown over the last five years of the source of all the money and so on. I

do not have it off the top of my head, but I could send that to him tomorrow, or

whatever, or try to get it this afternoon. That is no problem. There is nothing

secretive about that, it is all open information, but it has no bearing on the

situation here. It has no bearing on this situation.

Now, the Member for Mount Pearl is concerned about the fact

that there is no time limit. My position is that because it is limited to the

term of the contract, or contracts in this case, with MUN included, because it

is limited to those terms, that is in fact a limit. We know we are not going to

have an indefinite period of time. My concern in setting a specific time limit

is that this is being done by pulling a number out of the air without knowledge

of the computer industry in the Province, without an examination of it, as has

been done by these people who are negotiating, without a knowledge of all of the

other details of the way Computer Services works, and all these kinds of things;

which has been examined in detail by all the people who are working on this, all

with good intent. Without looking at all that, we pluck a number out of the air.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I suppose it would be acceptable to say not

more than ten years. I do not know what the constraints are in there.

MR. WINDSOR: I would go with seven. We have no problem

with seven. I think that is being fair.

MR. BAKER: I do not know why you are picking seven.

MR. WINDSOR: You didn't like five, so I said let's go

with seven.

MR. BAKER: Well, this is not a situation where you say

one thing, I say another, and we split the difference. To deal with an important

matter in that manner is absolutely crazy, and I can't agree to that, no.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps I am only speaking for the record, if the Minister of

Finance turns off his hearing aid and does not want to listen to what hon.

members on this side of the House are saying, but if I have to only speak for

the record then I will.

I say that $21 million worth of business, whether it is a

government owned company or a privately owned company - in this case it shows a

net revenue of $3.4 million operating net revenue. If it were a private company

we would expect that a private company would make a profit of 10 per cent or

thereabouts, perhaps a little more. That would be $2 million. So we are not

talking about zero money here, we are not talking about invented figures. These

bear a relationship to the cost of these services; otherwise I wouldn't expect

Memorial University of Newfoundland, the Board of Regents with the chairperson,

Janet Gardner, a businesswoman who knows about these things, the prices of

supplies, services, and things like that, that organization would not be happy

to pay overly inflated prices just because it happens to be NLCS. I think they

would have an objection if government was overpricing and taking it back in

revenues at the end of the year, or dividends at the end of the year.

I think it bears some relationship to reality. They are not

just shifting money back and forth. I am sure if I accused the minister of

shifting money back and forth, between Crown corporations and the government,

willy-nilly, he would accuse me of being rhetorical and making things up to try

and disturb the public confidence in the financial markets of the world or some

high-blown or highfalutin remark like that. We are talking here about a

reasonable level of return on $21 million worth of business.

The minister seems to have, in his pocket or on his

negotiating table, the ability to offer some guarantees at least of services for

the new company, some guaranteed business for the new company. He says that he

has the ability to negotiate on behalf of the government and say: We can get rid

of the public tender act or exempt it for a period of time for government

business, which is about $11 million. In addition to that he seems to be

speaking on behalf, or wants through his amendment to speak on behalf, of

Memorial University. Presumably he has their consent to negotiate on their

behalf as well.

Is it only the government direct business of about $11

million-plus, whatever the University, is that the only business that the

government is prepared to enter into long-term contractual relationships with,

the new corporation on behalf of it? Is that the only business? What is the

extent of it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment -

MR. HARRIS: I guess the minister has turned off his

hearing aid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to the amendment carry,

as proposed by the member for -

MR. ROBERTS: Could you read it, please?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Add after agreements, `for a maximum period

of five years.' That is the amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon.

Member for Mount Pearl.

All those in favour of the amendment, say `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment defeated.

MR. WINDSOR: How about seven, Wins? Will we go with

seven?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 10, the amendment as proposed by the

hon. Minister of Education.

All those in favour of the amendment?

AN HON. MEMBER: Can we read it?

MR. WINDSOR: Does the minister agree to seven on that,

Mr. Chairman? Does the minister want to speak?

