November

22, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 66

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Yesterday, the Member for Twillingate raised a point of order

with respect to the order of resolutions on Wednesday, Private Members' Day.

Essentially, he has withdrawn his consent to a 1989 agreement to modify Private

Members' Day to allow resolutions to be called by agreement of members. The

Journal of May 30, 1989 discloses the following: `It was agreed that Private

Members' Day on Wednesdays would be slightly modified. Each resolution would be

debated on one Wednesday only, unless there was some pressing reason to have two

days debate. Opposition and government members will choose the order in which

resolutions will be debated with the proviso that the House be notified by

Monday of the resolution to be debated on Wednesday.'

That practice has been followed since that time with the

respective house leaders advising the House on Mondays of the resolution to be

debated on Wednesdays. The practice prior to May 30, 1989 is clear. On opening

day private members would rise to place motions on the Order Paper and the

Speaker would recognize alternate sides of the House, starting, I am advised,

with the Opposition. These resolutions would then be debated in the order in

which they appeared on the Order Paper.

If the Member for Twillingate is correct, it would be his

resolution, rather than that of the Member for Harbour Main, that will be

debated on Wednesday, since the motion of the Member for Twillingate appears

prior to the motion of the Member for Harbour Main. In determining this issue, I

have attempted to determine from whence the practice for Private Members' Day

arises. There has been a Private Members' Day in this House since, I am advised,

at least 1951 and the practice as outlined has existed since at least 1966 by

admission of the Government House Leader.

In Ottawa, prior to changing to a ballot system, Private

Members' Day in the House of Commons was governed by what was then rule 18,

subsection 1; that

section read as follows, and I quote: All items standing on

the Orders of the Day, except government orders, shall be taken up according to

the precedence assigned to each on the Order Paper, and I want to emphasize the

word `precedence'. `Precedence', as we understand it, means orders in motions

take priority in the order they appear and before those that follow. It is clear

that the practice followed in Ottawa was similar to that here on the basis of

their Standing Order 18, subsection 1. I would refer members of the House to

order 16A of our Standing Orders, which reads exactly the same as Ottawa's order

18, subsection 1, except that our order has the word `procedure' instead of the

word `precedence', and I will read it for members.

Our Standing Orders 16 (

a) states as follows: "All items

standing on the orders of the day (except Government Orders) shall be taken up

according to the procedure assigned to each on order paper", so one can see that

the difference between the two rules is that, the Ottawa rule, which was in

existence prior to a change in their system, uses the word `precedence', our

rule uses the word `procedure'. This might be argued and it is the opinion of

some, is a typographical error in our records in Standing Orders, but this is

not for me to say, nor could I make that ruling. However, I do believe that

order 16 (

a) explains the origin of the Wednesday, Private Members' Day

practice.

The word `procedure', as used in 16 (

a) is defined by the

conducted in a certain order or manner. That order referred to in the definition

can only be in this context the order given on the Order Paper. The practice, I

conclude, is more than that; it is an order of this House, namely, order 16,

subsection (a). Even if I am wrong in this determination, I am also persuaded

that, as the Government House Leader acknowledged, the long-standing practice of

this House prior to 1989, was to recognize the orders of precedence appearing on

the Order Paper for Private Members resolutions.

It is a clear practice of this House that where an agreement

is made to act at variance with prescribed rules, orders or practises of the

House, any member may withdraw his or her consent and require a reversion to the

orders or practise. In this case, the hon. the Member for Twillingate has

withdrawn his consent to the 1989 agreement, and this hon. House must revert to

the clear operation of either order 16 (

a) or our practice or custom of calling

Private Members' resolutions in the order in which they appear on the Order

Paper. Consequently, the resolution to be debated tomorrow, Wednesday, is that

of the hon. Member for Twillingate and that is my decision.

I wish to add that I am greatly concerned that we operate in

many ways contrary to our expressed Standing Orders. There is a procedure under

the House of Assembly Act, namely

Section 16, subsection 2, to alter, amend or

repeal any order by a vote of two-thirds of our members. Until this is done,

formally, it is the right of any single member to require a reversion to the

strict operation of our orders which require for example, that we meet from 3:00

to 6:00 p.m. instead of 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. which we now do. It is not for the

Speaker to take such measures but I would recommend to this hon. House that we

review our orders and formalize our changes to achieve consistency between the

two.

May I add as well that the rulings of the Chair do not

represent, nor should they, my personal views. Rather it is for me to discern

and delimit our customs, orders and practices and apply them fairly and

uniformly to all and that task I frankly say is made more difficult by the fact

that our practice sometimes is at variance with our orders.

Finally, I wish to thank those hon. members who participated

in the discussion for their comments which were helpful and I want to thank our

table officers for their views and advice which is always most invaluable. Thank

you.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, just a point of clarification, Mr.

Speaker, I just want to get an understanding. Will we continue with the

tradition of alternating Wednesday to Wednesday from side to side?

MR. SPEAKER: As I understand it and as I interpret the

rule, it is the order they appear on the Order Paper but if you wish to raise it

as a further point of order I will have to take the member -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I thank you for your ruling and we now go

back to the rules of the House which provide we will take motions in the order

they appear on the Order Paper and we debate them. My friend the Leader of the

Opposition is quite correct, we debate them for two days.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Tomorrow we will in fact have to take, I

suggest with respect, Sir, the motion of the gentleman from Kilbride. It stands

first on the Order Paper. We will debate it for two days, two Wednesdays. We

will then take the motion that stands in the name of the gentleman from

Twillingate and we will debate it for two days.

What happened in '89 was the House reached a consensus but as

Your Honour quite correctly says, the rule was never amended. My friend from

Twillingate, as is his perfect right, has withdrawn his consent, therefore we go

back to the old procedure. The alternation in the old procedure came when the

Chair, usually on opening day recognized members alternately but we have not

been doing that. Therefore, the motion I submit for tomorrow, on a point of

order, would be No. 4 on yesterdays Order Paper which stands in the name of the

gentleman from Kilbride. We will debate that for two days and then we will carry

on.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that is correct. It is the order that

appears on the Order Paper. It is by agreement and as members know, the reason

that they alternated in the past was that the Speaker recognized alternate

members of the House on either side but what will now happen is we have

reversion to our former practice and we have to follow the order on the Order

Paper in accordance with our Standing Orders.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, there is

also a proviso for members to withdraw a resolution.

MR. ROBERTS: One needs unanimous consent.

MR. SIMMS: To do what?

MR. ROBERTS: To withdraw.

MR. SIMMS: To withdraw, correct. But I mean, if a member

were to withdraw the resolution that was scheduled to come forward - because we

just had the Private Members' Day of Wednesday past and we don't believe it

would be fair not to alternate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: No, we don't! If members opposite think it is

fair - that is why we agreed in the first place to alternate. Not only did we

agree to do it, it is a traditional parliamentary practice in any event, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: In all fairness.

MR. SIMMS: In all fairness. That is fine. If members

don't want to do that then we will simply do whatever the Speaker judges. But I

just heard the Speaker rule that the next resolution to be debated tomorrow will

be the resolution presented by the Member for Twillingate. I just want to make

it abundantly clear that it is perfectly acceptable to us, particularly in view

of the fact that we had the private member's resolution for debate on Wednesday

past. I think it is only fair that private members of this House - outside of

Cabinet ministers - have that opportunity to do so. That is what it is there

for, that is what Private Members' Day is for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Just on the point. The point to be made is

that we now have to revert to the 1989 practice and we follow the order on the

Order Paper. If the next order is that of the Member for Kilbride, then that is

the one to be debated unless something should act between now and then to change

it. We do have to follow the order on the Order Paper.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, just briefly. It is very

difficult now to correct what has taken place in the past but obviously we are

now reverting to the original procedure, the traditional procedure, as

(inaudible) in our Standing Orders. Unfortunately at the time Your Honour listed

the resolutions, or received resolutions which were placed on the Order Paper,

there was an agreement. I would suggest that we have a difficulty here now that

that is an improper procedure because we have reverted now. That was done then

by consent. I don't know if that can be rearranged or how you could correct

that, but it seems now that we are halfway there. That we have reverted through

the procedure of following the precedent on the Order Paper, but I don't know

how we could around reverting to the whole procedure of therefore having

alternate resolutions.

Perhaps Your Honour would like to consider - since you can't

roll back the clock in the order that they are presented - but reschedule them

one from each side of the House on the Order Paper. In other words, change the

precedent in order with the Standing Orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Just on the Member for Mount Pearl's

suggestion. As I made clear to members, the Chair doesn't make the rules, I

merely apply them. At the time I received resolutions this was not an issue, so

I accepted them in the order that members stood before the House, simply

assuming that the normal agreement would continue, so we have to let matters

fall where they may, and whatever the order is on the Order Paper, that is the

order we must follow.

As I have said, my task is more difficult because I don't

make the rules and certainly we haven't formalized the changes, but I can't

accept the suggestion of the Member for Mount Pearl, however sensible it may be.

It is for the House to determine its own procedure in a case like this, not for

the Chair.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to stand to

ask for consent to withdraw the motion that was introduced in the spring

sitting, and let me outline why.

The motion put forward by myself, as Member for Kilbride,

specifically dealt with the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal which

government, under the former minister, subsequently changed. The debate would be

for not, I submit to the Chair, and I respectfully ask members of the House that

this has already been changed, the spirit of this Private Members' motion

government has dealt with back in June. It is pure political folly on their part

to try to debate this, and I submit that to the Chair. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I

respectfully ask members of the House for their consent to withdraw this Private

Members' motion from the Order Paper.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Realizing that the Member for Twillingate, his Private

Members' bill is important to him or he would not have put it on the Order

Paper. Equally, I say to the Member for Kilbride that his Private Members'

motion is equally important to him or he would not have put it on the paper. Let

me say to the hon. member that it is important, because it needs to be brought

to light the tremendous things that are happening in that area.

I have to say, as far as I am concerned, the hon. Member for

Kilbride, I am waiting for him tomorrow; therefore, there is no leave from me.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. member needs unanimous

consent in order to withdraw it. Does the House wish me to put a resolution? The

member obviously won't receive leave.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to leave this

alone because there is another principle involved here, and another tradition

and practice, and that is the principle and practice of alternating.