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

MR. BAKER: In terms of the negotiation, I suppose we

could say three or five, but that will seriously affect whether we will be able

to get a deal, number one, or number two, the amount of guarantees that we can

get for extra business. The term affects the whole of the deal. That is why I'm

very leery of actually picking a number. I don't know if there is any way around

this. I would be willing to indicate that it is not indefinite, I would be

willing to indicate that it is not more than enough years to fit whatever

circumstance may arise, but I'm not going to do something here that is going to

make this deal fall apart, and then we are left with no possibility of

developing an IT industry in the Province. I can't restrict that.

You have to trust to the fact that we are trying to get the

best deal possible under the best conditions possible, that we would never

guarantee business for a period any longer than we would absolutely have to, and

that there is no intention of making it indefinite. There is an intention of

reaching a contract with a specified number of years. It might end up being

five, six, seven, eight, I'm not sure. If I start restricting the ability of the

negotiators to finish this deal and the whole thing falls apart then - I simply

can't allow that to happen.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. ROBERTS: If my friend would yield for a moment?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. ROBERTS: I'm conflicted in this debate, as I've

declared, so I do not speak to the merits. I'm wondering if it might be of any

advantage - there seems to be at least a semblance of a consensus. If we were to

adjourn the debate on this bill for a little time, perhaps my friend for Gander

and my friend for Mount Pearl could speak behind the Chair. They may or may not

find a solution.

While that is going on we could deal - we have another bill

to come before the Committee, the Workers' Compensation Commission bill. We

could deal with that, which may take a few moments. I don't know how long

members need. I offer that only as a suggestion. I'm not going to speak on this

debate. Maybe my friend the minister would move that the Committee adjourn this

debate and then we will call the Workers' Compensation bill.

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

MR. BAKER: I move that we adjourn this particular debate

in Committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It has been moved that the Committee

adjourn debate on Bill No. 24 and proceed to debate on Bill No. 27.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the bill at

committee stage; and I hope the minister is prepared to answer a few questions

on it. Yesterday, the Member for Kilbride and the minister had sessions back and

forth dealing with particular - I guess the Member for Kilbride was doing his

clause by clause debate yesterday and that's fair enough.

I did my general comments on the bill yesterday, particularly

with respect to what I believe is the removal of a right of appeal. I wonder if

I could engage the minister in a couple of interchanges with respect to that,

because I truly believe that the consequence of the legislation is that what

we're going to have is a review process which does not amount to an appeal. In

other words, at the review stage, what the review commissioner is to do is

merely decide whether or not the decision made by the commission was in

accordance with the act, regulations and policy established by the commission.

In other words, has the commission followed its own procedures and own policies?

What I am concerned about is that this is going to be

interpreted in such a way as to deny, in fact, a right of appeal on the merits

of a case. In other words, the judgement that's being made by the commissioners

as to various matters coming under the purview of the commission have to do with

compensation benefits, rehabilitation services, the assessment of an employer

but, in the main, this business of the compensation benefits and rehabilitation

services.

What often happens at the Workers' Compensation Appeal

Tribunal is in fact a questioning of the judgement of officials at the

commission level, whether they made the right judgement in a particular case. So

that judgement is subject to appeal and the current act gives the power to the

tribunal to assess the matter on the merits and justice of the case. Now that's

been removed. I know the minister made some comments about it yesterday and

suggested that I only selectively looked at that. But I say that that's gone and

what we're left with is a decision as to whether or not the policies and

procedures are being followed.

The minister made a few disparaging remarks, or insinuations

perhaps, about the capabilities of this hon. member as a lawyer. I think I'll

give him an opportunity to take that back or prove it. I would encourage him not

to treat the matter as one of aspersions about particular people's profession or

ability. We're talking here about a very serious policy matter and I know the

minister was making his comments tongue in cheek. So I'll publicly forgive him

for it even before he apologies. I know he's used to apologising. He has to do

it on many occasions, so it comes naturally.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: More than one at least, yes. So it does come

naturally to him and I understand that.