It is true that under the old rules it was done as they

appeared on the Order Paper, but I think if Your Honour will do the research he

will find that the resolutions on opening day as they used to be presented were

presented in an alternating fashion, so that you had no choice. It obviously

turned up in an alternating fashion, so I would submit to Your Honour that

government is once again being caught. We have a Government House Leader at the

moment who does nothing but create conflict every time he stands in the House of

Assembly. The simple way to resolve it is to let the Member for Twillingate put

forth his private members' resolution for heaven's sake. That is what it is all

about, is it not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled by what is going

on here today, the childishness that is emanating from this side of the House. I

do not know why people on this side of the House are afraid to debate this

resolution. It is something that is on the minds of everybody in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: I for one, Mr. Speaker, ask that the people

in Cabinet on this side of the House stop being so childish and let us get on

with the business of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On the point raised by the hon. Leader of

the Opposition I obviously considered your point in making the ruling and it is

my view that Order 16(

a) governs this and it provides that we must follow the

order on the Order Paper. Had I known this would be the case I may well have

recognized people in an alternate manner and I would do so in the future, but I

think that circumstances being what they are we have to just follow through with

the effects of this order, and it clearly is that we follow and call the

resolutions in the order in which they are given.

I say that the hon. Member for Kilbride does not have

unanimous consent and therefore cannot withdraw it if any member objects. I will

leave that and I think it is sufficiently clear what the position of the Chair

is.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate.

MR. CARTER: I want to thank Your Honour for your ruling

and naturally I abide by it. I am very grateful to the members of the House who

have supported by position, that of having the privilege of discussing in debate

my resolution tomorrow. I am especially thankful to the Member for Kilbride for

offering to withdraw his resolution. Nevertheless I will accept the ruling of

the House and of Your Honour.

Mr. Speaker, I take it now that my private members'

resolution, having to do with the importation of garbage, will be debated next

Wednesday.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, in two weeks time.

MR. CARTER: In two weeks time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have a point of order?

MR. CARTER: I stand corrected, it will be two weeks from

tomorrow. Tomorrow will be the hon. Member for Kilbride, I presume. That is

where I went wrong. Now we have the practice of a one day debate but we are

reverting back to when it was a two day debate. That is fine, as long as I have

an assurance that my resolution, notwithstanding the objections raised by some

of my colleagues here, that I do not appreciate, by the way, my resolution will

be debated in due course. I have that assurance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, late this morning, through a news

release, which I received issued by the Premier, the Premier relieved the

Government House Leader of his duties and responsibilities as Minister of

Justice and Attorney General, but then kept him in the Cabinet. Now, I say to

the Premier to reflect on this. You wasted little time in kicking out the Member

for Mount Scio - Bell Island out of the Cabinet because he was being

investigated related to certain allegations concerning him, even though the

Member for Mount Scio assured you of his innocence and in fact was later

cleared. In addition to that, we had the Member for Port de Grave booted out of

the Cabinet for an investigation done by the Public Service Commission, if I

recollect.

I want to ask the Premier this: Why do you have a double

standard insofar as the Member for Naskaupi is concerned? Can you answer this?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There is no double standard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: I say to the members again that roaring

laughter is no substitute for intelligent comment.

There is no double standard. It is a totally different

circumstance. In this case, in the case of the Minister of Justice, the matter

arose as a result of an investigation being done, I now believe by the RCMP in

Ontario, in relation to a resident of Ontario who was conducting business with

two companies in Newfoundland. The minister was involved as a shareholder either

through a holding company or directly in each of those companies.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, no.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) holding company?

PREMIER WELLS: No.

MR. ROBERTS: Not of Elizabeth Drugs Limited, no.

MR. SIMMS: You are not a director of a holding company?

MR. ROBERTS: Not of Elizabeth Drugs Limited, no.

MR. SIMMS: Are you a director of a holding company

(inaudible)?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You are?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think there is one question before the House.

PREMIER WELLS: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, in this situation

what occurred, the police were investigating the activities of this individual

in Ontario. He apparently was involved in a business relationship with the two

companies here, Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited - one company here - and a

company in Nova Scotia called Armbro Limited.

The police were executing search warrants here Wednesday of

last week, and the Deputy Minister of Justice became aware of this and advised

me of it. I instructed her, as I indicated in the release, to make sure that the

minister was not advised until after the warrants had been fully executed, and

to treat me as the Attorney General for all purposes if anything should arise in

relation to the matter. She did just that.

The minister became aware of this matter some time on

Thursday night, he told me, and on Friday he advised me of it. Of course, I

already knew about it, Friday morning. By Friday afternoon he called and asked

if he could meet with me to tell me that he and directors of the company, and

the company's lawyer, had caused an investigation to be made and they discovered

certain information that they turned over to the police; they felt the police

should have it.

As a result, I asked the Deputy Minister of Justice to

inquire as to whether or not the companies in Newfoundland would be

investigated, or any director of the company would be investigated. The Deputy

Attorney General advised me last evening at about 7:00 p.m. that the companies

were indeed under investigation, but that none of the non-employee directors

were under investigation at this time, or it was unknown as to whether or not

they would be. They might or might not be investigated.

So I met with the minister this morning and discussed the

matter, and it is clear that there is no indication whatsoever that the minister

has been accused of doing anything improperly, that he has been in any manner

involved whatsoever. There is no allegation of improper -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: If you want the answer, this is the

answer. There is no allegation of improper conduct on the part of the minister

in any way. This is simply an action that we feel should be taken to ensure that

nobody can have any possible question or suggestion that the minister was

involved with directing the police at the same time that the police were

investigating a company in respect of which he had some level of ownership. So

there is no question of any allegation of impropriety on the part of the

minister in this case.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how the

Premier knows that. The fact of the matter is, you don't know that. You said

yourself in the statement that in fact it is unknown whether any shareholder of

the company would be the subject of a police investigation. You can't have it

both ways. Either he is being investigated or he isn't!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the other thing is - I don't know

if it was a slip or a mistake - but he mentioned in answer to the last question

that the minister, former minister, or minister, whatever he is, told the

Premier about this situation on Thursday evening.

PREMIER WELLS: Friday morning.

MR. SIMMS: You said Thursday evening in answer to your

last question.

PREMIER WELLS: He told me on Friday morning.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, but you did say -

PREMIER WELLS: No, I said that he told me that he became

aware of it on Thursday evening. He told me that on Friday morning.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, so you weren't made aware of it by the

Minister of Justice until Friday morning, not before. You didn't have a

conversation with him before about that, before Friday morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For the purposes of Hansard it is very difficult to pick this

up across House. If there is a question I think the hon. member should frame the

question. We shall look for an answer (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I just asked a question, Mr. Speaker. I'm

asking the Premier is it a fact then that he had no conversation with the

minister prior to Friday morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

The hon. the Premier.

MR. SIMMS: No conversation related to this issue.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I had no conversation at all

relating to this issue with the minister until Friday morning. It was after

Question Period sitting here in the House when he told me that this had occurred

and I said: Yes, I knew that it had occurred, because the Deputy Minister told

me on Wednesday that it was in the process of occurring. I got that information

from him - from him - for the first time on Friday morning.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Just for further clarification. Can the

Premier tell us if the warrants that were issued in connection with the case

were issued with a police investigation that originated in Ontario? Is that what

the Premier said? Or in another province, or is it here in Newfoundland, search

warrants?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, my understanding is the police in

Ontario - I had thought earlier today when I spoke with the news media that it

was the Hamilton police, but I understand now that it was the RCMP in Hamilton

who were causing an investigation to be made of an individual who resides in

Ontario and is the national sales agent for a drug company in Ontario. That drug

company apparently does business with a company called Pharmaceutical Supplies

Limited here in Newfoundland.

The police were investigating the actions of that individual

in relation to his dealings with the company here. So far as I knew at the time

there was no suggestion of any improper action by the company here, or anybody

in Newfoundland. So far as I knew they were only dealing with the individual in

Ontario. The search warrant was issued here to allow a search to be made of the

premises here to facilitate an investigation that was taking place and

originating in Ontario.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier

specifically: Does the police investigation that has caused him now to ask his

Minister of Justice to step aside have any connection to the investigations

already under way in this Province with respect to Hiland Insurance? Does he

know that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Your Honour, absolutely nothing.

MR. SIMMS: You know, or you don't know?

PREMIER WELLS: There is no connection at all with Hiland

Insurance. I mean, if there is, I just heard that now come from the Leader of

the Opposition. I can't imagine what possible connection there could be except

in his mind.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Or more importantly, perhaps, in the minds of

the people of the Province. It might be even more important.

Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: No one should be surprised at this turn of

events, Mr. Speaker, because this particular minister has continued to be

involved in the direction of his numerous business interests. He sits around the

Cabinet table, claims not to participate in government decisions. He must be

constantly leaving or going in and out of the Cabinet, and he is, in the opinion

of many people, and should be to the Premier, a walking invitation to trouble.

A year ago on November 26 - I want to draw the Premier's

attention to this - we raised a number of concerns respecting the Member for

Naskaupi about his ownership, directorship, of Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited,

a company that provides or sells millions of dollars worth of business to this

government. I want to ask the Premier. He dismissed those accusations back on

November 26. I would like to ask him now: Will he give a commitment to review

the issue that we raised then, the government's dealings with that company, and

whether or not the minister continues to play a role in directing the affairs of

that company?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I caused an enquiry to be

made to determine whether or not government does, and here is the reply I've

gotten from Dr. Williams who is the Deputy Minister of Health: In follow-up to

your telephone call this morning I've checked with departmental staff with

respect to purchases made by the department from Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited

MS. VERGE: What about hospitals?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: If the hon. member would just restrain

herself I will give the full text of the letter. All she has to do is just

restrain herself for a minute: I have been advised that the department is not

doing business with Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited and this has been confirmed

by a review of our accounts with our accounts

section for the fiscal year to

date. No invoices have been processed from this company. Pharmaceutical Supplies

Limited however, does business in the health system with hospitals, nursing

homes, pharmacies and other agencies in the health care sector.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that is old information. We gave

them that information on November 26 in this House when we told them there was

$9 million worth of business done and $6 million of it was done by

Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited or thereabouts.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is happening with this government over

the last year in particular, has caused the public in this Province to have a

lack of confidence in the government, very little that it does seems to be

aboveboard; its reputation seems to be shot, going down the tubes more with

every passing day, everything they touch turns sour. I want to challenge the

Premier today, will he at least make an effort to restore some trust in this

government and in fact in himself, will he remove this minister from the Cabinet

altogether until this matter is dealt with?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have to say I disagree

totally with the hon. member. It has not caused the people of this Province to

lose any confidence whatsoever in the integrity or competence of this

government; it has simply facilitated the Opposition in making their unfounded

allegations, it has not caused any loss of confidence of the people of this

Province. It just facilitated the Opposition in making those unfounded

allegations, that is all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier and now the acting Minister

of Justice, questions about Hiland Insurance.