I would say that there is a serious point here and it's a

very important point. I know people who are active in Workers' Compensation

Appeals and who've been involved in workers advocacy, including MHAs - not this

hon. member because I haven't participated in this type of appeal. People are

very concerned that no longer will there be an appeal on the merits. If I'm

wrong in that assessment, perhaps having the minister put on record - not just

read out the section, we could all read the section, he read out the

section

yesterday - but will he say in this House that the intention of government in

dealing with this legislation and making the changes that they're making is that

there will still be an appeal on the merits, that there will still be an

opportunity for the review commissioner to decide on the merits of a case,

whether the review commissioner agrees with the judgement exercised by the

commission in making a decision on a particular (inaudible). Can the minister

respond to that?

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the issue as

raised by the Member for St. John's East, I think my comment yesterday, just to

clear the record with respect to his abilities as a practising member of the

legal profession, were to say that I understood that he has established some

credibility in the community as a representative of people in the work and

practise that he does. If it was misunderstood in any way, I certainly extend an

apology, because as the hon. member knows, certainly one of the things I firmly

believe in is that if you say things you either back them up and if you find

that you have offended somebody, I think you should retract. To me, an apology

is a normal part of life. I do it in my private live and personal life and in

public life, Mr. Chairman, and I find nothing offensive or demeaning about an

apology. As far as I am concerned, I have had many occasions in my life to

apologize either publicly or privately and don't hesitate to do so. If it is

merited and in order in this case, I certainly offer it, Mr. Chairman.

To deal with the issue though, I think the difference of

opinion is in this, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Member for St. John's East

represents - and this comes up in the bill I think really in the new language

that is in

section 26 which is part of clause 4, where it spells out, upon

receiving an application, a review commissioner may review a decision and decide

whether or not they act in accordance with the Act, regulations, policy and so

on. These are the things they are allowed to be reviewed. The hon. Member for

St. John's East is comparing that to the language of the current

section 25

which we are repealing.

There is a significant difference, there is no doubt about

that, but I think the difference of opinion, the point that I am trying to make,

is even with the current wording of

section 25, which begins with the phrase:

Notwithstanding the power of the commission to reconsider a matter, and ends

with clause 4 saying: the decisions or the appeal tribunal shall be upon the

real merits and justice of the case and is not bound to follow strict legal

precedent - the impact of the current

section 25 is what has tied up the system.

Because, even though it talks about the words `the real merits' and `justice of

the case', any time that the current appeal tribunal would have rendered a

decision using the words that they investigated, `the real merits' and `justice

of the case', to come to their decision, any time they use that language to come

to a decision that went beyond what the current act, the current regulations or

the current policies provided for, then the commission, every single time, went

back to the first words of 25 and refused to implement.

So there never has been, at the workers' compensation and

appeal tribunal any of this so-called `real merits' and `justice of the case'

that could lead to a decision by the tribunal that in any way went beyond or

varied any stipulation of the act, the regulations or the existing policies.

So while it is an argument that can be made, Mr. Chairman,

with all due respect, with the people who have been advising me and from my own

reading of it, it is clear - and this has been the experience and this has been

one of the real frustrations in the appeal tribunal system at the present time -

that any tribunal, three, with an employer rep, an employee rep and a Chair, who

will look at the real merits and justice of a case using

section 25 (4) as the

basis on which they were permitted to do that, that if they then rendered a

decision that in any way, shape or form strayed or appeared to be beyond the

limits of the legislation, it was struck down. It was not implemented by the

commission because the commission went back to

section 25 (1) which started that

whole

section and said: We have the power to reconsider and we are not doing it.

Despite what the appeal tribunal said, we are not doing it because of the fact

that it doesn't comply with the act. Or, if they looked at the real merits and

justice of the case and rendered the decision of the tribunal that was beyond or

varied the regulations that guide workers' compensation, the commission went

back to 25 (1) and said: Nice decision but we are not doing it. So really the

claimant was left with no decision.

They got a decision that was not enacted and was of no worth

or value to the claimant and only prolonged the time lines: went back for

review, went back for reconsideration, was overturned, was changed and the next

thing you know, it is twenty months later and the claimant who was dissatisfied,

still does not have a decision and is still cut off from workers' compensation.