How does the Premier explain the failure of his government,

his former minister and his whole Administration, to suspend Hiland's license

and to alert the policyholders, when the government got the report of the

Superintendent of Insurance dated January 18, containing explicit, alarming,

detailed information about Hiland's precarious financial position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will have to get the detailed

correspondence and look at it, but let me tell the House what I recall from what

I have seen. What I recall from what I have seen is that as soon as the minister

was made aware, he directed the Superintendent of Insurance to immediately

conduct such investigation as was necessary to do a full assessment of every

allegation that was made. My recollection is that an assessment was done and the

advice that came back from the Superintendent of Insurance is that, matters had

been handled correctly. Now I will go back and get the correspondence but that

is my recollection of it.

The minister handled that matter in his capacity as the

minister responsible for the Superintendent of Insurance. It was not strictly

speaking an administration of justice matter, but that role is carried on by

that minister and he dealt with it in that capacity and I have heard him give

the answer in the House in detail; I can cause the exchanges of correspondence

and memoranda to be tabled again in the House if the hon. member has not seen

them.

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

East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The supplementary is for the Premier.

I have read very carefully through and through the

documentation the former minister tabled in the House last Friday. I would like

to ask the minister, the acting minister, the Premier, to explain the puzzling

ten-month gap in the documentation about Hiland after the shocking

superintendent's report of January 18, there is nothing, nothing at all, until

the sketchy memo of last Friday, November 18. Will the Premier tell us whose

interest he and his Administration were protecting during that ten-month

interval when thousands of consumers paid millions of dollars to J.J. Lacey and

Hiland?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that there is

any shocking report. My recollection is that the explicit direction given by the

minister was to conduct a full investigation and my recollection also, the

explicit instruction given by the minister to the Superintendent of Insurance

was to take whatever action is necessary to protect the interest of the people

of this Province. Now,I don't know how much more a minister can do. We hire

civil servants to do the job, and to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Tapper has

done the job. Whether or not there is any basis for complaint may well be seen

after the investigations are complete but we are not about to interfere with the

criminal investigation that is underway and so impair the ability to conduct any

prosecutions that may flow out of that criminal investigation. If there is any

suggestion that Mr. Tapper didn't act in the manner directed by the minister to

protect the interest of the people of this Province, then, when that criminal

investigation is over, we can conduct such investigation as is necessary to

disclose the whole process of actions by the civil servant and by the minister

involved.

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

for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is the Premier and the former minister who failed to act.

Now, I would like to ask the Premier whether the connection of Hiland's owner,

Mr. Gillingham, to the Liberal Party of Newfoundland had any bearing on the

Premier's administration's inaction and lenience during the ten-month gap? Did

Mr. Gillingham's contributions to the Liberal Party during that ten-month

interval influence the Premier's government to ignore the escalating financial

problems at Hiland? Will the Premier confirm that Mr. Gillingham sat near him,

the Premier, at a $500-a-plate Liberal fund-raising dinner earlier this year and

that Mr. Gillingham successfully bid over $10,000 for Meech Lake memorabilia

donated by the Premier? Will the Premier, who is also the Liberal Leader and now

the acting minister responsible for insurance regulation, tell the people of the

Province how Mr. Gillingham paid the Liberal Party? Did he pay with Hiland

Insurance funds?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: And did he pay in cash or by cheque?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there were about eighteen

questions. I am sure the House will understand if I don't answer them all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I am quite prepared to answer them all but

if the member is going to insist on taking that approach of piling up a list of

eighteen questions, I hope there is no complaint about whether or not any are

answered.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gillingham has no connection with the

Liberal Party that I know of. I have never known Mr. Gillingham to ever be

connected with the Liberal Party in any manner whatsoever. Now, whether he has

been or not, I don't know, but I don't know of any connection that Mr.

Gillingham has as a Liberal Party supporter. There were at this dinner, to which

the hon. member is referring, a large number of people, a large number of

well-known Tory Party supporters, as well as Liberal Party supporters, all of

whom have great confidence in this government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - and, Mr. Speaker, recognize the

responsibility to contribute to the Liberal side, as well as the Tory side, of

the political process. I wouldn't know Mr. Gillingham if I tripped over him. I

don't know Mr. Gillingham. There is no direct connection with the Liberal Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, not that I know of. I can only say to

you, no, I think that these are just more unfounded statements that the hon.

members opposite are prepared to make.

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of people with strong Tory

connections, there might even have been a few people with NDP connections, at

that dinner, who contributed to the political process in the same way as they

contributed to the - I believe Mr. Verge was there if I recall correctly, I

don't know. He may have been, he may well have been.

AN HON. MEMBER: The hon. lady would know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I will have to go back and check. But, Mr.

Speaker, in the same way that those same people contributed to the Tory Party

$500-a-plate dinner they were not unfair to the Liberal Party and they

contributed to us, too, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members to allow the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount to ask his question.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the members

that the source of information is not on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: My question is to the Minister of Education

and Training.

The government publicly proclaimed its commitment to academic

excellence; however, the Student Loans Division discriminates against students

who win scholarships by deducting all scholarship winnings from the recipient's

student loan. This policy has caused confusion and great anxiety for the

recipients.

Can the minister give a rationale for the practice? Would he

undertake a review of this procedure, that on the one hand, pats students on the

back when they excel academically, and then lifts the necessary funds from their

pockets shortly thereafter?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, when a student applies for a

loan, that student is required, by law, to declare his or her income. Now, the

program is very much aware - we want to encourage people to excel in different

courses and what have you. For that very reason the program allows a $600

scholarship to be totally ignored, not considered as income - $600 in a year.

These are the rules. I didn't make them; I inherited them. I

stand by them, and as long as they are the rules, then we have no option but to

enforce them.

Now, to say that somehow this discriminates, I don't share

that view, because the way I would deal with that issue is, if I, as a student,

have an income from a scholarship of $600 or $1,000 or whatever the case might

be, at the end of the day it is going to have cost me less money than it would

have cost the student sitting next to me without the scholarship or what have

you.

If it is a case that I have personal resources, I have to

spend less of my own money, or if it were a case where I had to borrow, I would

have had to borrow less money, be it $1,000 or $2,000, depending on what the

scholarship is. So the kind of logic that the hon. member is using totally

not mathematics, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is with

communication, because the complaint that we received is that this policy has

not been adequately communicated.

Would the minister undertake to communicate policy to all

scholarship winners, make references to that policy in the student handbooks and

all post-secondary institutions, and when the scholarship is awarded by

government, would the minister undertake to have government and its agencies,

when the cheques are issued, to make an appropriate notation, if that is

possible, so that this kind of complaint will never surface again?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: That is an excellent point, Mr. Speaker;

however, in order to get an application now for a loan, all students receive

this Newfoundland Student Aid Program; it is a handbook. It is attached to the

application form.

Now, on page 6, in bold print: `Remember, you are required to

report any income, even if you receive it after you submit your application.'

On page 10, `Scholarships: If you receive a scholarship after

submitting your application, you are required to notify the student aid division

in writing regardless of the value of the scholarship and your application will

be adjusted accordingly. You must show the amount,' and then it goes on down the

line, Mr. Speaker - that is page 10. Page 13: If your financial situation

changes at any time after your submission, you are supposed to notify Student

Aid. I don't know, but I assume that when a person gets to the stage where he or

she is applying for university, he or she can generally read a handbook. Now, I

don't know what I have to do, unless I have to interview all 10,000 students

myself and say, If your situation changes notify Student Aid. We have gone the

last mile on this one. I am not standing up here today to defend everything that

Student Aid has done, but I suspect the hon. member is referring to a specific

case of which he only heard one side. I have looked at both sides and I stand by

Student Aid on the particular case, if it is the same one I think he is talking

about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. The former minister, when he changed the Workers' Compensation Appeal

Tribunal to the Review Commission, indicated in this House that one of the

results coming from that change would be that the decisions made by the

division, or the new commission, would be final and binding. Can the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations say today that is the case, and that has been a

result of that change?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My information from the new Commissioner, appointed on July 1

AN HON. MEMBER: Eric Gullage.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, Eric Gullage, a very competent

individual. When he was appointed, we talked about his competency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: I say to the Member for Kilbride, if he wants

to contain his colleagues, I will be happy to answer his questions, but if they

are going to interrupt -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to me, based on

the results of the minister's response, that he does not know, himself, what is

happening. Let me assure him that there is a case, and there are others, that

have gone before the new review commission and have been viewed and ruled in the

injured worker's favour, that the Workers' Compensation Commission itself is now

taking to the Supreme Court of the land, but in fact the reverse for the injured

worker is happening. When the commission makes a decision in favour of the

commission it is indicated to the injured worker that this is the final

decision. It is final and binding on the injured worker.

My question is this, if the decisions are final and binding

on the injured workers in this Province, then they should be final and binding

on the Workers' Compensation Commission. Will you ensure that will happen?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. member that the legislation

is as clear now as it was when we had the appeal tribunal, but the hon. member

must remember that everybody has a right before the law. If the appeal tribunal,

or now the commission, hands down a ruling, it still doesn't stop a worker from

going to see a lawyer and subsequently, going to court, so why would it stop the

commission either?

Now, let me say to the hon. member that since we put in the

new commission with Mr. Gullage, we have cleaned off a backlog of just about 230

people on a $500-per case situation. We cleaned all that up, and what we also

realized is that the claimants are not sitting for six or seven months. The

percentage of those appeals that have been upheld has not significantly changed.