So the very argument, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Member for St. John's East

puts forward, as to a significant difference, is no different, because any time

those words were used, even if it went beyond an existing policy - and I might,

Mr. Chairman, just conclude these few remarks because I think the preference is

to go back and forth quickly rather than at some length. I use this example

regularly, publicly.

One of the issues that's in vogue in much of the public

sector and elsewhere is the issue of provision of day care or child care.

Injured workers who had to go for rehabilitation, physiotherapy, and so on would

argue that they needed child care, that they needed someone to provide some

babysitting duties even for a couple of hours, and they thought that workers'

compensation should pay for it. The people who formulate the policies of

workers' compensation, employer reps, employee reps, and the neutral individuals

in the middle, they have never ever agreed that child care should be a benefit

paid for under workers' compensation.

So, even the couple of times when the appeal tribunal said,

yes, we have looked at the real merits and justices of the case and we think it

would be a lot easier for - mostly women - this injured woman to go and do her

physiotherapy if someone provided child care for her, and rendered a decision as

such. The commission said, but that is not your business. We set the policy.

That is not a current policy. You can think that is real merit and justice if

you like, but it is our role as the commission board to decide whether or not

there is child care, whether or not there is day care, and we have decided there

is none.

Therefore they go back to 25 (1) and say: Sure, you can look

at the real merits and justice of the case, but notwithstanding our power to

reconsider the matter. We have reconsidered it, it violates our policy and we

are not doing it. The appeal tribunal then could not make them do it. The person

had a no decision. Somebody went back and said: Can I have another hearing? Now

the clock starts thinking again. They get another date three or four months down

the road. They get another decision three or four months after that. Now year

has gone by, the issue isn't resolved and it is all because of the language that

was in the previous 25.

Now, it states clearly that, sure, they can look at pretty

well what they like but the only thing that is really going to have an impact,

and the only thing that the commission will be forced by law to implement, will

be a decision based upon the act, the statute, the regulations or the policies,

because that is, in effect, what they can do now regardless of what the existing

words say.

I hope that provides the necessary clarification.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his sincere apology for his remarks

made in the House the other day. I understand that he has occasion to do that,

and I appreciate his forthrightness on recognizing that is something we all need

to do occasionally in our lifetime, whether publicly or privately. His

willingness to do so only raises him in my esteem, and I won't take any

opportunity to make fun of him for doing that.

Mr. Speaker, on the issue itself, I have the minister's

assurance as to what exactly happened after decisions were made, and I accept

that. If the problem is that the opening words of the

section are, `not

withstanding the right to review,' then why doesn't he remove those offending

words? If those words are the problem, then its simply a matter of saying: Well,

if they are causing the whole system to have a circle in a loop that can't be

broken because you go back and forth from appeal to decision and refuse to

implement, and then go back again, then surely the answer is to break the circle

and say, no, we will not allow that.

The second thing I have to say on the particular issue - and

I would like a response to it, because by narrowing the powers of the

commissioner to only review decisions within policy, it seems to me, Mr.

Chairman - and the minister can respond to it. If, for example, the legislation

passed by this House, the law of the land, provided for an

interpretation of

compensation or benefits, and the

interpretation of that compensation or

benefits that was made up by the commission was one thing, and the courts or the

law or lawyers or a true

interpretation of the law was another, then what

recourse would the individual have?

I have no problem with the regulations and the act and that

sort of thing, because these are legal matters that have been decided by either

Cabinet or by government and they fall within the powers of government, the

House of Assembly, to pass. But when a review commissioner or appeal tribunal is

required to follow the policies of a body appeal (inaudible) those policies

could be totally inconsistent with the act and the regulations.

Why does the minister say: We are going to remove this real

merits of the case and we are going to let the commission determine - they can

determine their policy, fine, but what if their policy conflicts with the true

meaning of the act? What if their policy is not appropriate for the act and the

legislation governing the commission? Why is the minister allowing the

commission to establish policy, and that the policy shall be the governing rule

regardless of the other

interpretations of the act and regulations?