So what this government has done, in reality, has done a lot of good for those

people who were sitting in limbo. We have cleaned it, and it just seems to be

the attitude of this government to carry on this kind of procedure. I don't know

why the hon. member is upset.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this hon. member is upset for

two reasons, because the double standard of this government prevails in every

aspect of decision-making that they put in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they have

been around so long, they have a bad case of freezer burn, in my opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I will say to the minister again, so that he

clearly understands what the issue is here - and the constituent has written

him, not my constituent, but a person has written him regarding this. When the

former minister brought in new legislation to change the appeal tribunal to the

review commission, understand, he said that one of the outcomes of that new

legislation would be that the decisions made by the commission would be final

and binding, which would speed up, I say to the minister, the process he just

talked about. However, that is not happening. What has happened in two specific

cases -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am getting to the question, I am trying

to explain to the minister because he doesn't understand (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the member can get a little faster

to the question.

MR. E. BYRNE: What has happened in two specific cases is

this, that the commission has made a decision in favour of an injured worker,

the commission has taken it to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: May I finish my question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member should ask a more concise question.

MR. E. BYRNE: There is a question.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like the question now, please.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Workers' Compensation Commission did

not accept the commission's decision as final and binding. Why is there one

standard for the Workers' Compensation system and one for injured workers?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, it was just fifteen short

minutes ago, that this hon. member wanted to take his private members bill off

the Order Paper on this whole subject, he wanted to shove it away, hide it away.

Now he is indicating the real need of debate, so tomorrow, we will debate it,

and surely we will clean it up then.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, the hon. member is not correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was going to do this

during Question Period but I thought it would be improper. Inadvertently, I do

believe, the Leader of the Opposition left the impression that the Premier had

asked for my resignation. In defence, not only of myself, but I think, of the

Premier as well, I should point out that at no time did the Premier ask for my

resignation, at no time did he suggest that I resign, at no time did he hint

that I resign. I made the decision for my own reasons, which I believe were

honourable at the time, and a number of them included to protect the integrity

of the administration and the government and to have the matter cleared up.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: It has been, but I want to repeat, that at no

time did the Premier ask, suggest or hint that I resign. That decision was made

by me, and I want to clear it up, because Hansard can last a long time and I

don't want to have that impression left.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I take the hon. member for his

word. I didn't mean to imply anything at all, other than that there were two

ministers who left the Cabinet, for whatever their reasons were, for what,

seemingly, is less significant matters than this. If only the Member for

Naskaupi had the same integrity as the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, he

would leave, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table

six copies of seven Special Warrants and one (inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: During the summer.

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

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hereby table the annual report for the Provincial Advisory

Council on the Status of Women, Newfoundland and Labrador, for the fiscal year

1993-1994.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, one day last week, I have

forgotten the exact day, an hon. member opposite asked me to provide information

with respect to the matter of per diems to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, the Member for St. John's South. I undertook at the time to make

enquiries as to the basis under which such payments were made and I wrote to

Your Honour, as you will recall, because, of course, Your Honour supervises the

operations of the House and that payment comes as part of the operations of this

House. So I wrote Your Honour, I believe that same day or the next morning, I

have forgotten which, and asked Your Honour to provide to my parliamentary

assistant such information as he may request relating to the issue, including

the applicable rules and similar payments made to all other members of the House

of Assembly since the implementation of the Morgan Report recommendations in

Your Honour, of course, caused this information to be

prepared and I am grateful to Your Honour for providing the background

information as to how this was developed going back to 1981.

I now propose to table Your Honour's reply, together with all

the attachments, as a full answer to this question that was given me in the

House, and it shows all of this information. I trust I have made enough copies

for those who are interested in receiving them.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of

seventy-two residents of the Province, some of them from the West Coast, Deer

Lake, Reidville, St. Judes, Nicholsville area, Springdale and the general Green

Bay area, and it is again relating to an issue I have brought before the House

on a couple of occasions over the last few days. The prayer of the petition is

as follows;

We, the undersigned, request that the House of Assembly

instruct government to take such steps as are necessary so that moose antler can

be obtained legally for use in the craft and souvenir business.

Mr. Speaker, I brought this matter to the attention of the

House now for a number of days, as I indicated, and I shall continue to bring it

before the House as long as I have petitions to present and people to send them

to me. What we have here is an instance of a government that is stonewalling on

an issue that requires a common sense, compassionate response - a response that

was promised by the hon. the Premier on the VOCM Open Line Show a few

days ago when talking to one of the principals of a company in the moose antler

souvenir business in my district, a common sense response, Mr. Speaker, that so

far doesn't appear to be coming.

What we have is a commercial enterprise that is growing in

leaps and bounds in the business of making souvenirs from dried, cured, moose

antler. But unfortunately, they cannot establish a sound commercial basis to the

obtaining of their raw material. Their business was financed on assurances from

the Wildlife people that there was sufficient raw material in the Province to

keep them going. ACOA and Enterprise Newfoundland put forward cash and have

offered cash since in terms of financial assistance to this company, only now to

find out that one of the principals of the company has been charged with illegal

possession of antler. I have been unable to get any kind of commitment from the

Administration except general words of sympathy from the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology, some words of sympathy from the Premier on an Open Line

program, but essentially no movement at all from the Minister responsible for

Wildlife.

The current Wildlife Act says in 43(1)(

b) that: The minister

may upon application issue a skin dealer's licence to purchase or receive for

processing the skins or hides of big-game animals. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is legal

to traffic in hides, to make products and sell them and so on and so forth. We

have now developed an industry that makes use of antler and produces products

out of antler. There are twelve, fifteen artisans in the Province who do antler

carvings for the commercial market, along with this company in my district, but

so far, we have had no promise or indication from the government that things

will change, that the law will change, so that people in this business can

legitimately obtain a source of raw material that they can depend on.

You can't start a commercial enterprise based on charitable

donations of raw material. The business plan submitted to ACOA and to Enterprise

Newfoundland, all made reference over the last number of years to the purchase

of raw material. Seeing we are in the business of producing antler souvenirs, it

doesn't take a genius to understand that that is the purchase of antler.

Government sanctioned this activity, encouraged this activity, promoted this

activity, and now is trying to kill this activity. My constituent has noticed

that the Wildlife officers are cruising in the area of his particular little

factory two or three times a day now, by some strange coincidence, since I

brought this matter before the House.

But not all is perfect in the state of Denmark, Mr. Speaker.

I have before me here a permit to export wildlife, signed by an individual whose

name I shall not release, who is listed in the government phone book as being in

the Wildlife Division. It is basically a fill-in-the-blanks permit to export

wildlife. In accordance with

section 60 of the Newfoundland wildlife

regulations, blank is hereby authorized to export items described below from

such-and-such a place to such-and-such a place. The sender of this shipment is a

Newfoundland artist specializing in carvings made from moose and caribou antlers

and from whom it is understood that these items, not sold, will be brought back

to the Province by the permittee - signed by an individual. Then there are a

whole bunch of blank spaces where you can fill in whatever you want as to what

the products are.

This is circulating in the artisan and souvenir places

throughout the Province. This is a wide-open permit. So everything isn't

perfectly tight in the Wildlife Division of this government. I resent the way

they seem to be implying that my constituent is somehow to be equalled with

someone poaching black bear for their gall bladders, or someone bringing in

millions of dollars worth of contraband from South America in some ship in the

dark of night. What we have is a legitimate business sponsored by government,

that asks government to allow it to grow and prosper, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I had a

few words of support for my hon. colleague, the Member for Green Bay, and I

would like to add a few more words today to support the petition put forward by

my colleague.

Today, I have the advantage of standing after listening to

the minister speak yesterday to the petition presented by my colleague. To me,

it shows again the consistently callous way in which members opposite treat

business in this Province. Even right down to the smallest type of business, a

lousy, measly craft industry in this Province that everybody on the other side,

everybody on this side, and just about everybody in this Province today,

supports. What do they make? Where do they get their product? Where do they get

their resource?

With what is going on with animals in this Province today,

all you have to do is walk in the woods. Members opposite should probably do

that, and take in a hunt, and go in and look at some of the outfitting camps in

this Province, go and look at some of the hunters who are coming out to the

roads in this Province with their kill. Look at what is happening along the

Trans-Canada of our Province. And they want a few measly antlers to try to make

a living, to try to put bread on the table, and we are not even allowed to do

that. We can give 10,000 hunters a licence every year to kill an animal, but

when they bring the antler out they are not allowed to give it to their buddy.

They can give him the meat, give him a note saying the tag number, and I gave to

So-and-So five pounds of moose meat, you're allowed to do it, but the antlers,

throw them down in the bogs so they can't use them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, they can give them. I know what you

are nodding about.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can give them.

MR. WOODFORD: They can give them. Who in Green Bay knows

if Rick Woodford killed a moose in Cormack yesterday or the day before, or two

or three or four years ago? It just doesn't make sense.

I can understand, and I would be the first one to stand in my

place and say that there should be no export permits for the body parts,

especially with respect to black bears in this Province. I did that last year

with two or three constituents of mine. I think it is crazy, because it is

happening; it is so blatant.

The licences are issued for moose and caribou in this

Province, and we have a few people here trying to make a living. Can't we do the

same thing with the antler that we are doing with the meat? Can't the minister

have a sheet of paper with the permit from the department saying that if the tag

number where the animal was killed was put on this and given to the craft shop,

that it is perfectly legal?

It is so simple, yet, here we are making a criminal out of a

small business person in this Province who is trying to make a living, and

trying to utilize something that is just being thrown away, thrown in the bogs,

thrown out to the dumps and so on.

If I killed an animal today, I could give each member here a

piece of meat as long as I give them a piece of paper saying, killed by

So-and-So - the tag number on it, perfectly legal. Why can't the minister tell

those people, so we can utilize all the antler - there are lots of them being

thrown away - utilize it, make it perfectly legal, and make the business much

more viable. We can have more of those around the Province, and god knows, we

need them.

The minister said yesterday there was an animal killed in

Grand Falls for the antler only. How many outfitters come into this Province and

kill the animal for the antler only? Every one of them are looking for a trophy.

How many Newfoundlanders, I submit to the minister opposite, are going out and

killing moose for the antler only?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not very many.

MR. WOODFORD: Now, I tell you, in this day and age, not

very many. I would say if they are killing them for anything it is to be

utilized as food, not for antler only. So I would submit to the minister, it is

a very simple - I don't think this should take months, days, weeks. I think the

minister can sit down with his officials and do it by regulation. I wouldn't

think it would even have to come back to the House. Do it by regulation; put a

permit in place. None of those people want it for nothing. They just want the

right to do it and the right to try to make a living in an honest fashion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Member

for Humber Valley makes some good points, some very rational points.

I have been Minister responsible for Wildlife since August

26. One of the first things brought to my attention after I became Minister

responsible for Wildlife was the set of regulations that apply to wildlife and,

if I remember correctly, we are dealing with wildlife regulations that are under

the name of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Len Simms, I

believe, if he would go back and look at it himself. These are the regulations

we are dealing with. We have been working under these regulations.

One of the first things that was brought to my attention

after I became minister was put to me by the hon. the Member for Naskaupi,

saying, We have a problem with some aspects of the wildlife regulations and we

should be reviewing them.

I believe I said yesterday in my comments that we have been

reviewing the Wildlife Act and wildlife regulations as part of our regulatory

review. I have had discussions with my officials relative to the Wildlife Act

and regulations and, at this time, I agree with the hon. the Member for Humber

Valley, there is nothing that we need to bring back to the House in terms of

changing the Wildlife Act; anything that we might need to do, we can do by

change to the regulations on this particular issue.

I met with my officials yesterday on it and reviewed where

they are in the review of the regulations; I had further discussions with them

this morning on where we are with this review of the regulations, and in the

very near future, I expect I will be presenting something to my Cabinet

colleagues as to how we can address this particular issue that is before us

today and maybe we will resolve it; I think we can resolve it fairly.

In the meantime, it is possible to get a legal permit to

export wildlife; the arts and crafts, it is possible to get that legal permit

today as long as these arts and crafts have been made with materials obtained

legally. I believe, in the very near future, we will be able to accommodate more

than that as is allowed with other types of animals parts. What I speak against,

is that, we are not going to have a free-for-all, we are definitely not going to

have a free-for-all. But in the review of regulations that we are doing now, I

believe we will resolve this problem in the near future and it will be done very

quickly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Green Bay, on a point of order.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just say to the hon. minister that I would like to

see the review and action taken before my constituent goes out of business.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker to present a petition, another

petition from my district, Baie Verte - White Bay. I will read the prayer again:

We, the undersigned residents of the district of Baie Verte -

White Bay, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of

Employment and Labour Relations to immediately implement an emergency labour

program. With the economic conditions which exist, we find ourselves in a

desperate situation. We ask the minister and his government to show compassion

and understanding in this urgent matter.

Now, Mr. Speaker, since Thursday of last week, I started to

present these petitions and I am starting to realize now, why this particular

subject, right now, today, is put back on the back burner and overshadowed.

Because, Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a situation this week, of so much

controversy and scandal brought up, that this particular issue, which should be

the priority of every member of this House of Assembly this week, is put on the

back burner and overshadowed. Because there is so much controversy and so much

media hype about the things that are happening in this Province, it is

unbelievable.

As all of this unfolds in the media, and as of today, as a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, more petitions have come in to other members of the

House. My colleague, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes received some today;

the Member for Placentia received more, and this morning, after continuing with

these petitions, I had calls from students from my district who are now in St.

John's waiting to go to school in January, still trying to find some work up

until Christmas so that they can qualify for UI, and these people are in

desperate, desperate need.

Now, time after time, many of the members of this House of

Assembly I know, have had calls from people in their districts. We have talked

casually with members on both sides of this House, and I was not exaggerating or

fabricating calls and letters and petitions that I get. As a matter of fact,

just before I came to the House today, the people from a community in my

district, Westport, called to say that they want a petition brought to the House

and, of course, like I would, and as I would expect of all hon. members, I said

that if they would get the petition to me, then I would present it tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, the point is that I am going to continue with

petitions on this very important subject, a very important issue, because the

list that I have received from the development association of 250 names, since

last Thursday, the number of people on this list has grown, not only that, but

there are people now who have run out of weeks and now they are going to need

twenty insurable weeks.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is crucial that this government realize

the controversy that is going on out in the media. They will have to sit back

for a second and realize that this is a situation that has to be dealt with

immediately. And I am glad to see the Minster for Employment and Labour

Relations back in the House because I want to make sure that he receives the

support of his colleagues, of Cabinet colleagues, of private members on both

sides of the House, and not be diverted from the real issue, that we have people

in desperate need; not to be diverted by the controversy and the scandals that

come up day after day. These things will take their course, Mr. Speaker.

The reality here, is that people in this Province are looking

at a very bleak Christmas this year. It is November, and we see it coming. Three

years ago, with 18 per cent unemployment, we had a $12 million emergency

employment program. Today, November 22, we have a rate of almost 21 per cent -

20.8 per cent, I think, is the exact number, a 20.8 per cent unemployment rate.

And now, all of a sudden, the government jumps up and says: There is no

emergency response this year, there is nothing.

The same quote rings over and over to me and to my

constituent who summed it up better than any of us can. He said: `I realize it

is not the answer to our long-term solution for the Year 2000, but it is

certainly the answer to my supper table tonight.' I will keep remembering that

time after time. It is serious. I would like for once, maybe sometime today, on

any of these petitions that are going to keep coming to the House, that somebody

on the opposite side would have the gall and guts to stand up and say: Yes, we

do have the same calls and we do have the same respect for these people who find

themselves in this situation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't see why these people - I'm sure they

have received the calls, because they have told me. I would just like to see the

party lines crossed and the members on that side of the House stand up and say:

Yes, we have the calls and yes, we believe that it should be a priority in this

Province today, and not wait for the Federal Government, as the minister

suggested a couple of days ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I just ask that the government

and the minister act responsibly and act immediately, not a week or two weeks

from now. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I want to rise to present a petition presented by my -

MR. SIMMS: Support the petition.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MR. SHELLEY: Support the petition.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes, support the petition - too many

interruptions here, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to need protection from my own

colleagues here - support the petition presented by the Member for Baie Verte -

White Bay.

I was waiting because I thought the Minister for Employment

and Labour Relations would stand in his place to at least make some contribution

towards the petition. I realize he was outside dealing with matters of great

urgency with the press. I know he was outside dealing with urgent matters,

personal matters, with the press, so I know he didn't get the petition. But it

is a matter that is becoming more and more important in the Province.

Yesterday, I received a list from my own district, of people

who need insurable weeks' work. They don't know where they are going to find the

work without some kind of an emergency response program. As the Member for Baie

Verte - White Bay has said now for two or three days, this problem is going to

grow, it is going to get bigger. It is not going to get better without the

intervention of the Provincial Government and the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations.

Now, what I find somewhat strange about the attitude of the

government is they say: Well, we can't take care of all of them; so if we can't

take care of all them, we won't take care of any of them. That is the attitude

that this government takes over here. We starve 30,000 rather than only starve

15,000. That is their attitude, to starve them all. Let's not help any of them.

That is the attitude and that is the way this government thinks when it comes to

employment and other issues in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, you don't help anybody, I say to the

Member for Eagle River, except yourselves, that is all you help, and it is

becoming more and more evident every day. The main reason a number of them are

sitting over there is not to look after the people of the Province but to look

after themselves, their own personal interests. It is becoming clearer day by

day, Mr. Speaker.

Now, this is a matter that is not going to go away, I say to

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. The sooner you get on to the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and ask him for a few of those dollars

that he was so proud to stand up and boast about yesterday, chest stuck off in

front of the cameras with the big raglan on. His shoulders hove back bragging

about what a wonderful job he has done, yet people out and about the Province

are crying out for some work. I say to the Minister of Finance, with all the

compassion I know he has, provide a few dollars for the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations to put some people to work in this Province. Put them to

work so they will have some dignity and some income to feed their families to

help them get through the difficult months ahead.

MS. VERGE: Get some back from Tom Hickman.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: If we had what they wasted on him, Tom

Hickman, and Hydro, and the Rothschilds, if we had what they wasted and threw

away on them what an employment program we could have. We would not have the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations going to Ottawa begging with the cup

in hand, saying, give me a few pennies. We would have enough money. I say to the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that he should never let the word

roll off his tongue again. He should never let the word Sprung roll off his

tongue again.

What you have been involved in, and what you supported and

participated in, with the Trans City Holdings scandal in this Province, with the

Hydro privatization scandal in this Province, scandal, scandal, scandal, and

here you are telling the people you cannot provide a few million dollars to put

some people to work who do not know where they are going to get a cheque to put

food on their table I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

You should be seen and not heard.

MR. SIMMS: It makes the cucumber look like a pickle.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The leader is right, what you have been

involved in makes the cucumber look like a pickle.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have him stirred up, Mr. Speaker, I

have struck a nerve.

I want to finish by supporting the petition presented by my

colleague for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SIMMS: You know as much about that now as you know

about your legislation.

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition of 1233 people of the Baie Verte

and surrounding area. The petition reads as follows: We the undersigned are very

concerned about the recent decision to close the Tommy Ricketts arena in Baie

Verte. This facility is the backbone of the winter recreation program for our

children. Recreation for our youth has always been very important to this

peninsula and we think it is essential, and will continue to do so. We demand

that funding be allocated to keep our stadium open.

Mr. Speaker, just a short while ago I had meetings with the

community council in Baie Verte, and as this government is well aware the

community of Baie Verte finds itself in a very crucial situation at this time

with respect to its budget, due especially to the situation that exists with the

mining company in the community right now and the amount of taxes that were

suppose to be paid by this particular company has not come forward to the town,

therefore they find themselves in a situation where they cannot meet their

budgetary needs for this year.

The minister understands and realizes this, and so does the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs understand it, as I am sure he has

been in contact with, and met with the community council of Baie Verte. Now, as

far as I know it is still ongoing and the budgetary problems are trying to be

worked out.