I go back to the question that he didn't answer the last

time. Is it the minister's opinion that this new regulation would allow a review

commissioner to make a decision on the merits of the case? In other words, to

second-guess a decision, a judgement made by the commission. Is that within the

purview of the review - can he second-guess the judgement and say: I disagree

with the judgement made by the commission as to the level of benefits that are

appropriate here. I disagree with his

interpretation or application of the act

and the regulations to this set of facts.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, a couple of matters. I would

like to address them if I could. Maybe starting from the last and going

backwards if I can. I might get the order a little mixed but I will start there.

The clear answer to the last issue raised would be no. Under

the new act and any regulations then that are made - of course, the regulations

are only there to make the act workable. It can't frustrate the act or change

the act, the same as policies, as the hon. member know. The policies of the

Commission can only be ones that complement the regulations and the statute.

They cannot vary that or change it or oppose the general direction given in the

legislation, in the regulations. So the policies can't frustrate the regulations

and the statute in any way, shape or form.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is clear that it never was the intention

of an appeal tribunal member or chairperson now, or a review commissioner under

the new regulation and new statute as of July 1, to second-guess the judgement

of the Workers' Compensation Commission, or to substitute their judgement for

that of the Commission. The intention always was that somebody would look at

whether or not the Commission, with all of the expertise that it had available

to it, had gotten it right the first time around, or whether they had made a

mistake. So, if there is a judgement issue the question was - the normal

standard I think that the hon. member as a practising lawyer would see used in

the courts and so on would be: Could an ordinary sensible person, using the

statute, the regulation and the policies, could they have come to that

conclusion? Is that a reasonable conclusion? Never mind whether you would have

made that conclusion or not. Did they make a reasonable conclusion or did they

completely miss something? That is the standard that was always supposed to be

there.

When we get back to what we talked about before, the idea

that the real merits and justice of the case would seem to indicate that they

could have gone beyond that and substituted their judgement, every time they did

that it brought us back to the notwithstanding. The hon. member then mentions:

Why didn't we just remove that? I guess we did debate that, and we debated it

quite seriously. We came to the conclusion that we don't believe that clause 4,

which is the real merits and justice of the case, was ever a role that the

current Appeal Tribunal ever should have had in the first place, and that, in

fact, the Commission was right to say: Don't substitute the judgement, just tell

whether or not somebody exercised good judgement. The role now will be if

somebody has not exercised good judgement and has not made a decision in line

with the statute, the regulations or the policies, then by all means, order the

remedy.

Don't say: Well, we looked at this and I would have given

them this little bit when they gave them that little bit. If there's discretion

to say that there's an entitlement, decide how much it is, and they've made a

decision, that's the entitlement and that's a reasonable, sensible, appropriate

decision to make, never mind the fact that we thought: well, we got a little

more sympathy from that person or somebody else and we think it should be 5 per

cent higher or 5 per cent lower - we are saying don't substitute your judgement

for the judgements already made.

The reason we came to that conclusion in our look at it, Mr.

Chairman, over the last eighteen months or so, is because the reality is that

all of the expertise is housed at the Commission. The Commission has access to

all of the employer's records and the employer can go and make a representation

to verify that the injury actually did occur at the workplace, here's the

circumstances under which it occurred. They confirmed that they think there

should be an entitlement to Workers' Compensation, where else the system stops

cold anyway; if the employer doesn't verify that it's a compensational injury at

the workplace there will be no entitlement. Then the employee gives all kinds of

personal evidence. All the medical evidence is presented, Mr. Chairman, all of

that is done, there's access to every kind of specialist in the world, all kinds

of medical treatment, all at the Commission, and everything designed to make

sure that the worker gets his fair entitlement and the best possible, most

expedient, efficient and most deserving medical treatment and attention so that

hopefully he can be restored to a physical condition where he can return to the

workplace. That's the whole intent of it. We're saying if that's all housed

there - it was never intended to then go through a process at the appeal level

where you'd go through all of that again, that you would now have medical

assessments again, that you would now have evidence from the employer again,

that you would now have all these other things, no need, because all of that's

already been done. I think the comparison that the hon. member made yesterday is

one in respect to UI appeals.