Mr. Speaker, the history of the town of Baie Verte itself is

that it has been a prosperous town over the years, and with the mining

development there it has had some very good years, and has been a great

contributor to the economy of this Province. Because of the miners there who

worked for so many years, also the forestry people, and the fishery people, all

sectors of the economy, it has been boosted by the different resources in the

area.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the potential with mining in

that particular area right now is good but a current problem exists now with

Terra Nova Mining in particular who cannot pay their taxes to the town so, of

course, the town has a problem with their budgetary problems for this year. On

that note a decision was made by council, and as far as I know it is being

reviewed again, that one of the ways they could resolve their budgetary problems

is to close the stadium in Baie Verte.

Mr. Speaker, that stadium - as anybody knows in all the

districts - is the heart and soul of any recreation program of any community. It

was a sad, sad day when that announcement was made, Mr. Speaker, and people

living in the area are totally distraught by the whole idea that the stadium

will not open this year. Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that this is not just a

stadium for the people of Baie Verte. If you will talk to anybody in Baie Verte,

the communities of Ming's Bight, Wild Cove, Seal Cove, Fleur de Lys, I mean you

go around and around, that stadium is a regional stadium.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one point I want to make here today, a

group has been formed, a community service group, a concerned citizens group

since the decision was made. Mr. Speaker, they have sent a proposal to the

federal government, to Mr. Tobin's office and they also requested a meeting with

the Minister of Recreation. Now the meeting was set for yesterday afternoon but

lo and behold the chairman of the concerned citizens group called to tell me

that they would probably not go to that meeting. Well lo and behold, Mr.

Speaker, the minister called at the same time to say that he would not be there

anyway.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why the concerned citizens group

decided not to attend the meeting was because lo and behold, on Thursday or

Wednesday, I am not sure exactly what day, the Minister of Recreation, the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation said in the media, on VOCM, that he

would attend the meeting with the group but that he already had his mind made

up, the decision was made and the answer was no.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is such a thing as protocol or

doing things properly, the minister certainly did not handle it properly. The

least the minister could have done before he went to the media, I say to the

minister, was call the group and let them know that they were going to sit down

and discuss some concerns. They were trying to get some direction from their

government, this minister and, Mr. Speaker, they could not believe it, a

volunteer concerned citizens group, that they would hear the minister who they

were going to meet with, a couple of days later saying the results of a meeting

that had not even taken place. He made the response to a meeting that had not

even taken place, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SHELLEY: The Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation. They heard in the media - this concerned volunteer group are very

concerned about this situation, Mr. Speaker - heard the minister on VOCM radio

say that the group can come and meet with me but the answer is no, before he

even heard what they were going to say, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on top of all of this I got to ask the

minister to respond, did you know before hand what they were going to ask you,

specifically? Did you not have any options for them to explore? Could you not,

as the minister responsible for recreation in this Province, allow them at least

the opportunity to speak with you and discuss some options because they are not

familiar with what routes to take within the government to see how it could be

alleviated or some kind of assistance, either financially or some kind of help

be given to this group so that they can take on this feat of trying to get the

stadium back open.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I thought it was totally out of protocol

for the minister to respond the way he did. I had a call from people, from the

concerned citizens group, last night who were very distraught about the way the

minister handled the situation but, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the

minister will respond to that and respond back to the concerned citizens group.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: I will take the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, in

response to the hon. members comments because I am dealing immediately with the

problem of Baie Verte and their financial situation, trying to deal with it

along with a number of other communities in the Province that basically have the

same problems.

Mr. Speaker, I take satisfaction, to a certain degree, in

being able to say that I discussed the closing of the stadium with the town

council from Baie Verte and as you know, Mr. Speaker, being a former councillor

from Hants Harbour, you know that stadiums and recreation facilities are the

sole responsibility of the communities they exist in. I am surprised that

someone who would be outside of council would be requesting meetings with

ministers and with people as it relates to a regional facility or a stadium in a

town when they know it is the town councils responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how many stadiums, I am not sure

how many rec centres, I am not sure how many tennis courts and outdoor rec

centres we have in this Province but they must number in the hundreds. I believe

I am mistaken there, I think there is one stadium in the whole Province that is

showing a profit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is that?

MR. REID: Bay Roberts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every year?

MR. REID: No, I suppose they are not really. I am saying

to you quite honestly that if we had to take responsibility for subsidizing

stadiums to keep them open, to provide funding to stadiums in your district, I

say to the hon. member, then I guess we would be faced with providing subsidies

to a number of areas of the Province.

The ironic part of it all is the fact that the mayor and

council met with me some time ago and they tell me that there are more important

things in the community than a stadium - snow clearing, for example. It was just

last week that I gave the council permission to borrow - well, no, not to

borrow; I gave them an outright grant - I gave them an outright grant, on behalf

of the government, to purchase a piece of snow clearing equipment because they

didn't have a piece of decent snow clearing equipment to plough the roads in

Baie Verte. So, no, Mr. Speaker; the answer is absolutely no, this government

will not provide subsidies to keep stadiums open when there are communities

around this Province that can't afford to keep their streetlights on, can't

afford to provide decent water and sewage services and snow clearing to their

public, and I am referring to Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if

the hon. gentleman is correct in saying that all of those communities around

Baie Verte are using that stadium -

AN HON. MEMBER: They should all contribute.

MR. REID: Then maybe they all should contribute and, as

far as I know, they don't contribute one cent to that particular arena.

I have all the sympathy in the world for the hon. member and

for that particular community, but today I am dealing with tens of communities

in just as bad a shape, if not worse, than the Town of Baie Verte. I will take

the Town of Baie Verte and all the other communities that are in this Province

that are having immediate financial problems, and deal with the whole issue

rather than answer a question, or answer and deal with one particular town at a

time, and I can't do that.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

have a few words in support of the petition submitted by my colleague from Baie

Verte - White Bay.

Mr. Speaker, the situation that the council in Baie Verte

finds itself in... I am glad the minister stood in his place because he is so

right about all the councils around the Province having problems in maintaining

roads, both summer maintenance and winter, with regard to snow clearing.

The problems the councils have in this Province today are

brought on because of the administration opposite. In 1989, when Mr. Gullage

changed the municipal operating grants for this Province, that was the death

knell for municipalities in the Province. I can go on and on and on with regard

to - well, Mr. Hogan came after, and then the now Member for Carbonear, who came

after Mr. Hogan.

Mr. Speaker, councils are finding it very frustrating. The

council in Baie Verte - from what I even said - the member opposite, from what

he said to my colleague, said they were looking for some direction. He didn't

even say they were looking for money. They were looking for some direction.

AN HON. MEMBER: A meeting.

MR. WOODFORD: A meeting with the minister, and the

minister responsible for Tourism and Recreation should have had the courtesy to

give those people a meeting, and at least sit down and discuss some options.

AN HON. MEMBER: Decency.

MR. WOODFORD: Have the decency to sit down and discuss

some options.

Mr. Speaker, another thing this government is famous for is

trying to fix something that is not broken.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I suggest the member put that in his pocket

before I make a comment that is not going to be too complimentary to the member.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be serious about this question, and I

want to tie it in with the Member for Baie Verte, with my community now, the

community of Cormack. We had, for the last four or five years, through the

offices and the good graces of the Department of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, given the community of Cormack - because an engineering assessment was

done some five or six years ago and they said that they found some structural

damage and so on. They got on with this and they got on with that, and they had

engineers come in and nothing was wrong with it.

In any case, the council there agreed that the stadium

wouldn't open if there was any snow load or any wind. Wouldn't open for the

community, that operated the last five or six years, no problem. All of a sudden

last week they got a call from their insurance company in St. John's, R.C.

Anthony, saying that the insurance on the stadium was cancelled. Why? Because

they got a call from a Mr. Dave Molloy with the Department of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Saying?

MR. WOODFORD: Saying that the boards were rotten. Did

anybody ever put on skates in this Province and go around the stadiums in this

Province and look after the boards before the ice was put on? Probably not. I

have to say, though, that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation

should. He is on enough of it.

Mr. Speaker, and then one of the comments made by the

gentleman to the insurance company was: They got support in the past but they

won't be getting it any more. If that is not a vindictive type of statement for

a civil servant in this Province to make. The community is out there, their

stadium closed, the insurance company cancelled the insurance, and the kids, all

the youngsters in - not costing the government anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: This is a situation - well, the minister,

why doesn't the minister? Why should a civil servant have that much power? It is

up to the minister to chastise and do something with a civil servant like that.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, those same civil servants better be very cognizant

of what is going on in other areas around this Province, because if they are

not, I am. I know of reports in there from other areas in this Province and they

better act. Because they should have had the courtesy to call that council first

and give them a chance to have some input into it. They did not.

I submit to every member opposite (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this is the third petition we

have. I move - no, I'm not the Minister of Justice any more, it is the

Government House Leader, thank you.

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

MR. ROBERTS: At least for a brief period. We will see.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the Orders of the Day be now read.

Motion carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, two things, if I might. The

first is that the House - I'm sure many members would be aware - but the House

would want to be aware that the wife of the Member for St. John's East, Anne

Martin, gave birth to their first child last night, a baby girl I understand.

The mother and daughter are well and I'm sure members on all sides would want to

congratulate the member and Ms. Martin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Secondly, I would ask if Your Honour would

be good enough to call the matter we will be debating first today, and maybe

last today, we will see, and that is the bill that we got onto second reading

yesterday by my friend for Gander. It is Order No. 13, Bill No. 20, the

reciprocal taxation act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 23, Bill No. 42.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, it is Order 13, Bill -

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 23, Bill No. 42.

MR. ROBERTS: No, Bill No. 20, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 20?

MR. ROBERTS: Order No. 13, Bill No. 20, is what I said,

yes. Isn't that right?

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. Did the hon. member say Order No. 23?

MR. ROBERTS: No, I said Order No. 13, Mr. Speaker, Bill

No. 20.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the Chair misunderstood.

Order No. 13, Bill No. 20.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: No, he is up, Mr. Speaker, if I speak I close

debate, so....

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand today to

continue debate on Bill No. 20 as put forward by the Minister of Finance.

In The Evening Telegram yesterday in reference to our

House Leader brought forward in responding to a petition the minister said that

tighter purse strings are producing a much improved financial outlook, and

predict an economic growth of 3.4 per cent. Carrying on with the same line of

thought I remind the member that there are people out there in rural

Newfoundland today who are suffering because of those tighter purse strings.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, when he

was shouting out yesterday at the close of debate, is a prime example where he

has taken away services from community councils, and I am sure my district is no

different than others here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I have five communities in my district this year

who will now have to go out and raise funding to pay for the expenses of snow

clearing, salting and sanding of their roads. They went and put it out to

tender, and it came back at $89,000 - $89,000 new dollars that those five

municipal councils, community councils, will have to find this year. In some

cases, taxes will have to be raised by as much as 700 per cent, as much as

$1,200 from one household, to pay for those extra costs, and we wonder why all

this money was saved, or where it was coming from. It is coming from the backs

of the poor and the less fortunate Newfoundlanders out there in rural

communities today.

The minister went on to speak of the Hibernia project. It

generated new life, new money, into rural Newfoundland. I couldn't agree more,

but I can assure you that we should be reaping a lot more benefits from the

Hibernia project than we are seeing today.

Out there on the Hibernia project today you have people

working fifty, sixty, seventy hours a week, and as much as twenty-eight and

thirty days at a time, not being able to get a day off. I am not talking about

special skills that have to be brought in from other countries. I am talking

about labourers. I am talking about carpenters, places where you can go to the

union halls in this Province and find any number of competent individuals on a

lay-off slip without a job. Those people would only be too happy to go out to

Hibernia and take

part in a project out there and work forty hours a week. In

fact, I believe while we are experiencing the economic times that we are seeing

here today, that we should even consider legislation to make it mandatory that

nobody work any more than forty hours a week when it comes to some trades and

some industries where we have people unemployed today and capable of doing this

same work.

We hear Mr. Axworthy on television and on the radio talking

about the unemployment insurance system, how it must be addressed and our social

programs must be changed. I say to Mr. Axworthy, and I say to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, that we are all Canadians, and if Mr. Axworthy

doesn't want to share his jobs with Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland, then I

suggest he should share his wealth with us, because if anybody sitting in this

Legislature today thinks that rural Newfoundland can exist and survive without

some of our social programs, then they are being less than realistic.

As everybody knows, in rural Newfoundland today, the

existence of rural Newfoundland is based on a resource economy, a resource

economy that is a seasonal economy. The construction workers, the loggers, the

fisherpersons that I know in rural Newfoundland, don't go looking for a lay-off.

They are laid off because the elements, the weather, or the jobs dictate that

they must be laid off. There is no place for them any more.

Mr. Speaker, if we think that those people can survive on the

money they make in the fifteen or twenty weeks work that they obtain during the

construction season, then I am sure that we are being less than honest, because

those people are willing to work. If there were jobs available, they would

certainly go out and participate in them and be responsible people, to feed

their families.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Baie Verte got up today and

presented another petition that was brought forward from his district, and

people got up in support of it. It is passing strange that nobody on the other

side, nobody on government side, are getting any of those petitions, or are

standing up, except the minister, and responding to them, because I am sure that

the need is there in all Newfoundland communities, in all rural areas, we are

experiencing the same downturn in the economy and we are hearing from our

constituents, hearing them crying out for make-work programs to be put in place.

That is not what government wants to hear, because everybody

knows that governments would like to do away with unemployment insurance. In

fact this government, in their income support program, their proposal then was

to make unemployment insurance harder to get.

Mr. Speaker, be qualified for less work weeks. People would

need more work weeks to qualify for less benefits and for shorter periods of

time. So it is not in their mandate to qualify people for unemployment

insurance. You would find no argument over here, Mr. Speaker, if the jobs were

in place and if people were refusing to take a job or refusing to go to work

then they should be taken off unemployment insurance but the one thing that is

missing in all of this, Mr. Speaker, is jobs, work opportunities. They are just

not out there and until they are put in place, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we

should maintain our safety nets, maintain our unemployment insurance, put some

jobs in place, get our people working and then look at ways of doing away with

some of those programs because they will not be needed anymore.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations indicated to

me that he was taking a paper down to Cabinet to look for money and he was

having a tough time getting it through. Mr. Speaker, I suppose when you are in

Cabinet you do not have time to deal with your constituents on a daily basis.

That is understood because you have departments to look after but I say to you

that if you have been getting the telephone calls that I have been getting and

hearing the horrifying stories that I have been hearing - and either you or your

executive assistants must be hearing it - then, Mr. Speaker, you would respond

to the call as well.

Mr. Speaker, we hear people getting up here in the House

talking about somebody over on the west coast who has a little craft business

going and because of a technicality, government is actually closing them down

because of a technicality. Judging everybody, Mr. Speaker, as guilty before they

are even guilty. Those people are going out trying to create jobs, trying to

create employment and that is going to be the success stories of rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, not the 100 jobs or the 200 jobs, it is going to be

the small family industry. It is going to be the small family industry that

employs two and three people. Those are the success stories we are going to hear

about and if government does not pay more attention, if they do not help those

people, Mr. Speaker, if it means taking them by the hand and giving them some

support, giving them government loans, then, Mr. Speaker, we are going to lose a

glorious opportunity.

So, Mr. Speaker, I call on the government of the day and I

call on the Minister of Finance to take some of his money, take some of the

money he is making from his lotto machines with the new found money there, take

some of the money that he is finding in other places, money that the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation is going to find with his new rules and

regulations and put it into job creation. We all know that the deficit is very

important. It is very important that we control the deficit. Somewhere along the

lines it is no different I suppose than running a household but you do not go

out and buy a house, take out a mortgage on your house, Mr. Speaker, and lock

the fridge door. You still support your family, you still do the things that are

needed, you still keep bread and butter on the table and you are still

responsible as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, just to conclude my remarks, I ask the

minister if he would respond to the plea from the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations and I ask if he would respond to the plea of Newfoundlanders

out there and support rural Newfoundlanders and help bring forward some extra

funding to create some much needed work, emergency funding to get some of our

rural people back to work. Thank you very much.

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

MR. CAREEN: It gives me pleasure today to rise on Bill 20

and to continue the conversations of the people of this side of the House since

yesterday when the bill was first moved. The minister stood up yesterday to say

that he was cautious but the government was in better shape then they had

originally said they were. The government might be in better shape but the

people of this Province are in worst shape.

Yesterday I had the privilege to present a petition from one

small store, in one town, in the district where fifty-one people had signed a

petition, that was there for about two-and-a-half days, regarding work and there

are other petitions coming in from all through Placentia district, from Point

Verde right on through the Southern Harbour regarding the need to put an

emergency response in place in this Province. People need work. People need work

desperately. Some people look at what the TAGS people are getting; there are a

number of people, thousands of them who are going to be thrown off TAGS come

December, but then there are other people out there as well.

Construction people who never got the work this year that

they ordinarily use to get; labourers, carpenters, electricians. Electricians in

the District of Placentia had great hopes of getting to Marystown, they had

applications down there. Seven weeks ago there was talk that they would be hired

on in a short period of time and that now is gone out the window for these

experienced tradespeople.

I read and heard one day last week where the suicide rate in

this Province is rising. It was a matter of fact, for years, decades that the

suicide rate in Newfoundland was below anywhere else in North America, and it

was based on the stock that we came from because in Europe the suicide rate is

less among the British and the Irish than anywhere else and over there as well;

but when I hear suicide rates rising, it disturbs me, honestly, it disturbs me.

These poor devils without hope, whom do they have to turn to?

Now mind you, it might not be on work, it might be on other

problems but whatever it is, it is a drastic loss for their families and what

these poor people had to go through moments before they took that initial step;

but I am sure there are people out there in this Province in their darkest hour,

people who have never been to welfare before, never darken the social services

door have gone. I have known a person, one particular individual who circled the

social services office in Placentia four times before he went in; four times. He

had nothing against the people who run social services but he was so used to

working himself.

Social service offices in Placentia and others throughout the

district are getting like revolving doors, because of the escalating rise in

unemployment. I said yesterday, that throughout the district unemployment is

increasing. In the Placentia area alone it is hovering now around 70 per cent

and if there is no hope for dad or mom, what do the children think I wonder?

There was an

article today in this small news release about today in history. In

1906, the International Radio Telegraphic Convention adopted SOS as a universal

distress signal, how appropriate. SOS meaning Save Our Souls. With this

Administration, it means Save Ourselves. Save Ourselves. The government might be

well but the people that put them in power to protect them, to help, are not

doing very well at all.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, it has been

noted has gone to his colleagues in Cabinet for support. I can only believe the

minister when he says he has done that and I am asking support for the other

ministers in this time of need for the people of this Province. We were told

this past couple of days, last Friday and today, about waiting on Ottawa. Well,

the Member for Twillingate said it right yesterday. He said: we don't have to

wait on Ottawa, what we get from them is gravy but this Administration has a

responsibility to respond to the people of this Province now.

But I mean, it is the same Ottawa that is telling poor people

to tighten their belts. They are talking now about building a racial relations

building in Ottawa now for some $24 million while students and the unemployed

and the working poor are asked to tighten their belts. It is not consistent at

all. We should take the lead. The government of this Province should take the

lead in looking after its own.

I've known many instances of old age pensioners who

supplement their offspring, who in turn can help their grandchildren try to get

through these bad times. The safety nets are needed more now than they ever

were. There has to be a way, there has to be.

MR. EFFORD: There is always a way. Where there is a will

there is a way.

MR. CAREEN: The only reason the minister talks about a

will is that there might be money in it.

MR. EFFORD: What is wrong with that?

MR. CAREEN: Money for you, sir. I'm talking about some

money to get into the pockets of the people of this Province. Some light at the

end of the tunnel, some help, something they can grasp onto. I know there is

responsibility that goes with government, and I can understand positions that

people take, but must it always be hard line?

I have a bit of confidence, I'm an optimistic-type person. I

think the ones in this House who have the responsibility of saying yes, I'm

optimistic enough to hope that in the next few days and not beyond that there

will be some measure announced to start to help the people of this Province, and

when Ottawa comes through with theirs in early January - because we are not

talking about before Christmas, we are talking about some time in January that

they might step in to help - that could be gravy. Right now we need the

leadership and the responsibility to be started by the people of this

Administration. Thank you.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Has he already spoken on this?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it is my first time.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the minister, I speak so often in

the House he may get confused as to what bill I've spoken on and what bill I

haven't spoken on. I'm interested to hear the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation's remarks. If he would like to stand and comment on this particular

piece of legislation I would willingly sit down and let him speak, because he

speaks so infrequently in the House on any piece of legislation, and responds to

nothing even when questioned, Mr. Speaker. If the former Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations, now the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, I

believe, would like to speak on this particular piece of legislation, I would

certainly be willing to sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, and I understand ministerial hopeful

for the job of the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, consistent throughout the remarks of my

colleagues for Bonavista South, Placentia, and Baie Verte - White Bay, and other

members of the House on the opposite side, in dealing with an emergency response

program this year, government's silence on the issue really has been deafening.