I know, very rarely are there medical things in a U.I. appeal

except if you're on sick UI and so on but they don't duplicate all of the

information, all of that effort and all of the expertise that went into making

the first decision in U.I., even though it's done by a tribunal, or by the

umpire or keeps on going. They just look at whether or not they made an

appropriate decision based on the regulations, the law and the policies in

existence at the time. I don't believe either that they go as far as replacing

the judgement. If they think there was an error made, they correct the error,

but I don't believe they replace the judgement, and that's the issue that we

debated at greatest length in Cabinet when we were coming to this decision, that

we don't believe there's a role for that. We believe that the right role is now

spelled out and this is the way it was intended to be and should have been

specifically from the beginning. This reflects the way that it is in other

jurisdictions where there are appeals or reviews across the country, that this

notion of the real merits and justice of the case, if you check the files across

the country you will not find that language in the language that sets up any

kind of an appeal process for workers' compensation throughout the rest of the

country.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm glad the minister has clarified what his intention is

because it's apparent now that what I was saying was, in fact, correct - the new

scheme is that there is no appeal at all. I say that quite sincerely because

that's really - what the minister has said conforms to my understanding of the

legislation, and it is a real change from the previous situation that there's

now no appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission. I think

his analogy was quite correct, but I think, in terms of the difference between

an appeal on the merits and what's called a review - he has called it a `review

commissioner' and that's very different. It is more consistent that - for

example, if you went to court and sued somebody and a judge of the Supreme Court

hears the case, that judge hears the evidence and makes his/her judgement, and

if the losing side doesn't like the decision, they appeal to the Court of

Appeal. The Court of Appeal hears the case, and if the Court of Appeal disagrees

with the judge, they'll change it. If the Court of Appeal disagrees with the

weighing of the evidence by the judge, they will change it - that's a true

appeal. There are certain items on which they will defer to the judge, for

example, the credibility of a witness, and say: Well, we can't substitute our

opinion for the judge on the credibility of a witness because we didn't see or

hear the witness, so we'll defer to the judge on the credibility issue, but on

the issue of the weighing of the evidence, what weight to give to the evidence

and whether or not a decision was proper, the Court of Appeal will consider

that, and if they don't agree with it, they will substitute their own opinion

and their own judgement. That is a true appeal - and what the minister is

confirming is that he is taking away any appeal from Commission decisions.

There is no appeal to the tribunal; there is no appeal to any

tribunal like we had before and, in addition, there is no appeal to the courts,

because you have the so-called privative clause there in the new 26.(2) saying

that any decision of this review commissioner may not be questioned by any

court. So the government is not only doing away with the Workers' Compensation

Appeal Tribunal, and replacing the three-person commission with a one-person

commissioner; what the minister is doing, is taking away the right of appeal

altogether. So now there is no right of appeal. Whatever the commission says

goes, and the only thing is a review by someone who is sort of saying: Well,

some reasonable person might have come to that conclusion, and I am not prepared

to say that it is totally out of whack. They could make a decision, they could

be wrong, but I am not going to say that they are wrong, because a sensible

person could come to that conclusion. Whether I would have come to a different

conclusion is immaterial.

I think that is what the minister has said, and he has

confirmed my objection to the bill because it is taking away that right of

appeal and leaving it in the hands of the Commission.

Now, it may well be that the Commission has, at its disposal,

expertise and experts and doctors and all of that available to them, but that

doesn't mean they make the right decision. Every day decisions that are made,

whether they are by employers or corporations or decision-making bodies, whether

they be provincial courts, provincial court judges, all of these are subject to

appeal. They are subject to appeal to somebody, because somebody has to oversee

and over-review the decisions made by inferior bodies or tribunals, and here,

what we are saying is that on such a vital matter as access to workers'

compensation, potentially for the balance of someone's life, there is going to

be no appeal whatsoever, and I think that is wrong.