The reasons coming from the opposite side, particularly the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, I think he said, I'm sure he said, that this

government will do nothing that will interfere with the negotiations that are

That has been basically the response from this government through its Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations.

There is a larger issue here. The larger issue, as I see it,

is what are many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians going to do today as it comes

to any jobs that will provide any amount of money that will feed their families,

pay their rent, pay their light bills, pay their mortgages, and keep their

children in school.

Now, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and

other ministers have said also, that we do not have the resources to help

everybody, and while that may be the case governments may not have the resources

at any time to help everybody. The fact remains that since 1989 this government

consistently, at this time of year, looked at a situation that developed in the

Province where many people, men and women, were short two, three, or four weeks

work, that would enable them to qualify for unemployment insurance.

In 1990 this government announced a $12 million emergency

response program. The unemployment rate at that time was 18.6 per cent and

government felt in their own wisdom at that time that an emergency had

developed, a crisis had developed, and government responded. Last year the

former Minister of Employment and Labour Relations stood in this House early in

October and announced a $6 million emergency employment program. Intervention, I

believe, was the word he used.

He stood on a ministerial statement and said that the need

had been determined because there was indeed an emergency in this Province where

people needed a number of weeks to qualify for UI. Last June during the Budget

estimates I asked the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance -

if I could get his attention for a second - I asked him then, I said there was

no Budget allocation in your estimates for an emergency employment program. Why?

Can you answer that, and will you put in a certain allotment of money, whether

it be $6, $8, or $9 million to address the need that will inevitably occur this

fall?

His response to me was this, why do it? If we put X number of

dollars in and identify an emergency employment program in our Budget it would

not be an emergency. We have to wait to see if one exists, and if so, we will

respond. That is what he said to me. It was a great answer if it had been a

correct and factual answer, but time has borne out the converse, Mr. Speaker.

The reality is far different than what the President of Treasury told me. The

proof is in the pudding, Mr. Speaker.

This year, right now, the unemployment rate has touched 21

per cent. It has stayed at that level consistently and has been rising

consistently for the past six months. What is even more alarming is that it is

the highest unemployment rate this Province has seen since we joined

Confederation. Notwithstanding those statistics it is important to note, and

many members, if not all members in this House know this to be true, that all of

those individuals who are now in terms of getting compensation from NCARP, but

now the TAGS are not, and I repeat, are not included in those unemployment

statistics.

My colleague the Member for Placentia stood here yesterday

and indicated that in his district the true unemployment rate is touching 70 to

75 per cent, alarming. It is truly alarming. My colleague for Baie Verte - White

Bay indicated in this House yesterday that a constituent of his who has worked

consistently for twenty-five years, a seasonal worker who has worked

consistently for twenty-five years has gotten enough weeks each and every year

to qualify for UI when times were a little bit tougher, for the first time in

his life will have to go to social services, will have to depend on a cheque

from social services.

Now, while that may be the case for many people, and many

more people, it is certainly because of government's lack of response to the

unemployment crisis in this Province, and it will be the case for many more

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker. Now, government says it does not

have the money, the time for such programs is over, this is what government has

indicated.

Let's look at the last year and see where government's

political priorities have been. The emergency employment program is a program

that many people in this Province not only want but need. Clearly, many people

know that it is not the long-term solution when it comes to fixing our economy,

but it is a solution for today. It is a solution for many families today. We can

talk about ideas that will fix our economy, we can provide a plan, whatever that

may be, but people cannot eat that. They cannot sit down and drink it. They have

no other alternatives. Again, let's look at what the political priorities of

this government have been.

Let's take Newfoundland Hydro, for example. In the last year,

estimates from Treasury Board provided to the House of Assembly, tabled upon

request of questions asked in Question Period, there has been spent in excess of

$8 million, I believe, on privatization expenses.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Six million dollars? I thought it was

closer to $8 million, Minister. That is my understanding. During the Estimates

Committee meetings, my understanding was that certain money from Treasury Board,

certain money from the Department of Mines and Energy, at the time - hold on,

let me finish before you shake your head, because I know I'm right - and money

from the Economic Recovery Commission, from three different departments, three

separate entities, was spent on privatization initiatives generally. And on

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro we are talking close to $8 million. Why do you

say $6 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) never (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) never (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Didn't the minister stand and say that from

his department there was $70,000 or $75,000 spent on privatization?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) came from Hydro.

MR. E. BYRNE: Came from Hydro. So the Crown corporation

Hydro, owned solely by government, spent $75,000 or $80,000, is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that.

MR. E. BYRNE: More than that. Mr. Speaker, we may dispute

the actual number but the reality is clear, that there have been millions of

dollars spent on privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, clearly, a

policy initiative of this government that the people in this Province don't want

to have anything to do with. Yet, the priority of this government went in that

direction.

One wonders if it is still in that direction. The truth is

still not out. It is still on the Order Paper. The fact remains that the

privatization expenses on Hydro alone could more than compensate for an

emergency employment program this Fall, if government had taken the chance to

withdraw it when it should have, and to provide at this time, this year, a

program that would help people feed their families.

Let's look at some of the other expenses that government have

put forward. The Income Supplementation Program, touted at the time as being the

answer that would provide a basic supplement or a basic income to all

Newfoundlanders, that was supposed to have provided incentive to work, not to

provide disincentives not to work. How much money did we spend on that? Close to

$1 million. That is what has been spent on a report, on a program, that will

find itself on the bookshelf twenty years from now that still will be there

collecting dust - $1 million without any consultation with the people of this

Province.

The list goes on and on. Why hasn't government responded -

that is the question that I would like the President of Treasury Board to answer

- to this particular need at this particular time? Why has government over the

last four years continuously and consistently offered an emergency employment

program at this time of the year, and suddenly, without any clear explanation,

taken a dramatic shift in policy away from doing that, at a time when we most

need it? Those are the answers that have not been forthcoming, the real answers,

the true answers. Is the President of Treasury Board going to address that?

We see this year, in a statement he provided yesterday, that

the Province is in a somewhat better financial condition than it expected to be.

How good could it have been if we had taken another route from some of the

policy initiatives of the government, such as Hydro privatization? I ask the

minister that. Would it have been good enough, or is it good enough, that we can

respond to a crisis, that we have a responsibility, as Members of the House of

Assembly for Newfoundland and Labrador, to respond to.

That is our responsibility. Whether we take it seriously, or

whether we do not, that is another issue, and at the end of the day the people

will decide on that issue. And I beg the minister and Cabinet to seriously look

at this, to put a real face to this issue, which I am sure that many members in

this House can do, but I will do for my own district.

Right now, as of last night, I have 195 people from my

district who have contacted me, who are in need of two, three and four weeks

work - none over four weeks thus far. I have a man who has three children under

the age of eight. The only income - he has nine weeks work; he needs three more.

He doesn't know if next month he is going to be in his house or not - his

mortgage is up.

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation said

yesterday to some of my colleagues here: Don't be so foolish; people are going

to eat. Sit down; don't be so foolish.

The reality is that some people may not eat. They will find a

way, by the compassion of others, a compassion that should be alive and well in

this House, but is not - it doesn't seem to be, but it should be. That is one

story.

Another story - a young man, twenty-two years old, an

apprenticed welder with ten weeks work, needs two more; just married,

eight-month-old baby, what do we tell him? What do we tell his wife? What do we

tell them? Where am I going to give him two weeks work? I don't have at my

disposal thousands and millions of dollars like the Minister of Justice, or the

former Minister of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Two weeks work; how can I give him two

weeks work, I ask the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: You must have some work to do around your

house.

MR. E. BYRNE: I can't give him qualifying weeks. I can't

give anybody insurable weeks. I don't have the wherewithal, the financial

wherewithal personally. If I did, I would certainly try to help somebody, unlike

this government, but I do not.

What do we tell that twenty-two year old young man? What do

we tell him, his wife, and his eight-month-old baby, when he says, `What you are

telling me is that I am going to Social Services tomorrow to get diapers for my

child.' That is exactly what this government is telling him, and it is exactly

what this government is forcing that individual to do.

Let's talk about another case, a thirty-five year old woman,

a single parent in my district, who phoned me, has seven weeks work, needs more

employable weeks, has a guarantee to get two more from an employer, but needs

the additional on top of that, two children, one fourteen and one twelve, a

single parent, no support payments coming in from her estranged husband or

relationship, none whatsoever - he is not even here; no one knows where he is.

What do we tell her? This government is telling her: Go to Social Services. Line

up at the Minister of Social Services' door. They will take care of you there.

Here is another question that government has failed to

answer: What will the cost be in terms of money, the hard, financial numbers, if

an additional 4,000 people between now, as we speak, and the end of December or

the end of January - what will the cost be to this Province's Treasury? Will it

be $4 million? Will it be $6 million? Will it be $8 million? Where is the

diminishing line, I ask the President of Treasury Board to answer when he gets

up? Can he tell me if, for $6 million dollars, as we did last year - if that

provided 200 or 300 jobs, or 600 jobs, whatever it provided, and it kept those

people off social assistance, if those people had to go on social assistance,

would it have cost more than $6 million? He knows the answer, as I do. Of

course, it would. It would be much more than $6 million, there is no question

about it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. You sit

down, look at what social services pays to a group of individuals over a year

and you know, Mr. Speaker, everybody should know if they took the time to look

at it, that it will be a heavier drain on this Province's Treasury, as we are

now, standing by and doing nothing, that is the issue.

That is one issue, but let's get back to the answers given

about not interrupting social security reform. How would offering an emergency

employment program this year, right now, interfere with the Federal Government's

plans on social security reform? I think in that answer, Mr. Speaker, there may

be more questions that would be asked of this government.

In employment programs now,