Moving to another issue, I have stated quite clearly my

objections to it, and it appears that the minister has every intention of going

through with this without any amendment - and unless my colleagues on this side

of the House, or backbenchers on the other side, are prepared to continue to

object to this bill, it appears that the matter is going to go through.

I stated firmly on the record that I strongly oppose any

effort to remove the right of appeal by injured workers on decisions of the

Workers' Compensation Commission, because those people can make a mistake, too.

They can make an error in judgement, and there ought to be an opportunity to

have that error in judgement corrected by an appeal process, and what this

minister and this government are doing, is taking that away, and I say that I

have very, very strong objections to that. I think it is unjust to do it.

I don't know what the Minister of Justice thinks. He made

some comment

MR. ROBERTS: What I think is that the hon. member's

argument is nonsense.

MR. HARRIS: Well, the minister thinks that my argument is

nonsense, that taking away a right of appeal for injured workers -

MR. ROBERTS: It doesn't take away the right of appeal.

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Justice says it doesn't take

away the right of appeal. Perhaps he should have a chat with the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations who just said that it did, that we are not going

to have any appeal on the merits, that we are not going to have anybody

substituting their judgement for the judgement of the Workers' Compensation

Commission. That is what the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations said.

I say that what the Minister of Justice says is nonsense.

Either he is not listening to what the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations is saying, or he is trying to deliberately confuse the issue.

I ask the minister why he has rejected the opinion of both

employers and the employee groups as to the involvement of their representatives

in the review process - in the former appeal process. Why has he rejected their

expertise? There is a very strong feeling on the part of both employer and

employee that the expertise and the knowledge and experience of their input into

the tribunal decision-making has been effective and helpful in obtaining proper

and fair decisions. The minister has rejected that from both sides and is having

what no doubt he will call a streamlined process to do this.

If he is prepared to do that he should tell us why. Because

even though there may be input from both sides in the process, surely

streamlining of that process can take place without removing the input of those

two bodies which, up until now, Mr. Chairman, have been supportive of the

Workers' Compensation scheme. I will ask the minister why he is doing that and

why he is endangering the level of acceptability and the consensus that now

exists about the Workers' Compensation process. Why is he endangering that by

removing them from the appeal process?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe again, if I

work backwards, take the last issue first.

There is no doubt in my mind, and I think, that of the

government, that there clearly has been consensus amongst the parties involved -

the employees' representatives, the employers' representatives, the Injured

Workers' Association and so on - with respect to the appeal process. I beg to

differ again with his assessment as to what the consensus is. From the

representations made to myself as minister and to members on this side of the

House when they've been asked to intercede, the consensus has been that it has

been a disaster, that the current tribunal has frustrated people to no end and

that the only commonality is that everybody is frustrated one way or the other,

for one of two different reasons - worker representatives and the injured

workers' group, largely because it always seemed to take so long to get a

hearing date and to get an answer.

Contributing to that, one of the complicating factors - and I

understand that could be fixed by going full-time - was trying to get a calendar

date whereby a part-time representative of workers, a part-time representative

of employers and a part-time chair could all free themselves up to hear a case.

That was one of the frustrating aspects of getting enough hearing dates and

getting the hearings heard on a timely basis.

We certainly could have fixed that just by naming a full-time

tribunal; but then, a single full-time tribunal wouldn't be much good to us. We

would probably need two or three of them, just as we are probably going to need

two or three review commissioners for the first year or so to deal with this

backlog and to meet the six-month time line. If we are going to have full-time

tribunals then we have to look at the other consideration, that Workers'

Compensation through the employers are paying totally for this system and the

costs have basically quadrupled in the last four years, going from about

$150,000 for Professional Service fees four years ago to over $600,000 this

year. To put three full-time tribunals in place would cost us a considerable

amount of money which we don't think is warranted.

The other

part in our deliberations again, as I mentioned

yesterday in the exchange and interchange with the hon. the Member for Kilbride,

we do not believe that there is an essential role or a critical role for

employer or employee representatives during the appeal process, that the appeal

and the review - and this gets me back to the starting point again of the

interjection and the representation made by the Membe